Death Penalty for shooter?

Focusing on the punishment here - death penalty or no? Mental hospital? Sadistic torture (you guys are weird)? - is pointless. He already committed the crime and nothing we do to him will undo that.

Why can't we focus on the real issue here: how can we stop the mentally unstable from getting lethal weapons? Should there be a mental competence test required to purchase a gun?

In America, the death penalty is used first and foremost as a political tool.

It gives the impression to the uninformed of a state that is tough on crime. Strap a few in and you gain a couple of points on the approval rating, it's a time tested strategy.

It's not a deterrent and it's not cost effective. I'm also not convinced strapping people to a gurney or a chair and killing them in the name of law has any place in a civilised society.

People arguing for the death penalty should not confuse people who don't support the death penalty with people who have sympathy for the criminals (although some do of course). I couldn't care less about what happens to them.

Your mistake is labeling the kid 'mentally deranged' when in fact it could be the case that hes just another normal guy who experienced a set of circumstances that allowed him to do what he did....maybe were all capable, who knows?

Ho Hum wrote:

Focusing on the punishment here - death penalty or no? Mental hospital? Sadistic torture (you guys are weird)? - is pointless. He already committed the crime and nothing we do to him will undo that.

Why can't we focus on the real issue here: how can we stop the mentally unstable from getting lethal weapons? Should there be a mental competence test required to purchase a gun?

That would be a different thread.

There obviously should be a punishent.

This thread is discussing the punishment.

Mental competence test? Are you crazy?

You could pass the test then go nuts later.

keith z wrote:

An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life

Albert Camus---"Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death"

What a bunch of mindless meandering !!!

Look do we kill animals that get out of control and maul and kill humans !?

Yes reguardless what all the bleeding heart animal lovers say - we do it !

Then why wouln't we kill a murderous punk like this !? it would send a clear baseball bat over the head message to otherwise unlistening idiots that if you murder we will kill you ! Preferably by televised hanging !

I don't care how much of a goddamn idiot she is, you have to have a significant mental handicap to think this is a valid analogy.

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?

I Am Fleetfoot wrote:

it would send a clear baseball bat over the head message to otherwise unlistening idiots that if you murder we will kill you ! Preferably by televised hanging !

No, it doesn't. It absolutely does not.

It saddens me that when something like this happens, all anyone talks about is getting revenge. It really shows how disgustingly base human beings can be.

The shooter is a sick f***, but he is a life. He has a soul (if you believe in souls). He is disturbed and deranged, but he is a human being. He is someone's son, brother, cousin.

Killing human beings is awful, no matter what the context. If it is a direct act of self defense, I don't think anyone would argue that it was wrong, but it is tragic.

To answer the guy who asked how anti-death penalty people felt about the guy getting 3 squares and a warm bed... Well, I do not think he should get that. I think he should have to work hard for the remainder of his life. He needs to be put to work, physical labor, digging holes, shit like that. Spartan meals and mandatory classes on whatever he needs to learn. 6 hours of sleep and back up to start working again. None of this lounging around shit that prisoners get now. TV? Internet? Cell phones? WTF!?!?!?

We have a major problem with our prisons.

execution by firing squad. i would say i'm normally against the death penalty in cases where it is not known for sure if the accused committed the crime, because there are plenty of examples where innocent people have been executed (i can't even imagine having the legal system kill you when you didn't do anything). but in this case, when he murdered a bunch of people out in public and it is 100% certain that it was him, i say throw him in jail for a few days while the paperwork is done. then take him out back and execute that crazy son of a bitch. he doesn't deserve to live.

in the grand scheme of things a human life is no more sacred that a deer's life or an ant's life. but to us it is because we are human so we see ourselves in each other. but when you have someone commit such an awful act that person's life ain't worth as much as the life of a damn blade of grass.

Hard Truth wrote:

Naaaaah wrote:

It's more expensive than to lock him away for life. Why waste tax money on his injection?

Only because bleeding heart bastards have made the process so time consuming. For real justice to have taken place, he should have been executed by sundown last night.

Maybe the lunatic should not have had a gun in the first place?

This is kind of what I was wondering. Is there anyone out there who is generally against the death penalty but see a case like this as an exception, thanks for your post.