maybe its time to go back to harsher penalties for horrible crimes?

If you stoned a mass shooter to death, televised it and left the corpse hanging for a year from a traffic light (one with some good height) I am guessing there would be many less mass shootings
just sayin!

 

So you want to remove the laws that govern cruel and unusual punishment?

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Your compassion is truly over whelming.

 

You know, If someone posited the idea of castration for rapists and child molesters, I think that’s an idea worthy of entertainment. Making it at least an option the offender can choose voluntarily to mitigate part of their sentence?

 

Do harsher punishment prevent crime?

 

If you throw water on Hillary, put her melted remains on public display... will there be less unauthorized unsecure servers in government?

 

That’s a very good question!

The answer seems to be no. However the certainty of being caught does seem to reduce crime rate. Though I suspect the shooter probably didn’t expect to evade police.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
4. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
Laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes.
More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate recidivism.
See “Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrence” for additional discussion on the severity of punishment.

 

Great summary. I suspect that people who call for harsh & brutal punishments are projecting their internalised psychological frustrations. But admittedly, mass murderers don't evoke much sympathy.

 

If only harsh penalties actually helped to reduce crimes like 1st degree murder. Case in point, is facing life in prison/death penalty the reason you’ve never carried out a mass shooting? Or is it because you don’t have it in you to do? I suspect the latter.

 

I think the families of the victim should make the call.

 

compassion for the compassion-less? nah, don't think so

 

I was going to suggest that in my OP but then thought of how hard rape is to prove. A mass shooter though (especially when caught red handed with weapon in hand) is kind of a different story IMO

 

Well, if you don't like what your Constitution has to say about cruel and unusual punishment, you are always free to move.

 

So your a cruel person then. Got it.

You do also know that some people get wrongly convicted right?

and that if you had your way, cruel punishment would be enacted on those who are innocent.

But Im sure that doesnt bother you all that much.

 

label me however you like
"CRUEL" is to shoot up a crowd of people
also to your last comment, no i wouldn't. not unless something is proven 100% (mass shootings are easy to prove)
keep talking smack though, i am sure I will have an answer for whatever you come up with next!
Since you want to label people, can I label you a "mass shooter sympathizer"?
see how easy it is to just call people things without putting thought into it?

 

I don't think we need to institute the American version of Sharia law.

BUT, I'm all for harsher penalties for harsher crimes. Especially violent crimes. And lets start using the death penalty a lot more. For 1st degree murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and child molesters.

 

Yes but a lot more people would run the traffic light to not have to look or smell the dripping corpse, so to solve one crime, you are creating 1,000 more.

 

Think about the punishments that were dished out back in the day when the term cruel and unusual was coined. Today many libs see the lethal injection as potentially cruel. I had open heart surgery, give the condemned what they gave me and s/he’ll be fine.

 

I think the family of the victim should be the ones dishing out the punishment.

 

The Mexican cartels hang bodies from overpasses and people get the message.

 

I have zero compassion for the animals who commit such crimes, though given their frame of mind when they do it, I doubt even such a horrific execution will cause them even a moment's pause. Going in, they figure they're likely to die, either from a cop's bullet, an armed citizen's, or even their own. If they survive, they know they're being sent up, probably for life or with the death penalty, and they don't really care.

I seriously doubt any of them think they'll actually manage to get away with their vile actions.

 

Studies seem to indicate that capitol punishment does not bring closure to the families of victims. Why should we base our system of justice on retribution when retribution provides no measurable benefits?

 

I understand your way of thinking here, but I think allowing a family member to dish out such a punishment is setting them up for a lifetime of guilt and PTSD. That is why, despite gun haters claims that gun owners secretly want to kill someone, the truth is only the truly psychotic think that way. While I'm prepared to take a life in self-defense, I really, really hope it never happens.

 

Does it bother you that increased usage of capitol punishment would undoubtably result in the state sanctioned execution of innocent people?

 

Does it bother you that innocent people are killed by the state in the name of retribution?

 

Why would you want to inflict such trauma on people who are already suffering loss?