Current Events > Pittsburgh synagogue shooter sentenced to death

(+) Yeah! (+)

CA has recently voted to speed up executions and voted against abolishing capitol punishment.

Sega9599 posted...

Then the argument needs to successfully shift from 'SHOULD it ever be used' to 'WHEN are the specific requirements that when found 100% guilty which we both agree people like Hitler met, that would allow for a death sentence? No, not the carjacking that went wrong.

Arguing "when" the death penalty should be used carries the implication that it should be used. I do not believe it should be used.

There is no standard you can apply that will both include all the people that it "should" be used on without also catching some innocents in the (possibly literal) crossfire. That is the core issue at play. We can also add on the fact that justice is absolutely not applied fairly. Someone earlier pointed out that black men are significantly more likely to get the death penalty, for example. Then you have the shenanigans that occur when bigoted people end up in control of sentences and use that to target the group(s) they dislike.

I'd like to ask you again, how many innocents getting executed by the state is too many in your opinion?

Enclave posted...

When all you do is misrepresent what people say and then act like you're the aggrieved one when called out on it then you should expect to be dismissed until you get your s*** together.

Pointless bickering. I will call myself a 'defender' of the government enacting the death penalty on certain cases. That doesn't mean I am a unanimous goverment shill. Same for you, but as you demonstrate again, you are moving away from the point of origin to the conflict, the 'defender' label to just plain 'block me because i have little interest in you'.

Is it possible to walk back from this? I will swallow my pride and apologise for contributing to the combativeness of the discussion, as I believe you can discuss the death penalty as a concept in a reasonable manner. I accept you don't want to be called a defender of Ted Bundy in any way, even if you are against him getting the death penalty.

reincarnator07 posted...

There is no standard you can apply that will both include all the people that it "should" be used on without also catching some innocents in the (possibly literal) crossfire.

If the only death penalty that can be legally enacted is not for plain and beyond obvious heinous monsters,.but ambigous innocent people, then I will.be against it. I think it can be, but if not then.....

.....I suppose.....what is being said is that it's ok to kill unarmed proven war criminals/terrorists on foreign soil ie Osama, but bringing them to US soil and giving them a trial removes enforced death as an outcome.

Sega9599 posted...

If the only death penalty that can be legally enacted is not for plain and beyond obvious heinous monsters,.but ambigous innocent people, then I will.be against it. I think it can be, but if not then.....

.....I suppose.....what is being said is that it's ok to kill unarmed proven war criminals/terrorists on foreign soil ie Osama, but bringing them to US soil and giving them a trial removes enforced death as an outcome.

You keep dodging this: How many innocents getting executed by the state is too many in your opinion?

reincarnator07 posted...

You keep dodging this: How many innocents getting executed by the state is too many in your opinion?

What are you talking about?
If the only option is to allow innocents to be executed then I don't want it.

I don't want it for innocents, only the very very rare super extreme cases that are 100% guilty like the examples mentioned. Unless you're going to argue someone like Ted Bundy or Hitler weren't 100% guilty.

Stop creating a strawman: I DONT WANT IT FOR MAYBE/MAYBE NOTS.

Sega9599 posted...

What are you talking about?
If the only option is to allow innocents to be executed then I don't want it.

I don't want it for innocents, only the very very rare super extreme cases that are 100% guilty like the examples mentioned. Unless you're going to argue someone like Ted Bundy or Hitler weren't 100% guilty.

Stop creating a strawman: I DONT WANT IT FOR MAYBE/MAYBE NOTS.

It's impossible to create a law that allows for the death penalty without endangering innocents.

Sega9599 posted...

What are you talking about?
If the only option is to allow innocents to be executed then I don't want it.

I don't want it for innocents, only the very very rare super extreme cases that are 100% guilty like the examples mentioned. Unless you're going to argue someone like Ted Bundy or Hitler weren't 100% guilty.

Stop creating a strawman: I DONT WANT IT FOR MAYBE/MAYBE NOTS.

The law is never applied perfectly. If you have the option for execution, innocent people will be executed. This is literally the system you have in America, innocent people can and have been put to death. This isn't a strawman, this is how things are in real life, in the system you are arguing in favour of.

I also don't think you understand standards of proof. As far as the law goes, there is no such thing as 100% guilty, that's a fantasy. What you have is beyond a reasonable doubt, which often ends up being "All the evidence points towards this and there is nothing to show sufficient reason for an alternate series of events". This does not mean that it's infallible.

Let's use a real example of Jesse Tafero, who was executed for the murder of a pair of police officers in Florida at a traffic stop. He already had a criminal history, he was convicted for attempted robbery, violating sodomy laws and attempted rape. He wasn't a good dude. The other guy who was in the car testified that Tafero shot the two officers. When they were arrested, Tafero had the gun in his waistband and there was residue on him consistent with handling a recently discharged weapon. The gun was registered to his wife because he could not legally own a firearm due to his criminal history.

That all seems pretty clear cut and in a perfect world, I'd see little issue with executing a guy who just killed 2 officers for no reason. However, the other guy later confessed that he did it. That witness and all the circumstantial evidence led to the wrong conclusion.

For bonus points, the electric chair malfunctioned in the execution, causing him to be immolated and stretching the execution out over 7 minutes. I think that would fit the description of cruel and unusual punishment, which flies against the constitution.

This sort of thing is the reality of allowing the death penalty. Yes, you'll get retribution against the Hitlers and Bundys of the world, but you'll also kill people who did not deserve to die.

I cant believe people oppose the death penalty for even mass murderers. Theres zero reason to keep psychopathic murderers alive, for what purpose? To inflate your sense of stupid morality? Remove threats from existence, its simply and logical.

deoxxys posted...

I cant believe people oppose the death penalty for even mass murderers. Theres zero reason to keep psychopathic murderers alive, for what purpose? To inflate your sense of stupid morality? Remove threats from existence, its simply and logical.

i dont think its that they want mass murderers to live, its just that they dont want innocent people to be executed.

i think there can be a middle ground. anyone who is proven with 100% certainty. so video evidence, physical evidence, witnesses, caught in the act, etc
there is some criteria where we can say "they done it" with 100% certainty

deoxxys posted...

I cant believe people oppose the death penalty for even mass murderers. Theres zero reason to keep psychopathic murderers alive, for what purpose? To inflate your sense of stupid morality? Remove threats from existence, its simply and logical.

I'm against the death penalty as a system. Better for a billion psychopaths to rot in prison than for a single innocent person to be killed.

That doesn't mean that I think certain people are worth keeping alive. It just means I think we're better off in a society where the state has one less way of potentially murdering innocent people.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

i dont think its that they want mass murderers to live, its just that they dont want innocent people to be executed.

i think there can be a middle ground. anyone who is proven with 100% certainty. so video evidence, physical evidence, witnesses, caught in the act, etc
there is some criteria where we can say "they done it" with 100% certainty

Rune thinks mass murderers should be given the opportunity at rehabilitation. Its naive.

deoxxys posted...

I cant believe people oppose the death penalty for even mass murderers. Theres zero reason to keep psychopathic murderers alive, for what purpose? To inflate your sense of stupid morality? Remove threats from existence, its simply and logical.

I can't believe you've gone through 7 pages of this topic without understanding why people oppose the death penalty. It's not that we're invested in keeping crazies and psychos alive, it's that we don't want innocent people to die. We do not live in a world with a perfect justice system, innocent people can and do get found guilty of all sorts of crimes.

Ultimately, if you support the death penalty then you support a system where the state will kill innocent people. How many innocent people is too many in your opinion?

Good.

Unfortunately though this just probably means he'll sit on death row for the next 2 decades

Sega9599 posted...

What are you talking about?
If the only option is to allow innocents to be executed then I don't want it.

I don't want it for innocents, only the very very rare super extreme cases that are 100% guilty like the examples mentioned. Unless you're going to argue someone like Ted Bundy or Hitler weren't 100% guilty.

Stop creating a strawman: I DONT WANT IT FOR MAYBE/MAYBE NOTS.

The burden of proof is on the state to convict, but really, you are putting the lives of the accused in the hands of twelve civilians each with their own perspectives. In the mind of the state, if you are convicted of murder, and those twelve people believe you are or are not guilty, then the belief is that you are 100%
guilty. But we know that there have been situations where the jury was 100% wrong, and people have been posthumously exonerated after their execution. Hes asking about those specific circumstances.

deoxxys posted...

I cant believe people oppose the death penalty for even mass murderers. Theres zero reason to keep psychopathic murderers alive, for what purpose? To inflate your sense of stupid morality? Remove threats from existence, its simply and logical.

Well if you had any sort of reading comprehension you'd know there's several reasons for it, and zero reason to kill them.

I'm not losing sleep over it. One less right wing terroist trash to worry about.

deoxxys posted...

I cant believe people oppose the death penalty for even mass murderers.

Yup, its kill a bunch of people and they literally get a roof over their head with three square meals a day, a bunch of fellow murderers to talk to and all the amentities a homeless person out in the rain could only wish for.

You have a child or loved one that you tell you'd be there for and protect, but someone else kills them and you mean to tell me the murderer gets to see their golden years? It sounds even more unfair typing this, and I'm not a parent.

FlyEaglesFly24 posted...

Im Jewish.

I oppose the death penalty. You cant call something a crime and then do it yourself.

Ehhhh. One is murder. The other is not.

Legal definitions exist.

Roachmeat posted...

Yup, its kill a bunch of people and they literally get a roof over their head with three square meals a day, a bunch of fellow murderers to talk to and all the amentities a homeless person out in the rain could only wish for.

You have a child or loved one that you tell you'd be there for and protect, but someone else kills them and you mean to tell me the murderer gets to see their golden years? It sounds even more unfair typing this, and I'm not a parent.

Revenge is not justice. There is zero reason to loll them and several reasons not to, not the least of which is the impossibility of allowing for the execution of the guilty without also enabling the possibility of the innocent being executed.

pnut027 posted...

Ehhhh. One is murder. The other is not.

Legal definitions exist.

One can legalize anything if they're committed enough to it.

Including state-sponsored murder.

pnut027 posted...

Ehhhh. One is murder. The other is not.

Legal definitions exist.

Legal definitions don't stop executions from being murder. They're just state sanctioned murder.

Roachmeat posted...

Yup, its kill a bunch of people and they literally get a roof over their head with three square meals a day, a bunch of fellow murderers to talk to and all the amentities a homeless person out in the rain could only wish for.

You have a child or loved one that you tell you'd be there for and protect, but someone else kills them and you mean to tell me the murderer gets to see their golden years? It sounds even more unfair typing this, and I'm not a parent.

Spend any decent amount of time in prison and tell me how great it is to be separated from free society. Tell me how great they have it.

...

Then again I may be over-estimating some of the folks on CE in this case.

Sega9599 posted...

What are you talking about?
If the only option is to allow innocents to be executed then I don't want it.

I don't want it for innocents, only the very very rare super extreme cases that are 100% guilty like the examples mentioned. Unless you're going to argue someone like Ted Bundy or Hitler weren't 100% guilty.

Stop creating a strawman: I DONT WANT IT FOR MAYBE/MAYBE NOTS.

if you support the death penalty you don't care about innocent people being killed because it has happened throughout american history and has happened in the last few years and there are almost certainly innocent people on death row somewhere in the country now

CyricZ posted...

Spend any decent amount of time in prison and tell me how great it is to be separated from free society. Tell me how great they have it.

They get to LIVE. They get to continue existing when the persons they murdered don't. In most cases, they even got to watch the family bawl their out eyes in the courtroom before their prison sentences begin.

I'm not being obtuse in saying that it isn't vengenance. Of course its vengeance, with the benefit that the family themselves don't have to be vigilantes. The investigators can prove who did it, and then deal with the disposal.

Roachmeat posted...

The investigators can prove who did it

Question: can they do so reliably? Because studies suggest that 4 percent of death row inmates are innocent:
https://www.science.org/content/article/more-4-death-row-inmates-may-be-innocent

Roachmeat posted...

They get to LIVE. They get to continue existing when the persons they murdered don't. In most cases, they even got to watch the family bawl their out eyes in the courtroom before their prison sentences begin.

Can you call that living?

I'm not being obtuse in saying that it isn't vengenance. Of course its vengeance, with the benefit that the family themselves don't have to be vigilantes. The investigators can prove who did it, and then deal with the disposal.

Revenge is a poison.

CyricZ posted...

Can you call that living?

I can't, but then again I haven't brought myself to murder anyone. Factually, there will be plenty of mass murderers that will outlive me, simply because they are already in a secure facility guarded by outside threats and most environmental upheaval.

CyricZ posted...

Revenge is a poison.

True, but as I already stated, if I was a parent my views on this subject would be magnified. It's easy to say a criminal should be spared if you've never been to a funeral and watched a mother mourn their child.

Roachmeat posted...

I can't, but then again I haven't brought myself to murder anyone. Factually, there will be plenty of mass murderers that will outlive me, simply because they are already in a secure facility guarded by outside threats and most environmental upheaval.

So they have been separated from free society. That's their punishment.

What to do with them afterwards says less about them, and more about us as a society.

Do we keep them away from free society for the safety of others? Or do we just kill them because for catharsis' sake?

True, but as I already stated, if I was a parent my views on this subject would be magnified. It's easy to say a criminal should be spared if you've never been to a funeral and watched a mother mourn their child.

If you were the parent of a murdered child you would understandably not be considered to be in a rational place for rendering judgment. It's why we have courts and not vigilante justice.

Wanting revenge is natural. Being allowed to enact that revenge is something else entirely.

If you without a shadow of a doubt killed someone in malice, you earned the death penalty. The end. I won't bother arguing with anyone so don't bother CEing on me. Have a nice day!

hyperskate65 posted...

If you without a shadow of a doubt killed someone in malice, you earned the death penalty. The end. I won't bother arguing with anyone so don't bother CEing on me. Have a nice day!

Then you can enjoy being wrong.

So Rune what happens when one of your "rehabilitated" murderers is set free and kills again? What should be his punishment then? More "rehab"?

rynobot posted...

Cool, so we trust the courts to decide who should live and die...

You've been trusting the courts in that regard for a LONG time

TonyKojima posted...

So Rune what happens when one of your "rehabilitated" murderers is set free and kills again? What should be his punishment then? More "rehab"?

Man are you still stuck on that theoretical rofl

You're living in some fantasy world where they're manipulative criminal masterminds and the people working on rehabilitation are idiots.

If several decades from now one of them is deemed rehabilitated I trust the judgement of the board. But that's entirely theoretical and neither of us thinks that will happen, the whole point if that was to illustrate how everyone should get that treatment no matter how unlikely rehabilitation is, because if we deny rehabilitation efforts to some we risk it being denied to people who could benefit from it.

Just like if we execute some we risk executing someone innocent.

There is no avoiding this.

hyperskate65 posted...

If you without a shadow of a doubt killed someone in malice, you earned the death penalty. The end. I won't bother arguing with anyone so don't bother CEing on me. Have a nice day!

You not arguing doesn't mean we don't think you're a bloodthirsty promoter of state-sponsored killing.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Man are you still stuck on that theoretical rofl

You're living in some fantasy world where they're manipulative criminal masterminds and the people working on rehabilitation are idiots.

If several decades from now one of them is deemed rehabilitated I trust the judgement of the board. But that's entirely theoretical and neither of us thinks that will happen, the whole point if that was to illustrate how everyone should get that treatment no matter how unlikely rehabilitation is, because if we deny rehabilitation efforts to some we risk it being denied to people who could benefit from it.

Just like if we execute some we risk executing someone innocent.

There is no avoiding this.

I expect an answer.

TonyKojima posted...

I expect an answer.

What you want or expect doesn't matter.

RuneterranSnap posted...

What you want or expect doesn't matter.

Concession accepted.

TonyKojima posted...

Concession accepted.

Nope.

Tony you got your answer.

It just wasn't the answer you wanted, so you're pretending that it wasn't answered at all.

Open and shut cases like this guy's deserve expedited executions

Sentenced on a Tuesday afternoon, executed on Saturday morning

What's the point of keeping people on death row for decades

Kloe_Rinz posted...

i think there can be a middle ground. anyone who is proven with 100% certainty. so video evidence, physical evidence, witnesses, caught in the act, etc
there is some criteria where we can say "they done it" with 100% certainty

We now live in a world where AI and deep fake technology is only going to get more indistinguishable from reality and we should trust video evidence so completely that we'll execute people off it? Physical evidence can be faked or misinterpreted and witnesses are unreliable. Even someone being caught in the act might not encompass the complete story, and that's satisfactory to put them to DEATH?

There's a reason we find criminal guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" and not "beyond all conceivable doubt".

There is no middle ground with barbarism. It either happens or it doesn't.

Northlane posted...

Open and shut cases like this guy's deserve expedited executions

Sentenced on a Tuesday afternoon, executed on Saturday morning

What's the point of keeping people on death row for decades

So how do you plan to do expedited executions that won't put innocent people in danger from bad actors?

RuneterranSnap posted...

So how do you plan to do expedited executions that won't put innocent people in danger from bad actors?

He doesn't have one.

The feelings crowd here cannot square the simple circle of facts: execution costs more than life imprisonment owing to the additional costs of the appeals process, a process that cannot be reduced without killing more innocent people.

Intro2Logic posted...

He doesn't have one.

The feelings crowd here cannot square the simple circle of facts: execution costs more than life imprisonment owing to the additional costs of the appeals process, a process that cannot be reduced without killing more innocent people.

Yeah basically. I have other arguments as far as the morals too, but thats enough to stop the argument in its tracks.

reincarnator07 posted...

Let's use a real example of Jesse Tafero, who was executed for the murder of a pair of police officers in Florida at a traffic stop. He already had a criminal history, he was convicted for attempted robbery, violating sodomy laws and attempted rape. He wasn't a good dude

He doesn't fall under the extreme category I mentioned so I wouldn't say he deserved the death penalty for that even if guilty.

Not to mention he wasn't an innocent bystander. I understand your point of the 'wrong guy'(although in your case the guy who confessed RETRACTED his confession later on so...)
It might be better to use a different case where a totally innocent person was executed. Cases like that do exist, but in the extreme category, aruging over "wait, hitler didn't do that one particular murder, that one belonged was Himmler instead" doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

RuneterranSnap posted...

It's impossible to create a law that allows for the death penalty without endangering innocents.

How is it impossible? If the law only affects those with overhwleming evidence, like the Hitlers, then how will small fry get caught up in that? Unless you are saying people were executed because others thought they were the real mastermind, and they weren't.

IF it is impossible, then I will have to accept that, and hope for the Osama scenario or Saddam Hussein scenario. But I haven't really heard a reason why not yet, beyond "what if you got the wrong Hitler by mistake?"

Paraphrasing here, not directly quoting.

reincarnator07 posted...

For bonus points, the electric chair malfunctioned in the execution, causing him to be immolated and stretching the execution out over 7 minutes. I think that would fit the description of cruel and unusual punishment, which flies against the constitution.

This is a very good point in that the execution can become literal torture. That's a fair point in the exeuction backfiring.

Intro2Logic posted...

The feelings crowd here cannot square the simple circle of facts: execution costs more than life imprisonment owing to the additional costs of the appeals process, a process that cannot be reduced without killing more innocent people.

But there is a 'feelings crowd' that would also feel bad if a guilty man like Osama bin Laden was to be executed under the American Justice System, because 'what if he didn't do it? Maybe he was totally innocent after all.'

We can go round and round, but I think we can both agree some permanent solution is required for monsters. I say removal from life, you say permanent removal from society - total life imprisonment. Just as long as you're not for the specific monsters I mentioned getting parole or days off or anything like that.

Sega9599 posted...

If the law only affects those with overhwleming evidence, like the Hitlers, then how will small fry get caught up in that?

Because there will always exist bad actors looking to lie and mislead about how overwhelming the evidence is.

We're talking about a system where proving someone is innocent isn't enough to get them off death row.

Sega9599 posted...

But there is a 'feelings crowd' that would also feel bad if a guilty man like Osama bin Laden was to be executed under the American Justice System, because 'what if he didn't do it? Maybe he was totally innocent after all.'

No that's not what people are thinking.

People are thinking we shouldn't be killing others under any circumstances, even as punishment.

One of the logical justifications for abolishing the death penalty is the people presumed guilty who are not actually guilty, related back again to the misused justice system.

And when proponents of the death penalty have to default to the worst person they can think of to try to justify keeping it, they just expose themselves as someone who wants righteous killing to take place.

reincarnator07 posted...

I can't believe you've gone through 7 pages of this topic without understanding why people oppose the death penalty. It's not that we're invested in keeping crazies and psychos alive, it's that we don't want innocent people to die. We do not live in a world with a perfect justice system, innocent people can and do get found guilty of all sorts of crimes.

This reasoning is why I can't accept mass murderers and the like being released from prison no matter how much they appear to have reformed.

If the death penalty is off the table because the justice system is imperfect then releasing people who have committed the worst crimes also has to be off the table. If the justice system can be wrong about someone being guilty of a capital offense then they can be wrong about dangerous people turning over a new leaf.