Well that's a surprise.

[Alistair]

Let him die, and let his blood be upon us. It is a just verdict.

The victims families may never know the peace they knew before the massacre, but they deserve to have him removed from the earth. his presence is odious and his death won't be a perpetual injustice that he lived when his victims lost their chance to live.

Unfortunately, his acting as his own counsel might be enough to get the case appealed. Argh.

Why should his blood be upon us? You live by the sword you die by the sword. His blood is upon his own hands.

 

[Willie Boy]

Unfortunately, his acting as his own counsel might be enough to get the case appealed. Argh.

Why? It was by his own choice. And there was counsel standing by if he wanted to consult with them. The accused are entitled to have counsel represent them, there is nothing that says they are required to accept it. There's nothing that says he's mentally incompetent, in fact he's been insisting he's completely sane. He got a fair trial, there's no cause for appeal. His only chance is if he can hold off his execution until Trump pardons him.

 

[pat grimshaw]

This person needs to be castrated right now.

And this person's family needs to be castrated right now.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

It isn't that I think he shouldn't be punished, but dang ... he's so young. How'd he get so bitter, so mean, so broken, so evil, so uncaring, so unloved, so heartless ... at such a young age?

Do we blame his environment? His parents? His teachers? His peers? His church? His choice of music/television? Videogames? Diet? Drugs?

Look at his face. In his eyes. He's empty. There's no soul in there. I wonder if there ever was.

 

[Willie Boy]

Sometimes there's nobody to blame but the individual. Some people just choose to be the monsters they become.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Why should his blood be upon us? You live by the sword you die by the sword. His blood is upon his own hands.

It is an ancient phrase. We, the People, request his blood in payment of his deed, and it will be exacted from him by the arm of the State, in essence, us. My statement was that the People have spoken and the People collectively accept the judgment meted out.

Why? It was by his own choice. And there was counsel standing by if he wanted to consult with them. The accused are entitled to have counsel represent them, there is nothing that says they are required to accept it. There's nothing that says he's mentally incompetent, in fact he's been insisting he's completely sane. He got a fair trial, there's no cause for appeal. His only chance is if he can hold off his execution until Trump pardons him.

Murderer after murderer after murderer nonetheless get the sentences overturned on appeal. Regardless of how logically you argue, appeal courts make different calls than laymen. Under an ACLU or similar appeal, his incompetence in representing himself opens the door for possible sentence reversal.

(The reference to Trump doesn't merit rebuttal as it is mere invective, not based in any likely scenario based on evidence having to do with this case. I can't stand Mr. Trump, but that doesn't mean anything and everything said about his coming term is valid.)

It isn't that I think he shouldn't be punished, but dang ... he's so young. How'd he get so bitter, so mean, so broken, so evil, so uncaring, so unloved, so heartless ... at such a young age?

Do we blame his environment? His parents? His teachers? His peers? His church? His choice of music/television? Videogames? Diet? Drugs?

Look at his face. In his eyes. He's empty. There's no soul in there. I wonder if there ever was.

At some point, that line of questioning is moot in reference to the severity of his sentence. There has been a long evolution of the legal status of a criminal that has led to the current standard of culpability. The basics are what are required to verify the age of accountability has been reached. He met those standards and appears to perceive reality and right and wrong accurately, meaning he knew then and knows now the consequences of taking human life, the cost to others and the likely cost to himself, cost meaning harm.

The whole logic of absolute opposition to the death penalty baffles me. There are several lines of argument that do not make sense as I hear them. A few that I can recall:

1. "The death penalty is barbaric." That word can either means savage and cruel, or alternately, primitive and unsophisticated. If we assume the former, then cruelty implies causing pain or suffering to others, usually without concern or feeling. Assuming execution is cruel, it doesn't follow that the alternative, life in prison, is somehow less cruel. In fact, many people advocate for it on these forums by arguing that it is more cruel to subject the murderer to a bleak prison life for a long time, including rape and gang violence.

If we use the latter definition, then the argument seems to be more about who we are, our self-image, than about the criminal code. The shift in justice would seem to be more about telling ourselves that we are better than that rather than actually being a better people with a low incidence of murder. It also fails to address the aspect of justice that is fairness. Is it fair that a citizen, or five, or 3100 lose their lives due to the intentional actions of another person, and then be told that their loss is irreparable, that a payment in kind cannot be made by the killer.

The question of whether the person's family can ever be made whole isn't the question, btw. One can obliterate a great work of art and the owner cannot ever have it returned to him, but the cost (estimated by some authority) can be repaid in lieu. The life of the murderer is a similar repayment, regardless of its inability to restore the art.

2. "The modes of execution are barbaric and cruel." Whether guillotine, injection, gassing, shock, rope, or firing squad, they all involve pain, whether mental or physical, and all are subject to some degree of bungling. But, even when bungled, they only last minutes in the vast majority of cases. If the mishaps with injection or shock impugn them because extreme cases may last longer than a few minutes, return to guillotine and firing squads if instant death is relevant over three mins. or an hour. The murderer by definition is subject to mental anguish if he can feel, but that is simply a necessary consequence of his actions.

If a teenager breaks curfew and is grounded for three weeks, a lot of anguish follows, but due anguish. If a killer takes a life, he sets in motion an inevitable amount of his own suffering. Arguing that it cannot include his own death is an arbitrary evaluation. Even arguing that he should be asleep and unaware of his moment of death is also arbitrary; his victims most often were afforded no such mercy, and the presumption that greater mercy is due him because the State is the actor is arbitrary. The State takes life, innocent civilian life, every day in war. So, the argument that the State cannot take life because it is cruel is an indefensible argument unless war can be eliminated, bar no people have been able to attain.

3. "The death penalty is carried out unequally with the poor and minorities disproportionately executed." That is undeniably true, albeit maybe not to the degree alleged, or to the subsidiary argument that a poor or minority person is somehow less accountable for murder. It also doesn't address at all the issue of the actual crime and its incidence. The fact is, the murder rate is much higher among the poor and certain minority populations.

The punishment argument should be turned on its head. White and wealthy people should be barred by law and process from manipulating the system and not paying for their crimes. Equal injustice is not the same as equal justice. Murder should require forfeit of life, by the rich or poor, white or other.

4. "The wrong man has been convicted at times, making the whole question of execution invalid." Whether the argument is proffered in the context of #3 above or other, it is not supportable when extended. First, the incidence of wrongful conviction is not reliably or independently calculated anywhere. It is posited as an abstract absolute, meaning if even one or two incidences are found out of hundreds of thousands, they are unacceptable. That falls flat when considering the alternative, that the same convicted man will live out decades of his life in the horror that is prison without being freed, or without being freed soon. He was convicted. Assuming it will somehow magically be overturned and he will be exonerated is idealistic. Finding out someone was wrongfully convicted after he lived out his whole life in prison isn't any more acceptable, but it doesn't follow that life sentences are going to be done away with. And, if one does, argue for a 20-year equivalent, is that justice? Is that all one owes if one takes the entirety of another life?

5. "Who are we to judge?" This often accompanies a quote from the Writ, "Judge not lest ye be judged." But the precept is not the basis for law or justice. We do judge as a people and as a government, and that judgment doesn't run up to the death penalty and suddenly stop there. If the quote is put in context, an adulteress was being stoned to death when the Christ intervened. He stopped a mob from lynching a woman but letting the man go free, a moral inconsistency. He also correctly assessed that the crime of adultery was one that painted too many with guilt to be treating it as a capital offense. As such, he abjured them to look inside rather than hypocritically punish the one at hand. This logic falls apart if employed against the death penalty. The jury and courts are not guilty of murder and therefore unable to judge. The guilt of a murderer is also not dismissable as a splinter in the eye of the guilty.

As a footnote, the adulteress was sent away with a direction from the Christ to sin no more. That would also be unacceptable for a resolution to murder.

6. "Poverty is an environment that makes crime the norm, and therefore murderers are not fully accountable because they are essentially victims of bad upbringing." This is true but only to a degree. Being raised in poverty, or an an oppressed people, does affect one's views, values, and actions, but it doesn't follow that one is unable to still make rational decisions that avoid murder. That is a key point that is argued but not proven. Is life harder? Absolutely? Is it acceptable, or even less unacceptable to murder as a consequence? No.

7. "The goal of incarceration is rehabilitation. Execution is merely punishment, or a form of vengeance." This argument attempts to redefine the justice system itself, to reduce its mandate to making everyone better. That has not been the definition of justice for the length of mankind's history. Prisons made "good" people bad, and bad people worse. It's not 100% or a law of science, but it's true. Various models have been tried but the problem remains.

It is also not agreed that the role of justice is void of punishment as punishment. The argument is made that the punishment has to have effect as a deterrent to be valid. No, that is not a prerequisite. The punishment must be appropriate to the severity of the crime. That is the requirement, not that it must affect onlookers so as to make social reform and reduce the rate of crime.

Vengeance has taken on a connotative meaning because it is most often invoked to refer to unofficial or perhaps vigilante justice. When the State exacts penalty, it is indeed vengeance as the definition doesn't address whether the penalty is due or undue, proportionate or not, valid or not. The State's punishment is defined as valid because it is the law.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Why should his blood be upon us? ...

Some bloods adds a little drama to our grand, self-regarding speech demonstrating our superior virtue and our superior morality.

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:

‘T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,

Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;

And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us

Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence ‘gainst the merchant there.

 

[peeonme]

It isn't that I think he shouldn't be punished, but dang ... he's so young. How'd he get so bitter, so mean, so broken, so evil, so uncaring, so unloved, so heartless ... at such a young age?

Do we blame his environment? His parents? His teachers? His peers? His church? His choice of music/television? Videogames? Diet? Drugs?

Look at his face. In his eyes. He's empty. There's no soul in there. I wonder if there ever was.

These questions should always be asked. If for no other reason than to keep others from going down the same path.

 

[NotHardUp1]

These questions should always be asked. If for no other reason than to keep others from going down the same path.

Yes, asked, certainly, but not in context of sentencing. We ask them because we are a society, and because we ultimately own our society and its values and conditions. And if we find an area to change, or to lobby for change, we do.

But, in Borg's post, you readily see a lot of intangibles, not objective criteria. The murderer is described as soul-less, and empty, whereas many would look at the same photo and describe the look as defeated, bitter, resolute, and angry, none of which are alien to adolescence, much less adolescence gone wrong. Life is a series of decisions, actions, choices, reactions, and patterns. As this young man entered adulthood, he had progressed to a terrible point that led to this crime.

As for determining causation, that is also highly subjective due to the complexity of the human psyche. It's not as easy as doing a biopsy of the brain and finding aluminum present. Many factors combine to make the mind what it is.

I have to confess that I think human cruelty and inhumanity is a lot less rare and surprising than some would argue. I saw it as a child when tormented by classmates who behaved differently as a crowd than as individuals. I saw it repeatedly in classroom dynamics when teaching if there was malice in the class as a whole. Lord of the Flies captured a lot of what is present in every group, and at a young age. It is a common meme in satire as seen in many series like The Simpsons, Southpark, etc.

Not to wax religious, but virtue is a choice, not a default setting. We have a bent to savagery and only through indoctrination (successfully) by our family and society are we turned from it.

That is not to say there are no biological causes for violence, but they are just a fraction of the total.

 

[eastofeden]

It looks and feels to me like he is possessed by something......I see that same look in a lot of terrorists.....

 

[NotHardUp1]

Whether the Jewish concept of possession is invoked, or a psychological one, it is likely true. If the former, his crimes remain heinous and by his hand. If the latter, the racial hatred possessed him until he acted in horrible and unforgivable (legally) acts. Mercy is not appropriate in all cases. Judges use it with discretion.

 

[peeonme]

Yes, asked, certainly, but not in context of sentencing. We ask them because we are a society, and because we ultimately own our society and its values and conditions. And if we find an area to change, or to lobby for change, we do.

But, in Borg's post, you readily see a lot of intangibles, not objective criteria. The murderer is described as soul-less, and empty, whereas many would look at the same photo and describe the look as defeated, bitter, resolute, and angry, none of which are alien to adolescence, much less adolescence gone wrong. Life is a series of decisions, actions, choices, reactions, and patterns. As this young man entered adulthood, he had progressed to a terrible point that led to this crime.

As for determining causation, that is also highly subjective due to the complexity of the human psyche. It's not as easy as doing a biopsy of the brain and finding aluminum present. Many factors combine to make the mind what it is.

I have to confess that I think human cruelty and inhumanity is a lot less rare and surprising than some would argue. I saw it as a child when tormented by classmates who behaved differently as a crowd than as individuals. I saw it repeatedly in classroom dynamics when teaching if there was malice in the class as a whole. Lord of the Flies captured a lot of what is present in every group, and at a young age. It is a common meme in satire as seen in many series like The Simpsons, Southpark, etc.

Not to wax religious, but virtue is a choice, not a default setting. We have a bent to savagery and only through indoctrination (successfully) by our family and society are we turned from it.

That is not to say there are no biological causes for violence, but they are just a fraction of the total.

My thought on causation is that the perfect storm took place. A person was born with a personality or psyche that would make him predisposed to be subject or vulnerable to the thoughts of anger and hate.
Some people from birth are negative and selfish.
Then a series of events take place to feed this person. A negative home life, maybe he lost a fight on the play ground to a black boy when he was 10 and never got over it.
He lives in a racist society that feeds his hatred.
Another person with a more positive personality from birth might have sought to reconcile himself to the black community.
Had this killer been raised in a better environment he might have only been a garden variety racist.

I think that when all of the negative forces of nature and nurture meet we see killers.

 

[sixthson]

There is no way this sentence would be overturned unless we want an all out race way in this country. He hated them because they were black and he is unrepentant, even saying he would do it again. The sentence must be carried out.

I'm curious why we have not heard more about his home life and background, not as an excuse but just maybe to understand some things about him. He's 20 f'ing years old...nobody ever noticed anything about him?

 

[Alistair]

Sarcasm

It.......law

TDL;DR

Thank God, I never had a teacher like you in school

 

[borg69unimatrix]

There is no way this sentence would be overturned unless we want an all out race way in this country. He hated them because they were black and he is unrepentant, even saying he would do it again. The sentence must be carried out.

I'm curious why we have not heard more about his home life and background, not as an excuse but just maybe to understand some things about him. He's 20 f'ing years old...nobody ever noticed anything about him?

I googled images of his name and mostly saw pictures of him waving a confederate flag and burning the American flag. I considered posting pictures, but couldn't tell his age.

 

[Willie Boy]

Murderer after murderer after murderer nonetheless get the sentences overturned on appeal. Regardless of how logically you argue, appeal courts make different calls than laymen. Under an ACLU or similar appeal, his incompetence in representing himself opens the door for possible sentence reversal.

Except the judge had actual representation there, sitting in the first seat, likely to prevent just this possible thing. The fool seemed capable enough to defend himself/assist in his own defense, he simply chose as his defense the opinion that his desire to commit the murders was a valid enough reason for him to follow through...... That isn't incompetence, merely blatant disregard for human life.

The reference to Trump doesn't merit rebuttal as it is mere invective, not based in any likely scenario based on evidence having to do with this case. I can't stand Mr. Trump, but that doesn't mean anything and everything said about his coming term is valid.[/QUOTE]
The evidence of Trump's racist behaviors throughout his campaign, as well as the aftermath of his having won the election has quite a bit to do with this case. From everything we have seen and heard from Trump there is more than a 75% likelihood he actually will issue a full pardon if Roof has not already been executed. As that is only 8 days away the chance is quite high that this guy will walk free, at least for a short time. Of course someone will correct that with a bullet to the head. Riots will ensue and Trump will, for his second official act in office, declare martial law......... This right here should be enough to give every sentient being on this planet pause.

There is no way this sentence would be overturned unless we want an all out race way in this country. He hated them because they were black and he is unrepentant, even saying he would do it again. The sentence must be carried out.

Do you really believe Trump cares? Far as he's concerned he could point to the riots and claim he was right and all them non-whites just need to be rounded up and slaughtered like so much cattle.

I'm curious why we have not heard more about his home life and background, not as an excuse but just maybe to understand some things about him. He's 20 f'ing years old...nobody ever noticed anything about him?

Maybe there just wasn't anything to notice. It isn't like there's any issue of mental illness in this case. He just murdered people, please pass the butter..... That's all it meant to him. He isn't crazy, he just doesn't care. He didn't when he was killing them and he still doesn't.

 

[Alistair]

Where is everyone getting the idea that Trump will pardon Roof?

 

[luckynumbah7]

Where is everyone getting the idea that Trump will pardon Roof?

It might have something to do with Trump's dictator like qualities and wish for unlimited rule with what seems like an astronomical hatred checks and balances as evidenced by his decisions so far.

 

[Vitamin]

Nah, just dump his body in an incinerator, don't even bother trying to collect the ashes. Just let it be gone and done with.

I'd agree with you here, but I think he should be alive before being thrown into the incinerator.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I'd agree with you here, but I think he should be alive before being thrown into the incinerator.

I actually believe a quick and painlessly-as-possible death is a good part of an ethical mindset. Torture brings no one back and I haven't seen that it gives closure. I'd say shoot him point blank, but that's just me.