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

So I’m trying this again because apparently advocating for the death penalty is a form of violence. So I won’t say what kind of death penalty I would like to see come about. I’ll let you get imaginative.

But would like to see the death penalty for all mass murderers. This includes school shooters and I don’t care how young they are. The more brutal of death penalty the better. I realize that most don’t want to be caught alive and commit suicide. That’s why the ones we do get should be so painfully extinguished it will burn a the memory of anyone who thinks this may be fun.

I’m completely for the death penalty and anyone who is willing to do this deserves no mercy. Death needs to be a priority punishment for these turds.

 

I'm a firm believer that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. How the person commits the crime, they should die in a similar way, if possible, or simply shot.

 

I have two things against the death penalty: first, that some who deserve it won't get it because some member(s) of the jury are opposed to it; and second, that some who do not deserve it may get it anyway. The US justice system is not perfect. IMO it mostly gets it right. I see no need to change the law at all. Accordingly, painless gets my vote.

 

Dear lord no for multiple reasons.

1. Death penalties don't work for mass shooters as mass shooters tend to kill themselves once they know it's over.
2. You don't make mass shooters famous by executing them. That's literally how you prevent them from becoming famous.
3. Mass shooters are the failure of the system. Individualizing the problem doesn't work and we have to fix the problem, not punish the perpetrators.
4. Death penalty is just wrong.

 

I remember Colin Ferguson and David Berkowitz. Killing them would not make them more famous. Ted Bundy is not more famous because he was executed.

 

I don't know if I would agree with that. Why did you mention them and not people who weren't executed?

 

I disagree. Not all commit suicide and those that do get caught should have a slow and public death sentence handed down by law. If would be shooters seen the agony they would go through it may deter them.

The death penalty is morally right. It ends tax payers paying for their room and board in prison and they hold no value to a functional society.

 

one of the most famous murderers in history the unibomber (Ted Kazcenski) I think that’s how you spell his name, is still alive with no death penalty

 

You mean you can't extract wealth from their labor.

Executions are more costly to the state than imprisonment, and they can go horribly wrong. This is why I think it's Arizona who are experimenting with the same gases Nazis used, because ironically enough they're much more efficient and painless to use. The point isn't to torture but to have a clean kill. You'll have your corpse, just in 50+ years. And unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the death penalty actually deters people. Usually because people who commit crimes don't commit crimes expecting to be caught in the act. I mean, would you rob a house if you knew you would be arrested that night? In short, there's no reason to have the death penalty.

 

Yup.

 

The Son of Sam killer and the Long Island Shooter were never executed. I was ccontrasting their fame with Bundy's. I was trying to show that they're famous for their crimes, execution wouldn't make them more notorious,

TBF, Berkowitz and Bundy were serial killers, not mass shooters and are maybe not the best examples.

 

My point is death penalty doesn’t make them Famous, their actions did.

 

Eh, it's more of a gut reaction for me than anything else. So I don't think I have much to stand on here.

 

England used to publicly hang traitors until they were almost dead, draw their intestines out and burn them while the convict watched and still they had traitors and rebels.

 

The death sentence is not there to be a deterrent, it's to get rid of someone that decided not to live in a society.

Let's all have a vote, this vote places you on a register. Those in favour of the death penalty and those against. Those that voted against foot the prison cost of those convicts worthy of the death penalty. I would agree to that. I prefer to foot the cost of one bullet.

 

That was the thrust of my comment that you quoted.

Personally I am okay with legal execution. I think that there are crimes for which it is the most appropriate punishment.

That is not to say there are no problems with the death penalty. Executions are costly to the state. It is not just one bullet and we're done. These guys have to be specially housed and tended. they have automatic appeals so they tie up resources that could be used to make the legal and penal systems more efficient. In some cases, they get the wrong man or men. Jeanine Nicarico's abduction, rape and murder are a case in point. Gary Gauger is another. Both of these were caught in time, but they could easily have gone badly.

 

As are these POS. You cannot tell me that back to back life sentences for these two is less costly than just putting them to death. What could they possibly have to appeal? Nothing changes the fact THEY are guilty.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...me-invasion-murders-10-years-later/483863001/

“After Hawke-Petit and Hayes returned to the house, Hayes sexually assaulted and strangled her. Komisarjevsky had assaulted Michaela. The intruders poured gasoline around the house, including on or around the girls, set it on fire and fled in the Petits’ car after police had surrounded the home. They crashed into police cruisers down the street and were arrested.

Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, was strangled. Her daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, were tied to their beds and died of smoke inhalation. Hawke-Petit and Michaela also were sexually assaulted. Hawke-Petit’s husband and the girls’ father, Dr. William Petit Jr., was beaten but survived.”

https://www.courant.com/news/connec...0210412-n52fk63x5zahdnffxwods4yfti-story.html


“He argued that the jury in his 2011 trial was biased by pretrial publicity, that his challenges of certain jurors were ignored and that prosecutors were late in providing him with letters written by his co-defendant, Steven Hayes.

Komisarjevsky also claimed prosecutors violated his rights by denying him access to all communications among police officers racing to the scene of the crime — a home owned by the family of Dr. William Petit — and by failing to correct erroneous trial testimony by an expert witness about an obscene photograph found on his telephone.”

I do t care what he alleges! Nothing, NOTHING negates the fact that he committed these horrendous crimes. Minor missteps etc. should not dismiss the fact that he knowingly, premeditated and executed this viciousness.

 

Here's an idea. Most school shootings are committed for two reasons.

1: Mental problems.
2: Wanting recognized.

The two are not necessarily exclusive.

How about we start doing better in our schools? Teaching better. Stop teaching things that do not matter and start teaching things that DO matter.

In other words prevent the school shootings before they happen.

As for other mass shootings, the reasons for those vary a lot more than school shootings. And is a LOT more complicated to handle. I'd go into it but I really should go to bed. Its 4:36 in the AM here and I've been up all night.

 

Anyone who murders has a mental illness so while I know we will always have a bleeding heart somewhere in every topic I don’t find room for that argument here. If you say a shrink down with any mass murderer they will find some sort of mental illness. I don’t care. Not in the slightest at all so I care what their mental state is. That does not give them an excuse for their actions and still should receive a death penalty.

I'm even okay with making a new set of laws for school shooters. Let a judge hand down rulings that will Allow him to be restrained and beat like a piñata until dead by anyone who wants a swing. Parents, teachers, fellow students. Or burn them. In old school days this was said to sometimes last 20 min before dead. There is no denying who does this. If caught alive it won’t be a case of wrong person. They deserve the harshest of punishment

 

While I agree to a degree (eye for an eye) someone must carry out that penalty. I flinch to think the mental make up of the person willing to do such a thing.

As a humane society, intentionally 'making it painful' is unnecessary. I would think that flogging has a certain appeal for those who would intentionally harm children, elderly and animals, but again, we are a humane society. If we let ourselves sink to the level of the criminal, are we no better?

 

Here are two candidates for just being shot, or slowly beheaded -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

I don't think you would struggle to find candidates who are willing to kill this scum.

I'm not a favour of this naughty step idea.

 

no, they should not get to start new life until they pay their debt to society in this life... lwop

 

killing themselves is the cowardly way out, they are afraid of going to prison for the rest of their life - suicide is a get out of jail free card

do the crime, do the time

 

Well the problem is that execution costs the state more money because the appeals process needs to be rigorous in order to minimize the execution of innocent people. Lawyers and courts cost more than prison room and board. So in terms of cost, life in prison is actually cheaper.

And I see no reason why value couldn't be extracted from them. They could work for privileges.

I'm not sure if it would deter them or not. I think physical agony is less of a big deal than the psychological agony of being put on display behind glass, strapped down like a rabid dog, and put down like one. Firing squad seems more dignified at least, and not necessarily more painful if they shoot the head or heart.

But yeah, people have been pretty creative historically trying to do horrible executions. Saying being crucified is the worst form of punishment is from somebody who lacks knowledge or imagination on the topic. Breaking on the wheel, drawing and quartering, being strapped to a boat with honey all over you for the insects to eat you as you slowly die of exposure, being flayed alive, all are worse in some or all ways. Quick but incredibly painful honorable mention: burned at the stake. The greeks even would put somebody inside a bronze bull (brazen bull) and heat up the metal with a fire so they would be baked alive inside, and the bull would make bull-like noises as the person screamed.

 

I think you might have less of these really horrendous murders if the guys who did them are flogged to death on tv. Or maybe we could break them on the wheel.

I'm NOT being facetious here. I don't think death deters most murderers. I think the knowledge that they would be given a very painful death if caught and duly convicted just might. It's barbaric, yes but death is never a polite proposition

Where I live we have a guy who killed 2 people because he thought he was being sent back to prison, therefore wanted to die but was too cowardly, by his own admission, to kill himself, so wanted the State to do it for him. Here we have a case where the death penalty quite clearly CAUSED the murders it's meant to deter. I don't think this would happen if just about anyone with a tv would realize that the death he would be given would be a VERY painful one.