Should Mass shooters all get the death penalty (a harsh one)

Where will you find the executioners? It seems to me that anyone who would kill a human being while making it as agonizing as possible is not entirely sane. add in the fact we'd be paying them to do it, and we can add in evil as well. Torturing someone to death may be perfect justice in some cases, but do we really want people to make a career out of sociopathy?

Do it humanely. After it's over, how he died doesn't matter to the criminal, but it does matter to us. While I feel for the victims of these tragedies and for their families, we shouldn't allow our society as a whole to be scarred by them.

I suppose I could try to make a case being in prison for life with no possibility of parole is worse than execution, at least in the US. God knows there are enough horror stories.

 

Do you advocate for the death penalty for *all* criminals or just mass murderers? I'm trying to understand your position why these specific criminals should receive the death penalty versus other types of criminals.

 

Is there a specific reason you think society is not already scarred by criminality, overall?

 

The difference is that society has already been scarred by the criminal. There is no need to damage ourselves further y being inhumane. Sometimes death is the only appropriate penalty. When that is the case, it should be applied humanely.

Some of the posters on this thread seem to advocate slow torture as the best means of execution. I think that makes us more callous as a society. It is important to me that we retain our ability to empathize with others while retaining our capacity to punish wrongdoers justly.

 

OK. Your original statement (the one I responded to) didn't convey that. I absolutely agree we shouldn't be torture-hungry, blood thirsty animals, but clearly others disagree with our position on that.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why people are combative and violent (even outside criminality) so none of it makes sense to me. Nothing has even been solved by fighting and hating. It's wasted energy with poor statistical probability of leading to any productive or positive.

 

There is a difference between mass killers, serial killers,and contract killers on the one hand and other criminals. They set out to take a life. Whether they chose their victim by chance (mass murderers and serial killers) or had it chosen for them. is immaterial. They killed- not in the heat of passion, not because of any personal animosity or grievance- but simply to gratify themselves. They are dangerous sociopaths. Society needs to be made safe from them.

Even if these individuals could be 'cured', they would need to be watched. Dogs that have bitten once may do so again. And how could they live with the enormity of their crimes? Viewed in some ways, killing them is an act of mercy.

Other types of criminals can be separated from society, punished, (hopefully) reformed, and watched for a period to ensure they don't backslide as the consequences of failure to monitor them adequately are not as huge.

 

Mass murderers are a potential wealth of valuable knowledge into what causes them. This knowledge is valuable because it could be used to prevent mass murder, both by identifying them before they act and in preventing/reducing them from becoming so lost in the first place. There are of course a myriad of problems associated with trying to figure them out, such as the subjective nature of human psychology, interference and obstruction due to political agendas and the need to serve justice against violent criminals, but I still believe trying to learn what causes mass murder should hold a priority over punishing them. For example, there is the theory, one I think has relevence, that mind altering prescription medication may play a part in many mass shootings and in unprovoked violence in general. Some violent criminals may themselves be victims of medical/pharmaceutical malpractice. If so, simply killing them will not solve anything and may be an inhumane solution depending on whether or not its in fact possible to rob someone of their self control, free will and/or grasp on reality with psychoactive chemicals.

 

This could potentially change my thinking. Can you recommend any sites or search terms?

 

Mass murderers are the people that kill more than one person in some kind of spree (usually a breaking point somewhere). Their homicidal attack happens in ONE event.

Serial killers murder several people but not concurrently. Their homicidal attacks happen over a long period of time and usually involve killing one person per attack.

Therefore, until a mass murderer commits that crime, (and assuming they haven't committed smaller crimes prior to that), what is there to study about them?

 

I don't believe brutal death is necessary. Dead is dead. Remove them from this world. I do believe death sentences should be public however.

 

The distinction you are making seems to point in the other direction. Mass murderers are people that kill more than one person in a single event. For example, Sandy Hook or Columbine. They usually don't kill a bunch of people, wait a while and go kill a bunch of other people until they are caught. It's almost always a SINGLE moment of unleashing. Unless you have some specific case that contradicts that, mass murderers generally aren't known to law enforcement because they've never committed a crime until the day they snapped and it's not for their personal pleasure. It's almost always to target others who may have hurt them or hurting the loved ones of someone who has.

Serial killers, however, kill many people (usually one at a time) over the span of months, years or even decades until (or if) they are caught. This is the subgroup of murderers that have some form of gratification in taking a living being's life. They almost always have a history of being "a bit off" even as kids and they almost always have a history of stealing people's pets and stray animals to kill before they move onto killing humans.

I don't know why you added contract killers to the discussion because that is a completely different thing. They don't choose their targets and they may not get any kind of personal gratification out of killing someone. It's their JOB to do it and most of us like money so we can live indoors and have food in our bellies.

My undergraduate student advisor told me this eons ago. He said that a man walked up to a woman and asked her if she would have sex with him for $1,000,000 and she answered "yes". He asked several more times lowering the price just a bit each time. Finally, she was offended and exclaimed "What kind of woman do you think I am?!" He replied "We already know what kind of woman you are. We're just negotiating the price." So, for all intents and purposes, I think contract killers aren't in the same subgroup as mass or serial killers.

OK. But...technically society needs to be made safe from ALL criminals. Why are you singling out mass murderers among all the people that don't want to play nice with others?


For example, let's choose pedophiles. They hurt people over long periods of time, are a menace to society, contribute to a percentage of suicides, can't be rehabilitated and typically show no remorse when they are caught.

Do you advocate they should receive the death penalty? If so, your argument isn't that mass murderers are *more* dangerous to our society. It's that criminals, in general, are a threat to our society without the tiered system you are advocating.

Our society and justice system aren't in the business of curing anybody. Sick people keep doctors and nurses employed and criminals keep judges, wardens and guards employed. Nobody has any interests in actually FIXING stuff.

I don't know what you mean by "watched" in this context but I would argue that is already in place.

* Bonds
* Home arrest
* Parole
* Community service
* Forced enlistment in the military
* Forced mental health treatment.

Etc.

Yes, they might. But, they might not. That doesn't support your position.

I think you may be overlooking the key point here and that is the psychological component behind each of these type of killers.

Mass murderers (the people that just snap and kill a bunch of people) often commit suicide after their homicidal rampage. Those that don't are captured and incarcerated. Yes, they had some mental health issues but they have no "kindship" with the *thrill* of killing.

Serial killers (the people that kill many people, usually one at a time, over a long period of time) are missing the brain signals the rest of us have that says that taking another living being's life is not normal thinking or normal behavior. Within that, there is no remorse about the enormity of their crimes. That's an assumption you've made about how they *should* feel.

Again, I think you are mixing up mass murderers with serial killers. Serial killers, serial rapists and pedophiles all have a very low probability of being rehabilitated and our judicial system isn't designed for rehabilitation. It's punitive and for-profit. We put small time criminals in prison with big-time criminals and we've just allowed mentoring for the guy that's going to get out in a few years.

How are you quantifying "huge" in your statement?

 

I went with *Yes, a painless one" but I am conflicted because I do believe that Jeffrey Dahmer repented..... and become my "brother in Messiah Yeshua - Jesus" during his final months.... and I believe that he served Messiah Yeshua - Jesus with a level of courage and conviction that causes me to look like a lukewarm spiritual dwarf in comparison to him!!!!

Keeping people in jail for life is far, far, far, far, far, far less expensive than executing them.....
and........ it does allow for somebody like Jeffrey Dahmer to serve God in a special way at least for their final days, weeks, months or even years???!!!!


?
Should mass shooters get the death penalty

1. 
   Yes, a harsh one
   5 vote(s)
   38.5%
2. *
   Yes, a painless one
   3 vote(s)
   23.1%
3. 
   No, they’re too young and deserve a second chance
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
4. 
   No, the death penalty is wrong in every case
   5 vote(s)
   38.5%

Change Your Vote

On the other hand....
any mass murderer who is executed .. .such as in the case of Ted Bundy..... were never able to kill again after they were put to death....... and...... putting murderers to death in a painful manner makes the death penalty odious to most people..... which leads to the death penalty being off the scale expensive to arrange even in extreme cases such as that of Ted Bundy for one example.

 

That question can only be answered by studying them. Most people dont commit violent crime without a reason. Muggers are usually seeking wealth, for example, and most mass shootings are gang related. But a few of them seem to have no purpose at all, beyond a body count. And of these, they're often planned out pretty far in advance, which isn't just someone snapping. Their is likely some sort of psychological progression influenced in part by environmental factors that leads someone to desire the thrill of killing spree. If we can figure out what the psychological progression is, we can possibly identify 'at risk' people before they progress to it, and if we can figure out the environmental factors, we might be able to reduce their occurrence.

 

Here's the problem. Our society is not designed to *help* people. Sorry to be so blunt but there are countless people that make a living and sometimes accumulate wealth based on a society being unwilling to adequately assess, treat and provide the resources people need to avoid all kinds of "deviant" paths in life.

There's nothing to study. We're creating these monsters and will keep creating them because we, as a society, aren't interested in doing anything differently. Do you know what happens when a pedophile or rapist or person prone to domestic violence hurts somebody? Their victims live in pure emotional hell for the rest of their lives. It's their victims that are deemed "mentally ill". It's their victims who are blamed and shamed and silenced. It's their victims whose lives are derailed and cry themselves sleep at night and what do we give them? Nothing. We, as Americans, talk all kinds of big talk but we, collectively, don't give a damn about children, abuse survivors, racism, sexism, homophobia or anything else some people face every day of their lives.

So, again, what is there to study? How we are hypocrites to the nth degree?

 

I would change "Mass shooters" to "Mass murderers". As we saw recently in Waukesha, Wisconsin, some mass murderers use cars instead of firearms.

As for the harsh penalty itself? I favor putting them feet-first into a very slow-feeding trash compactor. Make a video of the execution and put it on the internet. It would go VIRAL instantly! Hell, I'd pay $10 just to watch it....

. "Hey, man -- dat ain't funny...!" . -- "Depends on your sense of humor!"

 

Not being known to law enforcement doe not make their offense smaller.

I would put Manson, for instance, as evidence against your idea that they don't kill, wait, then kill again.Unless you want to open up a different category: spree killers. There are people who have killed in one location, then gone on to kill in another.

Money is a form of gratification. I didn't necessarily do my job because it made me happy all the time. The money kept me satisfied.

As people who planned a killing, then carried it out I think they do. But I am willing to surrender the point for purpose of this discussion.

Pedos typically do not kill their victims. In cases where they do, I support execution.

There are three purposes to the penal system. First, to separate the convict from society, to keep it safe. Second, to punish the malefactor (love that word, thanx for the chance to use it!). Third, to reform him. Hence, the word 'cure'. It could have been better chosen.

Are you seriously advocating any of these as a punishment for mass murderers? Do you think they're adequate to monitor them?

We shoot rabid dogs in the street. Not because we hate them, but because we recognize a danger. These people are dangerous. they cannot be made safe to the rest of us. There really is only one solution.

Other people die.

 

I like Israels policy. They provide for the death penalty. And how many have they executed, you ask? I believe that Adolf Eichman was the only one. As to school shooters, not even China executes its children. In this, are they better than or worse than us?

 

Probably on the high ground morally there at least. Possibly their people as a whole have suffered for it.

 

I never said that you did but you are mixing things up. One, an offense is "weighted" by whatever society has deemed it to be. That's why we have laws = the courts decide what "harm" someone has done to "the people" and renders a verdict on how they should repay that debt to society.

Secondly, the last part of your statement is confusing. How can something be declared as an offense (big or small) if it's unknown? Can you clarify that please?

Manson was a cult leader. His criminality wasn't solely based on him, personally, committing the crimes that he was responsible for causing so I don't see that as a valid argument against my statement. Ounce for ounce, mass murderers and serial killers typically work alone.

Unless you have something else to point to that is valid comparison, my statement stands.

That's not relevant to the discussion. I pointed out that contract killers are not necessarily psychologically invested in getting some type of <whatever the hell serial killers and mass murderers get from killing> so that subset of "killers" doesn't fit anywhere in your argument.

And, everybody likes money. That's why we do jobs we hate. We like living indoors and having food. There is nothing pathological about wanting to survive a bit higher on the food chain than a pop-up tent in the local park with a shared outhouse nearby.

OK. I don't believe very many reading this topic would agree that contract killers fits the topic but who knows. I'm not perfect or psychic.

Do you have any information that supports that statement?

They say that's what the mission is but that's not entirely true.

You're welcome. LOL

I also don't fully agree with that either. A cot and 3 meals a day and having somebody else do your laundry is a step up for some people.

The US Justice system isn't designed to reform or cure anybody and it's better at making more criminals than "fixing" the ones they already have.

My statement did not put forth an opinion on how to address mass murderers so you took the leap off that cliff.

What I wrote and what I stand by is that your recommended "keep a watch on them" is already happening.

Again, I absolutely disagree with you because mass murderers, for the most part, snap and go kill a bunch of people and usually kill themselves. As far as that goes, we aren't watching them BEFORE it happens because they haven't done anything (usually) to bring their presence to the attention of law enforcement and, if they do us all a favor and eat a bullet after they snap, what are we "monitoring"?

<<<<<Citizen that can't play well with others>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------<<<<<<Mass murderer>>>>>>>>>>>>

What part in the red is the point that we need to monitor Citizen X and based on what?

Most of us also lock our vehicles and homes to keep out people we don't want inside and to keep inside the stuff we want to keep.

Nobody is building an underground bunker with landmines to deter would-be burglars. When I was a kid I was terrified of quicksand. The cartoons just showed everybody just sinking until they disappeared. So, for my imaginary bunker with landmines up above, I'm going to add in quicksand too.

Do you or do you know of anybody that has done any of that to keep people with sticky fingers from sticking them on their stuff? I don't.

I'm going to pause a few seconds here to give you a minute to reread your statement. Finished?

Spoiler alert: ALL CRIMINALS ARE DANGEROUS. That's why they are called "criminals". Why are you singling out this specific set of societal menaces over any of the other societal menaces?

Nobody is ever going to budge on the 2A fight and people are going to lie to get weapons and they are going to shoot a bunch of people somewhere and we will still do nothing about addressing the social ills that cause this type of homicidal rage so we are just running on a hamster wheel going nowhere.

Well, there's not only one solution or there would be no need for this discussion. You may believe there is only one solution but that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. It doesn't mean you're correct or even that your viewpoint is popular with others. I don't know if it is or not. I vehemently defend your right to Freedom of Speech to express your opinions.

This will be tough to read.

Personally, as far as I'm concerned, mass murderers don't make my list as Public Enemy #1. I have to admit, if somebody told me that in order to have all pedophiles (even the rich and famous), human traffickers, rapists and child abusers off the streets forever, I'm totally cool with mass murderers (and everybody else) walking.



You wrote

I'm starting to feel repetitive. The only way that argument flows is the foundation of all other crimes outside of mass murder didn't include someone dying. Therefore, since we know that's not accurate as people die because of others people's crimes and/or negligence every single day, that isn't the determining factor.

So, for the 4th time, can you tell me why <these specific criminals> deserve any more attention than <all the criminals that don't fit that other box>???

On what basis are you asserting that mass murderers' actions are "more harmful" than any other criminals actions (that involve deaths)?

 

Society doesnt help people because its being designed. The types of people who would seek to design society are not the types of people who want to help anyone, except for themselves. Normal, good, caring people arent interested in the manipulative and coercive methods required to engineer society. This social distopia you describe is the result of us allowing them to control us and keep us too busy trying to not be destitute to do anything meaningful and positive for others. It won't go on forever. Civilization runs in cycles, and the social engineers always go too far and are eventually cast out. Its just a matter of the good caring people of the world finally having enough of being controlled and oppressed and doing something about it. I think we're nearing that part of the age-old cycle of civilization where people bust out of their trance, give up the rat race and separate the control from the freaks. Just gotta keep hope and patience.

 

No. Imperfect system

 

Any murderer who is caught in the act and there is no denying guilt should face the death penalty immediately after their trial, especially for mass murderers.

 

But we don't have an eye for an eye system of justice and we do have an 8th Amendment. Yes it is as it should be a high capital crime and the death penalty there for a jury of their peers to choose and then the sentence carried out with all due haste.

 

How many capital murders have you ever heard plead with the judge for the death penalty because life in prison would be worse. How many spend years filing appeals to get their life sentence overturned to a death sentence.....................................not many I bet.