I hope "Loughner" is sentenced to "death."
If he is, and the opportunity was made available to you to execute him could you?...would you?
Explain why/why not.
I would kill him with pleasure. He killed a nine year old little girl.
It's odd that you bring up this subject.
Right after the tragedy, I was talking to my sister, and I stated something similar.
Senseless acts like this just make you want to personally take this guy out.
But no matter what happens, those lives he took can never be brought back. Very tragic.
For the life of me, I will never understand why one would want this useless monster of a human creature to continue to live.
"IT" has proved its murderous nature and to me "it's" value is none.
If "it" is sentenced to death, I would have no compunction in pushing the buttons and sending this "creature" to the grave.
Could I? Yes, I guess if it was my job. Would I want too? NO! That's deprived. Even if he has a mental illness, all "crazy" isn't the same to paraphrase Ron White. If you are crazy and violent it's just not the same. You represent a wild card that most in society wouldn't want to risk playing.
Your comment makes no sense.
"Deprived?" Did you mean depraved? I'm only guessing.
It seems you didn't read my question with understanding.
yes, I meant "depraved" sorry. Anyone who actively desires to kill another human being is depraved in my opinion.
Why would one be considered to be depraved i.e. (Morally corrupt; perverted) if he desired to rid humanity of a human monster which has proved itself to be deadly and a danger to other innocent, living humans.
Isn't it natures way to destroy the weak and unadaptive?
Or are you thinking and responding according to your religious beliefs?
Religious beliefs? Mind reading aren't we? My opinion is that one who "fantasizes" or "relishes" the idea of killing another human being, no matter the circumstance is DEPRAVED.
"WHY" would you think that one who would want to rid societly of a murderous human creature would be depraved?
"Religious beliefs? Mind reading aren't we?"
I assumed nothing! I just asked a question.
My goodness, so sensitive! lol
To be WILLING is NOT the same thing as to WANT.
you are tap dancing around the barn...lol
Why would one be considered to be depraved (in your mind) if one WANTED to rid society of a proved deadly, dangerous, costly menace to innocent people?
Give it a little thought before answering.
Lets look at your words:
"I hope "Loughner" is sentenced to "death.""
There has been no trial. Yet you already have a desired outcome.
"If he is, and the opportunity was made available to you to execute him could you?...would you?"
Here you are fantasizing and asking others to do the same.
"Explain why/why not."
Looking for validation.
lol you don't even tap dance well!
I said "IF" he is sentenced to death.
We know he's guilty.
If he's found to be insane, forget it. He will be amongst us again in a few years.
when he IS sentenced to death, if he had killed my daughter, I'd devote my life to "taking him out!"
My depraved "WANT" would be unquenchable.
lolol...I haven't asked anyone to execute Loughner! How'd you come to that conclusion?
I asked if anyone would accept an offer to execute him.
Pls read and respond thoughtfully and intelligently.
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey
Loughner seems obviously sick to me. Countless people are gunned down over money or drugs, every day. The intent is greed in many cases.
On the other hand if he is ever " not sick" which I dont think is possible although I could be 100% wrong and I am not a doctor,( I dont think there is a cure for schizophrenia)I think he should go directly from a mental hospital to a prison for the rest of his life.
Capital punishment doesnt stop the killing.
"Capital punishment doesnt stop the killing."
Really? It certainly would in his case.
By killing one more?
And society becomes just a little more desensitized to death.
Societies have been de-sensitized to death for about 35000 yrs!
Today, we are inventing more efficient and effective ways to take out whole nations with the press of an index finger...and ... with no compunction.
Man IS and ALWAYS has been a barbarian predator.
For me it has always seemed odd to say its wrong to kill someone then turn around and kill someone for killing someone.
I understand completely wanting to stop someone from ever killing again. People have a right to live and if capital punishment saves one innocent life it would be worth it. If capital punishment ever cost one innocent life, it would be more than just a tragedy, there would be unassigned culpability.
This is the major problem I have with capital punishment, that a "institution has the ability to legally kill someone with immunity".
Who controls whether a murderer who is condemned to death dies?
"We the people!"
It has been so down thru history! Thumbs down on the murderous "basterd!"
The "god thing" of the bible flies into murderous rages and destroys most all (innocent) life on earth!
We exist in a nation that believes in this biblical "god thing!"
Killing is part and parcel of American heritage and it will not change.
We tout not killing a murderer but will go to war and kill folks who believe differently than us, by the thousands! men women and children and come home heroes!
But we will light candles and chant hymns outside the walls of a prison which is about to destroy the life of a heinous, murderous, human monster.
Mistakes will always be made.
WE humans are far from perfect.
In the case of Loughner, no mistake will be made if he loses his life for visually taking the life of an innocent!
The death penalty is barbaric, and cruel beyond reason. I say that knowing fully well that I'd like to see some persons executed as well, however, nobody who has ever killed someone in anger has not been damaged by this. Even those who kill in self defence suffer psychologically from it.
If I were shooting in self defense, or to protect someone else, I wouldn't shoot to kill. I'd shoot, but it would be to stop the assailant.
"Even those who kill in self defence suffer psychologically from it."
Are you speaking from experience?
I would feel no compunction in killing to save my life or the life of another...none at all!
I think it would be barbaric and cruel beyond reason to allow the murderer of innocent others to go on living!
It's really too bad/unfortunate that Loughner was not killed on the spot!
I don't think I could kill anyone except in self-defense. However, I think something worse than being put to death would be having to spend the rest of my life behind bars, locked up, with no freedom to come and go as I wished. That, to me, would be worse than a death penalty.
I guess no one knows who "Loughner" is...or... they are squeamish about responding.
Personally? I would accept the offer and execute the deserving, useless "creature" with a great feeling of satisfaction.
One more useless blob of human flesh who will not take the life of another innocent child or adult!
There, I've said it!
How about you?
I said "IF" he's sentenced to DEATH.
If they find he is insane, he won't be sentenced to death.
Pls re-think your reply.
He is mentally illl no matter what some vigilante jury decides.
Even civilized believers in capital punishment frown on executing people who are mentally ill, mentally defective or children who commit crimes.
If he was found to be insane, he would not be sentenced to death.
I said, if he was found guilty and sentenced to death, would you accept the job of executing him.
Again, no, because revengeful jurors ignore mental illness.
I might support killing those who are absolutely proven to have callously killed for personal gain and who are not otherwise deranged, but still would object because absolute proof is a very steep slope..
If the mental illness and/or defectiveness makes them dangerous, why are we sacrificing anything to keep them alive? What I consider depraved is the thought that our society works so hard to protect these "people". It's sad and horrible that they're screwed up but if they are, they need to go.
Let's not stop there. Let's kill off those who burden us in other ways - the Downs syndrome folks, for example. Why not? They are 'screwed up" and can be dangerous.
Kill 'em all and let God sort them out, right?
Actually, Downs syndrome folks are very non-aggressive, so we should spare them. There are, however, other mental conditions that make people more violent. We could include them. And how about helpless people in wheelchairs? They're a drag on society and don't usually contribute.
I smoke cigarettes, probably will eventually kill me. Cigarettes killed my grandfather killed my dad. No telling what the second hand smoke did. People that smoke , the people that profit from it buy selling it and people that profit from the tax money generated from it.
What about them?
Sure, lets add the smokers, too. Just give me and hubby enough time to quit before all the "dregs" are rounded up!
Its odd that lots of people want to execute someone that is mentally ill. What he did is horrifying to be sure. He needs to be out of society so he cant possibly do it again.
On the other hand most Judges and people, for that matter understand that murder " especially premeditated and for money or greed is even more heinous."
Why is that? Because someone wanted money over someone life. They committed a crime for greed. They werent crazy they werent angry.
There is a difference between someone that gets killed in a mutual fight out of anger. There is a difference between someone getting drunk and killing a bunch of kids with their car. Or a bunch of drunk kids killing someone with their car.
The difference is the intent. Someone commits a crime for money or greed. They knew what they were doing was going to get someone killed but they did it anyway for the money.
Does tobacco kill people? Do tobacco companies know that tobacco kills people? Do the people that benefit from the tax money generated from the sale of tobacco know that tobacco kills?
What would the infrastructure of our country be like without the tax on tobacco?
You do understand that I was being sarcastic, right? I oppose the death penalty.
Yes of course Habee I know you are just joking. Dont mind me I was just rambling out loud.
I am trying to work it out in my mind why "we as a society" quickly want justice for those that probably aren't even in their right mind to distinguish what day it is much more what is right or wrong. Meanwhile we tend to 'as a society" want to rush to judgment for others while minimizing or not even recognizing our own responsibility.
We talk about throwing the book at drunk drivers , but we sure do like driving on good paved roads and nice bridges. We talk about what a burden smoking related illness is on health care, yet without tobacco tax, I really believe we would be in pretty bad shape as a country as far as infrastructure.
I wonder how much tax money is made from cigarettes tobacco and firearms.
He has no socially redemning value. He will continue to be a liability and a drain on society. Elimination is the only logical step.
Correct. Aside from his apparent paranoid schizophrenia, I don't support capital punishment.
No. BUT I am deeply concerned that he never get out of jail or the hospital.
We just had a case in Massachusetts where a criminal serving 3 life sentences was paroled and ended up killing a police officer while he robbed a store. How that happened has me very worried. (Arizona parole boards might not be as lenient as Massachusetts')
NO! I wouldn't either. First of all, the State has no business executing people. Second, I think he is under MK Ultra control. And, in fact I have read articles claiming that Palin is too.
And this is not crazy-talk. It is a fact of life in America.
He fits all the signs.
It is an evil system we pay for, and accept. We need to find out what is really behind all this. Who, and Why?
What'cha mean the state doesn't have any business executing people?
Every state is soveriegn within its borders.
What is "MK Ultra control?"
You think Loughner was part of a plot?
I absolutely would not.
I am personally against the death penalty and luckily am not in a position where I need to enforce it.
Loughner should be given a life sentence with no possibility of parole. Maybe he can share a cell with Charlie Manson.
he has a mental disease that needs to be address. That being said i hope he doesn't get out
That's for the courts to decide.
If he's sentenced to die, could you "flip-the-switch?"
ssaul, I applaud your charity toward this monster, you are a better person than I am. I agree that he has a mental disease which makes him a danger to society and I agree that it should be addressed. He needs to be put down like any other rabid animal.
I don't want to pay for the food, bed, comfort and entertainment of a convicted piece of murderous human garbage.
I thought it was pretty well established that it costs far more to execute somebody than to lock them up for life!
That's right. All the appeals and red tape cost more than feeding and housing a prisoner for life.
Several years ago it cost about $60.00 a yr to keep a inmate locked up...it costs much more today.
You could send a child to one of the best colleges for what it costs to feed and entertain a convicted merderous inmate.
What costs to execute someone here in the USA is: incarceration and legal appeal costs for the following decade or 2 before the execution is carried out.
The execution, per se, is cheap!
I agree. I don't support the death penalty, either, but I do support life in prison without parole.
It costs a lot more money to execute someone than it is to give them life without. This is due to appeals court costs, lawyers fees, housing on death row, etc., etc. If this was the old west, he was of been swinging from a tree already. I'm sure the line would stretch a couple of zip codes for the chance to execute this guy and it wouldn't personally bother me if he's executed. If he is given life, there might be a chance that another inmate would want to make a name for themselves and murder him like they did with Jeffery Dalmer.
Whoa! I glanced at the title of this thread really quickly and thought it said "Would You Accept an Offer to Execute Lrohner!"
I cried when I heard of that tragedy. I was also heart broken to know that he sits in his cell and smirks; he seems to show no remorse.
"Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."
Those he hurt will be resurrected again.
I'd rather see him thrown into the general prison population. He will be convicted of killing a child, which among criminals is not considered a "good crime". He will not last long.
Is feeding him to wild pigs an option?
Seriously, I would love to pull the plug on this guy, however, life in prison, in the general population where other inmates could beat and abuse him until someone finally sticks a knife made from compressed toilet paper into his gut would seem more fitting. Of course we know that won't happen.
If he gets life, he will spend it in some special isolated cell for his own protection and the tax payers will spend millions of dollars on him before he finally dies in 60 or 70 years. If he gets the death penalty, he will still spend years if not decades appealing it and tax payers will still be out more money than this pathetic excuse for a human being is worth.
I say lock the door, throw away the key, walk away, never look back again, and let him rot in his own filth.
Connecticut now has a good chance of ending the death penalty. We have a new governor who has promised to sign such as bill if it is passed, unlike our previous governor who vetoed it against the will of the people. The death penalty is an atavistic barbarity. It is rarely applied fairly or expeditiously. It only adds to the violence of the community when the state has the right to kill in cold blood in the name of justice. It does not deter murder. It does not even slake the desire for a just revenge because it is delayed for 10 to 20 years. Despite the legal hoops we execute innocent people. Our law is too imperfect for such an irrevocable penalty. We only diminish our own humanity with each such communal act of barbarity.
"We only diminish our own humanity with each such communal act of barbarity."
Man IS a "barbarity!"
Pls point out a time in human history when man has not been involved in "murdering" his own kind.
There is no possibility that "man" will become a truly "civilized" creature anytime in the near future.
Accept the "FACT" that, regardless of your "lip service," touting the "atavistic barbarity" of we humans, we will continue to conjure up more effective/efficient methods to destroy ourselves.
We function adversely to the laws of nature. Those laws rid life of the weak and unadaptive. Only the "strong" survive.
Don't compare me to the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler.
My attitude is the extremity of the concept of "humane!" It is the natural way.i.e. destroy those who are are proved to be a detriment to the survival of the species.
Be kind and compassionate to those who nature has shortchanged and who are not a detriment to anyone.
barranca, with all do respect and I mean this sincerely, because I, myself am not in favor of the death penalty, I think Lrohner is a danger to society and needs to be, as I said before in a previous post, put down like the rabid animal he is. It's not like we don't know he did it! There is no mistake in identity here, no other possible suspects, and no doubt as to his guilt. The "irrevocable penalty" was mited out by him on those who were killed and their families. So as much as I understand what you are saying, in this case I can't help but agree with everybody here who wants to send this guy off to stand before his final judge.
check out Stephen Pinker on the history of violence. It might cheer you up:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Steven-Pinker-A … f-violence
this question seems to scratch the surface at the real question,... "do you suport the death penalty?",...ask that one and i'll debate you all day.
"do you suport the death penalty?"
Yes, I even support it too.
i'm soo damn pro-lif i piss off pro-lifers,.... i do not suport the death penalty.
in generations past, the law of the land, that of survival and practicality, demanded that the death penalty was needed,... we had no way of locking our social deviants away in jails that did not exist. now i'm not going to argue that we've progressed as a society,... because we havent,... human nature stil reigns supreme,... but we've at least damn near perfected the system of encarseration. (please forgive my poor spelling, its a sore point for me, i do not spell well, and spell check just piss's me off) we sentance to death the inocent, and to protect against this we engage in an endless appeals proc. that costs more than max security,... to make a long answer short,.... its moraly wrong, and intelectualy/mathematicaly insulting,... thats why i dont suport he death penalty,... care to go further?
There has never been a perfect union of human and justice.
The only "perfect" union is that which has seemingly worked for billions of yrs on this planet i.e. "natural justice: the strong survive; the weak pass on."
We exist as a form of natural life.
Environment controls evolution. If we cannot change our environment, why not abide by natures laws until we can?
To destroy those which prove themselves to be detrimental to the survival of "striving," "law abiding others, is living in concert with natures proven methods of "control."
Do you think our nascent gift of imperfect, evolving "consciouness" supercedes the fiats already set and proven by nature to have been successful?
At this point in our tortuous evolution, that would be contrary to reasoned logic!
Down thru the annals of history, we humans are responsible for horrible mistakes which have taken the lives of inumerable innocents. We continue on today.
We are, in the case of Loughner, not considering the execution of an innocent!
He has been witnessed taking the lives of innocent people who deserved to live and experience a full range of life and its experiences.
Why shouldn't he die?
Think about this before you reply!
you can email me by looking it up on my prophile, this format is infuriating on my note book,... unless the audience is desired,..in which case, i'll do my best.
the death penalty is a moral/social question,.... not a natural one. it is because we are human beings that we have the desire to tackle moral and social questions,.. we are the only species on earth that does this, even the much lauded primate does not ponder the moral implications of his behavior.
if we aplied naturtal law to all questions/situations then the abortion conversation would be as relavant as "the water is wet" debate,.. and because abortion would be considered as natural as the cow rejecting its unhealthy calf to alow it to die, we would, under natural law, have no moral objection to euthenizing our infants who are deformed, or aflicted with a dissorder,.... but what is a moral objection in the mind of cattle?.... a compleetly forign concept,... a useless idea that does not aply to a cow,...but it does apply to us,... we are humans, unique in our understanding of right and wrong.
it is wrong to kill another human being, on that we all agree,especialy the inocent, the un involved,...
it is also acceptable to kill in the deffence of life, your own and others,...
and here is where i will catch hell....
christianity teaches that vengance the lords, and no one elses,... we are not talking about shooting strangling or aflicting this man with bugs or his fellow prisoners because we desire justice,.... we just want revenge,... and that is natural, and blameless,... it comes from the animal part of our being.
surendering to the animal part of ourselves makes us less human.
if you wish, once again, feel free to land in my in-box.
We are "natural" forms of life doing what we are programmed to do.
As social creatures, with a massive "brain," and no claws or fangs to protect us, that "massive brain" has the ability to reason and plan ahead in our stead and produce living conditions that either compliment our survival or endanger it.
As time has passed and we have become a more sophisticated species, our genetic programming for the kill has not been sublimated.
It is very NATURAL for us to want to kill and that "desire" will take thousands of years to be reprogrammed and replaced with greater civility, thru the slow and tortuous movements of "natural" evolution..ah, that is unless we can somehow learn to control our evolution!
Until that time, tho, we can give "lip" service to not wanting to kill, but, BUT...it is only "lip service!"
We will continue on, as the earth's prime predator, to create ingenious ways to sublimely commit murder and mayhem under the guise of naivety and abject ignorance...being that we are yet only infants in the crib.
In the world of "reality" there is no such thing as wrong and right. There just "is."
WE haven't reached the first rung on the ladder of evolution. We are grasping and it is still far beyond our childish reach.
That part of me that is base animal, demands the death of a member of my species that robs another innocent member, of its life!
I do not know what you refer to when you mention this lord thing. so that part of your response is not meaningful.
I prefer to keep all communication with others "in the forum" so that they may participate if they are so inclined.
"In the world of "reality" there is no such thing as wrong and right. There just "is.",.... quoting you.
if this is the case, then how can an animal that does not comprehend wrong or right honor the concept of inocense,.... the wolf does not view the rabit as inocent,... nor does he underand the incoence of the wolf pup he killed because of territorial protection,....
quoting you again,...
"That part of me that is base animal, demands the death of a member of my species that robs another innocent member, of its life!"
you use terms such as inocent and wrong and right as if they had no connection,..... when it is the concept of wrong and right first in the mind, that allows the idea of ones inocence of an accused wrong to be conceptualized at all.
i detect a sizable intelect and real passion in your writing, but also a gallows humor that hates ones own species,..... btw, love the dark humor myself,... but humanity is more than the actions of those who make headlines,.... and while being an animal, i'm also human,... a unique creature,...
you see, our culture looks to the stars for other life not because we seek answers, but because we seek anonimity,...
what would happen if humanity had to face the implications of our uniqueness,... the responsibilty of being the only thing like us,.... the highest life form on the planet,... and therefore resposible for it,... wow
been a pleasure exchanging words with a vocabulary that measure more than 3 sylables at a time.
poorly spelled as always -stclairjack
"if this is the case, then how can an animal that does not comprehend wrong or right honor the concept of inocense,...."
It doesn't. "Innocent" only has meaning to the the human creature. It is but a descriptive word.
All other animal life is controlled by genetics and learned behavior.
The higher primates (great apes) can recognize themselves in a mirror. Their awarness is a phenomenon and owned by only them and we humans.
"We" are creatures of both will and instinct. Our will can override the instinct. No other animal has gained that ability.
Yes we are unique.
In the universe of "reality." right and wrong are constructs of the human mind. Those terms only have "meaning" to us. They are the result of millions of yrs of societal cohabitation.
"you see, our culture looks to the stars for other life not because we seek answers, but because we seek anonimity,..."
Oh I disagree! We are "curious by nature!"
We would love to know that we are not alone!
My goodness, How fast we would "grow up" as a species if we could mature to the point of ridding ourselves of regressive superstition and belief in metaphysical supreme beings!
We would progress like no other time in our short history of existence!
Possibilities would exist which we hadn't even dreamed of yet!
Our planet exists as a googol size entity in a cosmos so inexplicably unfathonable that we could be compared to the existence of a "quark" in atomic structure!
Our import in the cosmos is only valuable to us!
We humans at this stage in our evolutionary progress are functioning in the "dark side."
Our future IS "dark" and menacing!
You are a delightful, "thinking" human "specimen!"
Even tho I may disagree with you on many of your thoughts and your spelling is atrocious : The chat has been fun!
Have a great nite and a very Happy New Year! :
I have a better idea. This guy needs to die slow and in pain.
I say put him in a sealed cell, and, every day add some kind of biting insect to his cell, something really annoying like a few misquitos or lots of fire ants. Maybe once a week throw a few really nasty bees in there. maybe a snake that bites but is not poisonous. Maybe leave a hanging device in his cell, or a bottle of pills that he could swallow.
He wants to kill so bad, maybe he might want to kill himself. Only, don't put enough pills in the bottle to kill him, and when he tries hanging the rope is rigged to drop him to the floor like a yo-yo.
Only to eventually have it actually work, only he'll never know when it is going to happen. Then one day when he least expects it come in the room with a gun and shoot him in the head.
If he holds out for more than a year, time to bring in the gun.
But, don't shoot him the first time, maybe next time. make him think about it. A lot. maybe never kill him...suffer..suffer.
I know. I have been watching way too many bad movies.
Sounds good to me! lol
I've written a "hub" on "Televised Executions."
If ya get the notion, check it out...:
i'm laughing my sadistic ass off, you enjoyed this,.... and so did i,... thanx, i'm anti death penalty but i see EXACTLY wher your comin from!
ANYONE the media has exposed and overexposed and made us so sure are wicked, evil, stupid, or just plain annoying - I will be glad to shoot them all! I will shoot them with my can of whipped cream, and then I will send them out naked into the wilderness to wrestle with the bares! I mean bears! I'ma gonna get me some naked, wicked, evil, stupid, and UGLY and ANNOYING just because you people asked me if I would! Yeah me!
I am sure there are others who will be happy to join me and we can save the American taxpayers all the money we spend on court systems! No need for judges, lawyers, juries, fancy marble buildings or any of that crap. Whipped cream! We will conquer! Yeah for us!
Sounds like fun.
I've been to a party very much like that, though those folks were wrestling with each other, not bears.
And it was jello, not whipped cream. But, hey, why not?
Yes, people who have been overexposed, and what's more, enjoyed it! should also get to overexpose themselves (and their families) until we are all quite nauseous! And, as for the ones who do the overexposing- via the media - these puppets may hereafter be forced to swim through a vat of cool, liquid, fudge while they spout (as media whales are prone to do) repetitive and sometimes quite malicious drivel about, oh I don't know - pinheads? patriots?
Oh, and they must keep waving their little flag and shout "liberals" as loud as they can, while they swim! That way, the rest of us may have a little peace and quiet while the courts do their interminable work.
Yeah! I've sorted it all out for the guilty, the innocent, and the just plain ugly!
Even though I agree with several liberals here about the death penalty, I'm sure my reasons for opposition are different. You see, I'm a Republican and a Christian, and I don't feel that it's our right to take a human life. I don't take any life indiscriminantly - even those of spiders, snakes, etc. I will kill flies, mosquitoes, and roaches because they spread diseases, but when I find a nonvenomous spider in the house, I take it outside and release it. Same for nonvenomous snakes and beetles and other bugs.
Also, if this guy had just killed the governor and it was politically motivated, it would be completely different. Isn't that the only way to stop tyranny? I hope there's a better way than killing a politician whenever they make an unpopular decision, just one at a time wouldn't work anyway. You'd have half the people agreeing with the decision and the other half wanting it stopped.
Voting obviously doesn't work, countries are taken over anyway. But when someone goes crazy and indiscriminately kills bystanders, they've become or have always been a menace to society and should be removed.
I actually don't believe we have a 'right' to take a human (or other) life either; maybe an obligation though. Who should do the deed? Maybe the relatives of the victims.
"For me it has always seemed odd to say its wrong to kill someone then turn around and kill someone for killing someone"
Amen to that. Especially killing someone who is clearly out of their minds. In any case, if killing is wrong, then killing is wrong. There can be no exceptions.
Additionally, as satisfying as one may think it would be. It isn't, as it will not bring back the dead. Those who were killed will still be gone and missed.
Should we kill Loughner?
Does violence beget violence?
Why does the government reserve the power to kill someone, but other organizations can not?
Will his death bring back those who died?
I dunno... the guy's a sick bastard, whatever the answer is.
Sitting here watching a Tudors marathon on BBC America.
I have not counted, but the number of beheadings is well into the double digits and Ann Bolyn is in the tower waiting her turn.
How far we've evolved as a society. Beheading has given way to hanging has given way to the electric chair has given way to lethal injection.
No, I would not.
It's more fitting he do life in prison without parole.
They could refuse the punk when he asks for protective custody though. He needs to answer for being less than a man.
Put him on the "Mainline" and front him off!
After suddenly ending six lives, he doesn't deserve to live. An eye for an eye...and he's not a cat. If he ends up in prison for life, he gets to live on in an environment where he is not expected to work or contribute to society. Sounds that that would be letting him off easy to me.
I can also subscribe to the thoughts that we shouldn't take a life for a life, and that killing is wrong. I guess it would all depend on this guy's mental state. Is he truly insane? Is there a way of ever figuring that out?
Qwark, you said -
I don't want to pay for the food, bed, comfort and entertainment of a convicted piece of murderous human garbage.
Okay, let's suppose this man didn't pull the trigger. He'd still be mentally unstable and most likely on Social Security & Medicare (of some kind). Either way, in prison for murder or living life, you'd be paying for the food, bed, comfort and entertainment of this man.
It's been proven that execution costs are much higher than providing for prisoners serving consecutive life sentences.
So, what difference does it make? Anyone who claims to desire the death penalty as payment for a crime really is seeking revenge. An eye for an eye. However, someone who wants a justified payment for the crime would wish the criminal to spend the rest of his life contemplating what he's done, behind bars and dreaming, wishing to have the freedom everyone else takes for granted.
My answer? No. I couldn't flip the switch. Let him rot in hell for what he's done, but I refuse to join him!
The premise of your comment is right. Appeals, court costs, attorney fees etc., etc., are costly.
More costly than bedding, feeding and entertaining him for the rest of his natural life.
If you haven't read my "hub" entitled: "Televised Executions," I say in it that I want the sane "perp" to experience the fear, to understand the eternal consequences of death and I would love for him to feel the pain suffered by those he robbed of precious life!
I could, without compassion or compunction, end that man's life in a legal manner if the opportunity were offered to me.
I respect your response..:
No. I don't approve of death penalty for so many reasons.
There are people who have jobs like that, I wonder if they have misgiving afterwards. I think the salaries of those people who switch the poison on in the room or inject the convict with lethal injection are high, but not many people are applying when it is vacated.
Pretty: If you had a 10 yr old daughter and she was gunned down for no reason but stupidity....would you seek vengeance by death?
by Jayesef 6 years ago
Why is it not morally and legally OK to let a person sentenced to death end himself in dignity?When dismissed from a company for a crime, my employer allows me to leave in dignity. They do not throw me out like dirt. When sentenced to death for a crime, why cant they allow me to commit suicide in...
by John Harper 8 years ago
A Christian woman has been sentenced to hang in Pakistan after being convicted of defaming the Prophet Mohammed.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … phemy.htmlAnybody have a view about this?
by Peeples 6 years ago
Should I just accept that my husband won't vote?I almost never disagree with my husband. However he has the "No need to vote when they're all the same" mentality. I am really wanting him to vote or at least learn the issues because we will be moving to a new tax bracket soon and I believe...
by Alan 4 years ago
You know how I am very skeptical of religiosity, however, there is, for me, a deeper consideration about all this apparent need for "faith" and "beliefs."It's all about inspiration and what gives us humans impetus. There is a need to look beyond the mundane and the forces...
by soozeqsh 4 years ago
If you won an opportunity to have plastic surgery would you accept the offer?
by Ralph Deeds 8 years ago
Should children who commit felonies be subject to life sentences?Cases involving a 12 and a 13 year old convicted of felonies and serving life sentences are before the U.S. Supreme Court. How do you think the court should rule?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|