Dylann Roof sentenced to death for Charleston church massacre (5 Viewers)

[st dude]

Over the years I have come to realize that the death penalty has very little to do with punishment and more to do with making the rest of us feel better.

While not a proponent of the death penalty myself, I think what you describe as making us feel better is one of the five purposes of punishment, retribution.

Punishment has five recognized purposes: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution.

Retribution prevents future crime by removing the desire for personal avengement (in the form of assault, battery, and criminal homicide, for example) against the defendant. When victims or society discover that the defendant has been adequately punished for a crime, they achieve a certain satisfaction that our criminal procedure is working effectively, which enhances faith in law enforcement and our government.

1.5 The Purposes of Punishment | Criminal Law

So one of the stated purposes of punishment is to make us (society) feel better. For those who favor the death penalty, they feel with anything less after a heinous crime like this, justice is not done. They feel better and safer when justice is served.

I get that. When someone molests and kills a child, part of me wants that person to suffer the same pain he inflicted. That part of my brain tells me it would be fair is that happened to him in prison. If someone in Pakistan threw acid on a young girls face because he felt dishonored, my first instinct would be he should have acid thrown on his face.

Upon much reflection and thought, I think for me the death penalty and eye for and eye punishments appeal to my baser instinct., and that's not where I want to go or where I want society to go. I think as society evolves the death penalty will go away, but that might be tens or hundreds or thousands of years from now.

We, or many of us, in the US view punishments like cutting a hand off for stealing or public lashings as barbaric. We, or many of us, would think of public beheadings or hangings as barbaric. But is a beheading that different than lethal injections?

I think in time we as a society will view all executions as barbaric. I do not know what's right or wrong. I completely get the support many have for the death penalty. For me it doesn't seem right. I am glad no one I prosecuted got the death penalty. I sure did ask for it, got one vote away from it with one jury on a triple murder I tried where a couple, and their daughter were murdered.

 

[Joe OKC]

I'm just wondering where the rationale for that comes from. Not disagreeing with the sentiment that he is a sick individual.

From the theory that if a criminal sees someone die a violent death as punishment of a crime, they will then be afraid to go out and commit crime so they don;t receive the same punishment.

 

[JimEverett]

My problem with the death primarily stems for the the fact that the constitutional right to a fair trial demands that absolutely no stone go unturned in defending someone facing the prospect of death - and that far too often that is not even close to being achieved.
There are people on death row who were defended by private solo practitioners operating on less than a shoestring budget from indigent defense funds that come in at a fraction of what state prosecutors get to prosecute such a case.

And while much better than that, many are sent to death row after being represented by extremely competent public defenders but who have caseloads that are often 25% or more larger than the prosecutors they are facing given the inequities of the criminal justice system

And neither take into account the enormous financial windfall prsecutors get from the "free" investigative services of police - something public defenders and indigent defense lawyers do not get and are often set up as opposed.

 

[boutrous]

I'm just wondering where the rationale for that comes from. Not disagreeing with the sentiment that he is a sick individual.

What authority do we as a nation possess to end the life of another human?

I can't really come up with a viable answer for that, and I think it's a deep subject. I also don't understand the fascination with all sorts of gruesome forms of death as a means of "settling the score" and appeasing the populace for what someone did.

War, or do we only care if this applies to people in our own country? War kills more innocent people than capital punishment could ever hope to.


I think that at some point we have to decide if it's OK to keep people around who are a threat to our society and who we determine cannot be kept at bay under diplomatic means. Whether that means exterminate them, incarcerate them, incapacitate them or rehabilitate them.

But I'd like to reiterate that prisons are ******** and completely not the correct answer, so to say let's just keep shoving people in there together is not solving anything.

 

[st dude]

Well if they would prefer death they could easily accomplish that, but yet there are still thousands of lifers waisting away, still alive.

I think this may more point to the survival instinct most of us have built in. Many people who want to die will not kill themselves, the instinct to live is so great.

I don't think the fact people do not kill themselves in prison means they prefer prison life over death, they just cannot overcome their survival instinct to kill themselves.

I cannot think of a fate for me much worse than life in a prison cell. For someone Roof's age I would think suffering prison life for 50 plus years would be a much greater punishment than a quick death. Personally I think I would choose death, but who knows what I would do if I had to make that choice.

 

[elecspec]

No problem with the Death Penalty only do it sooner rather than later.
Don't let my tax money feed, house and clothe him and keep him in good health so we can Kill him twenty years from now.

 

[Heathen Saint]

From the theory that if a criminal sees someone die a violent death as punishment of a crime, they will then be afraid to go out and commit crime so they don;t receive the same punishment.

In theory, one would assume that would work, but I seriously doubt that in a practical sense it ever does or would.

I don't think a person wanting to kill someone is carefully thinking over his decision because he could be put to death. Remember, most of the people who commit these atrocities aren't in the right state of mind anyway. Nor do I think mandating the death penalty across the board for homicidal maniacs or child molesters would prevent these people from doing the same thing.

 

[Heathen Saint]

No problem with the Death Penalty only do it sooner rather than later.
Don't let my tax money feed, house and clothe him and keep him in good health so we can Kill him twenty years from now.

But isn't your tax money is already keeping alive thousands of other murderers?

 

[MLU]

While not a proponent of the death penalty myself, I think what you describe as making us feel better is one of the five purposes of punishment, retribution.

Punishment has five recognized purposes: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution.



1.5 The Purposes of Punishment | Criminal Law

So one of the stated purposes of punishment is to make us (society) feel better. For those who favor the death penalty, they feel with anything less after a heinous crime like this, justice is not done. They feel better and safer when justice is served.

I get that. When someone molests and kills a child, part of me wants that person to suffer the same pain he inflicted. That part of my brain tells me it would be fair is that happened to him in prison. If someone in Pakistan threw acid on a young girls face because he felt dishonored, my first instinct would be he should have acid thrown on his face.

Upon much reflection and thought, I think for me the death penalty and eye for and eye punishments appeal to my baser instinct., and that's not where I want to go or where I want society to go. I think as society evolves the death penalty will go away, but that might be tens or hundreds or thousands of years from now.

We, or many of us, in the US view punishments like cutting a hand off for stealing or public lashings as barbaric. We, or many of us, would think of public beheadings or hangings as barbaric. But is a beheading that different than lethal injections?

I think in time we as a society will view all executions as barbaric. I do not know what's right or wrong. I completely get the support many have for the death penalty. For me it doesn't seem right. I am glad no one I prosecuted got the death penalty. I sure did ask for it, got one vote away from it with one jury on a triple murder I tried where a couple, and their daughter were murdered.

That's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure that I agree that we as a society should kill someone just to avoid someone else from killing them, but it's interesting to see the legal perspective.

I'm content to see someone rot away in prison until they die naturally. I no longer feel it's the business of government to decide who should live or die, but in the interest of public safety, I'm good with locking them up. Not only is it cheaper than the death penalty, it's a far worse punishment IMO.

 

[Heathen Saint]

War, or do we only care if this applies to people in our own country? War kills more innocent people than capital punishment could ever hope to.

This thought crossed my mind earlier and completely agree.

I think that at some point we have to decide if it's OK to keep people around who are a threat to our society and who we determine cannot be kept at bay under diplomatic means. Whether that means exterminate them, incarcerate them, incapacitate them or rehabilitate them.

Clearly I don't think options 1 and 3 are moral, but I would say that the only reasonable option we have right now is incarceration. We need to overhaul our concentration on glaring mental health issues in this country in every aspect.

But I'd like to reiterate that prisons are ******** and completely not the correct answer, so to say let's just keep shoving people in there together is not solving anything.

I'll agree at least partially. As for murderers, rapists, child molesters etc it would be more difficult to argue not putting these people in prison.

But I know we can't keep shoving in repeat drug offenders or people with other mental incapacities. Treatment and rehabilitation over locking someone in a cage for drug offenses. That probably won't be a popular view but it's one I think is in the right direction.

 

[Heathen Saint]

This information seems to indicate that the death penalty process is much more of a financial burden than life without parole:

Forbes Welcome

Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center


Now, I know someone could respond by saying "but why not shoot them? save hundreds of thousands!". Yes, and in doing so regress by leaps and bounds in our moral standard? Some people would rather save a few cents on their taxes than remain a leader, not a follower, in terms of how we treat our prisoners. As hard as it is for me to grasp, it is my opinion that even those convicted of horrible acts deserve some basic human rights in a lifetime of confinement.

So, we are past the eras of decapitations, hangings and the electric chair. We are just phasing out of the problems, both fiscally and arguably moral in nature of lethal injection. We are balancing a tightrope between human rights and maximum punishment by law.

It isn't perfect, but I think ultimately it's the best we can do.

 

[boutrous]

This thought crossed my mind earlier and completely agree.




Clearly I don't think options 1 and 3 are moral, but I would say that the only reasonable option we have right now is incarceration. We need to overhaul our concentration on glaring mental health issues in this country in every aspect.



I'll agree at least partially. As for murderers, rapists, child molesters etc it would be more difficult to argue not putting these people in prison.

But I know we can't keep shoving in repeat drug offenders or people with other mental incapacities. Treatment and rehabilitation over locking someone in a cage for drug offenses. That probably won't be a popular view but it's one I think is in the right direction.

I agree with and appreciate your instraspection here, my overall point is that it's just not cut and dry. People like to treat every issue as if there is a black and white answer. Yes we should have it or no we should not. Most of the time there isn't that easy of an answer. Most of the time we just have to do the best we can at the time. The general philosophy of our country is to be understanding and a leader in human treatment. While my gut instincts say remove this person from the Earth, he'll never do any good anyway, my greater good and logic tell me that can't be the best way. It's a conflict for sure. Would I lose any sleep the day he's executed? Nope, no I won't. But it makes me wonder if maybe we just get lazy and don't do the best we can.

 

[antipop]

I don't even want to think about how many people have been wrongly convicted and executed

in this case, it's obvious that Roof is guilty but I wouldn't care either way as long as he never sees the outside of a cell again...I am not going to get any satisfaction out of his death but it won't bother me either

 

[Jazz Cabbage]

I find it hard to oppose the verdict to execute him. My issue with the death penalty is the time it takes and cost to tax payers. Millions are spent on these cases and thousands more to house the perpetrators. Just give someone a gun and a bullet. That's a $500 solution right there. The decision's been made, just get it over with.

And stop popularizing these murderers. You can make a case the media partly inspires these psychopaths to commit these heinous crimes. This maniac doesn't deserve to be remembered. What he says should never be heard. The victims should be whom we remember, and the act as well - so that we may find a way to prevent it in the future. But that's just another f***'n rabbit hole.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I agree with and appreciate your instraspection here, my overall point is that it's just not cut and dry. People like to treat every issue as if there is a black and white answer. Yes we should have it or no we should not. Most of the time there isn't that easy of an answer. Most of the time we just have to do the best we can at the time. The general philosophy of our country is to be understanding and a leader in human treatment. While my gut instincts say remove this person from the Earth, he'll never do any good anyway, my greater good and logic tell me that can't be the best way. It's a conflict for sure. Would I lose any sleep the day he's executed? Nope, no I won't. But it makes me wonder if maybe we just get lazy and don't do the best we can.

while i agree that there are often (always) a plurality of answers (perspectives), how many of those answers are "reasonable"?

if someone's answer is followed by "well, that's just the way i feel" - that's fine but neither i, nor anyone else, should be inclined to follow your "feeling"
if you can't articulate the steps of your argument that lead to your conclusion/answer, should it really be held up as part of the public discussion?

(Boutrous, obviously i am using "you" in the plural)