It began as me simply amazed that the Miami Herald would stoop low enough to race bait with the headline, so the lady that replied caught be a tad by surprise.
Sorry, but when you burn somebody alive, your human being card is automatically invalidated. And yes, legally you are afforded all the protections of the Constitution and God know Vialva got them all.
And if you are opposed to the Death Penalty for moral, religious or political reasons, come out and say so and even when we disagree, I can respect your opinion. But try to sell me some shady pseudo scientific excuse/fallacy, to try and appear morally superior, and I am not gonna react nicely… although in this case I was polite.
The only reason I personally am opposed to the death penalty, is due to the large number of times we’ve gotten it wrong.
I agree. Too many prosecutors playing games like hiding exculpatory evidence.
So all those youths that were part of the “Hitlerjugend” SS Division weren’t responsible for their actions because their brains weren’t full developed? What about “Los Zetas,” the teenaged hit squad for the Drug Cartels? YGBSM
In the first case I’d actually say “yes” to a degree, since they are not only young and unformed, but because ALL of their forming, all of the social input they have received they entire lives has been telling them that what they are doing is okay. Morality is not some inherent thing you are born with. If you take a group of kids and raise them to believe that murder is right and good, that the way to win social admiration and respect is to obey orders and kill when you are ordered too, you cannot expect them to just figure it out on their own, certainly not at age 18. If you make systematically make children into monsters, it’s wrong to then blame the children for their actions because “everyone knows that’s wrong”. Everyone where YOU live maybe, but not in Germany ca. 1938. Especially in the middle of a war when life is cheap and a hundred thousand people are dying every day on all sides. But don’t forget, kids, life is SACRED. Unless one of the intricate informal rules says otherwise. If you happen to live in the wrong house and you get in the way of a B-17 bombload, well, that’s too bad, and you are technically an enemy since there is a chance you work for an arms factory, And besides, you didn’t do anything to stop the thugs from taking power, so your life is forfeit. That’s not murder, not even when you’re burning down whole cities. But remember kids, you must never take civilians out and SHOOT them, even when insurgents are castrating and disembowling your own soldiers. Bombing them out from 30,000 ft is okay, but shooting them is BAD and anyone who follows orders to do that must be considered a murderer. You must protect all the people who are lucky enough to not be conscripted, because they aren’t official “combatants” (unless they are underneath a bomber formation). You, on the other hand, have been ordered to wear these special clothes and carry a rifle, so anyone can shoot you at any time, and that’s okay, because you are now officially a “Soldier”. Tough luck for you. Grandpa and grandma and your sisters burned to death at home because they were in the way when the RAF came to “dehouse” them, but remember, you must ALWAYS treat people who aren’t wearing special clothes with the utmost care, and never, ever shoot them, because civilians are OFF LIMITS.
War is war. I don’t say we shouldn’t have bombed Germany, but I’m not proud of it either, and I’m not going to try to defend it and say that it was ethical and okay. Not like we would have NOT bombed their families if the soldiers had scrupulously only shot other conscripts who were the unlucky lottery winners in the Lottery of Death.
Yup, that’s exactly what you’re saying….and applying modern rules of war to a different era and mindset to justify your own morality. But then war and eliminating a threat to society are two different things entirely. Anyone who is of legal age and mentally competent to understand their actions and does such things to innocent people is a threat to society that MUST be either permanently restrained from contact with society again (If that is your wish, I prefer putting the person in permanent isolation, only being fed, watered and bodily elimination as their entire life) otherwise, their permanent, personal extinction is preferred. I don’t care whether it prevents anyone else from murdering anyone. I only know that execution will guarantee THAT person will no longer be a threat….
At the same time they are spouting “Brain not developed” they are telling you how 16 year olds are mature enough to vote.
Well you just stated the reason why they WANT 16 year olds to vote…Kids have little life experience to base their personal choices on and the fascist left knows they’re more easily swayed…So politicize the skools and turn them into little leftist indoctrination centers and you have automatic voters who won’t question why they’re voting for suicide.
Raise the voting age to 25….
On the one hand, I don’t believe people like that should ever be allowed back into society, at which point killing them makes some economic sense.
On the other hand, I also don’t believe a government should routinely be in the business of deliberately and purposefully putting its own citizens to death.
So, I would leave the decision up to the family of the victim(s). If there is no family, then whoever the legal heir is.
The purpose of courts is to depersonalize vengeance; letting the family decide breaks that contract.
And it’s clear this is not a routine matter; if it were, it wouldn’t be newsworthy.
I don’t necessarily think so. The courts decide guilt or innocence; my thought is only that the family has a say (multiple choice, not essay) as to what the final sentencing is, with the courts and judicial system taking it from there.
We already do this to some degree, when the victim, or family of the victim are sometimes asked to speak before sentencing, or during probation hearings.
Interesting thought, except you’d have families calling for the death penalty for minor crimes too! Look at the mob mentality in our streets right now. You have brainless buffoons calling for the deaths of cops for no reason….I’m sure the family of Breanna Taylor wants every single cop involved in the altercation caused by her boyfriend (who started shooting at the cops after identifying themselves and to my thinking is the one person responsible for her death) to die horribly….Nope…keep the families out of the process completely.
You want to see her reverse the “brain not fully developed” line, ask if abortion should require consent of all four grandparents if neither parent is 25 or older.
Off-topic, but … did the troglodite lose his club? (At least, I *think* it’s a he … don’t want to offend…)
Yeah, looks like it. I think there were to many potty minded people that thought his club was him taking a dump. *GRIN*
Yes, it was a symbol of violence, and it was feared it might trigger people of color who associated it with police batons. Also Moms Against Violence complained that it normalized violence and was bad for children, who might mistake it for a cartoon character and go out and beat someone to death afterwards.
Another question is, “Do you think a brain that murdered and burned someone alive before maturity will suddenly mature into something that won’t?”
That is exactly what I was thinking, 1. The fact that the undeveloped brain thought that burning another human being alive was okay, shows that that brain was probably developing into something that was going to be even worse. Time to end the development, and head off worse crimes.
Not a fan of the death penalty – not for moral reasons, as some persons certainly have earned execution. But for practical reasons.
First, it’s way too expensive, with the legal costs of execution being significantly higher than a lifetime of incarceration (and I know that you say just execute immediately, but in this litigious society, we both know that’s not going to happen).
Second, there is no evidence it serves as any sort of general deterrent; i.e. jurisdictions with a death penalty do not have lower murder rates than jurisdictions without death penalties, adjusting for other factors (poverty, crime, etc.).
And finally, as noted above, there is the certainty that we will again, sooner or later, execute someone for a crime they did not commit. It has happened before, and will happen again, as we are human and fallible. Particularly in this era of politicized prosecution, with Soros’ little ideological robots occupying some prosecutor’s seats.
I get the arguments for, and to an extent I agree. Some persons have simply surrendered their right to live. In my jurisdiction, the Carr brothers are the poster children for capital punishment (look it up if you like, it’s utterly horrendous). But on balance, I’d vote to abolish the practice.
I’m opposed to the death penalty on philosophical grounds. But, I will also admit, it’s not an issue I loose a wink of sleep over – and cases like this are why.
So, the argument is the brain does not mature until 25. Got it.
I guess that means Brett Kavanaugh should have gotten a free pass for (allegedly) molesting a girl in college. Thanks for invalidating the entire argument against confirming our latest Supreme Court Justice and exposing the fraud that is the left.
Lobotomization works too, y’know. And you can put them back to work!
Put the asshole in the trunk of a car and set it on fire, an injection is too civilized for a POS like that. I guess the vast majority of our military has diminished mental capacity
I’m sure that Kyle Rittenhouse will be happy for her support.
My thought is this;
Upon verdict of guilty, defendant is ordered by the judge to be forced from the building and set loose. He/she may not stay in the court for any reason. Bailiff shall see them out of the building.
Relatives or kin shall be informed prior to the reading, and are posted outside the exits.
Relatives or kin are held immune for whatever punishment they mete out. They have the choice to inflict or to forgive, but the immunity lasts only for a reasonable time. Cannot forgive, then years later change of mind. 2 weeks maybe.
Only for capitol crimes and crimes of sex or injurious crimes against children.
The State has no business killing people. Only the aggrieved.
When the State kills, it gets abused. Always.
Her defense is “he’s already served 20 years in prison, so he shouldn’t be executed!”. The real problem there is that he shouldn’t have spent 20 years living after brutally murdering two people and burning them to death. To use that same ridiculous period of time as a reason why he should avoid his sentence is just dumb.
And while I agree with the “minds not finished” thing to a degree, it is not a justification for horrific murder. It doesn’t mean that a person is a incapable, stupid child until they reach 25, it just means they don’t have the full abilities of an adult. It’s a matter of fine tuning, basically. The fundamentals of their personality are there, they just lack judgement and fine logic skills. A person does not commit horrific murder because he hasn’t gotten his complete adult brain yet. Kyle Ritterhouse is an example of where that case does apply. He might have had a better reaction to the events going on around him. He might have thought better about coming out at all. But he didn’t wantonly kill 2 people for no reason because he was a youth, he acted to the best of his ability in a bad situation, and there is no real reason to think even the average adult would have acted differently. That’s just my theory, that he didn’t really understand the full implications of what he was doing when he took that rifle. I think he did just right when he actually USED it, but I think his youth made him assume that if he carried the gun, people would leave him alone and he’d be safe, and his inexperience made him think that if he had to shoot an angry rioter attacking him, that it’d be a clear cut case of self defense. An adult would probably (obviously not always) have known better. So I think his age is extremely important in his case. Age doesn’t excuse a person for going out and gunning down a crowd or tortuing people to death, but it does excuse bad judgement like going to a riot in the first place and thinking that a gun would keep him safe.I mean for a kid who probably spent his short life thinking of himself as “one of the good guys”, this must be very hard for him, even on top of having actually killed two people. Being treated like a criminal must be hard for him after everything he tried to do, and after he was attacked by lawless rioters. My only consolation is that I bet the corrections officers and police were very nice to him, even though they are ordered to arrest and detain him. Any cop that treated him like a common criminal scum after his attempts to help and promote the police would be a POS.
Watch the leftist lawyers try to paint it as “he obviously premeditated murder, he even went so far as to set up this FB group to suck up to the police beforehand, get preferential treatment and to get the police on his side, and to create an illusion of him as a law-abiding, decent kid”. Meanwhile, he predicted the riots and used them as a cover for his plot to commit mass murder. Which he seriously flubbed by doing it right in front of multiple cameras….