[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651144]have him attend therapy while in prison. even if he doesn't change, he won't enjoy himself. the best case scenario is that he turns his beliefs around which is a win for everybody.[/QUOTE]
i think this is probably the best course of action
people who don't prefer punishment will sleep happy knowing that he's getting help.
people who prefer punishment will sleep happy knowing that this guy is going to suffer for the rest of his life, whether it be self-pity or actually realising that he's a monster.
Won't mourn his death but I won't celebrate it either
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651144]have him attend therapy while in prison. even if he doesn't change, he won't enjoy himself. the best case scenario is that he turns his beliefs around which is a win for everybody.[/QUOTE]
sorry dude but i can see into the future and i know with 100% certainty that he will never reform, and therefore must be killed. the jury said it was okay so it's not murder, it's something completely different, and good
[QUOTE=ShimTaco;51651151]I don't think the death penalty is an eye for an eye, but rather we have to get rid of someone who is overall unfit for humanity. He's got something wrong with him. I think hes beyond treatment sadly.
I've got nothing wrong with the death penalty, as long as it's not a "haha everyone gets one" but a long and thought out decision.
Sucks we have to kill him, with being a martyr and such. But no matter what we do, he's going to be seen as a symbol. There really is no cheap, or logical way to solve this.[/QUOTE]
the logical way to solve this is turning around his beliefs, it's tearing down the symbol. prison and intense psychotherapy is the solution here. not murder. whether or not the therapy works is irrelevant, at least it's trying to better somebody rather than just be the arbiter of who's fit to live. which nobody has the right to do.
[QUOTE=ShimTaco;51651151]I don't think the death penalty is an eye for an eye, but rather we have to get rid of someone who is overall unfit for humanity. He's got something wrong with him. I think hes beyond treatment sadly.
I've got nothing wrong with the death penalty, as long as it's not a "haha everyone gets one" but a long and thought out decision.
Sucks we have to kill him, with being a martyr and such. But no matter what we do, he's going to be seen as a symbol. There really is no cheap, or logical way to solve this.[/QUOTE]
I've always doubted that the human psychology is definitive enough to the point that nobody is beyond treatment, at least to a certain extent. The moral dilemma lies in whether or not he deserves help. I agree that he's unfit for society at large, but I fundamentally oppose capital punishment.
[QUOTE=sYnced;51651086]
you have no right to act as if you are of some higher morale character[/QUOTE]
lmao clearly youve never seen rusty's posts before
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51650960]Wooo lets make him a martyr for his delusional cause.
Justice is served![/QUOTE]
This argument holds no water. People just like to throw it out there because it sounds powerful. "You can't do X. It'll inspire others!" No it won't. That's not how martyrdom works. The best martyrs are the ones who have outstanding personalities that get them noticed in the first place or who die gloriously in the process of carrying out whatever it is they've set out to do. Roof has neither of these circumstances on his side.
Being euthanized like a sick animal behind closed doors, as he will be, is particularly uninspiring.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651095]every single person deserves to live, no matter what they've done.[/QUOTE]
why
calling an execution "murder" is like calling piracy "stealing": It's an attempt to prevent the discussion from becoming constructive or informative
use proper terminology thanks
[QUOTE=ShimTaco;51651151]I don't think the death penalty is an eye for an eye, but rather we have to get rid of someone who is overall unfit for humanity. He's got something wrong with him. I think hes beyond treatment sadly.[/QUOTE]
after reading and watching his interviews i have some strong doubts with this, he seems more brainwashed or very strongly delusional rather than having some incurable mental illness.
[QUOTE=JXZ;51651183]calling an execution "murder" is like calling piracy "stealing": It's an attempt to prevent the discussion from becoming constructive or informative
use proper terminology thanks[/QUOTE]
arguing semantics isn't arguing at all
use proper arguments thanks
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;51651191]arguing semantics isn't arguing at all
use proper arguments thanks[/QUOTE]
Except what he's saying is true. The arguments about "it's barbaric", "it's murder", etc. are not valid. They're just overemotional reactions to what is a legal option under the justice system, they try to hijack the tone of the debate to that same overemotional state, and they're not constructive.
This is such a tired debate anyway.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651033]alright cool i will: why does someone being sick justify killing them[/QUOTE]
In a situation where someone is irredeemably going to be stuck in prison and has either expressed either no willingness to stay alive or no willingness to stay in prison, I think death sentence is a valid option.
If someone [I]wants[/I] to die because their life has practically lost all meaning other than existing inside of a jail cell then denying them death would debatably be more ethically questionable than the death penalty itself. I would have to look for specific sources but this has happened before in Belgium (prisoner being granted the right to die).
If someone is constantly trying to get out, causing harm to everyone around them and forcing you to shove them in solitary confinement then you're both wasting space and funds keeping them securely locked up when they represent a permanent, constant danger to everyone around them, on top of the questionable ethics of keeping someone 24/7 in solitary.
Now I'm not saying this case has either of those things, but you asked for how the sickness of an individual justify their death, and I gave you what I think are good justifications.
There are cases where keeping people around and alive is practically worse treatment than just popping their heart with a firing squad.
[QUOTE=Govna;51651220]Except what he's saying is true. The arguments about "it's barbaric", "it's murder", etc. are not valid. They're just overemotional reactions to what is a legal option under the justice system, they try to hijack the tone of the debate to that same overemotional state, and they're not constructive.
This is such a tired debate anyway.[/QUOTE]
i can't tell, are you arguing for cutting the hands of thieves off in saudi arabia or the death penalty in america?
same thing really
[QUOTE=Govna;51651220]Except what he's saying is true. The arguments about "it's barbaric", "it's murder", etc. are not valid. They're just overemotional reactions to what is a legal option under the justice system, they try to hijack the tone of the debate to that same overemotional state, and they're not constructive.
This is such a tired debate anyway.[/QUOTE]
yeah, because killing someone should never be seen as some clinical procedure devoid of emotional input. you're ending a human life. how can you possibly try and remove emotion from that debate?
regardless of the emotion involved: killing for killing is not correct. there are no two ways about it.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;51650921]People shocked:
And now here come the automatic appeals. Going to take awhile before anything of substance happens.[/QUOTE]
since he chose to self represent both times its dubious that he might appeal it but on the other hand OMG someone has to appeal since he self represented even as everybody advised him not to
i'd rather him be put in jail for the rest of his life though.
[QUOTE=Govna;51651220]Except what he's saying is true. The arguments about "it's barbaric", "it's murder", etc. are not valid. They're just overemotional reactions to what is a legal option under the justice system, they try to hijack the tone of the debate to that same overemotional state, and they're not constructive.
This is such a tired debate anyway.[/QUOTE]
One could use the same points for an opposing argument, though. A couple of questions to consider to acknowledge this argument:
Do we really need to execute someone if they're no longer a danger to the public?
Why DO we execute someone if they commit a heinous crime? What's the reasoning? Revenge?
I for one see execution as unnecessary and a waste of money. Not because I'm overemotional, albeit I am concerned about the morals of the procedure, but because the reasoning that has been explained to me doesn't convince me. The prison system was designed to keep dangerous individuals out of society. Is there a difference if someone's alive in a cell or executed? I feel it shouldn't make a difference, as long as they're not seen from or heard of again, but pushing the death penalty just takes it to an unnecessary point. I say just drop em in a cell for the rest of their life and forget about em.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;51651266]i can't tell, are you arguing for cutting the hands of thieves off in saudi arabia or the death penalty in america?
same thing really[/QUOTE]
Except it's not. I don't care what Saudi Arabia does. It's their country, and it's their business. They're not relevant here.
Meanwhile, as an American, I'm fine with the execution of mass murderers. It does not bother me in the slightest to see Dylann Roof die.
[QUOTE=Govna;51651289]Meanwhile, as an American, I'm fine with the execution of mass murderers. It does not bother me in the slightest to see Dylann Roof die.[/QUOTE]
then i would argue you have an issue not dissimilar to Dylann's.
also do you see how maybe disregarding the rest of the world and only seeing what happens in america of any importance might be a really narrow way of thinking?
I'm okay with state mandated killings of convicted serial killers. I view it as a moral grey area that's neither good or bad. Like war, or killing for defense. I don't think we should use it as much as we do, but in some cases like this dude it's probably for the best.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651313]then i would argue you have an issue not dissimilar to Dylann's.[/QUOTE]
how does he have an issue similar to dylann's
Life in prison in solitary confinement is pointless for the taxpayer. Why allow him to keep on sucking up resources that could be better used for prisoners that have a chance?
He deserves death for what he did and his being a martyr shouldn't be a concern. Remember that he tried to reach out to other white supremacist groups but no one wanted to help him coordinate the shooting, why would people idolize a person that they themselves rejected?
Sometimes you have to kill someone in return for the heinous actions they did. Look at the case of Eichmann. Why should he have been allowed to keep on living?
[QUOTE=Rich209;51650949]I know some people are going to disagree with him being put to death, but I'm sorry the guy deserves it. He's fucking evil, saying he wasn't sorry and was glad to do it. Given he stated he wasn't insane and decided to defend himself, he essentially was asking to be put to death.[/QUOTE]
What does 'deserve' actually mean? Always seemed like such a nebulous thing to me
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651268]yeah, because killing someone should never be seen as some clinical procedure devoid of emotional input. you're ending a human life. how can you possibly try and remove emotion from that debate?
regardless of the emotion involved: killing for killing is not correct. there are no two ways about it.[/QUOTE]
Except it is a clinical procedure. That's how the carrying out of a sentence works in criminal justice. We're ending somebody's life who had no hesitation to end the lives of 9 innocent people who were minding their own business and who injured another person in the process-- we're not killing a harmless or innocent person here, and it's startling to see the inability of so many people to understand this.
Why is it not correct? That's a matter of opinion to say that it isn't, not fact. Your opinion doesn't matter here.
[QUOTE=Plate Phelps;51651286]One could use the same points for an opposing argument, though. A couple of questions to consider to acknowledge this argument:
Do we really need to execute someone if they're no longer a danger to the public?
Why DO we execute someone if they commit a heinous crime? What's the reasoning? Revenge?
I for one see execution as unnecessary and a waste of money. Not because I'm overemotional, albeit I am concerned about the morals of the procedure, but because the reasoning that has been explained to me doesn't convince me. The prison system was designed to keep dangerous individuals out of society. Is there a difference if someone's alive in a cell or executed? I feel it shouldn't make a difference, as long as they're not seen from or heard of again, but pushing the death penalty just takes it to an unnecessary point. I say just drop em in a cell for the rest of their life and forget about em.[/QUOTE]
Two things:
1) Just because a person is in prison does not mean that they are "no longer a danger". They can still harm people who work in that prison and who have to take care of them, they can harm other inmates, they can even escape and harm others in the process. A lot of people seem to have trouble understanding this for some reason, including you. "Is there a difference if someone's alive in a cell or executed?" Is that a serious question?
2) We execute them to reaffirm the value of the life of their innocent victims, and to reaffirm the value of civilized human life in general (in other words, normal people who don't run out and commit indiscriminate mass murder). We do it to demonstrate that there are severe consequences for killing innocent people. We do it to ensure that the perpetrator will never be an issue to anybody ever again; once they're dead you don't have to worry about them being a threat, you don't have to waste time and resources caring for them, etc. We also do it as a comforting mechanism for the families of victims, to show them that the person who killed their loved ones is gone forever.
The prison system was designed to separate the problematic individuals from the ordinary, law-abiding ones. It exists to rehabilitate and also to punish offenders.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51651340]Life in prison in solitary confinement is pointless for the taxpayer. Why allow him to keep on sucking up resources that could be better used for prisoners that have a chance?
[/QUOTE]
Again, why is taxpayer money a primary concern in this? Why are we taking a pragmatic approach to an ethical issue?
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51651338]how does he have an issue similar to dylann's[/QUOTE]
a lack of empathy with those he views as beneath him. a bloodlust he justifies to himself. the want to see another human dead.
[QUOTE=sYnced;51650984]it's done, get over it. also it's what the victims want[/QUOTE]
Punishment aren't decided by the victims, and for good reason
I can see why you got demodded now. Stating your own opinions as facts is pretty laughable btw.
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;51651351]I can see why you got demodded now. Stating your own opinions as facts is pretty laughable btw.[/QUOTE]
if you're interpreting my opinions as fact, that's on you. i said it, it's an opinion. i believe it's right, that's why it's my opinion.
i was demodded due to inactivity.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51651345]Again, why is taxpayer money a primary concern in this? Why are we taking a pragmatic approach to an ethical issue?[/QUOTE]
pragmatism is one approach to ethical issues
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
