So do I. However it's just an example of how the study of murderer psych isn't some far flung absurd notion. This fellow is just someone who makes his methodology public, and for entertainment purposes. At least that's how the show seemed framed to me. Regardless, his profession of forensic psychiatry shows that there are people working on this stuff.
And it's been said by ElJeffe and others but a "what if" scenario of possibly learning something useful from a killer is not justification to pay hundreds of thousands to allow him to live. Beyond that, you won't learn anything practical from someone who likes to kill people, even if it's new information it won't do a damn thing in the real world. There is no logical argument against killing him for free, the only arguments I've seen are from the pathetic "we can't kill people sob sob sob" crowd. And an eye for an eye doesn't even come close to this. He killed a little girl and 5 others. If you don't see that as deserving of death, you're scum.
A) Killing someone is not free. For example, from ProCon.org's section weighing the Death Penalty and Life without Parole:
The Washington State Bar Association, adopted the Apr. 13, 2007 "Final Report of the Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Defense," which stated:
"It costs significantly more to try a capital case to final verdict than to try the same case as an aggravated murder case where the penalty sought is life without possibility of parole.
At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.
On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases.
Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional $137,000 in public defense costs.
On direct appeals and personal restraint petitions, the prosecutor spends significant attorney time responding to the issues raised by the defendant to the Washington Supreme Court. If a death penalty defendant does not succeed before the Washington State Supreme Court, additional defense costs will be incurred in a habeas corpus petition to the federal court and appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. The Washington State Attorney General must provide attorneys to defend the death penalty sentence before the federal courts."
Apr. 13, 2007 - Washington State Bar Association (WSBA)
Does Loughner deserve to be killed for what he's done? All I can say I wouldn't feel all that sorry for him if he died. But I don't think the state should be killing him, if only because of the fact that we have a lot more to gain in preventing future deaths by keeping him alive for study. The guy isn't some mysterious and unknowable death entity: he's a sick human being who can help us understand people like him better and work towards preventing further catastrophes.
And hopefully if anything positive can be gained from this it'll be we'll actually start paying attention to people like Loughner, who give warning signs out the wazoo but were ignored, before they go and kill someone.
EDIT: I would also like to say this "Fast track him to the chair/needle/squad/pit of vicious starved piralligator sharks, screw the appeals!" crap makes me quite uneasy. Because, seriously, in no reasonable fashion is the dismantling of the appeals process going to lead our society to anywhere good
Lanz on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
It's a funny thing, this arguing from the other side.
I said earlier that I used to be pro death penalty and capital punishment and let 'em fry. And since that point, at the ripe old age of fourteen, i've never really seen a need to challenge those beliefs. I just accepted that there are some people who should die.
Then this happens.
And I'm here, talking and reading this thread, and I'm starting to reevaluate what I think and belief and feel. And I notice that the big one is 'feel'. My desire to see Loughner killed is purely based on an emotional reaction to the horrible, terrible thing that he did and the death of a nine year old girl. Once I take a step back from the emotional, immediate response, I notice that my thoughts changed.
and then I tried to summarize Quid's points, and a few other posters whom I have a decent amount of respect for, and I realize that my own views are starting to mesh in with theirs. I'm not simply agreeing to be agreeable, but what these posters are saying seems logical, just, and optimal to me.
So no, I do not want to see Loughner killed by the state via the Death Penalty. Will it happen whether I want it to or not? Probably. Will I shed a tear for all of humanity if he does get executed, most likely not. But do I personally think that Loughner, or anybody, should have the Death Penalty on them?
No. Not anymore. There is more to be gained from life and living than there is to be gained from death and killing.
How about we don't kill him because it does nothing and we as a society should be beyond such barbaric 'eye for an eye' vengeance?
Maybe it should be left up to the victims.
The legal system is not people's personal vengeance machine.
And maybe committing mass murder is not one person's way of lashing out at society and equivocally being fed and supported for the rest of his natural life by the tax paying citizen. I just don't think being sent to what amounts to a college dorm room for the rest of his life is an adequate punishment for what this guy did.
Late, but really?
This is what you think a prison sentence or (more likely) life in a criminal mental institution is?
Loughner isn't going to be downing cup ramen and playing an Xbox 360 with his "bros"; quite the opposite.
Shit, even if he was I shudder at the thought of spending the rest of my life in a college dorm I was not allowed to leave. Forty years of Guitar Hero and O.A.R.? Blegh.
Especially since all your dorm-mates will be either crazy, murderers, or both.
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
man, 40years in a dorm room?
no thanks. Surrounded by all that estrogen that I had to put up with at university? Hells no. I had a hard enough time dealing with that for five years without wanting to kill something.
And it's been said by ElJeffe and others but a "what if" scenario of possibly learning something useful from a killer is not justification to pay hundreds of thousands to allow him to live. Beyond that, you won't learn anything practical from someone who likes to kill people, even if it's new information it won't do a damn thing in the real world. There is no logical argument against killing him for free, the only arguments I've seen are from the pathetic "we can't kill people sob sob sob" crowd. And an eye for an eye doesn't even come close to this. He killed a little girl and 5 others. If you don't see that as deserving of death, you're scum.
I'm going to quote ElJeffe from another thread because I think you could benefit from it:
It's often very difficult to accept that people hold very different opinions from you, and that they hold them just as strongly as you do. Yeah, sometimes it's probably easier to believe that they're not earnestly wrong, but rather maliciously dishonest.
The point being, saying that "people who disagree with me are scum" is neither useful nor a healthy view of things.
To address the point itself, the problem is that you're seeing "murder" as the default view and not the outcome we are choosing. We would not be spending money to allow him to live, we would be spending money to support a fair and just legal system. The fact that you used the phrasing of "spending money to allow him to live" suggests that the default is killing him and that anything other than that is going above and beyond what is necessary.
No. Murder is never the default option.
I am also still not seeing why you believe it is impossible that we could learn anything from him. The only support you have given that claim is repeatedly saying we are stupid for believing it's possible. Why?
Here is a reason not to kill him: we are better than him. We do not need to resort to murder to make a point. We as a society are past the point of needing to exact violent and murderous vengeance upon a criminal for no better reason than "he's a bad man!" The right to life is, according to our constitution, inalienable. Do you fully appreciate what that means? It means that no matter what, every person has an equal right to live. You do not get to trample that right just because you are angry or upset.
You and some others seem to think that because he has committed a crime (an admittedly quite horrible one) he has forfeited his right to live and, I believe it is insinuated in some posts, his humanity. Why? How bad does a crime need to be for a person to forfeit their humanity?
To me, the entire idea of "forfeiting rights" or "forfeiting humanity" is bizarre to begin with. The bad things people do are equally a part of "humanity" as the good things they do. The only useful way to respond to the bad in people is with the good in you. When a person commits a murder, we can either respond with equal evil - murdering them in retaliation - or we can respond with the good in us and let them live and, by doing so, set an example or how people should behave.
My main point is this: when faced with a person committing a crime, we can either respond in kind or we can respond in a way that shows how far we have progressed as a society. We can take the caveman route and kill the murderer, or we can let our legal system sentence them.
As LonelyAhava said, the desire to use the death penalty stems more from emotional response than anything resembling rationality. If we stop to really consider the implications of legally sanctioned killing, no good can come of it.
Hopefully that didn't come across as too preachy, I'm just trying to communicate my opinion in a way that is clear and simple.
Edit: If you prefer, here is this view in an easier to debate format:
If you believe murder is bad, you presumably think that life has some value. If life in and of itself has value, how does it comes to pass that a murderer's life does not have this value?
I just find it amusing that there are so many people in this post that believe a human cannot take another human's life unless it fits in the category of self-defense, lest they be automatically deemed insane. That no sane, civilized person can take another person's life for any possible reason other than insanity or self-preservation.
Our race has a long history of killing each other for an endless list of reasons with very few of them being able to fit in the category of self-defense. To make the assumption that a no sane person can take a life outside of self-defense to deny that the killer instinct ingrained within man's very nature.
How does it feel to live amongst legions of madmen then? To live in a country founded by people you consider should be on medication, locked up and studied for further advancements in the treatment of their 'condition'? To know that you are being defended by a literal army of the clinically insane? Or perhaps they're normal at first, but the intense training drives them crazy, enabling them to kill under orders?
Frightening thoughts, all. Almost enough to drive a fellow... crazy!
I think my argument is quite valid. You're the one making the outrageous claim that no one could ever take another person's life lest they were insane. You've said this several times, and what's more outrageous is that there are others that agree with you.
I simply disagree with you, that it's in our nature to be able to kill each other and still be sane.
I think my argument is quite valid. You're the one making the outrageous claim that no one could ever take another person's life lest they were insane.
No, I have not. I've been very careful to specify murder. Killing and murder have very distinct and important differences.
I think my argument is quite valid. You're the one making the outrageous claim that no one could ever take another person's life lest they were insane. You've said this several times, and what's more outrageous is that there are others that agree with you.
I simply disagree with you, that it's in our nature to be able to kill each other and still be sane.
I would have to look back to check the wording of every time this has come up, but it is perfectly reasonable to make the argument that murderers are insane while killers are not. For example, soldiers kill, but Loughner murdered.
I don't know that this is the argument Quid is making, but it is one that I think could be made.
I didn't say people who disagree with me are scum, I said if you believe that what Loughner did is not deserving of death you are scum. The bleeding heart "we're civilized" mentality towards this is bullshit. He did something bad and he needs to die in the most brutal way possible. If basic morality doesn't dictate this guy dies, the importance of setting an example should. The fact that Loughner can live depending on the number of people he killed and what he says to a therapist is a joke.
Draper on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I didn't say people who disagree with me are scum, I said if you believe that what Loughner did is not deserving of death you are scum. The bleeding heart "we're civilized" mentality towards this is bullshit. He did something bad and he needs to die in the most brutal way possible. If basic morality doesn't dictate this guy dies, the importance of setting an example should. The fact that Loughner can live depending on the number of people he killed and what he says to a therapist is a joke.
Yes, give in to your anger and hatred. It gives you FOCUS.
I didn't say people who disagree with me are scum, I said if you believe that what Loughner did is not deserving of death you are scum. The bleeding heart "we're civilized" mentality towards this is bullshit. He did something bad and he needs to die in the most brutal way possible. If basic morality doesn't dictate this guy dies, the importance of setting an example should. The fact that Loughner can live depending on the number of people he killed and what he says to a therapist is a joke.
Hypothetical: If someone killed Loughner in retribution for these crimes (be they surviving victim, friend/relative to a deceased victim, or random sympathizer for the victims, etc.), do you believe they would be justified on the basis that "basic morality ... dictates this guy [should die]"?
And no, it's not really a joke.
Another thought: We have let criminals worse than Loughner serve life imprisonment sentences instead of executing them. Why is Loughner so much more an important execution candidate, than, say, going and executing Charles Manson?
EDIT: Also, "bleeding heart"?
really?
Lanz on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I didn't say people who disagree with me are scum, I said if you believe that what Loughner did is not deserving of death you are scum. The bleeding heart "we're civilized" mentality towards this is bullshit. He did something bad and he needs to die in the most brutal way possible. If basic morality doesn't dictate this guy dies, the importance of setting an example should. The fact that Loughner can live depending on the number of people he killed and what he says to a therapist is a joke.
Hypothetical: If someone killed Loughner in retribution for these crimes (be they surviving victim, friend/relative to a deceased victim, or random sympathizer for the victims, etc.), do you believe they would be justified on the basis that "basic morality ... dictates this guy [should die]"?
And no, it's not really a joke.
Another thought: We have let criminals worse than Loughner serve life imprisonment sentences instead of executing them. Why is Loughner so much more an important execution candidate, than, say, going and executing Charles Manson?
I didn't say people who disagree with me are scum, I said if you believe that what Loughner did is not deserving of death you are scum.
Right, and you believe that what Loughner did is deserving of death.
So, you did say that people who disagree with you are scum.
Sure, as long as it's disagree with that particular belief and not everything I say. I know people like you love to twist things out of proportion.
What am I like?
Also, Lanz, I'm sure he'd be fine with killing Manson as well. Of course, the Manson murders didn't have multiple witnesses, weren't committed in broad daylight, etc...so I'm still unsure how his "rapid execution law" would be written.
I didn't say people who disagree with me are scum, I said if you believe that what Loughner did is not deserving of death you are scum. The bleeding heart "we're civilized" mentality towards this is bullshit. He did something bad and he needs to die in the most brutal way possible. If basic morality doesn't dictate this guy dies, the importance of setting an example should. The fact that Loughner can live depending on the number of people he killed and what he says to a therapist is a joke.
Hypothetical: If someone killed Loughner in retribution for these crimes (be they surviving victim, friend/relative to a deceased victim, or random sympathizer for the victims, etc.), do you believe they would be justified on the basis that "basic morality ... dictates this guy [should die]"?
And no, it's not really a joke.
Another thought: We have let criminals worse than Loughner serve life imprisonment sentences instead of executing them. Why is Loughner so much more an important execution candidate, than, say, going and executing Charles Manson?
EDIT: Also, "bleeding heart"?
really?
If someone killed Loughner I would applaud them, yes it's justified. And Loughner is more important because of the clarity of his guilt and the number of people he killed. Manson is entertaining, but if he was executed I wouldn't be bothered.
So Draper, again, how are you defining the "clarity of his guilt?"
What is the objective legal standard you're proposing for this new and exciting "shoot them in the face and dump them in a ditch right after the trial" standard?
Wait...I forget...we are at least giving them a trial, right?
I didn't say people who disagree with me are scum, I said if you believe that what Loughner did is not deserving of death you are scum. The bleeding heart "we're civilized" mentality towards this is bullshit. He did something bad and he needs to die in the most brutal way possible. If basic morality doesn't dictate this guy dies, the importance of setting an example should. The fact that Loughner can live depending on the number of people he killed and what he says to a therapist is a joke.
Hypothetical: If someone killed Loughner in retribution for these crimes (be they surviving victim, friend/relative to a deceased victim, or random sympathizer for the victims, etc.), do you believe they would be justified on the basis that "basic morality ... dictates this guy [should die]"?
And no, it's not really a joke.
Another thought: We have let criminals worse than Loughner serve life imprisonment sentences instead of executing them. Why is Loughner so much more an important execution candidate, than, say, going and executing Charles Manson?
EDIT: Also, "bleeding heart"?
really?
If someone killed Loughner I would applaud them, yes it's justified. And Loughner is more important because of the clarity of his guilt and the number of people he killed. Manson is entertaining, but if he was executed I wouldn't be bothered.
Congratulations: You have just advocated vigilante justice and as far as I'm concerned completely ceded any ground based on American legal history, theory and practice.
I didn't say people who disagree with me are scum, I said if you believe that what Loughner did is not deserving of death you are scum. The bleeding heart "we're civilized" mentality towards this is bullshit. He did something bad and he needs to die in the most brutal way possible. If basic morality doesn't dictate this guy dies, the importance of setting an example should. The fact that Loughner can live depending on the number of people he killed and what he says to a therapist is a joke.
Hypothetical: If someone killed Loughner in retribution for these crimes (be they surviving victim, friend/relative to a deceased victim, or random sympathizer for the victims, etc.), do you believe they would be justified on the basis that "basic morality ... dictates this guy [should die]"?
And no, it's not really a joke.
Another thought: We have let criminals worse than Loughner serve life imprisonment sentences instead of executing them. Why is Loughner so much more an important execution candidate, than, say, going and executing Charles Manson?
EDIT: Also, "bleeding heart"?
really?
If someone killed Loughner I would applaud them, yes it's justified. And Loughner is more important because of the clarity of his guilt and the number of people he killed. Manson is entertaining, but if he was executed I wouldn't be bothered.
Congratulations: You have just advocated vigilante justice and as far as I'm concerned completely ceded any ground based on American legal history, theory and practice.
Witnesses and injured = clarity of guilt. He gets a trial, once he's sentenced with death, the shoot them in the face etc. etc. goes forward.
What do you mean by "witnesses and injured." Define it.
I assume you mean the presence of witnesses by the first word. How do you determine whether witnesses are reliable? Or are you unaware of the many studies out there that cast doubt on the reliability, in general, of eyewitness testimony?
EDIT: Also, how many are needed? One? Seven? Twenty? Is a single conflicting witness statement enough to nix it, or is there some ratio?
So Draper, again, how are you defining the "clarity of his guilt?"
What is the objective legal standard you're proposing for this new and exciting "shoot them in the face and dump them in a ditch right after the trial" standard?
Wait...I forget...we are at least giving them a trial, right?
The Trial is Determined by the crazed vigilante with the gun.
Perhaps followed by a bad-ass witty remark relating to just having shot hypothetical Murderer X in the face. Perhaps also with camera close-up.
Witnesses and injured = clarity of guilt. He gets a trial, once he's sentenced with death, the shoot them in the face etc. etc. goes forward.
What do you mean by "witnesses and injured." Define it.
I assume you mean the presence of witnesses by the first word. How do you determine whether witnesses are reliable? Or are you unaware of the many studies out there that cast doubt on the reliability, in general, of eyewitness testimony?
This case has tons of witnesses and injured. Any case like this with the same number of witnesses and injured qualifies. The witnesses with this are clearly reliable, other cases would have to bring on a completely different discussion.
Witnesses and injured = clarity of guilt. He gets a trial, once he's sentenced with death, the shoot them in the face etc. etc. goes forward.
What do you mean by "witnesses and injured." Define it.
I assume you mean the presence of witnesses by the first word. How do you determine whether witnesses are reliable? Or are you unaware of the many studies out there that cast doubt on the reliability, in general, of eyewitness testimony?
This case has tons of witnesses and injured. Any case like this with the same number of witnesses and injured qualifies. The witnesses with this are clearly reliable, other cases would have to bring on a completely different discussion.
How many witnesses and how many injured are there in this case? So this is the baseline? No less?
And there's no "completely different discussion." We are a nation of fucking laws. If you want a "shoot them in the face" execution express lane, you need to legally (which is to say objectively) define the criteria for that. Like ElJeffe said, our justice system is not Burger King.
And really, how many witnesses is it? To say it's "enough" (or rather, this "qualifies") is to imply that you know. Unless you're actually defining the standard as "as many as there are in the Jared Loughner case," without knowing that number, which is retarded. And how, exactly, are these witnesses "clearly reliable?" What does that even mean?
I think compassion falls under one of the various things you maintain ignorance of.
Lucid on
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
I do have to say that, to their credit, the news is reporting him as the shooter suspect. I mean, it's mightily damn rare that an act of this kind is committed so openly and self-evidently (I seem to recall a few years back a man managing to shoot the judge officiating a different case the man was also being tried for, in the very court room during the hearing), and I realize it's the proper wording, but I think it bears mention that we're keeping the process in place even in a situation as extreme as this.
Frankly I find Jared Loughner to be a pitiful individual, but I'm not on the jury, and it's not my place to say his fate unless I am. I'm prepared to accept the decision made, given such a high profile and clear-cut case, it doesn't keep me up at night with the possible outcomes.
If we had my way he'd be locked in a padded cell for the rest of his days with his only time outside of that room being with a psychologist and/or the amount of time he needs to get exercise so his body doesn't atrophy from lack thereof.
Draper, you seem to be confusing a lack of desire to kill a crazy person as compassion.
I'm not really feeling compassion for Loughner. I just want the option that help lead to fewer crazy people shooting other people. I also don't feel particularly good about killing crazy people.
Posts
A) Killing someone is not free. For example, from ProCon.org's section weighing the Death Penalty and Life without Parole:
And hopefully if anything positive can be gained from this it'll be we'll actually start paying attention to people like Loughner, who give warning signs out the wazoo but were ignored, before they go and kill someone.
EDIT: I would also like to say this "Fast track him to the chair/needle/squad/pit of vicious starved piralligator sharks, screw the appeals!" crap makes me quite uneasy. Because, seriously, in no reasonable fashion is the dismantling of the appeals process going to lead our society to anywhere good
I said earlier that I used to be pro death penalty and capital punishment and let 'em fry. And since that point, at the ripe old age of fourteen, i've never really seen a need to challenge those beliefs. I just accepted that there are some people who should die.
Then this happens.
And I'm here, talking and reading this thread, and I'm starting to reevaluate what I think and belief and feel. And I notice that the big one is 'feel'. My desire to see Loughner killed is purely based on an emotional reaction to the horrible, terrible thing that he did and the death of a nine year old girl. Once I take a step back from the emotional, immediate response, I notice that my thoughts changed.
and then I tried to summarize Quid's points, and a few other posters whom I have a decent amount of respect for, and I realize that my own views are starting to mesh in with theirs. I'm not simply agreeing to be agreeable, but what these posters are saying seems logical, just, and optimal to me.
So no, I do not want to see Loughner killed by the state via the Death Penalty. Will it happen whether I want it to or not? Probably. Will I shed a tear for all of humanity if he does get executed, most likely not. But do I personally think that Loughner, or anybody, should have the Death Penalty on them?
No. Not anymore. There is more to be gained from life and living than there is to be gained from death and killing.
Congrats, guys, you've changed my mind.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Shit, even if he was I shudder at the thought of spending the rest of my life in a college dorm I was not allowed to leave. Forty years of Guitar Hero and O.A.R.? Blegh.
Especially since all your dorm-mates will be either crazy, murderers, or both.
no thanks. Surrounded by all that estrogen that I had to put up with at university? Hells no. I had a hard enough time dealing with that for five years without wanting to kill something.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I'm going to quote ElJeffe from another thread because I think you could benefit from it:
The point being, saying that "people who disagree with me are scum" is neither useful nor a healthy view of things.
To address the point itself, the problem is that you're seeing "murder" as the default view and not the outcome we are choosing. We would not be spending money to allow him to live, we would be spending money to support a fair and just legal system. The fact that you used the phrasing of "spending money to allow him to live" suggests that the default is killing him and that anything other than that is going above and beyond what is necessary.
No. Murder is never the default option.
I am also still not seeing why you believe it is impossible that we could learn anything from him. The only support you have given that claim is repeatedly saying we are stupid for believing it's possible. Why?
Here is a reason not to kill him: we are better than him. We do not need to resort to murder to make a point. We as a society are past the point of needing to exact violent and murderous vengeance upon a criminal for no better reason than "he's a bad man!" The right to life is, according to our constitution, inalienable. Do you fully appreciate what that means? It means that no matter what, every person has an equal right to live. You do not get to trample that right just because you are angry or upset.
You and some others seem to think that because he has committed a crime (an admittedly quite horrible one) he has forfeited his right to live and, I believe it is insinuated in some posts, his humanity. Why? How bad does a crime need to be for a person to forfeit their humanity?
To me, the entire idea of "forfeiting rights" or "forfeiting humanity" is bizarre to begin with. The bad things people do are equally a part of "humanity" as the good things they do. The only useful way to respond to the bad in people is with the good in you. When a person commits a murder, we can either respond with equal evil - murdering them in retaliation - or we can respond with the good in us and let them live and, by doing so, set an example or how people should behave.
My main point is this: when faced with a person committing a crime, we can either respond in kind or we can respond in a way that shows how far we have progressed as a society. We can take the caveman route and kill the murderer, or we can let our legal system sentence them.
As LonelyAhava said, the desire to use the death penalty stems more from emotional response than anything resembling rationality. If we stop to really consider the implications of legally sanctioned killing, no good can come of it.
Hopefully that didn't come across as too preachy, I'm just trying to communicate my opinion in a way that is clear and simple.
Edit: If you prefer, here is this view in an easier to debate format:
If you believe murder is bad, you presumably think that life has some value. If life in and of itself has value, how does it comes to pass that a murderer's life does not have this value?
Our race has a long history of killing each other for an endless list of reasons with very few of them being able to fit in the category of self-defense. To make the assumption that a no sane person can take a life outside of self-defense to deny that the killer instinct ingrained within man's very nature.
Frightening thoughts, all. Almost enough to drive a fellow... crazy!
I simply disagree with you, that it's in our nature to be able to kill each other and still be sane.
No, I have not. I've been very careful to specify murder. Killing and murder have very distinct and important differences.
I would have to look back to check the wording of every time this has come up, but it is perfectly reasonable to make the argument that murderers are insane while killers are not. For example, soldiers kill, but Loughner murdered.
I don't know that this is the argument Quid is making, but it is one that I think could be made.
Edit: Nicely done Quid. Beat me to it.
Yes, give in to your anger and hatred. It gives you FOCUS.
Right, and you believe that what Loughner did is deserving of death.
So, you did say that people who disagree with you are scum.
Sure, as long as it's disagree with that particular belief and not everything I say. I know people like you love to twist things out of proportion.
Hypothetical: If someone killed Loughner in retribution for these crimes (be they surviving victim, friend/relative to a deceased victim, or random sympathizer for the victims, etc.), do you believe they would be justified on the basis that "basic morality ... dictates this guy [should die]"?
And no, it's not really a joke.
Another thought: We have let criminals worse than Loughner serve life imprisonment sentences instead of executing them. Why is Loughner so much more an important execution candidate, than, say, going and executing Charles Manson?
EDIT: Also, "bleeding heart"?
really?
BECAUSE [appeal to emotion].
What am I like?
Also, Lanz, I'm sure he'd be fine with killing Manson as well. Of course, the Manson murders didn't have multiple witnesses, weren't committed in broad daylight, etc...so I'm still unsure how his "rapid execution law" would be written.
If someone killed Loughner I would applaud them, yes it's justified. And Loughner is more important because of the clarity of his guilt and the number of people he killed. Manson is entertaining, but if he was executed I wouldn't be bothered.
What is the objective legal standard you're proposing for this new and exciting "shoot them in the face and dump them in a ditch right after the trial" standard?
Wait...I forget...we are at least giving them a trial, right?
Congratulations: You have just advocated vigilante justice and as far as I'm concerned completely ceded any ground based on American legal history, theory and practice.
Manson is... "entertaining"? O_o What. The. Hell?
Haven't you seen his youtube videos?
What do you mean by "witnesses and injured." Define it.
I assume you mean the presence of witnesses by the first word. How do you determine whether witnesses are reliable? Or are you unaware of the many studies out there that cast doubt on the reliability, in general, of eyewitness testimony?
EDIT: Also, how many are needed? One? Seven? Twenty? Is a single conflicting witness statement enough to nix it, or is there some ratio?
The Trial is Determined by the crazed vigilante with the gun.
Perhaps followed by a bad-ass witty remark relating to just having shot hypothetical Murderer X in the face. Perhaps also with camera close-up.
This case has tons of witnesses and injured. Any case like this with the same number of witnesses and injured qualifies. The witnesses with this are clearly reliable, other cases would have to bring on a completely different discussion.
How many witnesses and how many injured are there in this case? So this is the baseline? No less?
And there's no "completely different discussion." We are a nation of fucking laws. If you want a "shoot them in the face" execution express lane, you need to legally (which is to say objectively) define the criteria for that. Like ElJeffe said, our justice system is not Burger King.
And really, how many witnesses is it? To say it's "enough" (or rather, this "qualifies") is to imply that you know. Unless you're actually defining the standard as "as many as there are in the Jared Loughner case," without knowing that number, which is retarded. And how, exactly, are these witnesses "clearly reliable?" What does that even mean?
Compassion for this guy, yes.
Frankly I find Jared Loughner to be a pitiful individual, but I'm not on the jury, and it's not my place to say his fate unless I am. I'm prepared to accept the decision made, given such a high profile and clear-cut case, it doesn't keep me up at night with the possible outcomes.
I don't argue for "compassion" for Loughner.
If we had my way he'd be locked in a padded cell for the rest of his days with his only time outside of that room being with a psychologist and/or the amount of time he needs to get exercise so his body doesn't atrophy from lack thereof.
You quite simply don't know this at all. And as has been linked, information from people like Loughner has indeed proven useful.
I, too, am interested in the answer to this question.
I'm not really feeling compassion for Loughner. I just want the option that help lead to fewer crazy people shooting other people. I also don't feel particularly good about killing crazy people.