Should Dylann Roof receive the death penalty?/Will he?

[Badger]

Yes, actually. It is a lot less meally mouthed than the "i don't support the death penalty but won't mind when this guy gets it" b.s. several posters (including you) stated previously.

It's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty as an institution because of its chance to kill innocents, while not having a single qualm about - as long as it's legal - it being applied to mass murderers where there is zero doubt about their guilt.

I believe executing killers is completely morally justifiable, yet I'd be happy if it went away simply because I don't trust the states to apply it, personally.

That's at least somewhat reasonable. the rub is that prohibition means in all cases, no matter how henious and deserving, requires telling victims' families their loved one's kileer will live out his days.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes to both

[Ban my account ffs!]

They'll never be happy until more blood is shed in revenge, dimplechad.  It's a sport for them.

Actually, protecting crime victims is my life's calling, so yes, i get more then a tad testy when dorm room internet warriors minimize issues and actual human suffering to caricatures. Ditto with manchildren who condense real issues about police relations with their communities into screeds about "pigs" to describe the other 98% of cops.

I dont expect you to be impartial, and I certainly dont disagree that protecting victims of crime is a noble cause.  I just hope you approach it with humility...because you have the power and authority to both hurt and help people.  

[WVdemocrat]

They'll never be happy until more blood is shed in revenge, dimplechad.  It's a sport for them.

Actually, protecting crime victims is my life's calling, so yes, i get more then a tad testy when dorm room internet warriors minimize issues and actual human suffering to caricatures.

I don't think anybody should be killing anybody. Is that such a bad idea?

[Indy Texas]

He should receive life imprisonment to be served in a prison in South Africa.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Roof probably does not deserve to live, but deciding who deserves to live is not an appropriate role for the criminal justice system.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, actually. It is a lot less meally mouthed than the "i don't support the death penalty but won't mind when this guy gets it" b.s. several posters (including you) stated previously.

It's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty as an institution because of its chance to kill innocents, while not having a single qualm about - as long as it's legal - it being applied to mass murderers where there is zero doubt about their guilt.

I believe executing killers is completely morally justifiable, yet I'd be happy if it went away simply because I don't trust the states to apply it, personally.

That's at least somewhat reasonable. the rub is that prohibition means in all cases, no matter how henious and deserving, requires telling victims' families their loved one's kileer will live out his days.

I oppose the death penalty because of the act itself, not its consequence. I don't think that the State has the right to take a human being's life. That doesn't mean I actively wish criminals to continue living. I wouldn't shed a tear for Roof if he was sentenced to death, just like I wouldn't shed a tear if he was struck by lightning or hanged himself in his cell. I am completely indifferent to his fate. It's only the act of killing I oppose.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Türkisblau]

Of course not. Why does killing someone make anything better? All the pro-death penalty folks and their ilk support is continuing the cycle of hate.

[Tender Branson]

No/Yes.

[Famous Mortimer]

Of course not. Why does killing someone make anything better? All the pro-death penalty folks and their ilk support is continuing the cycle of hate.

Haha, "cycle of hate." Yes, there's all these White supremacists out there who would totally change their ways if not that they wanted revenge for the eventual executive of Dylann Roof.

[Frodo]

My change in stance with regard to the death penalty is permanent and absolute -no one should get executed, not even him.  Though I have little doubt he will receive that penalty. 

[politicallefty]

No/(Lean)Yes. I do not support the death penalty as a matter of principle. He should be sentenced to life without parole in solitary confinement, which would ideally be at ADX Florence (though I think that would require federal charges).

If anything will spare him from death row, it will be the victims' families. I don't know how they can appear in court less than two days after their loved ones were brutally murdered and announce their forgiveness. Those are incredible people and I don't know how they can do it. I think the death penalty ends up making it about the convict/murderer. It's always some big production in some fashion. A life sentence means we lock him up and the general public forgets about him, as it should be. This murderer's name should be forgotten. It's far better that we remember the names of those that were lost.

[AelroseB]

No and no.  I support the death penalty in certain cases, but never for children--regardless of the severity of the crime.  I think that the most likely scenario for Roof is mob justice bending before a life sentencing. 

[Lief 🗽]

Life without parole in super max solitary is arguably even more cruel and unusual a punishment than simply killing the guy. The anti-death penalty people are the real savages in this case.

[The Dowager Mod]

No/Yes.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Y/Y

A jury trial in SC is a perfect storm for a death sentence. Black jurors because of the racial implications, white jurors because he murdered people in a Christian church.

[Badger]

Yes, actually. It is a lot less meally mouthed than the "i don't support the death penalty but won't mind when this guy gets it" b.s. several posters (including you) stated previously.

It's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty as an institution because of its chance to kill innocents, while not having a single qualm about - as long as it's legal - it being applied to mass murderers where there is zero doubt about their guilt.

I believe executing killers is completely morally justifiable, yet I'd be happy if it went away simply because I don't trust the states to apply it, personally.

That's at least somewhat reasonable. the rub is that prohibition means in all cases, no matter how henious and deserving, requires telling victims' families their loved one's kileer will live out his days.

I oppose the death penalty because of the act itself, not its consequence. I don't think that the State has the right to take a human being's life. That doesn't mean I actively wish criminals to continue living. I wouldn't shed a tear for Roof if he was sentenced to death, just like I wouldn't shed a tear if he was struck by lightning or hanged himself in his cell. I am completely indifferent to his fate. It's only the act of killing I oppose.

Is that clear enough for you?

Clearly pussyfooted. If you oppose the death penalty you oppose it just as strongly against the Dylann Roofs of the world as the construct of the framed victim of race and privilege, etc.

What pisses me off is some prosecutors are about to give the next year or more their professional lives to obtain justice for these victims and their families , and most of the people want to simultaneously oppose their efforts on paper out of ideological purity, even if i. reaches a successful result that they themselves at heart find acceptable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, actually. It is a lot less meally mouthed than the "i don't support the death penalty but won't mind when this guy gets it" b.s. several posters (including you) stated previously.

It's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty as an institution because of its chance to kill innocents, while not having a single qualm about - as long as it's legal - it being applied to mass murderers where there is zero doubt about their guilt.

I believe executing killers is completely morally justifiable, yet I'd be happy if it went away simply because I don't trust the states to apply it, personally.

That's at least somewhat reasonable. the rub is that prohibition means in all cases, no matter how henious and deserving, requires telling victims' families their loved one's kileer will live out his days.

I oppose the death penalty because of the act itself, not its consequence. I don't think that the State has the right to take a human being's life. That doesn't mean I actively wish criminals to continue living. I wouldn't shed a tear for Roof if he was sentenced to death, just like I wouldn't shed a tear if he was struck by lightning or hanged himself in his cell. I am completely indifferent to his fate. It's only the act of killing I oppose.

Is that clear enough for you?

Clearly pussyfooted. If you oppose the death penalty you oppose it just as strongly against the Dylann Roofs of the world as the construct of the framed victim of race and privilege, etc.

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

[Badger]

Yes, actually. It is a lot less meally mouthed than the "i don't support the death penalty but won't mind when this guy gets it" b.s. several posters (including you) stated previously.

It's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty as an institution because of its chance to kill innocents, while not having a single qualm about - as long as it's legal - it being applied to mass murderers where there is zero doubt about their guilt.

I believe executing killers is completely morally justifiable, yet I'd be happy if it went away simply because I don't trust the states to apply it, personally.

That's at least somewhat reasonable. the rub is that prohibition means in all cases, no matter how henious and deserving, requires telling victims' families their loved one's kileer will live out his days.

I oppose the death penalty because of the act itself, not its consequence. I don't think that the State has the right to take a human being's life. That doesn't mean I actively wish criminals to continue living. I wouldn't shed a tear for Roof if he was sentenced to death, just like I wouldn't shed a tear if he was struck by lightning or hanged himself in his cell. I am completely indifferent to his fate. It's only the act of killing I oppose.

Is that clear enough for you?

Clearly pussyfooted. If you oppose the death penalty you oppose it just as strongly against the Dylann Roofs of the world as the construct of the framed victim of race and privilege, etc.

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

Yes, actually. It is a lot less meally mouthed than the "i don't support the death penalty but won't mind when this guy gets it" b.s. several posters (including you) stated previously.

It's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty as an institution because of its chance to kill innocents, while not having a single qualm about - as long as it's legal - it being applied to mass murderers where there is zero doubt about their guilt.

I believe executing killers is completely morally justifiable, yet I'd be happy if it went away simply because I don't trust the states to apply it, personally.

That's at least somewhat reasonable. the rub is that prohibition means in all cases, no matter how henious and deserving, requires telling victims' families their loved one's kileer will live out his days.

I oppose the death penalty because of the act itself, not its consequence. I don't think that the State has the right to take a human being's life. That doesn't mean I actively wish criminals to continue living. I wouldn't shed a tear for Roof if he was sentenced to death, just like I wouldn't shed a tear if he was struck by lightning or hanged himself in his cell. I am completely indifferent to his fate. It's only the act of killing I oppose.

Is that clear enough for you?

Clearly pussyfooted. If you oppose the death penalty you oppose it just as strongly against the Dylann Roofs of the world as the construct of the framed victim of race and privilege, etc.

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

You, and numerous others in this thread, claim to adamently oppose the death penalty as barbaric, perpetuating violence, etc., but are at heart basically ok with him eventually being executed. That is not only an implicit admission that in some truly henious cases like this capital punishment is arguably appropriate , but more then a tad hypocritical.

[RR1997]

Yes and yes.  Mass murderers like him deserve the death penalty.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Yes, actually. It is a lot less meally mouthed than the "i don't support the death penalty but won't mind when this guy gets it" b.s. several posters (including you) stated previously.

It's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty as an institution because of its chance to kill innocents, while not having a single qualm about - as long as it's legal - it being applied to mass murderers where there is zero doubt about their guilt.

I believe executing killers is completely morally justifiable, yet I'd be happy if it went away simply because I don't trust the states to apply it, personally.

That's at least somewhat reasonable. the rub is that prohibition means in all cases, no matter how henious and deserving, requires telling victims' families their loved one's kileer will live out his days.

I oppose the death penalty because of the act itself, not its consequence. I don't think that the State has the right to take a human being's life. That doesn't mean I actively wish criminals to continue living. I wouldn't shed a tear for Roof if he was sentenced to death, just like I wouldn't shed a tear if he was struck by lightning or hanged himself in his cell. I am completely indifferent to his fate. It's only the act of killing I oppose.

Is that clear enough for you?

Clearly pussyfooted. If you oppose the death penalty you oppose it just as strongly against the Dylann Roofs of the world as the construct of the framed victim of race and privilege, etc.

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

You, and numerous others in this thread, claim to adamently oppose the death penalty as barbaric, perpetuating violence, etc., but are at heart basically ok with him eventually being executed. That is not only an implicit admission that in some truly henious cases like this capital punishment is arguably appropriate , but more then a tad hypocritical.

i'm not ok with it. i don't think antonio said he was either.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No (not a revenge-seeking bloodthirsty savage)

[WVdemocrat]

Yes, actually. It is a lot less meally mouthed than the "i don't support the death penalty but won't mind when this guy gets it" b.s. several posters (including you) stated previously.

It's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty as an institution because of its chance to kill innocents, while not having a single qualm about - as long as it's legal - it being applied to mass murderers where there is zero doubt about their guilt.

I believe executing killers is completely morally justifiable, yet I'd be happy if it went away simply because I don't trust the states to apply it, personally.

That's at least somewhat reasonable. the rub is that prohibition means in all cases, no matter how henious and deserving, requires telling victims' families their loved one's kileer will live out his days.

I oppose the death penalty because of the act itself, not its consequence. I don't think that the State has the right to take a human being's life. That doesn't mean I actively wish criminals to continue living. I wouldn't shed a tear for Roof if he was sentenced to death, just like I wouldn't shed a tear if he was struck by lightning or hanged himself in his cell. I am completely indifferent to his fate. It's only the act of killing I oppose.

Is that clear enough for you?

Clearly pussyfooted. If you oppose the death penalty you oppose it just as strongly against the Dylann Roofs of the world as the construct of the framed victim of race and privilege, etc.

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

You, and numerous others in this thread, claim to adamently oppose the death penalty as barbaric, perpetuating violence, etc., but are at heart basically ok with him eventually being executed. That is not only an implicit admission that in some truly henious cases like this capital punishment is arguably appropriate , but more then a tad hypocritical.

I think this is a matter of semantics.

I think what he meant by reposting the "I won't lose any sleep" post was that he opposes the death penalty, but wants to make it clear that he thinks what Roof did was wrong, and doesn't want anyone to conflate that with defending this killer.

At least that's why I reposted it. Now I see I should have made my stance more clear from the get-go.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If I were the governor and his death sentence came to my desk, I would pardon him. In any circumstance, I would do anything to prevent an execution from happening. That doesn't mean I would feel any sadness or compassion for him if he actually is executed.

What Badger clearly doesn't get (or pretends not to get) is that my opposition to death penalty isn't born out of compassion for the convict. Compassion for the convict might help in certain cases where death clearly isn't deserved, but it's not the main issue. I have no compassion for Roof and, again, I wouldn't feel sorry if he was struck by lightning. So why should I feel sorry if he ends up getting executed?

[Badger]

Yes, actually. It is a lot less meally mouthed than the "i don't support the death penalty but won't mind when this guy gets it" b.s. several posters (including you) stated previously.

It's entirely possible to oppose the death penalty as an institution because of its chance to kill innocents, while not having a single qualm about - as long as it's legal - it being applied to mass murderers where there is zero doubt about their guilt.

I believe executing killers is completely morally justifiable, yet I'd be happy if it went away simply because I don't trust the states to apply it, personally.

That's at least somewhat reasonable. the rub is that prohibition means in all cases, no matter how henious and deserving, requires telling victims' families their loved one's kileer will live out his days.

I oppose the death penalty because of the act itself, not its consequence. I don't think that the State has the right to take a human being's life. That doesn't mean I actively wish criminals to continue living. I wouldn't shed a tear for Roof if he was sentenced to death, just like I wouldn't shed a tear if he was struck by lightning or hanged himself in his cell. I am completely indifferent to his fate. It's only the act of killing I oppose.

Is that clear enough for you?

Clearly pussyfooted. If you oppose the death penalty you oppose it just as strongly against the Dylann Roofs of the world as the construct of the framed victim of race and privilege, etc.

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

You, and numerous others in this thread, claim to adamently oppose the death penalty as barbaric, perpetuating violence, etc., but are at heart basically ok with him eventually being executed. That is not only an implicit admission that in some truly henious cases like this capital punishment is arguably appropriate , but more then a tad hypocritical.

i'm not ok with it. i don't think antonio said he was either.

"not shedding any tears" over his execution and "being ok with it" is a thin, THIN line of semantics.

as is trying to compare nonchalance with his suffering a fatal accident or act of God vs. Casual acceptance of his being executed while maintaining feel good "opposition"