9 Dead in Shooting at Black Church in SC

HughFreakingDillon · January 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.

Have you been reading this thread?

I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.

At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.

incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree.
... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.

Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
I'm not so sure about that.

If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
Well that isn't fair, because there is no such thing as death being a certainty upon getting caught. We're talking about the actual death penalty, not a fantasy one where every single convicted murderer is killed upon conviction.
So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.

We were talking in the context of employing the DP in its full capacity.

In reality, it's likely not a deterrent; however, with extensive application... it likely would become a deterrent (and for some... an argument for).

I'm not for extensive usage. I'm for very selective usage. Roof fits the criteria for me: he's definitely guilty; he committed mass murder; and to boot... he's still laughing about it.

tbergs · January 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree.
... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.

Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
I'm not so sure about that.

If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
Well that isn't fair, because there is no such thing as death being a certainty upon getting caught. We're talking about the actual death penalty, not a fantasy one where every single convicted murderer is killed upon conviction.
So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.
We were talking in the context of employing the DP in its full capacity.

In reality, it's likely not a deterrent; however, with extensive application... it likely would become a deterrent (and for some... an argument for).

I'm not for extensive usage. I'm for very selective usage. Roof fits the criteria for me: he's definitely guilty; he committed mass murder; and to boot... he's still laughing about it.

And if implemented consistently, so might life in prison without parole...

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.

Have you been reading this thread?

I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.

At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.

Not quite.

Just after you suggested people who support the DP are stupider than its opponents... Gern commented that if the execution was more timely, then it would serve as more of a deterrent.

You responded with 'but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent.' Which, of course, is not accurate.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

tbergs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree.
... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.

Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
I'm not so sure about that.

If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
Well that isn't fair, because there is no such thing as death being a certainty upon getting caught. We're talking about the actual death penalty, not a fantasy one where every single convicted murderer is killed upon conviction.
So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.
We were talking in the context of employing the DP in its full capacity.

In reality, it's likely not a deterrent; however, with extensive application... it likely would become a deterrent (and for some... an argument for).

I'm not for extensive usage. I'm for very selective usage. Roof fits the criteria for me: he's definitely guilty; he committed mass murder; and to boot... he's still laughing about it.
And if implemented consistently, so might life in prison without parole...

Likely so.

HughFreakingDillon · January 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.

Have you been reading this thread?

I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.

At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.
Not quite.

Just after you suggested people who support the DP are stupider than its opponents... Gern commented that if the execution was more timely, then it would serve as more of a deterrent.

You responded with 'but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent.' Which, of course, is not accurate.

that was not a suggestion. it was an observation based on what I read. I also stated very clearly, TWICE, that it is very possible that was a product of biased editors trying to make a point.

mickeyrat · January 2017

now it "unfair." he chose not to present ANY mitigating evidence. Its unfair at the depth of witness impact statements, they're going to come back for death for sure........

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.

Have you been reading this thread?

I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.

At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.
Not quite.

Just after you suggested people who support the DP are stupider than its opponents... Gern commented that if the execution was more timely, then it would serve as more of a deterrent.

You responded with 'but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent.' Which, of course, is not accurate.
that was not a suggestion. it was an observation based on what I read. I also stated very clearly, TWICE, that it is very possible that was a product of biased editors trying to make a point.

You did qualify your comment afterwards, but my feelings were already hurt so it was too late lol.

Thanks for your efforts today. Seriously. This has been a good discussion concurrent with Season 2 Narcos (just couldn't focus today- sick, antibiotics, hungry, too lazy to make something good to eat).

Go Beavers · January 2017

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.

So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.

Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.

We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.

jeffbr · January 2017

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.

So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.

Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.

To get a guilty conviction you just need "beyond a reasonable doubt". I've stated that that is probably not quite enough for me, but I have no problem with the DP if there is 100% certainty. That certainty can be based on evidence, confessions, videos, etc... It doesn't have to be an actual, new, legal verdict. I have never talked about that. I said for me to be comfortable with it I would like 100% certainty. I'm not sure why you're unable to understand that.

PJ_Soul · January 2017

Nothing short of clear video evidence that is proven to have not been doctored can be 100% certainty. Not confession, not DNA evidence, nothing. I'm not sure how many cold-blooded murders happen on video where the murderer is 100% identifiable, but I'm thinking not all that many.

oftenreading · January 2017

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.

So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.

Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.

Yes, it's irrelevant to the point I was making, because the point I was making was obviously not that we can never be 100% certain of guilt in any case at all; it was that we can never be 100% certain in the whole process by which this is determined. It's not possible to write a law that says the DP can be applied and only applies in cases of 100% certainty because the law doesn't work like that. What's more, people don't work like that. We know exactly what will happen anytime that the DP is legally available - it gets misused. People who are innocent are given the DP. That's just what happens when human beings are in charge of the system. After all, that's what happens with the current law, despite the fact that we all know this and the law is already supposed to ensure that people really are guilty before sentencing them, right?

Believing that we can make this a foolproof system takes an astounding amount of faith in the competency and goodwill of so many people that we already all know is misplaced that it seems to me to be deliberately ignoring reality.

Go Beavers · January 2017

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.

So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.

Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.
To get a guilty conviction you just need "beyond a reasonable doubt". I've stated that that is probably not quite enough for me, but I have no problem with the DP if there is 100% certainty. That certainty can be based on evidence, confessions, videos, etc... It doesn't have to be an actual, new, legal verdict. I have never talked about that. I said for me to be comfortable with it I would like 100% certainty. I'm not sure why you're unable to understand that.

I understand it. I guess I'm hung up on the legal reality of it.

tweedyfanjen · January 2017

PJ_Soul said:
Nothing short of clear video evidence that is proven to have not been doctored can be 100% certainty. Not confession, not DNA evidence, nothing. I'm not sure how many cold-blooded murders happen on video where the murderer is 100% identifiable, but I'm thinking not all that many.

Well there's no uncertainty whatsoever in this case.

jeffbr · January 2017

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.

So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.

Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.
To get a guilty conviction you just need "beyond a reasonable doubt". I've stated that that is probably not quite enough for me, but I have no problem with the DP if there is 100% certainty. That certainty can be based on evidence, confessions, videos, etc... It doesn't have to be an actual, new, legal verdict. I have never talked about that. I said for me to be comfortable with it I would like 100% certainty. I'm not sure why you're unable to understand that.
I understand it. I guess I'm hung up on the legal reality of it.

Ah, ok. Well the thing is, I haven't been arguing for any changes to the legal system, and have expressed my discomfort with the DP. At the same time, I see a few reasons to have it which I've listed in previous posts (leverage for a plea, public safety knowing the scumbag won't ever walk the streets again, even with a life sentence, and lastly keeping the scumbag from committing further violence against guards and other inmates). The legal reality is that the DP is a form of punishment in this country. Nothing I've been talking about changes that reality. I am only expressing my opinion that I, personally, feel more comfortable with the application of the death penalty when there is 100% certainty that the accused/convicted did, indeed, commit the heinous act(s). In this specific case I have no doubt (and if anyone does, they are delusional) that Roof is guilty and have no problem with the application of the death penalty being applied here.

"I have not shed a tear for the innocent people I killed."

tweedyfanjen · January 2017

wistv.com/story/34224741/death-dylann-roof-receives-death-penalty-in-charleston-shooting-case

Is anyone really surprised? Glad sentencing was swift.

PJ_Soul · January 2017

tweedyfanjen said:
wistv.com/story/34224741/death-dylann-roof-receives-death-penalty-in-charleston-shooting-case

Is anyone really surprised? Glad sentencing was swift.

It remains to be seen if the punishment will be swift though. It usually isn't. But the guy seems to have been trying to get the DP (which is an argument against this sentence IMO), so perhaps there won't be a bunch of appeals, which would drag this out for years. Plus the federal government has only put 3 other people to death since the federal death penalty was reinstated in the '80s. The Justice Department has actually declared a moratorium on federal executions anyhow, while they review the policy.
Isn't it ironic that the Church in which the victims were killed actually opposes the death penalty? Also, 65% of black people polled oppose the death sentence for Roof, while only 35% of white people polled oppose it. Huh.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

PJ_Soul said:

tweedyfanjen said:
wistv.com/story/34224741/death-dylann-roof-receives-death-penalty-in-charleston-shooting-case

Is anyone really surprised? Glad sentencing was swift.
It remains to be seen if the punishment will be swift though. It usually isn't. But the guy seems to have been trying to get the DP (which is an argument against this sentence IMO), so perhaps there won't be a bunch of appeals, which would drag this out for years. Plus the federal government has only put 3 other people to death since the federal death penalty was reinstated in the '80s. The Justice Department has actually declared a moratorium on federal executions anyhow, while they review the policy.
Isn't it ironic that the Church in which the victims were killed actually opposes the death penalty? Also, 65% of black people polled oppose the death sentence for Roof, while only 35% of white people polled oppose it. Huh.

The process is too long given what we have here- irrefutable guilt. Just march him downstairs, erase his blemish on society, and let his moment become a memory.

Critics are speaking to the fact that the ensuing trials will cause additional pain and suffering by survivors. The same pain and suffering occurs when news of him applying for parole... or getting married to some idiot happens as well.

If the punishment meant prison for life- and by life I mean life where he dies in prison- and with no measures to make his stay comfortable such as protective custody... I'd be okay with that.

rustneversleeps · January 2017

excellent news. no need for long winded drama. only thing left to say is God Bless America.

Go Beavers · January 2017

How does God factor into this?

9 Dead in Shooting at Black Church in SC

Comments

Categories