Well that's a surprise.

[MakeDigitalLove]

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.

I agree.

 

[Willie Boy]

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

No. He should get the standard injection. Do it humanely. But don't bother with burying his body, no need for it to continue taking up space...... Just burn the remains and good riddance.

But I agree with the others, he shouldn't be made to suffer as a form of punishment/repayment for the death he caused. Wont change anything except to drop us to his level..... I understand the outrage over his actions, I feel it too, but lowering ourselves to be like him only makes us like him. He's been sentenced to death, apparently the people have decided the extended expense of feeding and caring for him for the rest of his life isn't worth any potential return he could ever provide, that he will continue to be a danger to society and therefor the only protection would be to end his life. Doesn't mean we should take pleasure in seeing him abused or tortured, just that we can take solace in the hope that he wont have a chance to cause more pain and suffering.

 

[NotHardUp1]

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.

I am more cynical I think. I don't consider that it required a "perfect storm" to occur, only the lowering of standards that enabled it. Unfortunately I believe many are capable, but he had the conviction to carry it out. The rarity of the crime does support your theory though, else we would see it more often.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Re: Sarcasm

TDL;DR

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

TS; DNC

And I'm not altogether sure I didn't already fail you back then when I taught.

 

[NotHardUp1]

apparently the people have decided the extended expense of feeding and caring for him for the rest of his life isn't worth any potential return he could ever provide, that he will continue to be a danger to society and therefore the only protection would be to end his life.

Respectfully, I doubt that is the basis for a jury imposing the death penalty. The consideration is a) does the crime merit the most severe penalty the law provides, and b) is there any mitigating circumstance that argues for mercy. They seem to have answered the affirmative for the former and negative for the latter.

 

[johaninsc]

harvest his organs, and then let him die on the table...

 

[sixthson]

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

I think it's just Willie saying that.

 

[Willie Boy]

Call it a premonition.

 

[Alistair]

Oh Willie started it? I thought it sounded more like Pat. I did see a fake tweet attributed to Trump saying it was the first thing he'd do in office. But like I said it was a faked tweet

 

[72-Jay]

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

No. He should get the standard injection.

No.. the only appropriate method for the guy is: Firing Squad (even if that 'squad' was a single armed robot)
but LOL at alive when thrown into the incinerator

 

[eastofeden]

I think they should put him in a chair in a room for as long as it takes for the relatives and friends to come to him...and their children and their children..by appointment..and force him to listen to whatever the fuck they need to say to process something no one should ever have to process.

Make him listen...disable his ability to talk back..force his face forward....tie him to the chair....

...but I cannot get behind the death penalty. I cannot see what that solves. It won't bring his victims back...but forcing him to be there whenever someone needs to yell at him or curse him or forgive him....that actually serves a purpose.

...and then put him in solitary for at least a week where the only thing he will hear is their words....and see in their faces....

 

[NotHardUp1]

That presumes some sort of conscience or compassion or potential for remorse. If he's a sociopath, there's little chance he will care any more for the family's statements than he did for the victims' lives. Assuming that will be some kind of torture or torment for him seems to go against the grain of who he is. With respect, I think you are posting what would be torment for you, but that isn't relevant to this man.

As far as his execution not solving anything, that requires willful dismissal of the very premise of the law, that the removal of an individual for extreme violations is right of the society. In the case of spies, the State deems their exile to be unacceptably aiding the enemies of the State. In the case of murderers of an extreme sort, or war criminals, the State deems their lives to be forfeit as the due punishment for the same denial of citizens' rights when the murderer took the lives of citizens (or even non-citizens) of the State. The question is not what execution solves, but why is execution invoked? It is invoked when the taboos of the society are so violently broken that great harm resulted and the removal of the violator is deemed necessary as well as beneficial for the society. That may entail reducing risk of recurrence, removal from ongoing maintenance by the State, or removal from existence because the active presence even imprisoned is onerous to the People.

The standard of "doesn't solve" isn't the way the law works in other crimes either. Sending a serial rapist to prison for ten years doesn't undo the pain he caused women or make them have peace just because he is temporarily out of circulation. Imprisoning or chemically castrating a pedophile doesn't restore the psyche of the children whose lives he forever marred and mutilated. Making Ivan Boesky go to prison for years doesn't help the victims of his investment fraud who were deprived of their savings from lifetime of work.

The concept of punishment by the state for violation of taboos, whether they involve personal safety or merely personal property, is fundamental to the rule of law. It isn't there to make people restored as if the crimes had not happened -- it is there as the arbiter in many cases to make an appropriate harm befall a transgressor in order to balance the scales by removing the perpetrator's freedoms and privileges so that he may not enjoy the life or privileges that he deprived others of.

 

[sixthson]

This unrepentant murdered takes delight in what he has done and admitted to wanting to do it again. Allowing family and friends to spend all the time they wanted to say whatever they wanted would likely only feed his pleasure in knowing he had destroyed lives.
Ultimately, it would mostly likely only further the misery of the survivors seeing the uncaring, indifferent look on his face.
This man, a stranger, was welcomed into a small Bible study and when they bowed their heads to prayed, he stood up and executed them. Do you really think he would care what the family members had to say after being able to sit, cold and heartless, through an evening of the victims kind company?