(phew, just fit the subject in, with a minor offence in punctuation)
I’ve heard a few ppl say that they wouldn’t put the sniper to death, even though they wouldn’t put him to death for one reason or another.
I am against the death penalty in almost every case except for extreme ones, and this one I would consider extreme due to the terrorizing of the general public.
Anyone here who isn’t totally against the death penalty against the death penalty for the sniper?
Nah, part of me thinks it’d be nice to see him rot in jail for the remainder of his life, but I’d rather we just kill him and get rid of him. He has no place on this earth, and he lost the right to his own life when he chose to take that right from others.
I can play devils advocate for you. I am indifferent to the death penalty & abortion. Being an indifferent fence sitter so i can take either side pretty well.
The death penalty, along with torture, has been the most often used method of governments to control their populations. What would the USSR have been without a death penalty? just a short lived government that was overthrown by the populus for destroying their lives & terrorizing them.
One of the reasons there is a national movement to ban the death penalty is because government shouldn’t determine life and death. They should serve the interests of the people who have to live with it.
The age of government being able to end lives is over. We are entering an age of democracy (true democracy). in such an age, government control must be limited. To set back such development over an issue as limited as a spree killer will not be a good idea in the long run. It will satiate people in the short run, but will return government to the role of owner & controller of citizens, instead of a tool of citizens.
I’ll get flamed, but what the hell. If you’r going to flame, at least disprove the arguments or dismante this position.
I don’t think he should necessarily be killed. I think he should be stopped from killing people. That might require killing him. But it might not: especially after he’s already in custody.
Aw, this guy’s going to go out in what he thinks is a blaze of glory. Car crash, or suicide by cop. It’ll be a moot question.
I’m against the DP so I can’t contribute anything else; but JMO on what’s going to happen. This guy(s), however, is what I’ve heard call “a poster boy for the Death Penalty”.
Nope. DP won’t do a thing, and just might be what he’s looking for. Let him fade away in obscurity.
A minor point:
Rationalist supporters of the death penalty (whom I believe are the overwhelming majority) recognize that the appropriateness of the death penalty is dependent upon the facts of the situation. Quite obviously, we don’t know all the facts here - including who the sniper is.
So the question is premature, and anyone who has formed an opinion is, by definition, prejudging.
Sua
Precisely so, Sua. In fact, I don’t know whether this guy has even committed a crime making him eligible for the death penalty under MD or VA law.
Still trying to parse the thread title…<mumble>…isn’t…against…shouldn’t…
Does anyone who is in favour of the death penalty think the sniper should be allowed to live… is that it?
My visceral, reptilian-brain reaction: The flesh should be flayed from his bones with abalone shovels & he should be dipped in lemon juice.
Irrational, right-brain reaction: Let the little boy who was shot & subsequently lost several vital organs use him for target practice with the very same gun. See how many limb-shots it takes before he loses consciousness. Revive him and start over again.
Rational, left-brain reaction: Lock him up & throw away the key.
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Nothing personal Minty…
…but this quote sums up everything that is wrong with our legal system.
The guy shoots 11 people, kills 9 of them and people need to go read a book to see if the death penalty applies. Laws should be written down and exact, but they should be intuitive.
If a state has the death penalty, then the equation should be simple:
Kill someone in cold blood = Death Penalty
My personal opinion of course.
But that’s the problem Sua and minty raise, IndependentVoter. I wouldn’t expect any serious advocate of the death penalty (I’m not one BTW) to opine on this until we know who this person is. We don’t know whether this person has “killed someone in cold blood” yet.
Nothing personal Independent Voter…
…but that’s not the law anywhere in America. And I don’t even have to go read it in a book to see that capital murder doesn’t work like that.
Well, for one thing, you’re ignoring the possibility of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, just to name one of many possible defense strategies. Moreover, the crimes have been committed in three different jurisdictions (MD,DC, VA), each of which has different standards of guilt and different penalties for murder.
Right now, without any facts in the case, it would be foolsih to speculate on guilt or punishment.
My opinion-no death penalty. When they catch the sniper, assuming he isn’t killed while aiming at another victim, he should spend the rest of his life in a small cell wallpapered floor to ceiling with the photos and bio’s of the people he killed, with no chance of parole.
Here’s an idea I had recently with regard to the death penalty vs. life sentences. Assume a serial killer is convicted. Rather than a death penalty, give the person a life sentence with no parole. Let him know that
he has an option which could make his sentence easier. He can agree to undergo psychological and/or psychiatric treatment to determine the root cause of his actions. This could include being placed on medicine or other therapies. If he cooperates it will be noted in his records for later consideration, though not giving him a chance at parole.
This would all be voluntary, but it could help with the understanding of what causes that sort of behavior.
Let’s just take this to the worst-case scenario, as far as death-penalty proponents are concerned:
The sniper turns out to be a mentally-ill 13 year-old Christian white girl with bouncy blonde curly hair.
It’s easier to advocate the death penalty when the criminal you have in mind is a man, but on the off chance the sniper doesn’t fit so nicely into the “strap 'im down!” mold, then what? If you’re not even-handed in the death penalty’s application, what good is it?
Personally, I’d say hang the bastard/bitch regardless of circumstance, but while I’m emotionally pro-death penalty, the legal hassles that accompany it stop me from wishing its return to Canada.
Death Penalty is something that I wouldn’t give to anyone.
It’s like if we are still in the medieval times or, not going too far away, the 1800’s. It’s a barbarian attitude, and the government has no right to tell you when you will end your life, that’s God’s job.
Of course a complete discussion of the applicability of the death penalty to the sniper would have to wait until all the facts are available, but dismissing this thread that quickly is selling it short. Maybe the OP could have worded the debate better, but we’ve already had a Virginia prosecutor come out and say he would seek the death penalty, so you may be jumping the gun yourself here. Of course it is prejudging, in the sense that all the facts have yet to be determined, but that shouldn’t stop a discussion of the topic.
I am not even close to an expert in VA law, but the prosecutor has indicated that they would seek the death penalty under a new law that they enacted after Sept. 11 that allows the death penalty in cases that terrorize the general public. Seems to me, that law fits this fact situation. I know even less about Maryland law, but I’m pretty sure they allow the death penalty in cases where there are more than one victim in the “same incident”. Although all facts indicate this is a spree killer, it may be difficult to fit these facts under that section to allow for the imposition of the death penalty. Plus, IIRC, Maryland has a moritorium on the imposition of the death penalty. That doesn’t mean the killer couldn’t be sentenced, just that it wouldn’t happen.
I’m sure you have a cite all set for this and the other spurious allegations in your post. Stalin was able to seize and retain power because he had no qualms about killing all his enemies, but even he didn’t hide behind a death penalty enacted and sought under due process.
Other thoughts:
gobear, as I said to Sua, sure it is a bit premature, but there are enough facts for rational people to form a reasoned opinion on the issue. Sure much of it is speculation, but I think the OP’s unspoken assumption was that we caught the right person whose been doing these things. Hell, maybe it’s two people, or maybe it’s Bryan’s ridiculous example, but the OP was asking whether there are any reasons to not inflict the death penalty on the sniper (again assuming that the person was caught). Your response may have been better phrased as “Well, I wouldn’t want the death penalty if the sniper was insane, or mentally challenged.”