Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand. What a waste of life while others dying by cancer and other diseases. What was the purpose to bring this guy to life? He murdered 8 and will be killed as well, It would be better if he wouldn't have born, he only gave a tragedy to the world.
What kind of death penalty will have?
If and when he is executed he will have the choice between lethal injection or electrocution.
Yea, our standards of guilt are really the problem. Once you are declared guilty we only have one classification for you "guilty". I would have less qualms with the death penalty if we could establish legally different levels of guilt, with only the most stringent classification having the option for the DP.
Could be something like:
Innocent
Guilty level 1 - Probably guilty, all evidence points to it, but no absolute proof.
Guilty level 2 - Defninitely guilty, all evidence points to it, and some of the evidence is undeniable (clear video footage of the commision of the crime, etc...)
In the USA you are either guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - or you aren't. There is a profoundly rational reason for that; if you have shades of gray of "guilt" there is always the possibility of wrongful conviction or the emergence of kangaroo courts. It's a very dangerous idea that can lead to abuse of the system at many levels. (Even with the current system we've seen this). Keeping the verdict phase of the trial separate from the sentencing phase is a very good idea, and it addresses your concern to some extent. Sentencing can take into account the egregiousness of the act, as it rightly did in the case of Roof. But we do not reassess the "level of guilt" in the sentencing phase.
As far as the death penalty goes, it should be used very rarely and is justified in this case. I used to be opposed to it, because it's a risk to allow the government to ever have the power to put someone to death. But it does bring some level of justice to the community and the family of the victims in cases like this. It isn't any sort of deterrent though - terrorists like Roof couldn't care less if there is a death penalty.
BTW where's WaldoKitty and the other usual suspects on this thread? Strange.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
By that standard, every murderer should get the death penalty.
Never said that was the only standard justifying Roof's sentence. While I can see the possibility of mitigating circumstances in some murder cases I see none in this one.
I don't seem to see many Christians preaching Biblical standards should evolve with time. Any examples?
If you believe the Bible is the word of God. Why should it evolve?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
