Dylann Roof: Poster Child For The Death Penalty or Not

[Pogo]

Conservative White Christian Hate Criminal and Mass Shooter Dylann Roof is an interesting case for a discussion of the death penalty.

It does indeed. Good point.

An asshole arms up, barges into a church, starts picking people off, intentionally lets one or two live specifically so they can relate what they witnessed, and then fully admits to it. No question he did the deed. The question of executing someone who might be innocent doesn't apply.

Now the remaining question becomes -- does the State have the right to take a life. I say no. Because no one gets that. Once you start waiving that, Pandora opens her box.

Hang em' high.

Some crimes call for the ultimate punishment. this idiot would get 3 hots and a cot, and unless put in supermax will be the bell of the ball with the Aryan Brotherhood in prison.

Some may say put him in gen pop with the brothers, but that is the same as a death sentence, only its outside the law.

Death row, 10 years of appeals, needle, done.

If anyone deserved a DP, I'd agree this guy certainly should be first in line. No argument there.

My point is that we can't go around saying "no one can take a life", and then go "the State can take a life". It's inconsistent. Once we do that we have redefined what 'life' means at a heavy discount, and it's not at all a reach to start making more exceptions.

In a State-mandated DP the State merely becomes another murderer. What after all is the moral difference between me murdering the guy who killed my child, and the State doing it?

Life can be taken, but there has to be a very good, and very legally sound reason for it.

And no, a State sanctioned execution is not Murder (but it is a homicide). The very legal nature of the execution makes it not murder, or manslaughter, or any other crime involving the death of another. Just as killing in war is not considered murder, nor is legal killing by police officers in the line of duty, or by civilians when properly exercising their right to self defense.

Semantics.
"Murder" ... "homicide".... "killing"...... "taking a life"...... for the purpose of this point they're all synonymous.

Your only point here is in the first sentence, which is subjective opinion and sets up a slippery slope. To wit: *WHO* determines that "very good and very legally sound reason"? HOW is it defined? Is it determined and defined by humans?

If yes, are humans corruptible? Are humans fallible? If we can answer NO to those two, then go ahead with it.

 

[martybegan]

Conservative White Christian Hate Criminal and Mass Shooter Dylann Roof is an interesting case for a discussion of the death penalty.

It does indeed. Good point.

An asshole arms up, barges into a church, starts picking people off, intentionally lets one or two live specifically so they can relate what they witnessed, and then fully admits to it. No question he did the deed. The question of executing someone who might be innocent doesn't apply.

Now the remaining question becomes -- does the State have the right to take a life. I say no. Because no one gets that. Once you start waiving that, Pandora opens her box.

Hang em' high.

Some crimes call for the ultimate punishment. this idiot would get 3 hots and a cot, and unless put in supermax will be the bell of the ball with the Aryan Brotherhood in prison.

Some may say put him in gen pop with the brothers, but that is the same as a death sentence, only its outside the law.

Death row, 10 years of appeals, needle, done.

If anyone deserved a DP, I'd agree this guy certainly should be first in line. No argument there.

My point is that we can't go around saying "no one can take a life", and then go "the State can take a life". It's inconsistent. Once we do that we have redefined what 'life' means at a heavy discount, and it's not at all a reach to start making more exceptions.

In a State-mandated DP the State merely becomes another murderer. What after all is the moral difference between me murdering the guy who killed my child, and the State doing it?

Life can be taken, but there has to be a very good, and very legally sound reason for it.

And no, a State sanctioned execution is not Murder (but it is a homicide). The very legal nature of the execution makes it not murder, or manslaughter, or any other crime involving the death of another. Just as killing in war is not considered murder, nor is legal killing by police officers in the line of duty, or by civilians when properly exercising their right to self defense.

Semantics.
"Murder" ... "homicide".... "killing"...... "taking a life"...... for the purpose of this point they're all synonymous.

Your only point here is in the first sentence, which is subjective opinion and sets up a slippery slope. To wit: *WHO* determines that "very good and very legally sound reason"? HOW is it defined? Is it determined and defined by humans?

If yes, are humans corruptible? Are humans fallible? If we can answer NO to those two, then go ahead with it.

Since murder is a construct of law created by society, it is society through government that decides what killing is murder, and what killing isn't.

You are creating an ideal set of parameters to deal with a real system. It would be like using the Ideal gas law to design a distillation column (sorry my ChemE background comes out every once and a while).

The State doesn't say "don't kill people" and then goes and kills people. It says don't kill people illegally, then if you do, WE can kill you legally.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

It is important to define as precisely as possible, what Dylann sees himself as. He committed a serious crime with some serious ideological and philosophical motives.

Did he?

Or are you just pretending he did to smear your enemies?

IMO, this is a poor test case. Too much possibility of extenuating mental illness.


Plenty of more clear cut cases of murderers killing in vile manners for petty reasons, justifying the maximum penalty.


But, yes, if this man is found sane, fry him.

Donald Trump suffers some sort of mental illness and look at where he is now

 

[Buck111]

If the State (a legal fiction) derives its powers from the consent of the people and the people do not have the right to consent can the State still commit killings? If the individual cannot 'legally' kill other individuals as retribution for crimes the State kills people for, then how can the state say it gets consent to kill people from the people?

A human being does not have the right to kill another human being unless in self defense, therefore the human being does not have the right to consent to the state doing any killings with said human beings consent unless in self defense. You cannot give to the state something you, yourself do not have.

 

[Onyx]

A human being does not have the right to kill another human being unless in self defense, therefore the human being does not have the right to consent to the state doing any killings with said human beings consent unless in self defense. You cannot give to the state something you, yourself do not have.

Rights only exist as a social construction. Technically you can kill another human being not in self defense, so it is a matter of opinion on what is and is not considered a right.

The greater issue with the death penalty comes with the state itself. In order to believe in a state death penalty, one must confirm the existence of the state. I have plenty of issues with the existence of the state, as I suspect you do as well.

 

[Buck111]

A human being does not have the right to kill another human being unless in self defense, therefore the human being does not have the right to consent to the state doing any killings with said human beings consent unless in self defense. You cannot give to the state something you, yourself do not have.

Rights only exist as a social construction. Technically you can kill another human being not in self defense, so it is a matter of opinion on what is and is not considered a right.

The greater issue with the death penalty comes with the state itself. In order to believe in a state death penalty, one must confirm the existence of the state. I have plenty of issues with the existence of the state, as I suspect you do as well.

Correct. Rights are a social construct, created by...guess who?...the state! What are referred to as "rights" by the state are actually privileges because the state has the power to change and/or restrict those so-called rights. I should have used the words "moral" and "morally" but the average statist would not see the connection. So, I will restate like this:

A person cannot morally grant the privilege of murdering other persons to the state, since it is immoral for the persons themselves to commit murder, therefore the state cannot commit murder by consent of the people.

 

[westwall]

Conservative White Christian Hate Criminal and Mass Shooter Dylann Roof is an interesting case for a discussion of the death penalty.

He's a POS. His race and religion are immaterial. In general I am not a big supporter of the death penalty. There are exceptions and this asshole is definitely the exception.

 

[Synthaholic]

No, these Christian Terrorists should spend the rest of their lives in boring existence, alone, and being told what to do 24 hours a day.

 

[Pogo]

So I voted "no" in the poll but it may or may not be accurate depending on how the badly worded question is interpreted.

Does he "deserve" to die? Sure, absolutely. But that's not what the thread title asked -- supposedly the question is, "does the State have the right to do it". That's two different questions. Thread title is worded from the perspective of the Law (which is how I answered) and the poll is worded from the perspective of the perpetrator.

 

[Anathema]

The only words necessary to prove Dylan Roof is worthy of the death penalty are "Convicted Felon". Anything beyond that is purely details and nothing mire.

 

[Staidhup]

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Regardless of his delusional sense of righteousness and purpose he must stand in judgement, thus pay the ultimate price for murder, death. I firmly believe the only way to stem the rise in the murder rate is to extract the ultimate price for murder. To take this one step further anyone who commits a crime with a gun or weapon should serve no less then 25 years, regardless if anyone is hurt. In the event the perpetrator is under the age of 18 they should be tried as an adult.

 

[Buck111]

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Regardless of his delusional sense of righteousness and purpose he must stand in judgement, thus pay the ultimate price for murder, death. I firmly believe the only way to stem the rise in the murder rate is to extract the ultimate price for murder. To take this one step further anyone who commits a crime with a gun or weapon should serve no less then 25 years, regardless if anyone is hurt. In the event the perpetrator is under the age of 18 they should be tried as an adult.

So you murder somebody who murdered somebody and nobody else will ever murder anybody again? Not logical.
Murder Rate Drops to 33-Year Low

 

[foggedinn]

It would be cheaper and quicker to put him in the general population of the blackest prison in South Carolina.

 

[MikeK]

Anyone who murders another human deserves to be put to death. Especially cop killers!

Your concepts of life and death are predicated on your personal value system. So presuming you presently have much to live for you logically place a high value on life and regard death as the ultimate loss.

But consider what Dylan Roof has to look forward to. A long lifetime in prison. Day after day after day, year after year, which would be bad enough if he were an ordinary murderer. But Roof is special. He cannot be placed in the general population where there are others to talk with, to play cards with, where there is the occasional movie, yard time, etc. He will spend the rest of his life in isolation, his miserable circumstance being supervised by guards, many of whom are Black and have cause to despise him.

So the bottom line is to kill Dylan Roof, to put an end to his future of misery, would be a gift.

 

[SavannahMann]

I voted no. Not because I have any moral objections to the Death Penalty. Nor do I believe that it is a violation of the constitution or whatever. I voted no, as I always do, because I am not merciful.

People who are sentenced to death get automatic appeals. They are paid for by me and thee, the taxpayers. Yes, we pay both sides of the argument. We pay a lawyer to challenge the conviction and sentence, and we pay the lawyers who defend it. The average is something like three full appeals. Years of lawyers fees are not cheap. Especially when you are paying both sides.

Second, what those appeals do is provide hope. The convicted hopes that some perceived injustice in the case will grant him a stay, a commutation of sentence, or even outright release.

A person sentenced to life gets none of those. No automatic appeals, no hope of overturning anything. They wake up every day knowing they will never again see the world except through chain fences and bars. They will never again walk up to a woman and try to pass the time. They won't do any of the things we do without thinking about it. They will think about it, they will think about little else.

Everyday their hope does a little more. No one visits them to tell about whatever appeal is being filed, or the status of a motion before the judge, because no one is making those appeals, or motions. In time, the family will quit visiting. It may take years, but Dylan has years, and decades to sit and think. Perhaps the family will come by once a year. All year long they sit and hope for a visit, and then it is about what others are doing that he never will. Getting married, getting a job, or a promotion at work. Births, deaths, and life will pass by while Dylan sits and ages.

No one will fight for him, no one will try and save him based upon moral beliefs. No one will care when he ages, and dies a little each day.

As I said, I am not merciful, so I am not a fan of the death penalty.