Would you support the death penalty for the Arizona shooter?
I was reading this, and apparently a lot of people are in favor of him getting the death penalty.
What about you? Are you in favor or opposed, and why?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
57 Answers
Yes, because what he did was horrible. Innocent people died and I don’t think he should get a free ride in prison. Why should I waste my tax payer and everyone else waste money to make sure that dog gets taken care of? I’m sorry, but I believe in tougher punishments and the death penalty. Not a slap on the wrist. :/
What’s weird is we don’t think twice about putting a rabid dog down, yet we have to take our time for this piece of garbage? They’re one in the same to me. A murderer is like a rabid dog.
Isn’t the death penalty typically reserved for people who aren’t batshit insane? I could be wrong.
Nope. Never. No matter what. I am anti death penalty.
Well, having read news articles about his mental state, I am pretty sure this guy doesn’t actually fear the death penalty. If you want to make him suffer, lock him up in a prison for the rest of his life. Either way, this guy doesn’t deserve to have any chance to get released from prison.
One side of me wants him to be tortured before he is killed. He killed a 9 year old girl, for crying out loud!
My Christian side says No Death Penalty. It is not our right to take anothers life, and I truely do hope he can find faith, and forgiveness.
The probability that he is bananas just makes it harder to give him the needle.
and I do agonize and pray over this.
I am against the death penalty. Period.
This is one of those cases for which the death penalty seems to be tailor made.
I don’t believe in the death penalty at all, so no.
I don’t support the death penalty. But still, he needs to be tried first, before a penalty, particularly the death penalty, is imposed. And then, if he is convicted, there are procedures in place, a process by which the jury decides whether or not to impose the death penalty, and procedures in place if they can’t decide. The facts in the case haven’t even been determined yet, his mental status, mitigating or aggravating circumstance, that sort of thing.
Send him to prison in Iraq.
If it is found that proper psychiatric meds clear his head, then no, he shouldn’t be executed. If psychiatrists find he is mentally competent and this was just what he wanted to do, and would do it again if he had the chance, then he might as well be killed.
Absolutely. This guy is a scumbag, crazy or no crazy.
While death is certainly justified in some cases, I am not comfortable giving the generally incompetent and corrupt political state the power to kill prisoners. Politicians are idiots, and death is irreversible. Lock him up forever.
@josie there are many mechanisms for the condemned to prove their innocence; that’s why people are on DR for 20 yrs so they can use them.
I’m against the death penalty. But I can certainly sympathize and understand why people would want him to be put to death. I’m not even saying that he doesn’t “deserve” the death penalty. I just think that the death penalty puts society in a bad place, ethically. I do think he should be locked up forever and maybe be made to do some type of horribly un-pleasant task for the rest of his life. Figure out what he doesn’t like, then make him do that.
P.S. I won’t mind if some other inmate “accidentally” kills him. And I wouldn’t mind if the family members who lost loved ones were allowed to kill him directly, but that is not how the death penalty works.
No. I’m against the death penalty, for one, and for another, he’s not right in the head. He did this thing, even if he does know right from wrong, because he’s not right in the head.
I am not against the death penalty.
That Laughner dude, bitch be trippin’ in the membrane. He thinks the number 18 is actually 6. Or the other way around. I forgot. He also seemed to know where his actions would lead him though, according to his online activity.
I don’t know how I feel about this death penalty thing, but a little girl died. People in prison don’t like that. He probably wouldn’t have many friends.
But if he really is nuts, then at least let’s keep him away from people just wanting to live their lives.
Personally I don’t think the death penalty helps solve much of anything since it doesn’t prevent similar things from going down, although that probably isn’t its aim much. Seems to me like mob feeding. So if you wanna punish him…prison is probbaly the best thing. And if he’s nuts, well, maybe I watch too many movies, but asylums are probably worse!
Incidentally, I’m very curious as to how Gabrielle and her husband, Mark, would answer this question.
Society has a right to protect itself from those who would take life without adequate justification, and to not have to burden the already oppressed taxpayer with having to support some violent psychopath for the rest of his natural life, demented or not!
queue up the “it costs more to execute someone than keep them alive” argument
@CaptainHarley Yeah, that’s pretty hard to argue against. Good point. No not saying I wanna argue lol, but it sounds logical is what I mean.
@cockswain
The only reason it “costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them alive” is because the State has to pay for an endless series of appeals and for the lawyers who make them.
Oh I know. I was just being a smart-ass anticipating someone having that reaction. Seen it so many times.
I’m probably just being an asshole again.
@CaptainHarley I can solve that real quick: give the condemned five years to come up with a great case that will go directly to SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS doesn’t hear the case or rules against the person, that person gets executed the same day. They get their appeal and justice can be served either way.
No, I do not support the death penalty.
Absolutely I’d support it. People with such heinous crimes do not deserve taxpayers footing the bill for them to live.
I am in favor of the death penalty, but in this case I could go either way.
put him down, if he dies somehow I think we all will be OK. As a responsible gun owner I am sickened and livid by what this shitstain has done. It is the ultimate betrayal as far as I’m concerned: to take a cherished freedom and use it in that way. Screw him.
@CaptainHarley and @BBSDTfamily Society certainly does have a right to protect itself but the economics, the cost shouldn’t factor into whether or not the State consciously and deliberately ends a human life, no matter whose life, in my opinion. There are some things that are not a matter of the economics or the cost of something. If you support the death penalty for other reasons, fine. So that society can protect itself, as punishment, as a matter of justice, whatever, but I don’t think it should ever be about the money, about the economics of it, IMHO.
And regarding the supposedly “endless appeals.” God forbid we should take the death penalty more seriously than we take other forms of punishment and put quite a bit more effort into making absolutely certain that we are not, possibly, executing an innocent person. Sure, people game and manipulate the system, that is the nature of people, but if we are wrong and we have incarcerated someone unjustly, as bad as that is, we can eventually free them. Once they are dead, if we were wrong, there’s no undoing that, is there? Is the chance that we might execute and innocent person just the price that we pay to protect ourselves? Or is allowing “almost endless” appeals the price we have to pay to ensure that we don’t become murderers ourselves; and that’s what the execution of an innocent person is. It’s not the cost of doing business, it’s murder.
I support the death penalty but not for people not in their right mind.
@lillycoyote
Actually, I think anyone who takes the life of another, with the possible exception of soldiers in wartime, is technically committing murder, including the state. But we still cannot discount the right of the body politic to be free of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and the like, all of whom are, in my opinion, crazy.
@CaptainHarley I most certainly think that we have not only the right to protect ourselves but the obligation to protect each other from “murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and the like,” I just don’t believe we have the right to execute people, that is my personal position. That being said, if we, as a society, do believe we have the right to execute people found guilty of a capital offense, then the fact that it might be more cost effective to execute them, than to imprison them for life, without the possibility of parole, well, I just don’t think the relative cost effectiveness should be a consideration when it comes to our meting out the death penalty, it’s human life, a murderer’s life, but still a life. It shouldn’t be about money. That’s all I’m saying, on this part of it.
By @CaptainHarley ‘s reasoning, he must also support the creation of ‘death panels’ for the very ill. Medicaid costs lots of money too and seeing as how justice and health are NOT free, they should just die.
“Actually, I think anyone who takes the life of another, with the possible exception of soldiers in wartime, is technically committing murder, including the state. But we still cannot discount the right of the body politic to be free of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and the like, all of whom are, in my opinion, crazy.”
@CaptainHarley wrote: “Society has a right to protect itself from those who would take life without adequate justification, and to not have to burden the already oppressed taxpayer with having to support some violent psychopath for the rest of his natural life, demented or not!
So, the insane people should all be killed too. Nice. (Cazzie does not want to live in the Cptn’s world.)
I still don’t know where I stad on the death penalty. I used to be completely for it for certain crimes but gradually I have started to feel less sure of my opinion. In this case I don’t think I would support it due to his supposed mental state.
@cazzie
That only serves to illustrate that I am conflicted over this issue. Yes, we do need to protect the general public from predators. Yes, it is expensive to warehouse them for life ( particularly since a number of states seem to view prisons as luxury resorts of some sort ). Yes, it is morally wrong to take life, under most circumstances. So what are we to do? I don’t claim to have all the answers by a long shot.
@lillycoyote I see your point. However, I think for heinous crimes part of society protecting themselves includes not having the expense of these criminals as a financial burden. I don’t think that the cost involved with keeping a criminal in jail should determine whether or not we give them the death penalty, I just meant that it’s one extra reason that I don’t mind them getting it. The crime involved, not the cost involved, is what makes me support the death penalty in this case.
While I support the death penalty, it is not appropriate in cases where the perpetrator is mentally ill. I would be quite shocked if his defense team did not use the GBMI defense.
I would simply further quantify my initial statement by saying, I support the death penalty only where the evidence leaves NO doubt as to who did it, not just a REASONABLE doubt.
@CaptainHarley wrote: ‘This is one of those cases for which the death penalty seems to be tailor made.’ that didn’t sound conflicted to me.
And put down Charles Manson while we were at it. Why we have been giving that psychopath 3 hots and a cot all these years is wrong and beyond me.
@cazzie that bastard was lucky to have been sentenced when capital punishment was struck down and all on death row had their sentences commuted to Life with no parole.
Maybe life without parole would actually mean something if they stopped giving Manson hearings before the parole board.
@cletrans2col Why point that comment toward me about Manson? (and yes, I know who is was, but that seems waaaay off topic here.)
@YARNLADY : Wait, why was @WestRiverrat‘s comment out of line? I know it isn’t necessarily on topic, but it’s basically the same subject.
@YARNLADY I don’t think it was out of line. I do know some prosecutors will push for the death penalty only because they are afraid some federal judge, 3 states away could rule that the prison is overcrowded and they need to grant early release. It has happened here before with bad results for the citizens of the state.
If they were sure life without parole would keep the person incarcerated, most would opt for that option. It is easier for juries to reach a life without parole ruling than a death penalty ruling.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
