Why wouldn’t I shrug off the data? Geez, I don’t know, perhaps I don’t reject the facts when they don’t support my theory. If they did not agree I’d discard my theory as flawed. You aren’t like that too? I ask honestly. You’d continue a theory in the face of data suggesting otherwise? Wait, of course you would. You’re doing it now.
OF course that assumes that my question deals with " How Can Perpetuating The Same Action Be Right" which is not at all what my point is.
I’ll stick with a bullet to the head and tossing him on the burn pile. But hey, that’s just me.
I’m sure it is, and it shines a light into a dark side of your psychology that is rather worrying. You are maybe not as far removed from Roof’s mentality as you’d like to think.
:rolleyes: Right, right, we get it, #AllEvilsMatter.
But what we are talking about in this thread, specifically, is a particularly appalling instance of the systemic and longstanding and societally condoned perpetration of evil by white people against the black community in the US.
So, maybe not the best time to pipe up with nitpicking faux-egalitarian objections to a black person’s expressing anger specifically about that phenomenon of white-on-black evil.
Sheesh.
I’m okay with the distinction. There is no comparison of Roof’s actions to those that will execute him. Roof’s chose his path including his own execution. The men and women on that jury are just fulfilling the law and the seeing that Roof faces the consequences of his actions.
Again, when I kill stray dogs attacking my cattle, I am well within my rights, as I’m protecting my livestock. But it’s the nature of feral dogs to go after weaker animals, and they do not understand the consequences that await them, when I catch them. Roof on the other hand knows the consequences of his actions, and did it anyway. His execution is clearly justified.
I see Roof is back in the headlines now, so this seems as good a time as any to continue.
You literally wrote: “If what he did was wrong how can perpetuating the same action against him be right?” If that wasn’t what your point is – excuse me, wasn’t “at all” what your point is – then you shouldn’t have said it in the first place; I took you at your word, in good faith, like the darned nice guy I am.
If it’s not your point, then I congratulate you; it’s not my point either; I don’t believe it should be anyone’s point. But I want to make something clear: since I truly thought it was your point – you know, since you typed it out, word-for-word – I genuinely figured it would have made sense to reject the data.
Let me explain. I adore, and advocate for, freedom of expression, and freedom of worship – not because I believe they’re correlated with lower crime rates, but merely because I believe it’s right. I’m a fan of the right to a trial by jury; I’m a fan of the right to gay marriage; I’m a fan of the right to all sorts of things.
If someone were to tell me that one of those happens to be linked to lower crime rates, I’d – well, I’d file it away as a piece of trivia, and I’d maybe even mention it from time to time; but I wouldn’t actually care. After all, I’d still be on the side of free speech and freedom of religion and jury trials and gay marriage and so on even if new data showed that crime rates weren’t any lower in jurisdictions that uphold those.
So when I took you at your word – “If what he did was wrong how can perpetuating the same action against him be right?” – I figured you were the same way: if you truly believed that “perpetuating the same action” can’t be right, then you wouldn’t actually care whether “perpetuating the same action” causes lower crime rates; after all, it still wouldn’t be the right thing to do. The data maybe wouldn’t be relevant; you’d maybe want to do what’s right regardless.
If you don’t actually believe that “perpetuating the same action” point – well, then, sure, I guess the data could be relevant. But in the future, I’d strongly advise you not to toss that “perpetuating the same action” sentence out there if you’re ever trying to make your point in some future discussion; it seems like it just clouds the issue.
Oh, and here’s to hoping Roof is – permanently incapacitated? Can we agree on that?
From every account all of them were wonderful-beautiful souls. And their Christian/forgiving survivors publically forgave Roof in the days immediately following his rampage. Will they testify for his life during the penalty phase of the trial? Will their wishes hold sway?
More broadly, ask yourself which groups support food aid, prison reform, aid to refugees, and affordable housing for the poor and middle class and which groups oppose those things.
Damn it people, it’s perpetrate! Perpetuate means to extend the duration of something to infinity.
Can we quit giving this piece of shit his time in the sun? Time to forget him and move on. Let the justice system do its job.
Wished it worked a little faster.
Are all you folks arguing for life in prison able, ready and willing to guarantee Rooff will never kill again? Someone in prison or if he gets out or escapes?
I’ve never known a cop who was for the death penalty. Some people are just too dangerous to live. And too broken to be repaired.
I dunno, can you guarantee no innocent person will be sentenced to death?
This.
And, can you guarantee that in the approximately 15 years Roof will spend on death row, he won’t kill anyone?
From the wiki article on Death Row
So it’s a death sentence, but for a quarter of the people sentenced to death, it’s life in prison without parole.
Are you telling me that Rooff is innocent? I don’t think so.
And my statement is that every cop I’ve ever known if definitely pro-death penalty. Even Ann Rule of The Stranger Beside Me fame agreed that some people should be put to death, including her friend Ted Bundy. She initially thought he could be fixed and didn’t deserve to die, but then realized she was keeping a monster alive.
Either you have the death penalty, or you don’t. Unless you’re arguing that Roof and only Roof ever be sentenced to death, it’s bigger than this one case.
I count that as a reason to oppose it, frankly.
People agreed that the West Memphis Three should be put to death. How’d that work out?
No, there is no possibility that Roof is innocent. The problem is, as Human Action points out, that if you have the death penalty you have a very real risk of someday executing somebody who is innocent.
The number of US death-row inmates who have been exonerated as wrongfully convicted bears that out. Given that their eventual exonerations were usually the result of volunteer efforts rather than routine processing in the criminal justice system, it is overwhelmingly likely that some innocent people who didn’t have the advantage of similar extraordinary assistance have been wrongfully executed.
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
Even Ann Rule of The Stranger Beside Me fame agreed that some people should be put to death, including her friend Ted Bundy. She initially thought he could be fixed and didn’t deserve to die, but then realized she was keeping a monster alive.
[/QUOTE]
The acceptability of the death penalty doesn’t depend in the least on whether a perpetrator “deserves” to die. Just because somebody is bad enough to deserve death doesn’t mean that the criminal justice system should be in the business of killing them.
This site, which does seem to have an agenda, states the costs of the Death Penalty.
I don’t wanna sound like penny-pinching basterd, but I am.
90K more, per year, for 714 inmates is …a shitload!
Actually 64,260,000 per year extra. A death row inmate can be there for many, many years.
Having it and not using is pretty pricey also.
Seem to me like we can find better uses for this money.