FWIS3

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... n-shooting

I very much hope the jury decides against killing him.
a) He's obviously trying to make a martyr of himself, and inspire other violent bigots to his cause
b) He probably wants death because he knows he'll eventually feel guilt and regret
c) Seriously, don't give him and his buddies the satisfaction of "dying honorably"

I'm surprised they found him mentally competent to stand trial.
I'm surprised they let him represent himself through many of the proceedings.

I don't think he has anything to add to society. I think the Earth would be a better place without him. But it's not up to me and I wouldn't want it to be.

For the record Thumper, I can hardly disagree. But the martyrdom thing seems pretty clear to me. And yeah, I think letting him represent himself was a bad idea, for the same reason.

I'm not surprised that he's considered mentally competent though. I'm sure most violent racists are, by legal definitions, quite sane.

Will also note here that I'm philosophically opposed to executions, except in cases of crimes against humanity. So yes, bias applies.

If it hasn't already been demonstrated, I'm opposed to the death penalty as well.

Sanity or Insanity with the capacity to understand that your actions were wrong and that you should not perform those actions. Legally speaking most people fall into that category when determining guilt. Given his confession the only thing the justice system requires is that a psychologist or pyschiatrist can determine that a) he knew the act was wrong and/or illegal and b) he deliberately chose to perform the act anyway. He meets that standard.

I tell people that legally and ethically you are allowed to make bad decisions. Hence, the court had to allow him to represent himself even if it was a bad decision.

IMO he should get the death penalty. Not because it would be a deterrent to others. Because he has no remorse. And it is unlikely that he ever will have any. In this case there is no chance that justice has it wrong. He did it. He admits he did it. His rights were not violated getting a confession. He had every opportunity to receive adequate legal counsel. There is no reason to keep him alive for the next 30,40, or 50 years incarcerated with no chance of parole. IMO that is more inhumane than executing him.

As for martyr status I doubt that any of the radical neo-nazi groups are going to give him a Nazi Sainthood anytime in the foreseeable future.

What Fisher said.

I once was for the death penalty now I'm not. Screw you TSC for that!

In this case, he is guilty. No doubt about it. The problem I have however is the idea that a government can legally without repercussions execute it's citizens. Republicans in particular bug me here. They want less power to the Government but willingly and with full support want them to kill it's own citizens when they see fit. I can't abide that given the pathetic record Governments have and the law standards that they can do this under.

Wow, I agree with vendic and disagree with Fisher! Maybe the apocalypse is behind us now!

The jury decides guilt and whether to implement the death penalty, not 'the government'.

Well there you go introducing facts and stuff...

Huh. So in countries/states where the Government doesn't allow the death penalty, the jury can override it?

The Government decides if it is going to allow it's citizens to be executed. The Government can decide to overrule the jury with pardons etc.

But if we're going to say the Government plays no part in it because the jury hands down the death penalty, then the Government is allowing a group of citizens to execute other citizens. No matter which way one looks at it, the Government is either executing it's citizens or allowing other citizens to execute them by proxy.

LOL. You and Trump have something in common, my friend. Neither of you can stand to be corrected. You stated that 'the government' executed people 'when they see fit'. I'm merely pointing out that it's a jury decision here. If you don't want acknowledge that, fine. I also said nothing about the government playing no part.

Thanks for the Trump comparison. That was awesome. It made my day.

The jury doesn't execute people, they just give a sentence, one of which is the death penalty that "some" governments allow them to select. Now take that option away from the jury with the understanding that the option was given to them by the Government to begin with. Can they vote to execute anyone now?
The answer is no. The right to execute people is provided by the Government, the state prosecutor (please correct me if I am wrong) pushes for the death penalty, then the jury says "yeah, kill him" or no, let him live.
The killing is then done by the state again using a proxy, the executioner. It's not the jury that kills the person. It's a state appointed person who is allowed to kill a human being under the full understanding that he will not be punished for the killing. The jury can be described as being allowed to intervene in a Government execution since the execution path is all Government apart from them.

The Government gives legitimacy to a group of 12 people to vote on killing another citizen, then the Government pushes for execution and finally authorizes someone to execute on their behalf without repercussions. The Government can override and not execute. They are in control all the way.

I don't see how that is me being wrong. I'd love to hear how I am wrong.

Here is a map of States which allow executions of it's citizens and states which do not. In any state where the Government does not allow executions, how many people are executed by the jury? Yep, none.
In states where the Government allows executing it's citizens, how many are executed? Plenty.

I think you're playing a semantics game and avoiding the reality.

I am curious about this thing of it not being the government as well. I realize reporters get things wrong a lot, but it's an interesting coincidence that I ran into this article in the midst of this conversation.

The government is asking the jury to sentence Roof to death.

If geonuc is saying that because the government is asking the jury to decide, it somehow means it's the jury and not the government, I'd say that's a fine hair splitting right there.

Also, comparing vendic to Trump - not cool. Not cool at all. We might need a new Godwin's law if this keeps up.

Seeing as I'm like Trump and can't let this go, lets see what I wrote and how I was wrong:

geounc wrote:The jury decides guilt and whether to implement the death penalty, not 'the government'.

Nowhere did I say the government decides guilt. So that's not even relevant.
Let's look at the second part where the jury decides to implement the death penalty.
Can they choose to implement this where the government has decided that they do not support the death penalty? By implement, I mean, can they get the person executed in a non capitol crime state?
What happens if they execute him anyway?
They then get arrested and get put up on murder charges. So the jury cannot execute anyone. They have no power to execute anyone other than the power that the government gives them.


Now, what did I write:

vendic wrote:The problem I have however is the idea that a government can legally without repercussions execute it's citizens. Republicans in particular bug me here. They want less power to the Government but willingly and with full support want them to kill it's own citizens when they see fit.

The state appoints an executioner and that person executes a citizen and the executioner is not guilty of any crime because the government allowed him to kill a person.

Now here's the fun part. If I didn't post anything after your claim that I can't stand to be wrong, it becomes a case of marginalization. If I say something it can come across as though you're right because I can't let it go. The problem here is not with me. It is with you making that claim.
If I am right, and I believe myself to be, you just put me into a situation that leaves me little recourse. It also presumes that you are right. That can be seen as arrogant. Mostly however, it's just rude.

Further more, you did it in a thread about the death penalty which is ironic since I debated with TSC for many pages about it because I once supported it while he did not. He convinced me that I was wrong and I admitted it. My position is now against the death penalty. Hence my did at him in my initial post, and I was kinda hoping he'd read this and write something because I miss his posts.

How did the Guvmit of certain states get the power to kill people?

Thumper wrote:How did the Guvmit of certain states get the power to kill people?

Not sure how that changes what I wrote or it's accuracy.

How a question changes your accuracy?

I retract the Trump comparison. My apologies, that went too far.

You compared him to the President Elect of the United States of America. The leader of the free world. The most admired person and sought after post on the planet. And he didn't like it...

geonuc wrote:I retract the Trump comparison. My apologies, that went too far.

No worries. Still too soon for Trump comparisons. lol

Jury has decided in favour of death penalty.

I heard on the radio today that Roof himself stated that he did not deserve to ask the jury for a life sentence in place of the death sentence. And that "no one in their right mind would go into a church and shoot people while they were doing a bible study. But, that he felt he had to do it"

Thumper wrote:You compared him to the President Elect of the United States of America. The leader of the free world. The most admired person and sought after post on the planet. And he didn't like it...

and powerful. don't forget powerful.

SciFiFisher wrote:I heard on the radio today that Roof himself stated that he did not deserve to ask the jury for a life sentence in place of the death sentence. And that "no one in their right mind would go into a church and shoot people while they were doing a bible study. But, that he felt he had to do it"

That statement bothers me, and not just because of this context. He's suggesting that bible-studying people are inherently better people - less deserving to be shot - than non-bible-studying people. We see this all the time. Someone gets killed and a friend or relative will say that the deceased was a "god-fearing man who didn't deserve to die". As if it's open season on atheists.

Sickens me. No one deserves to be shot down like that - christians, atheists, muslims, the homeless in the street. No one. Believing in a particular god does not make you a better person, less deserving to be murdered.

Yes, I know it's a statement by Dylan Roof and can be ignored as such. But it brought to mind a general belief in this country that I cannot abide.