Support NeoGAF

[matthieuC]

Damn, should've gotten the death penalty. I never really understood the whole "he's insane" so he should not die... It shouldn't matter. That's like saying a dog shouldn't be put down because it was rabies.

I'll always support the death penalty on cases where it is absolutely certain the person did the crime.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Guessing there was one holdout because of "morals" or some reason. Dumb.

yes the "morals" of not killing an insane man who poses no threat to society.

The fucking horror

 

[Anjelus_]

How do you decide what legally defines an "extreme case"?

It's actually very easy. Without going into details on a public forum, there are some criminal actions committed by "regular" people, not as "combat action" (please), that are so unspeakably horrific, the death penalty is absolutely warranted. If you really can't think of examples, I envy you your naïveté.

It's nice to have the death penalty as an option for those delightful individuals.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

..and locking someone in a concrete cell for the rest of their lives isn't?

No, it is not.

 

[Skyzard]

Did they ever release details about his mental assessments?

 

[CrashSimonFaye]

bye felicia

 

[FadedRevolution]

I don't like the work sick being used to describe this person. This is just an evil person who deserves to be punished he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Anjelus_]

I rarely wish I were a mod, but posts like this make me wish I were a mod.



Oh my god, you totally solved all of the problems with capital punishment. Incroyable!

And it was every bit as easy as you said!

omfg I KNOW RIGHT AHAHAHHAHAHA YES DUDE

No, I did not say "solve all problems." My language was very clear.

Edit: Leaving thread now. Lack of future responses not to be interpreted as conceding the point.

 

[AlexBasch]

Once again, it costs more money and time to execute a person than to incarcerate them.

Hold on. Really? Genuine question.

You'd think it's cheaper to inject meds into someone and have him dead, than paying for his 40+ year stay at a prison.

Maybe I'm missing something after the lethal injection part, like the corpse management cost or whatever, but I didn't think the latter was cheaper.

The gist is that people can be placed on death row for decades at a time, and continuously appeal their case. Execution isn't taken lightly even after a sentence, which mean that the costs ordinarily rack up to an exorbitant amount.

Oh, nevermind, this makes perfect sense. I was thinking about the "after the execution" and forgot the "decades in the death row" part.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

Bye bye, mothafucka. It wasn't worth it and you'll be feeling it really soon and for a long time.

 

[shem935]

Is there the same process of appeals for life in jail as a death sentence? I would guess not.

 

[No Love]

Hold on. Really? Genuine question.

You'd think it's cheaper to inject meds into someone and have him dead, than paying for his 40+ year stay at a prison.

Maybe I'm missing something after the lethal injection part, like the corpse management cost or whatever, but I didn't think the latter was cheaper.

You do realize it takes a long, long time for someone to actually get executed? And the whole time they're sucking up resources and money due to appeals, cost of care, etc.

 

[dork]

There is no way he's getting anything other than the death penalty.

Imagine how anti death gaf is. The rest of the country is even more so.

It makes me sad how long the justice system takes though.

 

[acrid]

I rarely wish I were a mod, but posts like this make me wish I were a mod.

I offer him no remorse or forgiveness. He deserves torment and suffering for the rest of his life for the pain and suffering he inflicted on the families of his victims.

 

[BertramCooper]

omfg I KNOW RIGHT AHAHAHHAHAHA YES DUDE

No, I did not say "solve all problems." My language was very clear.

You can still wrongly execute people for "unspeakably horrific" crimes. Not all "unspeakably horrific" crimes are committed as conspicuously as Holmes' crimes.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

The death penalty is a waste of time and changes nothing about the crime that was committed. Most people that are for it, are for it because of outrage at the crime committed. That's vengeance not justice. This man was obviously very sick and had nearly free access to an arsenal as do many other sick people. Society bears some responsibility for that as well.

almost no punishment changes anything about a crime, and none do for murders. how does putting someone away for life do anything about a murder? how does the insane amount of tax money going to keep them comfortable for their life change anything about a murder? also, life is a gift and some people feel mass murderers squandered that gift and don't deserve it any more. personally i'm on the fence, but this constant association with proponents of the death penalty only supporting it for the notion of vengeance or revenge, is misplaced. some do sure, but it's an over simplification for many.

my care-meter for "aw this guy is just a sick man he needs to be rehabilitated" stretches about as far as it goes before it destroys other people's lives. some people, whether sick or not, plainly are not fit for the civilized world. would he be if he was born in a different place or at a different time? shit, maybe, but that's entirely irrelevant. i'm also curious how may murders does it take before someone goes from "sick" to just being a murderous asshole?

 

[matthieuC]

You can still wrongly execute people for "unspeakably horrific" crimes.

This is not one of those times.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You can still wrongly execute people for "unspeakably horrific" crimes.

There are, indeed, instances where there is zero doubt as to the guilt of someone. The Bundys, McVeighs, Kaczynskis, etc. of the world, the committers of unspeakable crimes about whose guilt there was quite literally zero doubt. In such instances, the arguments against the death penalty seem, to me, quite limp.

 

[kmax]

Hold on. Really? Genuine question.

You'd think it's cheaper to inject meds into someone and have him dead, than paying for his 40+ year stay at a prison.

Maybe I'm missing something after the lethal injection part, like the corpse management cost or whatever, but I didn't think the latter was cheaper.


Oh, nevermind, this makes perfect sense. I was thinking about the "after the execution" and forgot the "decades in the death row" part.

It doesn't work like that. Appeals and retrials usually take many years while they're locked up on death row. It's never a speedy process.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Case in point: The death penalty costs more.

 

[BertramCooper]

I offer him no remorse or forgiveness. He deserves torment and suffering for the rest of his life for the pain and suffering he inflicted on the families of his victims.

Anyone who wishes rape and torture upon any other person, no matter the person's transgressions, has a pretty fucked-up moral compass.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

Hopefully he'll be raped and tortured on a regular basis, and haunted relentlesely by his victims.

Advocating for rape and torture. Don't.

 

[Coffee Dog]

almost no punishment changes anything about a crime, and none do for murders. how does putting someone away for life do anything about a murder? how does the insane amount of tax money going to keep them comfortable for their life change anything about a murder? also, life is a gift and some people feel mass murderers squandered that gift and don't deserve it any more. personally i'm on the fence, but this constant association with proponents of the death penalty only supporting it for the notion of vengeance or revenge, is misplaced. some do sure, but it's an over simplification for many.

There is not a single argument for the death penalty that doesn't boil down to an appeal to emotion, of which vengeance is a common theme.

 

[OctoMan]

So just because you want it or are okay with it, it should be standard for everyone?

If the judge/process makes the death penalty a possibilty, then it should be a possibilty. Having a juror hold out due to personal beliefs makes that impossible. Their job should be to find the punishment that fits the crime, not instill their own beliefs to alter due process.

 

[Coffee Dog]

There are, indeed, instances where there is zero doubt as to the guilt of someone. The Bundys, McVeighs, Kaczynskis, etc. of the world, the committers of unspeakable crimes about whose guilt there was quite literally zero doubt. In such instances, the arguments against the death penalty seem, to me, quite limp.

There doesn't need to be an argument against the death penalty; there needs to be an argument for it.

What is the benefit of the death penalty?

 

[HariKari]

Life in ADX Florence is a lot worse than the death penalty.

 

[ultratruman]

He should be in a secure hospital

 

[FunkyMunkey]

There is not a single argument for the death penalty that doesn't boil down to an appeal to emotion, of which vengeance is a common theme.

sure there is. some people don't want their tax money going to keeping someone sheltered, fed, and healthy for the rest of their lives after murdering a bunch of people.

That's what happens when you give someone the death penalty.

except they are now dead vs living out the rest of their lives

edit: i know the death penalty is expensive

The fact that so many people have been exonerated after being placed on death row should be enough to end the pro death penalty argument. Why it hasn't is truly baffling.

conflating the cases where there wasn't concrete proof and the death penalty was still handed out like candy (especially for a 'less' evil crime in comparison to this topic), with a clear-cut mass murderer, is not a good argument imo. but then begins the "but there is always some level of doubt in a court case" part of these threads.

 

[Smokey_Run]

If the judge/process makes the death penalty a possibilty, then it should be a possibilty. Having a juror hold out due to personal beliefs makes that impossible. Their job should be to find the punishment that fits the crime, not instill their own beliefs to alter due process.

If someone is against sentencing someone to death, they usually don't end up on the jury at all. It's part of being a death qualified jury.

He should be in a secure hospital

Most of those got shut down in the late 80s and early 90s. It's why there is a growing number of inmates with mental health issues, they have no other place to go.

 

[Coffee Dog]

sure there is. some people don't want their tax money going to keeping someone sheltered, fed, and healthy for the rest of their lives after murdering a bunch of people.

That's what happens when you give someone the death penalty.

 

[OctoMan]

If someone is against sentencing someone to death, they usually don't end up on the jury at all. It's part of being death qualified jury.

Okay thanks. That makes sense and im glad to hear that's the case.

 

[BertramCooper]

There are, indeed, instances where there is zero doubt as to the guilt of someone. The Bundys, McVeighs, Kaczynskis, etc. of the world, the committers of unspeakable crimes about whose guilt there was quite literally zero doubt. In such instances, the arguments against the death penalty seem, to me, quite limp.

And law enforcement and prosecutors are absolutely capable of wrongly accusing and prosecuting innocent people by creating cases so compelling that they erase all doubt in the minds of jurors.

Again, you cannot have capital punishment without killing innocent people.

 

[slit]

almost no punishment changes anything about a crime, and none do for murders. how does putting someone away for life do anything about a murder? how does the insane amount of tax money going to keep them comfortable for their life change anything about a murder? also, life is a gift and some people feel mass murderers squandered that gift and don't deserve it any more. personally i'm on the fence, but this constant association with proponents of the death penalty only supporting it for the notion of vengeance or revenge, is misplaced. some do sure, but it's an over simplification for many.

It keeps them away from society while at the same time not turning the justice system into a hit squad which is not what any society should want to have happen if they claim to have humanity. Also, it's been proven time and again that it cost more to execute than to just keep them locked up so the money argument doesn't fly either.

 

[geardo]

The fact that so many people have been exonerated after being placed on death row should be enough to end the pro death penalty argument. Why it hasn't is truly baffling.

 

[Hazmat]

The fact that so many people have been exonerated after being placed on death row should be enough to end the pro death penalty argument. Why it hasn't is truly baffling.

I figure it's because some people seem to think the justice system should have a new verdict of "Totally 100% Guilty" so they can get the vicarious thrill of getting revenge on someone.

Wanting revenge is a totally valid feeling. So is wanting to take something that doesn't belong to you or to cheat on your spouse. It's just that we should all try to avoid acting on our negative impulses.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

There doesn't need to be an argument against the death penalty; there needs to be an argument for it.

What is the benefit of the death penalty?

I'm fairly certain the benefit is that it satisfies, ethically, those who believe that crimes that cross a certain level of heinousness have forfeited their right to continue to exist as a human being, which has innate intellectual, emotional, and imaginative possibilities and benefits, even if your liberty is restricted by forced residence in a prison.

 

[BossLackey]

He is forced to watch The Dark Knight on repeat for the entirety of his stay.

 

[geardo]

conflating the cases where there wasn't concrete proof and the death penalty was still handed out like candy (especially for a 'less' evil crime in comparison to this topic), with a clear-cut mass murderer, is not a good argument imo. but then begins the "but there is always some level of doubt in a court case" part of these threads.

Not really. There's no doubt that holmes is 100% guilty, but you either have a death penalty or you don't. You seam to be suggesting that the death penalty is ok when guilt is absolutely certain. I don't have the same faith in humanity that we can actually uphold that standard.

 

[AlexBasch]

Yep, totally forgot about the "death sentence isn't immediate". Me is so dumb.

So aside from the humane, ethical stuff about it, it's also time and resource consuming? That can't be right. :/

 

[BertramCooper]

I'm fairly certain the benefit is that it satisfies, ethically, those who believe that crimes that cross a certain level of heinousness have forfeited their right to continue to exist as a human being, which has innate intellectual, emotional, and imaginative possibilities and benefits, even if your liberty is restricted by forced residence in a prison.

People can find comfort in the execution of a wrongly convicted person if they mistakenly believe them to be guilty.

We shouldn't execute people to relieve the bereaved of their grief.

 

[dabig2]

Good. Hope he can find the help he needs and that we don't just stick him in solitary for the rest of his life. Be better.

 

[Smokey_Run]

Yep, totally forgot about the "death sentence isn't immediate". Me is so dumb.

So aside from the humane, ethical stuff about it, it's also time and resource consuming? That can't be right. :/

The appeals process costs a lot.

 

[Amory]

Good. Hope he can find the help he needs and that we don't just stick him in solitary for the rest of his life. Be better.

Yeah he's not going to get any help.

He's gonna get a cell and a jumpsuit. Pretty much it. If he's lucky he'll interact with others on occasion

 

[minor effort]

I can't understand how people want the death penalty so badly. Like it's a personal affront to them that this guy's "merely" rotting in prison for the rest of his life.

"His existence is a stain on the human race" - huh?

I'm always going to be disturbed by those who want the death penalty so badly they'll allow a few innocent people to be executed as an acceptable cost of justice.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

People can find comfort in the execution of a wrongly convicted person if they believe them to be guilty.

We shouldn't execute people to relieve the bereaved of their grief.

...not really what I was talking about, but anyway. We shouldn't do it only for that reason, though I can't say it's not a point in the "pro" column, but you don't have to be related to a person who's killed and desire emotional catharsis to think that if there is incontrovertible evidence as to the guilt of a mass murderer - and in a small but notable number of cases, there absolutely is - then the ethical duty to those killed is to deprive of life the individual that deprived them of life.

I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, btw, as I'm of mixed opinion as to the death penalty, myself, but I do understand those who desire it and think there are certainly valid ethical frameworks of which it can be a part.

 

[Amory]

I can't understand how people want the death penalty so badly. Like it's a personal affront to them that this guy's "merely" rotting in prison for the rest of his life.

"His existence is a stain on the human race" - huh?

I'm always going to be disturbed by those who want the death penalty so badly they'll allow a few innocent people to be executed as an acceptable cost of justice.

I don't mind the death penalty in sure thing "there were 100 witnesses" type cases. Cases like these.

I agree the death penalty should go away in every other circumstance, though. Risk of executing innocents is too high

 

[neogaffer1]

Damn, should've gotten the death penalty. I never really understood the whole "he's insane" so he should not die... It shouldn't matter. That's like saying a dog shouldn't be put down because it was rabies.

I'll always support the death penalty on cases where it is absolutely certain the person did the crime.

i stole a grapefruit because i'm a homeless child without any money and i'm hungry

you want me to die?

 

[BertramCooper]

...not really what I was talking about, but anyway. We shouldn't do it only for that reason, though I can't say it's not a point in the "pro" column, but you don't have to be related to a person who's killed and desire emotional catharsis to think that if there is incontrovertible evidence as to the guilt of a mass murderer - and in a small but notable number of cases, there absolutely is - then the ethical duty to those killed is to deprive of life the individual that deprived them of life.

What's the standard for "incontrovertible" evidence? Who sets that standard?

We have an imperfect justice system capable of an unbelievable amount of corruption and incompetence. Because of that, we can't pass sentences that are so absolute that they can't ever be reversed. In the event of a fuck-up, we have to be able to make things right, or at least be able to attempt to make things right.

 

[John Kowalski]

This thread is scary.

 

[Bodacious]

I'm glad at least one juror had the good sense to say no. I am 100% opposed to the death penalty.

I'm ok with daily pineapple up the ass though.

 

[HK-47]

Damn, should've gotten the death penalty. I never really understood the whole "he's insane" so he should not die... It shouldn't matter. That's like saying a dog shouldn't be put down because it was rabies.

I'll always support the death penalty on cases where it is absolutely certain the person did the crime.

Who is even making this argument? Why does insanity even need to come into it?