Maybe while on death row he will get put in a prison with a bunch of dangerous gang members from the race he so hates. We’ll see how tough he is without his gun.
Yeah. Therapy for the relatives of the people this animal kills next time. So they can forgive him and say “well, at least my [son/daughter] died to protect the system.”
There are things wrong with the way our current system works and they should be addressed. But Rooff? Shoot him and move on. Pick a better standard bearer.
This. I really couldn’t think of a worse example to argue against the death penalty than an unrepentant terrorist who is absolutely, undeniably guilty of murdering 9 people, and who did so for the purpose of starting a race war. It’s a rare high-profile execution where virtually everyone can agree that this guy probably should die. This is not a good place to start this discussion.
As Dr. William Petit has said “Do you want a justice system run by money?” In case you don’t remember, Dr. Petit’s wife and two young daughters were murdered by two home invaders who are now on death row. CITE
One of the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen was the defense attorney questioning Dr. Petit about the event. “You were in the basement when the fire was set. So you don’t actually know who set it.” Yes, two men broke into my house, beat me and put me in the basement, raped my wife, and then left and someone else came along and set the fire that killed my entire family.
According to your quote, he got it from black people killing white people. The justice system is not black people killing white people, is it?
So, by sentencing him to death, we are condoning his activity?
What would we have to do to condemn it - give him a medal?
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry, but my ethics don’t start and stop at others’ convenience.
I don’t know what that means in this context. Are you referring to the economic disparity in who gets the death penalty and who doesn’t?
Do you oppose the defendant’s right to counsel, too? I’m unclear what your point is here.
Except if you believe that the death penalty is fundamentally wrong, that argument applies in every case.
If you say, “I oppose the death penalty, but I’ll make an exception in Roof’s case,” then you are actually saying that you accept the death penalty in certain cases.
It’s very much like the argument I’ve seen made in these boards about First Amendment: if you believe in free speech, how do you make an exception for the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Westboro Baptists, etc? If you don’t support their right to free speech, aren’t you saying that you accept political limitations in free speech?
Same here. If you say you oppose the death penalty, you oppose the death penalty. Any exceptions means you accept the death penalty in certain situations.
That’s not therapy money. That’s ‘build more schools’ money. That’s ‘hire more cops’ money.
But yes! Lets pay millions and millions getting this one guy executed so we can feel good about ourselves as being tough!
Or, ya know, commute him to life in prison and imaging him try to explain his philosophy on race relations to the darker-skinned prisoners.
The justice system, like every other government service, is funded from tax dollars. Just like with health care, education, highways, the military, it’s always a fair question to ask if the public is getting value for their taxes. No aspect of public service should be immune from scrutiny.
And yes, justice has an extremely important value, but I don’t think that makes it completely immune from public scrutiny: are the taxpayers getting good value for their money?
For instance, are the taxpayers of New Jersey getting a good value for the tax dollars they have spent on the death penalty? It was reinstated in New Jersey in 1983. As of 2005, the taxpayers of the state and various counties had paid $253 million to prosecute and house individuals convicted and sentenced to death, over and above what those prosecutions would have cost if the prosecution had sought life in prison. During that 20 year period, New Jersey did not execute a single prisoner. So that was $253 million spent that did not achieve anything. MONEY FOR NOTHING? The Financial Cost of New Jersey’s Death Penalty
Similarly in New York: the Legislature re-instated the death penalty in 1995. In 2004, the highest state court overturned the law. It has not been re-instated. During that nine year period, the state spent $170 million to prosecute the death penalty cases, over and above the normal prosecution costs. Not a single prisoner was executed before the law was held unconstitutional. Was that value for money? Costs of the Death Penalty: Death Penalty Information Centre: New York.
Even when a state actually does carry out death sentences, the cost is high. Comparing the total cost of the death penalty system in Washington against the number of actual executions (5), it is arguable that each execution costs $24 million per execution. Costs of the Death Penalty: Death Penalty Information Centre: Washington.
Then there’s Pennsylvania, which has spent between $800 million and $1 billion since re-instatement in 1978. That works out to $278 million per execution. Costs of the Death Penalty: Death Penalty Information Centre: Pennsylvania.
As opposed to the millions we will spend keeping him alive and imprisoned with a life sentence? Where there’s a non-zero chance that he’ll escape to kill again.
You don’t kennel a rabid dog. You put it down and move on.
Dylann Roof is compelling evidence in support of capital punishment, seeing as how effective a deterrent against terroristic acts was the execution of mcveigh.
How did the execution of McVeigh serve as a deterrent to Dylan Roof’s act of domestic terrorism?
It didn’t. The point for people like McVeigh and Roof is not deterrence. Nor is it “justice” or “retribution” or anything else. It’s the penal system equivalent of icing the roads. It’s removing an acknowledged danger to society.
As opposed to the even more millions that will be spent to keep him on death row? It’s generally more expensive to keep someone on death row than on life without parole, and on average in the US, a prisoner stays on death row for 13 years before execution.
That’s 13 years where a death row inmate could kill a guard, another prisoner, or escape and kill someone on the outside; about the same chances, in other words, as a prisoner serving a life sentence.
[/QUOTE]
Arguments denying a person’s humanity have traditionally been used as a step towards oppression.
The death penalty costs the State of California 64,260,000 per year extra. 64 million dollars more than it would cost than commuting all the DP cases to life w\o parole. Every year! Just in California. The Peacenik State!
I, for one, am not really afraid of this drooling moron coward staging a prison break.
I’m trying Really Hard not to wish death on this guy because of his age… but the crime, how he planned it out, how he thinks… it all so heinous as to be beyond comprehension as anything other than Evil.
I honestly don’t think that his thought processes can be retrained or that his mind can be re-wired in such a way so that he would be functional and not be a threat to society or constantly leaching evil to others who might be impressionable within society (or even in prison).
You can throw him in a box and feed him until he dies or you can put a needle in his arm to save him suffering (and us money) because I don’t think that he can be rehabilitated.
And the humanity of the people Roof killed? He opted out of the human social contract and should no longer be protected by it.
Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent. People are supposed not do very bad stuff because they do not want to suffer the legal consequence. Capital punishment is there to make the consequence of something like what Roof did so dire that he will not do that. Mcveigh was a sort of prominent example of someone suffering the consequence of being very bad, which should have served to give Roof pause. Obviously, that example was ineffective in this case. Which makes going to the extreme of publicly offing a bad person too costly as far as precipitating deterrence.
Unless all you really want is retribution. In which case, fuck that. It solves nothing. And, in fact, there may be evidence that executions make the situation worse (are followed by spikes in violent crime) – of course, if you want to bring more bad people into view so they can be rounded up, I guess the cost of that must be worth it.
You know what would be even cheaper? Not putting them in prison at all!! Let them stay outside and work to contribute to society.
And BTW putting them in prison does not bring their victims back to life, and 10 or more years is still an injustice to an innocent person, and you cannot add those years to their life after they are released.
And killing them does?
You can let them out for their remaining years, and pay them appropriate compensation. Would you rather serve 10 years, or be executed?
This isn’t some crazy hypothetical, I can name a man who’s in prison right now for a murder he didn’t commit: Brendan Dassey. Luckily, he hasn’t been executed (and wasn’t sentenced to death), so there’s still a chance of correcting the injustice. Would you rather he be executed than released after 10 years?