Should Jared Lee Loughner receive the death penalty?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If he is mentally insane, he should get the help he needs and remain institutionalized until he is deemed safe to be in public again by trained professionals.

This is where I seriously disagree. For one, I doubt a man this headf**ked will ever be safe again. For two, call me viciously unforgiving, but I don't care if he's insane or not - he should at least rot in prison/an asylum for the rest of his natural years either way.

If he's insane, he cannot receive the death penalty due to Ford v. Wainwright rule.

[albaleman]

No because no one should.

[Insula Dei]

No because no one should.

[Gustaf]

No because no one should.

As much as I am a "Law and Order" type, on the death penalty, I back out. I favor instead sending him to some sort of hard labor camp in Alaska.

Why on earth would we need hard labor camps in Alaska?

Why not a hard labor camp where it would do some good?  Like Detroit.

That could work too. I'm open to suggestions on this.

You're all thinking about 'punishment', but I wonder if you're all aware of its actual purpose - to re-affirm the structure of society.   It does nothing for the victims, nor does it really dissuade the future killers, but it does create the perception of social solidarity (us vs. them, protective authority/legitimacy of authority, etc.)  I know this is old hat (whose ideas are these, I can't remember.. sound like Foucault), but I feel its always worth remembering them.

I'd just feel a bit duped to get worked up by punishments.

Nope. Rather it reaffirms the laws of morality.

I've become less opposed to the death penalty over time, but I'm still sufficiently opposed that I voted no. I'm assuming that this question is after the principle though. Given that the death penalty exists I don't see how anyone could resist it being applied to this case (given the caveat of possible insanity, of course).

EDIT: I seem to recall the theory cited as being Derridas, but I could well be wrong. I encountered it once in philosophy and it struck me as pretty stupid.

[J. J.]

I don't see how supposed Christians can be so intellectually dishonest sometimes. Either killing someone is a sin or it isn't, but no...it's ok if the government does it.

Killing itself isn't wrong; murder is.

If this guy is sane, I'd favor it.  I am not sure he is.

BTW, I favor condoms too.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

EDIT: I seem to recall the theory cited as being Derridas, but I could well be wrong. I encountered it once in philosophy and it struck me as pretty stupid.

More likely to have been Foucault (that was the sort of thing he was interested in) but then Derided tended to nick stuff from all over the place, so maybe it was him. I think it's still a fairly standard pov for criminologists, but could be wrong.

[Lunar]

No because no one should.

As much as I am a "Law and Order" type, on the death penalty, I back out. I favor instead sending him to some sort of hard labor camp in Alaska.

Why on earth would we need hard labor camps in Alaska?

Why not a hard labor camp where it would do some good?  Like Detroit.

That could work too. I'm open to suggestions on this.

You're all thinking about 'punishment', but I wonder if you're all aware of its actual purpose - to re-affirm the structure of society.   It does nothing for the victims, nor does it really dissuade the future killers, but it does create the perception of social solidarity (us vs. them, protective authority/legitimacy of authority, etc.)  I know this is old hat (whose ideas are these, I can't remember.. sound like Foucault), but I feel its always worth remembering them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish ?

[Franzl]

I don't see how supposed Christians can be so intellectually dishonest sometimes. Either killing someone is a sin or it isn't, but no...it's ok if the government does it.

Killing itself isn't wrong; murder is.

You're just playing around with words here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't see how supposed Christians can be so intellectually dishonest sometimes. Either killing someone is a sin or it isn't, but no...it's ok if the government does it.

Killing itself isn't wrong; murder is.

You're just playing around with words here.

Franzl, this is J.J. J.J, this is Franzl. I see you've never met before.

[feeblepizza]

Nobody deserves the death penalty. Not even Jared Loughner.

[Gustaf]

EDIT: I seem to recall the theory cited as being Derridas, but I could well be wrong. I encountered it once in philosophy and it struck me as pretty stupid.

More likely to have been Foucault (that was the sort of thing he was interested in) but then Derided tended to nick stuff from all over the place, so maybe it was him. I think it's still a fairly standard pov for criminologists, but could be wrong.

I might be thinking of something else. I'm thinking of the theory that criminals and crime are categories we make up to create a category of others against which we can define ourselves. It might well have been Foucault, I suppose, I just associated it with the letter "D".

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

On topic, I don't believe anyone should receive the death penalty

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I might be thinking of something else. I'm thinking of the theory that criminals and crime are categories we make up to create a category of others against which we can define ourselves. It might well have been Foucault, I suppose, I just associated it with the letter "D".

I'm pretty sure that was Foucault, though he did spawn a thousand imitators. It's his sort of thinking anyway. Maybe you first came across it in the context of Derided?

[minionofmidas]

EDIT: I seem to recall the theory cited as being Derridas, but I could well be wrong. I encountered it once in philosophy and it struck me as pretty stupid.

More likely to have been Foucault (that was the sort of thing he was interested in) but then Derided tended to nick stuff from all over the place, so maybe it was him. I think it's still a fairly standard pov for criminologists, but could be wrong.

That is Foucault, yeah.

[GMantis]

Since I support the death penalty and since he obviously should receive it, if it exists, my answer is yes.
And no, he knew very well what he was doing and that it was wrong, so the insanity defense is right out.

I don't see how supposed Christians can be so intellectually dishonest sometimes. Either killing someone is a sin or it isn't, but no...it's ok if the government does it.

Killing itself isn't wrong; murder is.

You're just playing around with words here.

And when one considers that many languages do not distinguish the two words...

[opebo]

You're all thinking about 'punishment', but I wonder if you're all aware of its actual purpose - to re-affirm the structure of society.   It does nothing for the victims, nor does it really dissuade the future killers, but it does create the perception of social solidarity (us vs. them, protective authority/legitimacy of authority, etc.)  

Nope. Rather it reaffirms the laws of morality.

Yeah, that's the same thing as what I said.

[opebo]

... (whose ideas are these, I can't remember.. sound like Foucault), but I feel its always worth remembering them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish ?

Yes, that's it.  One of those books I've never read, only read about, but it certainly impressed me.

[J. J.]

I don't see how supposed Christians can be so intellectually dishonest sometimes. Either killing someone is a sin or it isn't, but no...it's ok if the government does it.

Killing itself isn't wrong; murder is.

You're just playing around with words here.

No, there is a longstanding moral difference.  Murder is the unlawful killing.  There are many situations where killing is justified; this might be one of them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am opposed to the death penalty in general, so I would say no.