Dylann Roof found guilty - rot in hell

The BBQ Pit
61

Well, you’ve certainly convinced me; from this day forth, I’ll instead advocate that we should lock guys like him away for the rest of their lives! That way, if folks consider me a problem to be dealt with, they’ll – er, lock me away for the rest of my life.

Huh. But I don’t wanna be locked in a cage for the rest of my life! I don’t wanna!

Okay, so we’ll just fine him, I guess. Except – well, I don’t wanna be fined!

I want to just keep doing as I please, as a free man with money in my pocket! So if I take your logic all the way down, well then, I haveta give that to Roof – because, after all, I don’t wanna be treated like a murderer – so I can’t treat a murderer like he’s a murderer; that’s just crazy talk! Why, you may as well ask me to lock up a kidnapper! You may as well ask me to fine a thief!

Or – and hear me out on this – your thoughts on the matter make no damn sense? Maybe we can execute a murderer, or lock up a kidnapper, or fine a thief, without fretting about how we sure wouldn’t wanna get our possessions taken away by folks who’d cage us for the rest of our lives or simply kill us?

Maybe the innocent are – in some small and subtle but substantial way – different from the guilty? Maybe good people can push for sensible solutions without worrying that evil people – who need no excuse – will suddenly have an excuse?

Maybe we can take stuff from thieves, and lock up kidnappers, and kill murderers?

Maybe, when those you mentioned went on trial for genocide, we executed them?

Maybe it’s a little thing called civ-il-i-za-tion? Maybe it’s been known to work?

Maybe you should look into it, instead of blaming the victim?

62

No idea what you’re babbling about as I care absolutely zero about the feelings of the criminal. I am concerned with the lesson that the solution to a problem you don’t like is death. It’s not only unnecessary, inefficient and cruel, it sends a message that killing is an acceptable solution to problems. Logical? Nope but no one has ever accused murderers of being logical, they are driven by their emotions ( mostly. Some do kill simply for greed and these people really do scare me ).

When asked why he killed those folks he said "Well. I had to do it because somebody had to do something. " He added that “black people are killing white people everyday… What I did is so minuscule compared to what they do to white people every day.”

The solution for the perceived crimes of killing are killing. Gee, where do you think he got that idea? Our government uses the exact same solution for their perceived crimes of killing. It’s the same damned thing. I find it telling that in states that do not choose to solve their problems by killing the murder rates are lower. It seems that the citizens also are less likely to solve their problems the same way.

Now citizens in the death zone have every right to have the laws that they feel comfortable with but I feel that they’re just making it harder on themselves and for what? In this case the victims families don’t seem to want it. It won’t help them in any way. All it will do is please those who are recreationally outraged by his actions ( actually more likely fearful folks who think “you know, somebody has got to do something” ) and reinforce to the emotionally and mentally unstable that this is how society fixes their problems and you know what? In their states they are dead right.

I remember reading the Executioner Song by Norman Mailer where he noted that most murderers ( including Gilmore ) approved of capital punishment. That’s when I started realizing the implecations of that. Yes, they knew that what they did deserved death but that they were williing to deliver this fate onto people that bothered them. They fully accept that this is the way it is. The death penalty isn’t a deterrant to them. It’s how issues get solved and they’ll take their chances and if they lose, they lose. They’ve accepted the logic of the system.

That’s a learned thing. it’s what society teaches them the way to solve problems

63

I realize that what you are implying that if we choose to lock up murderers then they will start locking up their victims instead of killing them. Any cites on this happening? Several states have gone to the solution that I have suggested and their murder rates are lowered. Can you prove to me that they have a substantially higher rate of criminals locking up their victims in lieu of killing them? Surely, if your point has value there must have been. We’re not discussing a hypothetical here. We have data to look at.

I’ll recant if you prove it but I’m calling bullshit on that argument.

64

No idea, huh? Well, maybe you’re not all that bright. I’ll simplify it for ya!

You say we shouldn’t execute murderers, because it sends a message that killing is acceptable. But – by the same reasoning – we shouldn’t lock up kidnappers, because that would send the message that locking people up is acceptable. I mean, here we are, abducting people from their homes and confining them against their will; how dare we! It’s no wonder that criminals do likewise!

By your logic, we shouldn’t fine an armed robber; after all, that’d send the message that it’s acceptable to take stuff from someone by threatening the use of force! Gee, where do you think robbers get the idea?

Your approach is equal parts insane and idiotic – because of what ensues if we ask the same what-message-does-this-send question in significantly similar contexts. The moral magic of consistency would bar us from taking all sorts of sensible actions.

Our government will abduct a criminal from his home and confine him if he – abducts an innocent from his home and confines him. Our government will threaten a criminal with armed men if he doesn’t – pay the fines he’d incurred when robbing an innocent, all ‘threat’ this and ‘armed’ that. Our government will execute a murderer, likewise; and yet, somehow, we soldier on as a civilization: patiently explaining that, no, see, a relevant factor is whether you’re solving problems by working within the law; that being guilty of a crime is bad, and law-abiding citizens who react accordingly are good – which is why we as a society pay the latter to solve problems like the former.

65

Emphasis added. Can you quote the parts of the NT that you are thinking about wrt feeding the poor?

As for DR, I’m against the death penalty. Full Stop. And I don’t believe in hell. I’ll be satisfied with him being locked up as punishment for his crimes, and to remove him from society as he has proven himself a danger to his fellow man.

66

But that’s not my argument.

I’m claiming that your argument – that one can’t push X as a solution and not expect it to be returned in kind – leads inexorably to that conclusion. I’m claiming that your argument – “If what he did was wrong how can perpetuating the same action against him be right? Do they really believe two wrongs make a right?” – would apply, in equal force, regardless of any change in rate.

Answer your own questions, with regard to robbers and kidnappers: if what they did was wrong, how can perpetuating the same action against them be right? Do you really believe two wrongs make a right? Can we push those solutions and not expect them to be returned in kind?

67

The saddest part to me is how he sat down and observed these people for a bit and then went through with it anyway, they may have felt him a little odd but they seemed to invite him to join in their worship anyhow. Maybe if this stupid kid had just sat there another ten minutes and really thought about what he was about to do, how these were real people with real lives that mattered to their loved ones, not monsters he imagined in his gloomy fantasy, maybe something, maybe some humanity, some positive light would have pierced his cold heart and things would have turned out different and those people would be alive, and we wouldn’t even know his name and maybe he’d have a life worth living too. I guess no one could ever say for sure, but it makes you think for a minute maybe things could have turned out different.

68

So, let me get this right. I have empirical data that I contend supports my contention but in any case is actually occurring right in this country and you’d rather bring up some hypothetical argument over the logic of the argument that I present?

I’ll answer your question. Incarceration is an acceptable societal punishment that pretty much is universally accepted. Prisoners generally say that they don’t belong in jail because they claim that they are innocent not that jails are no fun or an unfair punishment. They get and accept this punishment. It’s what we use as a punishment for EVERY other felony. This is an ecceptable conflict resolution. The dividing line is how long you have to do.

Wouldn’t you expect the murder rate to be higher where capital punishment isn’t? I would. The fact that it isn’t is the issue and it would seem to me that why would be important information to have. I’d prefer all states work to lower their murder rate if prectical. It’s quite possible that someone already has studied this issue. I’d be shocked if they haven’t.

I presented my opinion and any input about that is welcome. I’m up to having my ignorance fought. I know that a reductio ad absurdum argument really isn’t particularly helpful though. It doesn’t get at the issue at all. I don’t believe that criminal behavior is driven by such tortuous logical evaluation but I know something is driving it and the lighter penalty for the action doesn’t cause what you said it causes in reality.

You’ve already clearly stated that you believe my argument is lacking. Care to take a shot at why this situation exists or are you so set on having victims die at a higher rate to satisfy whatever motivation supports your belief in capital punishment?
Finally it’s cute that the person who advocated a killing as an answer to a killing is seriously asking me if I believe that two wrongs make a right. That’s priceless comedy gold!

69

No need to rehash the whole thing but I’ve never advocated that every crime must be matched with an equal punishment. In fact, currently murder is the only crime we offer a different response to which exactly matches the crime. For everything else, incarceration works just fine and I’m fine with that as the Approved Method of Punishing Crime.

70

One last thing before I retire for the night The Other Waldo Pepper. I want to apologize for my first reply to you. This is an apology to anyone who found it in bad taste. I Know that you haven’t said anything about it but rereading it I realize that it sounds extremely harsh and that was not the way I wanted that to sound. What sounded like a clever way to reinforce my point when writing it reads like something pretty uncalled for instead. If I can’t make my point any better I really need to try harder even if I’m posting in the pit.

Now back to our regularly scheduled disagreement. Good night.

71

I expect he refers to Matthew 25, specifically the bit at the end. Matthew 25, 31-46:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

72

I was going to chime in on this as I’m a strong opponent of the death penalty and the gleeful anticipation of those that seek it is just one manifestation of its poisonous influence.

but no need for me to add to it as Disgruntled Penguin has put it better than i could and I fully endorse what is said above.

I’m against it in every and all scenarios no matter how heinous. Yes, that includes genocidal dictators.

73

Well, look, I just can’t follow you, here.

You say, now, that you don’t believe criminal behavior is driven by such tortuous logical evaluation. You said, then: “The solution for the perceived crimes of killing are killing. Gee, where do you think he got the idea?”

So, okay: where do you think he got the idea? I didn’t think you were ascribing an especially tortuous line of reasoning to him, but maybe I’m missing something.

You said that people who wish to kill murderers like Roof “perpetuate the violence of our killers” – adding, as if in a causal sense, that we “advocate killing as the answer for our problems then we wail and gnash our teeth when someone GASP kills as an answer to their problem.”

Now, I’d taken you to be implying to be a straight line from Point A to GASP: that you figured one causes the other – as per your explanation that we can’t push a specific solution “and not expect it returned in kind”. We just can’t, see. I was assured.

But you now seem to claim we can push solutions and not expect them returned in kind; you even say you have data to that effect! You now seem to say we can advocate for solutions without an ensuing gasp from ensuing perpetuation!

I’m not especially interested in taking a shot as to why the situation exists; I’m more interested in using it to check myself before I make various statements.

Like, if I were ever on the brink of saying we can’t push a specific solution and not expect it to be returned in kind – why, I’d stop and think, no, wait; I have it on good authority that criminal behavior isn’t driven by such tortuous logical evaluation. Remember that guy who said that a specific “penalty for the action doesn’t cause what you said it causes in reality.”

Yes, it is. You wrote – in big fine general terms – “If what he did was wrong how can perpetuating the same action against him be right? Do they really believe two wrongs make a right?”

When told of a criminal who did something wrong – abducting an innocent from his home and confining him against his will, say – you reply that we should perpetuate the same action against him; you “really believe” it’s what’s to be done.

Were I to use your general-terms approach to suddenly oppose execution, I’d have to use that same general-terms approach to suddenly oppose incarceration; I’d wag my finger in your face like Harrison Ford when he’s in full-on wag-his-finger mode, and I’d say (a) you’re perpetuating the wrongdoer’s action and (b) that can only be right if two wrongs make a right – because, as you say, “incarceration works just fine and I’m fine with that as the Approved Method of Punishing Crime.”

And, well, me, I can’t be fine with that, if I really take your whole “perpetuating” and “two wrongs” thing to heart. And I’d genuinely like to know how you manage it.

74

So like I said, you are willing to sacrifice more innocents so you can kill those who kill people you don’t even know. It’s an extremely highly developed recreational outrage. I get it. You’re not interested in improving situations even if it could mean less killing overall. Just it’s bad form to pretend that it has anything to do with support for the victims when you don’t care how many people end up as victims. It’s not about them clearly. All that arguing but this is what it all boils down to. I figured that when you refused to answer this before. I don’t agree but you’d have saved a lot of time just posting this up front.

Since I actually do care about reducing victims of violent criminals there’s nothing left for us to debate. We are not discussing the same things and just like you support killing people who are not a threat to you in any way and are unwilling to talk about ways to reduce it even if it benefits society as a whole ( less innocent victims ), I’m unwilling to continue an argument which misrepresents my position with someone who is trying to fight an entirely different argument than I care about. At least we should be discussing the same thing and we’re not. Good day.

75

To be clear the AMoPC doesn’t just work just fine data suggests it works better. You just don’t care. Don’t try to misrepresent the facts. They don’t support your view. It’s pretty much like the folks who say “I’m not a scientist but I’m going to present my pet theory and expect it to be respected like it deserves equal respect as their theories.” They both sound equally as ridiculous.

76

Not seeing what that has to do with religious, conservative folks. It’s my understanding that they are at least as generous in charitable giving as other folks, if not more so. Churches, especially, have long been sources of help for the needy.

But we might was well not mince words. Some folks around here seem to not understand the difference between a religious command that one should use one’s resources to help the poor with the idea that one should tax other people and use their resources to help the poor.

77

Thank you for saying that.

78

Do you?

One reason I didn’t bother with the point is that it seems it’d be irrelevant to you.

You go on and on about how, if what he did was wrong, then how can perpetuating the same action against him be right? You ask, of those advocating for execution: do they really believe two wrongs make a right?

To the extent that that’s your argument, then wouldn’t the crime rate be irrelevant to you? If it were the case that the murder rate was no different (or, at that, lower) in capital-punishment jurisdictions, then why wouldn’t you just repeat your question about How Can Perpetuating The Same Action Be Right? Why wouldn’t you shrug off the data to again ask Do You Really Believe Two Wrongs Make A Right?

You asked those questions. Don’t you care about the answers?

I’m not misrepresenting your position; I’m discussing the same thing: you asked, as if it were the answer, How Can Perpetuating The Same Action Against Him Be Right? And you asked: do people Really Believe Two Wrongs Make A Right?

You asked those questions in the context of execution; I’m asking you them in the context of incarceration. As far as I can tell, those questions meant you opposed execution for those reasons, and not because of crime-rate studies; I therefore genuinely wanted to know how you answer those questions in other contexts.

79

For a staunch opponent to the death penalty, for any crime, it’s rather interesting to see how those arguing for the DP often use the same dehumanizing tactics that have been used systematically to promote genocide. Particularly those who “generally” are against the DP.

Some five years ago we incarcerated a mass murderer guilty of murdering 77 people and injuring about 250. He treated very humanely and was - after a fair trial - locked up under conditions that made many people around the world - particularly in the US - ask why we were willing to grant him such nice conditions. Why didn’t we just throw him in a dungeon and lose the key?. Dude, we didn’t do it for his sake. We did it for our own sake, to keep our humanity. We’re civilized, we’re better than that.

80

No, I don’t. go on and on about the first sentence. I’ve restated what I am actually saying enough now. You’d rather keep fighting the straw man you built. As for the second point, believe me, there is an argument against that argument that I made that would be problematic and I almost deleted the statement rather than have to defend it. I needn’t have worried, you’re nowhere close to that argument.

An eye for an eye when taken out of context is a horrible argument. I prefer the Oath of Peace.

This to me would be the hallmark of an enlightened society. Really doesn’t affect my point though. I believe when you teach an eye for an eye you can expect that those you teach may actually practice said philosophy. Teach the Oath of Peace and you can expect more to practice that philosophy. I’ve presented the data which you choose to ignore which suggests that this is actually true.

Nowhere does that oath state that you must not perpetuate any particular prescribed action against a criminal. It suggests that you do only what is necessary to solve the problem and killing isn’t that once the criminal is apprehended. It’s overkill.

Yes, I just quoted Stephen Donaldson but a good idea is a good idea no matter the source.