Murderers deserve the death penalty, even if your a republican who murders liberals for being pro choice.
This guy should be executed for murder
Posts
Total:
77
-->
@TheUnderdog
no one deserves the death penalty no matter the crime.
Eye for an eye is immoral and inhumane.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Murderers deserve the death penalty, even if your a republican who murders liberals for being pro choice.
Perhaps what we should be focusing on is that the public deserves to be protected from murder. If we had an eye towards reducing instances of murder perhaps that would be more useful than giving murderers what you think they deserve.
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
no one deserves the death penalty no matter the crime.Eye for an eye is immoral and inhumane.
Can you please elaborate on your second point particularly. Why is it immoral. This is not for my benefit but for yours. It is always necessary to suss put ones own beliefs if one wishes to believe things for good reason.
-->
@secularmerlin
Two reasons, when two sides feel they are wronged it creates a loop; also people have different beliefs in what a heinous crime is. I believe lack of health insurance is just as heinous as murder and rape, do I have a right to go around killing people in society?
To elaborate:
1. For example, Israelis and palestinians, many Israelis (not all) believe they have a right to kill a bunch of innocents if there are terrorists around, and the palestinians believe they are being murdered by Israelis (not all) so they attack the Israelis, by eye for an eye law, this would never end.
2. Rape is wrong, if Someone got raped by eye for an eye that person would then be able to rape the other guy.
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
For example, Israelis and palestinians, many Israelis (not all) believe they have a right to kill a bunch of innocents if there are terrorists around, and the palestinians believe they are being murdered by Israelis (not all) so they attack the Israelis, by eye for an eye law, this would never end.
Do you know what really kills a lot of people in that area of the world? Drone strikes. American drone strikes. State sanctioned American drone strikes which are known ahead of time to have an expected cost in civilian life. That isn't even murder as murder must be unlawful and unless some international law supersedes American domestic policy none of our foreign policies can be considered illegal. It is not just murder I find abhorrent.
Do you know why? It is because murder isn't what you object to it is unjustifiable killing of any kind. Unjustifiable to you that is. This is different for everyone including underdog. For him execution is a justified killing. We must suss out your moral standard in order to determine exactly why you fall as you do on this issue.
Rape is wrong
I agree but why? What do rape and murder have in common that makes them bad? What is your bedrock moral axiom?
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
2. Rape is wrong, if Someone got raped by eye for an eye that person would then be able to rape the other guy.
Rapists should be sodomized with a bayonet. Give 'em the old Ghaddafi treatment.
The guy is clearly having a mental health crisis-
In that email, Alvarez allegedly identified Memorial Park, near the home, as a “ritualistic satanic ground to conduct abortions by the manner of magic” and said he was “executing and exterminating the pro-choice Jewish Satan worshippers” by going after the Kaufmanns.
“The defendant’s belief was ‘to end the Satanic activity’ near the crime scene (Memorial Park) and acted out his manifesto by killing and shooting the Kaufmanns and by mentally fabricating the connection he believed the four corner houses on Raynor and Copper to have been involved in ‘satanic activity,’ because of their relative geographic location to the park,” an EPPD officer wrote in the affidavit.
The alleged killer also referred to the couple as members of the “Jewish Satanist Party” and expressed a desire to “stop all murder of babies.”
Why don't we take the money we would waste on a death penalty and fund enough mental health interventions to prevent fifty more of these?
-->
@TheUnderdog
I can see where you're coming from with you on this because of him killing many and clearly being hellbent on further rampage.
Death penalty should be saved for severely dangerous and/or insane criminals who are quite literally beyond forgiveness and cure.
There is nothing he can really do to make up for this and there is not even one iota of sign he will reform. Regardless, I do also agree with Orogami that in general we need to improve the earlier spotting and encouragement for seeking mental healthcare in these individuals. How to go about doing that without seeming to unfairly label and stigmatise 'weirdness' will take a lot of progressive alterations in how we approach what being 'mentally deviated' is. Currently if you have cancer or let's say you broke your leg, you can tell everyone without shame but if you have severe schizophrenia or worse genuine sociopathy, you are not allowed to admit it without a lot of funny looks at you and potentially severe bullying (actually being a sociopath is so stigmatised people would say you deserved what happens to you). We've finally begun to stop the stigma attached to depression and somewhat are getting there with severe/chronic anxiety but there's more than those two. Autism is also beginning to lose its stigma, not completely though.
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Right and wrong end up being what they are agreed to be, relative to a collective social decision.
Nonetheless, every notional "Crime" is still the real necessity of the notional criminal.
Perhaps we are not yet "Woke" to the rapists predicament..
Life punishment is better. More suffering than death, and reversible.
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
If you oppose the death penalty, then your fine with murderers living off of taxpayers for their life. If we are going to place limits on welfare use to people that don't commit murder, we shouldn't pay a single penny to keep a murderer alive.
-->
@secularmerlin
There is little evidence that confirms that the death penalty reduces or increases the homicide rate.
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is little evidence that confirms that the death penalty reduces or increases the homicide rate.
Then it is an ineffective measure and should be discontinued.
-->
@oromagi
Why don't we take the money we would waste on a death penalty and fund enough mental health interventions to prevent fifty more of these?
It won't be enough. Excluding the court case (which will happen regardless of punishment for this guy), the death penalty needs nothing more than a bullet, a reusuable gun, and a reusuable sharp shooter. This is much cheaper than spending thousands of dollars to implement mental health situations to prevent even one homicide. What you are proposing is more expensive than a simple firing squad.
-->
@secularmerlin
I support the death penalty for 2 reasons:
1) I believe there are times when eye for an eye is acceptable.
2) I don't want to spend a mere penny to help a murderer out, and I don't want to force taxpayers to pay the bill for keeping a parasitic murderer alive.
The fact that the death penalty has no indication on the homicide rate is an argument neither for or against the death penalty.
@RM
I think this radical right winger was going to murder people irrespective of his mental health. Some people deserve death.
I would say the same thing if a left winger murdered a right winger.
-->
@secularmerlin
Then it is an ineffective measure and should be discontinued.
Whether or not it decreases the homicide rate isn't the only thing that matters.
For instance, it makes defendants more willing to plead guilty to get that off the table.
Heck, it can just be for the principle. For instance, they've done something so terrible that we as a society say they need to be removed permanently.
-->
@TheUnderdog
1) I believe there are times when eye for an eye is acceptable.
That is revenge not justice and in truth I am disinterested in justice. My primary goal is protecting the public and I think you should sacrifice your personal conception of justice to do that.
2) I don't want to spend a mere penny to help a murderer out, and I don't want to force taxpayers to pay the bill for keeping a parasitic murderer alive.
Then you should vehemently oppose the death penalty as an execution tends to cost more that the price tag of life long incarceration. If the goal is saving tax payer dollars then life sentences are more cost effective.
-->
@bmdrocks21
For instance, it makes defendants more willing to plead guilty to get that off the table.
Most convictions are a matter of a guilty plea suggested by a public defender who has little or no time to prepare for your case. How many of these coerced "cooperate or it will be ten times worse" convictions are genuine is up for debate.
Pleading guilty =/= guilty.
-->
@secularmerlin
I know that not all guilty pleas are valid. I’m simply stating that there is more nuance than you suggested.
You said that the death penalty is not effective because it didn’t lower homicide rates and should thus be gotten rid of. I am saying that measuring based on the homicide rate is too narrow in scope because the policy has wide-reaching effects.
-->
@bmdrocks21
You said that the death penalty is not effective because it didn’t lower homicide rates and should thus be gotten rid of. I am saying that measuring based on the homicide rate is too narrow in scope because the policy has wide-reaching effects.
Ok I'm listening. What nuance would you like to add? What wide reaching effects are being overlooked here? Let's have a look at them.
-->
@secularmerlin
@TheUnderdog
Do you know what really kills a lot of people in that area of the world? Drone strikes. American drone strikes. State sanctioned American drone strikes which are known ahead of time to have an expected cost in civilian life. That isn't even murder as murder must be unlawful and unless some international law supersedes American domestic policy none of our foreign policies can be considered illegal. It is not just murder I find abhorrent.
I agree.
2) I don't want to spend a mere penny to help a murderer out, and I don't want to force taxpayers to pay the bill for keeping a parasitic murderer alive.
Death sentences cost way more; a better way could be to replace american style prisons and replace them with scandinavian style prisons (i.e norwegian)
Death sentences are also retarded because if say 3 years later we find out the person was innocent they're already dead.
I agree but why? What do rape and murder have in common that makes them bad? What is your bedrock moral axiom?
Hundreds of reasons
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Death sentences cost way more; a better way could be to replace american style prisons and replace them with scandinavian style prisons (i.e norwegian)Death sentences are also retarded because if say 3 years later we find out the person was innocent they're already dead.
Scadinavia still spends a lot of money on murderers. A better solution is if convicted guilty of murder, you get executed within 1 hour. We will make mistakes, but the money saved is a trade off to killing innocents.
-->
@secularmerlin
Then you should vehemently oppose the death penalty as an execution tends to cost more that the price tag of life long incarceration. If the goal is saving tax payer dollars then life sentences are more cost effective.
How? Life in jail means taxpayers are spending millions of dollars on keeping murderers alive.
I don't know how people can think death by firing squad is expensive compared to free shit to murderers for their whole lives as a "punishment" for murdering. People say it's due to multiple court cases, which is why if you are found guilty of murder, no more court cases; death penalty within an hour by firing squad by sharpshooters from Texas(because Texans know how to shoot).
-->
@TheUnderdog
You're a fucking monster dude.
"executed within 1 hour"
Do you have ANY moral standard whatsoever?
" but the money saved is a trade off to killing innocents."
Do really only care about the money saved?
Why do you think crime rates are so low in norway by the way?
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
You're a fucking monster dude."executed within 1 hour"Do you have ANY moral standard whatsoever?
I don't want to keep guilty murderers alive for decades. I'd rather execute the within 1 hour after their conviction.
" but the money saved is a trade off to killing innocents."Do really only care about the money saved?
Most people's priorities are the following:
1) Their kid's lives.
2) Their own lives.
3) Saving $1/day
4) Stranger kids in Africa
5) Strangers that are murder convicts
Meaning, if they had to pick between saving their kid's life and theirs, they would pick their kid's life, if they had to pick between saving their life and saving $1/day, they would save their life, and if they had to pick between saving $1/day and saving a stranger kid in Africa, they would pick saving the $1/day (otherwise you would see way more people sponsoring kids in Africa).
If society isn't willing to sacrifice a mere $1/day to save a child in Africa that never committed murder, why should taxpayers be forced to spend $20/day on keeping an adult alive that probably committed murder?
Since most people (including myself) care more about saving $1/day than saving a kid in Africa (who everybody knows committed no murder), I have to be consistent. I would rather taxpayers save $20/day than keeping a murder convict alive.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Under our system execution is more expensive than keeping a prisoner incarcerated for life. I don't know what to tell you. If you really only care about the bottom line sparing the life is more cost effective right now.
-->
@secularmerlin
Under our system execution is more expensive than keeping a prisoner incarcerated for life.
How? Life in jail costs millions of dollars. A death sentence costs $20 or so to hire the travelling executioner who travels from jail to jail executing their murderers if firing squad is the chosen method of punishment.
-->
@TheUnderdog
That is not the current reality. We spend millions of dollars on executions once court costs and appeals are taken into account not twenty.