not necessary, a clean death works just fine for ridding the earth of bottom feeding scum

if you kill nearly a dozen people in an effort to spark a race war, your life has no value to me. **** redemption, you don't even deserve the opportunity for that ****. EAD

Would you be ok torturing him if you somehow knew it would prevent several similar crimes?

Conversely, would you prefer he got life imprisonment, if you knew that that was the punishment his victims and their families would want him to receive?

How about you break down the pros and cons of torturing convicted criminals for us.

Side note, did you ever cross paths with Tony Spilotro back in the day?

Out of interest, do you consider yourself to be a liberal?

It would be good if people addressed this question.

(You know my answer is No')

walk me through the mechanics of how torturing him could possibly prevent "several similar crimes"...?

sure, why not?



you are bad at this so you probably think i am coming out in support of the death penalty and you're attempting to lead me into some grand, marvelous gotcha. i'm really not, i'm just not going to pretend to be outraged or have a moral opposition to this piece of **** being executed, should that be the sentence he receives. **** him. play with fire, get burnt- them's the breaks. zero sympathy.

this dude didn't kill someone in the heat of passion, or over a personal vendetta. there's zero dispute about whether or not he did it, and what his intentions were. he even admitted to being shocked by their generosity and kindness towards him...and then killed nearly a dozen of them anyway.

very few situations where a death penalty would be more warranted, imo. so i'm not going to cry crocodile tears for dylan ****ing roof. but you might, because you ****ing love going to bat for racists.

The victim and their families should not never be the arbiters of what the appropriate punishment is. The primary of punishment is not to console the victims or their families.

One consequence of this you see in some Middle Eastern countries is where the law allows the victim's family to be the arbiter is a situation where the victim can choose to forgive the suspect. This leads to richer suspects paying off poor victims for them to forgive them.

Absolutely.

It's also very cruel. The time not to ask us to decide on someone elses life is when we're out of my mind with grief and anger. We have to live with our decision.

Yeah it'd be pretty ****ing evil to allow me take vengence in the peak of my anger when in any normal state of mind the idea would be abhorrent to me.

i dont think sklansky was angling to make a point that victims' families should be the ultimate arbiters of punishment in these types of cases

Hey, you know who doesn't get shot by cops? White guys with a car loaded with guns who refuse to get out of the car for five minutes, ya know, guys who are now under arrest for murdering his wife and 3 month old child. Yeah, no danger there officers, make sure you treat the nice white man with respect and ask him pretty please for five minutes to get out of the car.

http://Www.dallasnews.com/news/crime...t-son-slayings

I'm generally against the death penalty but in a cut and dry case like this where the person appears to be completely in possession of their mental faculties and is a monster with no chance of redemption it seems fine; I won't be upset if they let him rot in prison either.

Largest US police union asks Amazon to pull 'offensive' Black Lives Matter shirt

What if we televised it? What if instead of lethal injection we just found two such clear cut individuals and had them fight each other to the death?

What is the primary role of punishment?

That's quite a can of worms you are opening there. We are with at least one foot in philosophical territory here.

In short and in the context of a democratic criminal justice system: Deterrence, rehabilitation, and depending on the crime the protection of the general public. In other words: make society safer.

Could you explain what your point is? Like saying it might be ok to put someone to death on occasion means we also need to bring back gladiatorial combat?

As you say. Deterence, rehabilitation and isolation. Also restoration.

It's mustn't be about about revenge and emotion should be kept as far from it as possible.

And retribution.

My point is that the reason it is wrong has little to do with whether the people deserve it or not. The reason it is wrong is because it demeans us as a society and as human beings. A fact that seems more obvious to you when put in the context of something as gauche as televised executions or gladiatorial combat....but only because those haven't been normalized to you. I'm saying that executing criminals is wrong for the same reason that executing criminals at 9/8c live on Fox is wrong.

There would have to be a very compelling societal reason to take on all the moral burden and risk of executing human beings, like inordinate costs or massive differences in deterrence or safety, and in reality the opposite is true. The pragmatic arguments against it are just icing on the cake.

Right. That's what I was getting at.

And with that in mind, it is the absolute least punishment can do at all times to achieve those goals.

Fair point, though I don't know if it would be any "better" if we threw him in solitary or just plain max and kept a camera on him at all times either. Is it so much more humane to keep someone in a box for 65 years? I don't know.