• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Dylann Roof- Sentenced to death.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,116
318
126
Two quick facts:
In 2014 there were 61 people on Federal death row.
Since 1988 only 3 Federal death row inmates have been executed.
A quick Google is indicating that it takes South Carolina roughly 5-10 years. Hopefully on the shorter side of that for Roof.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
There are many perspectives about punishment, but I'll go with the most basic one regarding the death penalty.

If you are in prison and are found to be wrongly convicted it is a tragic mistake and compensation galore given. No, it will not give back the years taken but some mitigation can be had.

Now if a person is wrongly executed, how do you make it up to that individual? You can throw money at survivors, but not a thing to make it up to the dead guy. There is no restitution possible when you kill an innocent.
Ironically we are talking about people who have murdered someone(s) and therefore theirs has been forfeited, be it life in prison or the death penalty. When the state murders someone, which is the very definition of killing an innocent person, who exactly spends the rest of their life in jail or forfeits their life? No one and that is what is scary, there is no true accountability. A prosecutor can knowingly, and illegally, send an innocent man to his death and when it is discovered nothing happens to them. Maybe the state pays some token sum to the family but the person actually knowingly responsible continues on in their high priced attorney job.

They actually have incentive to do this, it is their "resume" and counts as a huge win which helps them get said high priced attorney job and/or reelected.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Regarding the item of "imperfect", life terms can be taken back when errors are discovered. Executions can't.
And if the life term has already progressed 20 years? Can they get that time back?

Some crimes merit a penalty this severe, and this is such a crime.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
And if the life term has already progressed 20 years? Can they get that time back?

Some crimes merit a penalty this severe, and this is such a crime.
How do you mangle "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" into "execute him"?
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,116
318
126
He was convicted federally so as I understand the law it's in the feds hands to execute him, not South Carolina's.
Huh, I thought federal trials for murder weren't usually applicable for intrastate murder, my bad. Didn't know that hate crimes put it straight into the federal category, but makes sense considering that state concepts of hate crimes can fluctuate. Apparently the state charged first, but the federal trial convicted first.

And if the life term has already progressed 20 years? Can they get that time back?

Some crimes merit a penalty this severe, and this is such a crime.
No, but they usually see a nice, seven-figure paycheck to at least make up for wages lost and support them for the rest of their life. Not that it would make it worth it, but if I were innocent and unjustly tried, assuming prison conditions weren't so bad I'd just want to kill myself, I'd still rather sit and wait for a chance of freedom than just be killed.

Do you believe that government should not have the power to imprison anyone beyond a certain short duration of time?
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,568
18,119
136
Have that Philipino guy toss him from a helicopter
I actually laffed.
All they have to do is put him in prison with no oversight. Pay inmates everyday he is alive. They will torture him for the next 20-30 years.
doubt it. Aryan Nation is rather powerful inside the pokie. He'll be tatted up, honored, and protected the day he enters. Though...Death Row is kept apart from general pop, so he probably won't be seeing much of anyone else.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
And if the life term has already progressed 20 years? Can they get that time back?

Some crimes merit a penalty this severe, and this is such a crime.
You can't get that time back but you still have time left. Monumentally huge difference.

It seems rather ironic to me, every last person here, including you, has bitched about the government being incompetent at some point rather recently. Yet people argue that we should entrust the very same incompetent government to execute citizens. The fact of the matter is innocent people have been executed by the state and it's almost guaranteed that more innocent people will be executed by the state. Even worse is that even when gross negligence and flat out illegal activity is shown to be the cause no one is held accountable, that should be completely unacceptable to everyone. Since the intentional killing of an innocent person is by definition murder and you obviously agree with the death penalty as being an acceptable punishment for murder, who should be executed when the state commits murder?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
How do you mangle "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" into "execute him"?
I wonder if you've ever read that whole story, which might give you some inkling to its actual meaning apart from cherry-picking the passages that suit you. He was addressing corrupt pharisees taking part essentially in a lynching, not offering an indictment of every single system of law that assigns punishment to crimes. Christ doesn't intend that people not be punished for breaking the law - there is voluminous biblical backing for that.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,568
18,119
136
It seems rather ironic to me, every last person here, including you, has bitched about the government being incompetent at some point rather recently. Yet people argue that we should entrust the very same incompetent government to execute citizens. The fact of the matter is innocent people have been executed by the state and it's almost guaranteed that more innocent people will be executed by the state. Even worse is that even when gross negligence and flat out illegal activity is shown to be the cause no one is held accountable, that should be completely unacceptable to everyone. Since the intentional killing of an innocent person is by definition murder and you obviously agree with the death penalty as being an acceptable punishment for murder, who should be executed when the state commits murder?
It will be forever perplexing, yet here we are.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
You can't get that time back but you still have time left. Monumentally huge difference.
It's a difference, yes, but the principle is that you've taken something from the person that can never be returned.

It seems rather ironic to me, every last person here, including you, has bitched about the government being incompetent at some point rather recently. Yet people argue that we should entrust the very same incompetent government to execute citizens. The fact of the matter is innocent people have been executed by the state and it's almost guaranteed that more innocent people will be executed by the state. Even worse is that even when gross negligence and flat out illegal activity is shown to be the cause no one is held accountable, that should be completely unacceptable to everyone. Since the intentional killing of an innocent person is by definition murder and you obviously agree with the death penalty as being an acceptable punishment for murder, who should be executed when the state commits murder?
The fact that the government is sometimes inept and that justice is flawed doesn't change two things:

First, that punishing criminals for their crimes is rightly a role of the government, and second, that there are some crimes that are so heinous as to merit a death sentence. Dylann Roof for example.

Or Joshua Komisarjevsky, who recently had his death sentence reduced to a life sentence. This is a man who, with his accomplice, invaded the home of a doctor, robbed them, raped and murdered his wife and 11 year old daughter, then set the place on fire with the two daughters tied to their beds doused in gasoline.

And recording the raping of the wife on his cell phone.

That this man is permitted to remain alive is not an affirmation of life but a cheapening of the seriousness of murder, and a horrible slap in the face to the victims.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
That this man is permitted to remain alive is not an affirmation of life but a cheapening of the seriousness of murder, and a horrible slap in the face to the victims.
Not murdering someone cheapens the seriousness of murder?
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,116
318
126
It's a difference, yes, but the principle is that you've taken something from the person that can never be returned.

The fact that the government is sometimes inept and that justice is flawed doesn't change two things:

First, that punishing criminals for their crimes is rightly a role of the government, and second, that there are some crimes that are so heinous as to merit a death sentence. Dylann Roof for example.

Or Joshua Komisarjevsky, who recently had his death sentence reduced to a life sentence. This is a man who, with his accomplice, invaded the home of a doctor, robbed them, raped and murdered his wife and 11 year old daughter, then set the place on fire with the two daughters tied to their beds doused in gasoline.

And recording the raping of the wife on his cell phone.

That this man is permitted to remain alive is not an affirmation of life but a cheapening of the seriousness of murder, especially a murder like this.
You've just equated a life sentence to a death sentence earlier, so I don't buy that it cheapens the seriousness of murder at all. A life sentence, especially in solitary, means your life is effectively over.

I'd argue that the death penalty is a welfare program by which friends/family of victims feel entitled to emotional satisfaction at the expense of innocent life. Either there needs to be a stronger standard for allowing government executions (clear video recordings of the crime and of the criminal's arrest within a narrow time window), or it should be the victims' responsibility to take care of the problem. If people took a more proactive approach in securing their safety, they wouldn't be victimized to begin with.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
I wonder if you've ever read that whole story, which might give you some inkling to its actual meaning apart from cherry-picking the passages that suit you. He was addressing corrupt pharisees taking part essentially in a lynching, not offering an indictment of every single system of law that assigns punishment to crimes. Christ doesn't intend that people not be punished for breaking the law - there is voluminous biblical backing for that.
Yea because you ATREUS and you alone know the actual mind of Jesus and his morality is a carbon copy of your morality. Any other Christian who reads that passage and disagrees with you is wrong because YOU know the mind of the creator of the universe and that creator wants our government to kill it's citizens. Just like he wanted you to burn witches a few centuries ago. Funny how ALL of the Christians that lived back then were wrong but now ALL of them are right. Wish they would have had you channeling Jesus for them instead of relying on the Bible.

Admit it, Christians simply have more of the revenge instinct and less of the empathy instinct. They use the Bible to justify their thirst for vengeance.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
You've just equated a life sentence to a death sentence earlier, so I don't buy that it cheapens the seriousness of murder at all. A life sentence, especially in solitary, means your life is effectively over.
I said that any punishment has the potential to be reversed, having taken from the person something that can never be returned to them.

I'd argue that the death penalty is a welfare program by which friends/family of victims feel entitled to emotional satisfaction at the expense of innocent life. Either there needs to be a stronger standard for allowing government executions (clear video recordings of the crime and of the criminal's arrest within a narrow time window), or it should be the victims' responsibility to take care of the problem.
You use the term "emotional satisfaction" as if it's distasteful. I call it their sense of justice. "This person dealt immeasurable suffering to me, and justice was carried out." I can't imagine feeling that way as the husband and father whose wife and daughter were raped then burnt to death, then seeing the perpetrator let off, in this case being allowed to keep his life.

If people took a more proactive approach in securing their safety, they wouldn't be victimized to begin with.
So victim-blaming now?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Yea because you ATREUS and you alone know the actual mind of Jesus and his morality is a carbon copy of your morality.
Evidently you think the same or you wouldn't have quoted it.

Any other Christian who reads that passage and disagrees with you is wrong because YOU know the mind of the creator of the universe and that creator wants our government to kill it's citizens. Just like he wanted you to burn witches a few centuries ago. Funny how ALL of the Christians that lived back then were wrong but now ALL of them are right. Wish they would have had you channeling Jesus for them instead of relying on the Bible.
So you quote the bible in such a way as to imply that Christ really did say that we can never punish any crime ever. And you suppose this to be a reasoned and well-supported interpretation? You might alert biblical scholars the world over that, according to one out-of-context quote from John, there is no basis whatsoever for punishing criminals.

Admit it, Christians simply have more of the revenge instinct and less of the empathy instinct. They use the Bible to justify their thirst for vengeance.
I will admit that Christians probably don't waste much time empathizing with Dylann Roof. Or Charles Manson. And I accuse liberals of a twisted tendency to empathize more with the murderers than care about the justice owed the victims.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,116
318
126
I said that any punishment has the potential to be reversed, having taken from the person something that can never be returned to them.

You use the term "emotional satisfaction" as if it's distasteful. I call it their sense of justice. "This person dealt immeasurable suffering to me, and justice was carried out." I can't imagine feeling that way as the husband and father whose wife and daughter were raped then burnt to death, then seeing the perpetrator let off, in this case being allowed to keep his life.

So victim-blaming now?
A person with a life sentence has the remainder of their life returned to them if they are eventually exonerated. A person with a death sentence never does. What is hard to understand about that?

I believe in victim prevention. Victims in many parts of the country have the ability (firearm ownership and camera ownership) to reduce their victimization. If a person is victimized and took no precautions to avoid said victimization, I feel bad for them, but I don't think their laziness justifies government emotional welfare. A person whose family is raped and then burned alive inside their home is probably never going to feel whole, so I don't think making him feel slightly worse because criminals are given a life sentence is bad enough to warrant killing people that are victims themselves of a system which regularly takes innocent lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bshole

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Really? But of a waste of taxpayer money and completely redundant isn't it? The state didn't even charge Timothy Mcveigh because the Feds sentenced him to death.
Nope, because the Feds usually execute the condemned via old age. The State of South Carolina on the other hand can be a bit more . . . hard nosed.

It's a difference, yes, but the principle is that you've taken something from the person that can never be returned.

The fact that the government is sometimes inept and that justice is flawed doesn't change two things:

First, that punishing criminals for their crimes is rightly a role of the government, and second, that there are some crimes that are so heinous as to merit a death sentence. Dylann Roof for example.

Or Joshua Komisarjevsky, who recently had his death sentence reduced to a life sentence. This is a man who, with his accomplice, invaded the home of a doctor, robbed them, raped and murdered his wife and 11 year old daughter, then set the place on fire with the two daughters tied to their beds doused in gasoline.

And recording the raping of the wife on his cell phone.

That this man is permitted to remain alive is not an affirmation of life but a cheapening of the seriousness of murder, and a horrible slap in the face to the victims.
Well said. There are animals in human form who simply do not deserve to live. That said, we need a lot better structure as to what can qualify as a death sentence case based on the nature of evidence.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Ironically we are talking about people who have murdered someone(s) and therefore theirs has been forfeited, be it life in prison or the death penalty. When the state murders someone, which is the very definition of killing an innocent person, who exactly spends the rest of their life in jail or forfeits their life? No one and that is what is scary, there is no true accountability. A prosecutor can knowingly, and illegally, send an innocent man to his death and when it is discovered nothing happens to them. Maybe the state pays some token sum to the family but the person actually knowingly responsible continues on in their high priced attorney job.

They actually have incentive to do this, it is their "resume" and counts as a huge win which helps them get said high priced attorney job and/or reelected.
This is something that could be fixed. A prosecutor who can be convicted of knowingly presenting false evidence or hiding exculpatory evidence should face the same sentencing range as did the defendant. Same with a defense attorney who knowingly presents a defense he knows isn't true. Gross negligence should equal mandatory disbarment. Wrongly acquitting and wrongly convicting are both serious abrogations of the public trust.

Trials should be a search for the truth, not simply an adversarial contest between two attorneys.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
This is something that could be fixed. A prosecutor who can be convicted of knowingly presenting false evidence or hiding exculpatory evidence should face the same sentencing range as did the defendant. Same with a defense attorney who knowingly presents a defense he knows isn't true. Gross negligence should equal mandatory disbarment. Wrongly acquitting and wrongly convicting are both serious abrogations of the public trust.

Trials should be a search for the truth, not simply an adversarial contest between two attorneys.
That would effectively end the justice system because no lawyer is going to risk their life/freedom to just get a verdict. It would definitely end the death penalty because who in their right mind would risk their life for the paltry pay of a public servant....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY