Death Penalty for shooter?

I agree - is there any evidence whatsoever connecting Palin with the shooter?

The latest news I seen is that he had a letter from Gabrielle Giffords, thanking him for something or other, dated 3 years back, tucked away somewhere.

So she was in his ‘cross-hairs’ long before Palin’s or serious tea-party activity.

Quite the discussion.... and there is not a single person who is religious enough to quote "Thou shall not kill..."

So much for our Judeo-Christian heritage...

Sorry I started this thread. While this dude apparently has no real political leanings (Dem or Repub in this case), and while I was very specific with my topic, the nut jobs on this board have taken over the thread. This is why I rarely answer political threads anymore. I would actually think these discussions could be easier on an anonymous board but it seems it just brings the wackos.

My quick thoughts on the original subject then I'm out. I don't look at the death penalty so much as teaching the killer a lesson. I think in this case it is the punishment that fits the crime, that's all. I have no viral issues towards those who don't agree with me, there are some very legitimate reasons to disagree. Related, I know some worry that we'll put someone to death who didn't commit the crime. Of course a very legit position. To those, perhaps this is a different kind of case? A crime that there is zero doubt who committed it and universal belief that it was heinous, perhaps falls into a different category? Honestly couldn't we expedite a case like this (thus making it less expensive) and just take care of business. There are still those out there who believe that killing another human being is NEVER the right thing to do, and that argument is very convincing, but I just think given the specific circumstances, like the ones in this case, it's not convincing enough. If he was my son or brother I would completely understand that verdict.

Chic Harley... wrote:

A crime that there is zero doubt who committed it and universal belief that it was heinous, perhaps falls into a different category? Honestly couldn't we expedite a case like this (thus making it less expensive) and just take care of business.

Two things:

1) The guy is a wack-job. Somehow "going crazy" doesn't equate with "heinous crime" in my book.

2) Your justification for killing the wack-job is that it is pretty expensive to keep him alive.

I didn't know that our nation had fallen to such depths of poverty that it couldn't afford to keep a wack-job or two alive. Maybe we can hold a bake sale or something to raise funds.

1. I think you can make a case that 90% of murderers are wack jobs on some level, after all doesn't it take a little crazy to committ murder? I just think this is a very legit defense, just my opinion.2. I am in no way justifying that you put him to death because it's cheaper, please don't words in my mouth. I just referenced the "cost" because that is one of the typical answers as to why we don't put people to death, it's "more expensive than keeping them in prison for life". My point was that in such a clear cut case as this it would be nice if we didn't have all the costs involved that we do in a typical murder case, ergo one where there is some doubt if the perpetrator committed the crime.Some of us believe that when you committ a crime such as this, the proper punishment is the death sentence. Like I said in my last post, that's fine if you don't agree, but once again why the smart as* comment at the end? Are you that incapable of a serious discussion that you can't type a retort without it?

4runner wrote:

Chic Harley... wrote:

A crime that there is zero doubt who committed it and universal belief that it was heinous, perhaps falls into a different category? Honestly couldn't we expedite a case like this (thus making it less expensive) and just take care of business.

Two things:

1) The guy is a wack-job. Somehow "going crazy" doesn't equate with "heinous crime" in my book.

2) Your justification for killing the wack-job is that it is pretty expensive to keep him alive.

I didn't know that our nation had fallen to such depths of poverty that it couldn't afford to keep a wack-job or two alive. Maybe we can hold a bake sale or something to raise funds.

Danny Suco wrote:

The people that this evil man killed are gone forever, and their family and friends have to suffer because of it

Is it fair that this scum gets to eat lunch tomorrow but his victims will not?

What's fair? Is it fair that he went insane and nobody helped him? I don't know, but I do know that it doesn't matter. The justice system is not about fairness. Regardless of what punishment the guy gets, his victims will still be dead. With that in mind, who cares if he dies? I don't support the death penalty, but I don't care much either way as long as he's out of society forever.

4runner wrote:

Chic Harley... wrote:

A crime that there is zero doubt who committed it and universal belief that it was heinous, perhaps falls into a different category? Honestly couldn't we expedite a case like this (thus making it less expensive) and just take care of business.

Two things:

1) The guy is a wack-job. Somehow "going crazy" doesn't equate with "heinous crime" in my book.

2) Your justification for killing the wack-job is that it is pretty expensive to keep him alive.

I didn't know that our nation had fallen to such depths of poverty that it couldn't afford to keep a wack-job or two alive. Maybe we can hold a bake sale or something to raise funds.

But keeping them alive for what purpose? Seriously why spend 1 cent on it? I'm not advocating killing everyone who is crazy, but I am certainly behind the idea of executing anyone who is crazy and killed several people. What sort of rehabilitation do you really think can happen here? How will this guy ever be able to make a positive contribution to society, let alone one that surpasses the harm he has already caused?

I'm not trying to attack anyone's position, I just really don't understand what the point would be of just letting him sit in jail for the next 50 years. So that he would "learn his lesson" or something? So what? It is far too late to make any positive and meaningful changes based on any lesson.

4runner wrote:

Quite the discussion.... and there is not a single person who is religious enough to quote "Thou shall not kill..."

So much for our Judeo-Christian heritage...

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.

You have to put down rabid dogs.

When translated correctly, the quote in scripture is "Thou shalt not murder" and not "Thou shall not kill". Huge dufference.

Rakanishu wrote:

All I gotta say is if Charles Manson got life in prison for inciting murder, why is that brainless bitch Palin getting off completely scott free?

Under your crazy connection of the dots, shouldn't John Lennon have gotten life in prison for being the motivation behind Charles Manson insanity?

middle of the road wrote:

But keeping them alive for what purpose? Seriously why spend 1 cent on it?

What is the "purpose" of anyone's life? How much "purpose" is needed until that person is entitled to live?

What sort of rehabilitation do you really think can happen here? How will this guy ever be able to make a positive contribution to society, let alone one that surpasses the harm he has already caused?

So only people who make "positive contributions to society" are entitled to life?

I just really don't understand what the point would be of just letting him sit in jail for the next 50 years. So that he would "learn his lesson" or something? So what? It is far too late to make any positive and meaningful changes based on any lesson.

Maybe it is not for his benefit but for ours. Maybe the point is that our society doesn't have to kill anyone...

Chic Harley... wrote:

Some of us believe that when you committ a crime such as this, the proper punishment is the death sentence. Like I said in my last post, that's fine if you don't agree, but once again why the smart as* comment at the end? Are you that incapable of a serious discussion that you can't type a retort without it?

So-- why is the proper "punishment" the death sentence?

It doesn't help rehab the guy.

It doesn't help prevent other wack-jobs from going crazy and shooting people.

Why is it "proper"?

How does the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote translate?

I just don't think a civilized society can rationally and deliberately set up a time to take a human life.

You have people deciding to end a life and other people physically doing the execution.

If you are in a position of defending yourself or someone you can take a life.

If an individual has an emotional reaction of vengence and kills the person who killed their loved one, I am OK with that.

But I don't like the idea that a government entity can order someone to take the life of an individual who is in custody and is no longer in a position to harm anyone.

I don't care about the person being excuted.

I think the sentence should be that the convicted killer should bound and handcuffed and put into a room without cameras with the victims family and maybe have some deadly weapons available in the room.

The family should be let out after a given time period and then the convict should be checked on shortly after.

If the convict is dead after that period no further legal action is required. Otherwise, life in prison.

YeaH! Torture that psychotic man! That'll teach him!

1. I think once you've killed other people you need to show a hell of a lot of "purpose" to be entitled to live.

2. If they have taken others lives deliberately, yes.

3. I guess this is just a difference of opinion, I don't really have a response.

Look, I think you realize you are twisting my words to make an argument. I'm not talking about EVERYONE when I say "what is the point of keeping him alive" and "what good will he do that warrants keeping him alive?"

I am talking about a person who murdered several people. Once you do something like that I think everything you are "entitled" to is forfeited. Including your life.

The literal meaning of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" traces back to when people who were deemed with "fault" or "sin" and is in reference to violation of the norms of that particular society and were "executed" or "punished" or stoned (or lashed or crucified or gassed). It is still being done today. "Being not in the norm" caused the deaths of countless innocent.

The non-literal meaning refers to judgment made by people who are in no position to judge themselves. Everyday and everyone makes judgment of others in many ways.

It is meaningful. Had it been believed in, then hundreds even thousands of years of tragedy in human history would not have occurred.

middle of the road wrote:

1. I think once you've killed other people you need to show a hell of a lot of "purpose" to be entitled to live.

2. If they have taken others lives deliberately, yes.

3. I guess this is just a difference of opinion, I don't really have a response.

Look, I think you realize you are twisting my words to make an argument. I'm not talking about EVERYONE when I say "what is the point of keeping him alive" and "what good will he do that warrants keeping him alive?"

I am talking about a person who murdered several people. Once you do something like that I think everything you are "entitled" to is forfeited. Including your life.

I'm not twisting your words. I'm quoting them. I'm sorry if you feel attacked.

Look-- do you really think that he had the mental capacity to understand what he was doing? If my five year old found a loaded gun in the woods, I have no doubt that he would deliberately point it someone and shoot. He does it often enough with nerf guns that he'd probably hit whomever he was aiming at.

To all appearances, this guy had about as much mental capacity as my five year old. I don't understand why we need to people who are in the business of running around judging the "purpose" of wack jobs' lives and killing them.

Like I said-- we can afford a bake sale or two.

Ok, well you are quoting without including the obviously implied condition that the person be a killer, but we don't need to argue about that, it will just get in the way.

I disagree with your analogy. Your 5year old doesn't know that guns are dangerous, he is young and ignorant/uneducated on the subject. He can and will be taught not to shoot people with real guns.

This killer wasn't uneducated about guns, and I don't see anything suggesting he had the mental capacity of a child. There is a difference between that and being nuts. He knew what he was doing, he knew those people would die. Unlike a child, there isn't a lesson to be taught here.