Prosecutors will seek the death penalty for the white supremacist who killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo supermarket.
What is a justified consequence for someone that killed people just going about their normal lives? Do the families impacted by this tragedy have any input?
I’d really like for us to move towards a restorative justice system instead of the punitive one we use now. In my mind, that would look something
-
Seeking input from the people who were impacted by the crime about what would help them move past or recover from the crime.
-
Separating the perpetrator from society at large while providing the resources to prepare them to reenter society when they no longer pose a threat.
-
Even those perpetrators who could never be reintroduced to society safely still be treated humanely and with respect.
I can’t remember which off the top of my head, but there’s a country (Scandinavian if my memory is accurate) that provides prisoners with small homes (still within the confines of a prison-like facility that separates them from society at large) which they have to take care of. I believe they even have jobs that let them contribute to society, and they receive counseling and all that as well. When they’re eventually released, they know how to maintain a home, keep a job, etc, so they’re well-prepared to reintegrate with society.
-
i saw on cnn the son of one of the mothers killed said that this was appropriate
I bet that son would do it himself if he had the opportunity…
Fuck the death penalty, the guy needs to be punished, but the death penalty is barbaric.
Not just barbaric, but also more expensive than life in prison. There’s also all of those cases where an innocent person is killed.
I don’t disagree, but also I think the death penalty is too merciful. This guy should live forever, watching the world go by without him or his ignorance. He should be forced to watch home movies and social media from the families of the people he killed. Watch them mourn, and how they find hope and love in a world where he also exists.
He should live long enough to learn that his life is meaningless, his actions, while extremely harmful, will be forgotten to history as just another violent, murderous bigot. He should realize that from inside a 10x10 room, and then he should live another 50 years with that knowledge.
The state shouldn’t kill people at all. It isn’t a deterrent, it doesn’t cost less money, it doesn’t increase justice, and sometimes we get it wrong. There isn’t a good reason for the death penalty to exist, and plenty of reasons it shouldn’t.
Hmm, I am not sure torture is the point of a justice or legal system. We have the death penalty as a deterrent for violent crime, it’s not meant to be punishment. That said, even the punishment isn’t meant to be torture. You shouldn’t become the cruelty you aim to reduce in society.
The death penalty is not a deterrent for violent crime, and life is not torture.
He should be forced to watch home movies and social media from the families of the people he killed. Watch them mourn
Please, that would make that racist prick feel pride, not shame.
getting killed because of your skin tone when going to shop at the grocery store is barbaric. i’m not trying to throw a zinger here, but we have to strongly address both sides of the situation.
“an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”
I am not excusing his actions, I disagree with the notion that killing him is an acceptable response
Except for pedophiles!
And Gypsies!
…what
It’s making fun of people who think the death penalty shouldn’t exist except for…
Either you think we should have it or we shouldn’t. Allowing it means it can be used against so-called undesirables.
Well, that’s good news for once. Pump the goober full of sodium enditall; he won’t be missed.
Agreed. They should do it as cheaply and quickly as possible to set an example of how executions don’t need to be expensive.
We’ll ignore the estimated 4% of innocent people on death row. Let’s get to it! We can always exonerate them posthumously.
No civilised society executes it’s citizens. A lifetime of reflection is adequate.
deleted by creator
Yes there is. You make the process reversible, people then aren’t condemned to death if there is an error.
The level of conformist doublethink here is insane.
Yes they do, because they value protecting their people over appeasing your sensibilities.
And don’t even bother wasting time arguing with me; I already know exactly what you’re going to do – you’re going to bitch to the high heavens with talking point after talking point after talking point, and you’re going to do this because you don’t care about anything other than the way articles like this make you feel. You’re just going to be irrational and not listen, so don’t bother.
Why are you wasting everyone’s time responding if you’re not here to discuss?
Why are you? I explicitly told you I’m not here to discuss, that you’re just wrong and there’s no convincing you because you don’t want to hear the truth. What discussion is there to be had? You just want to bully and guilt-trip people like me into submitting to your opinion and it’s not going to work. Now get out of my inbox, and out of my life.
Oh, me? I don’t care. You’re the one who wrote a whole paragraph about not responding to you.
do you need help finding the block button?
Nope
I was actually going to ask about your grandma’s oatmeal cookie recipe.
It’s a bit difficult to pull off a mass shooting from a prison cell, no?
Edit: It’s hilarious you clowns think this is a hot take.
removed by mod
removed by mod
Think about what you’re saying… what good would this do now? You mutilate his body and let him recover then mutilate him again. What do we have now? One shooter with trauma who has been tortured and one heartless person (you) who tortured them.
Did that prevent any shootings in the future? Nope
Did it bring out the human in you? Nope
Did it help us economically save any money? Nope
Did it bring anyone back to life? Nope
Basically, in this scenario, you simply turn yourself into a criminal who probably deserves a similar punishment in that system that you’re criticizing…
Despite what I’m about to write, I’m generally against the Death Penalty.
The reason we don’t do what you suggested is that it’s animalistic and inefficient. Think to yourself: would you be better off and contribute more to society if you:
A) Spent all your money feeding, housing, and securely containing a man incapable of reform for the next ten to eighty years on the failing premise that reform is somehow possible for him who will likely never be released.
B) Actually used limited resources on people who can be helped, and who want to be helped.
Emotions can be overwhelming and cause irrational decisions, not unlike the white supremacist who acted on hatred. Do not let yourself be emotional like him. At least, focus your energy and attention on things that matter.
It costs less to hold someone for life in prison than it does to carry out the death penalty, all things considered.
I suppose that’s fair, considering the cost of the shelter in an existing prison is negligible, but that higher cost for the sentence is really only the legal defence costs for people who rely on the state for defence and choose to fight the sentence. The cost of the executions themselves are much cheaper, and I think on average the executions probably would be as well as long as more of them accept the sentence or pay for their own attorneys than the number who fight it on the state’s expense.
The opposite could be true as well though, it could be vastly more expensive to try to execute them if everyone fights it on the state’s expense.
That’s pretty much what happens in life imprisonment, and that’s what these ideologue clown shoes think is more humane. Not a single one of them knows what they’re talking about.
The only issue with the death penalty is the potential to execute the innocent. There is no danger of that here. I don’t want to share the planet with this racist prick.
removed by mod
The only civilised country that still allows it is America. Take from that what you want…
Is Japan uncivilized?
If they kill people in the name of the law, yes.
What’s your definition of civilized?
I don’t think it’s barbaric at all. Hell, if anything, making people care for this asshole for 50+ years is barbaric. There is no rehabilitation for this guy. There is no way he becomes a productive member of society.
If even long-term KKK members can be rehabilitated then so can this kid whose brain hasn’t even fully developed.
So what, you think you can just let a mass murderer walk the streets again because he convinced someone he’s rehabilitated?
Even those long term KKK members didn’t kill people.
I want to believe that, the goal should be rehabilitation somehow. That said, at this moment in time when we don’t have good rehabilitation implementations, I find this turn of events acceptable based on the crime committed.
True, in most countries the prison system is crap. I just don’t like when people paint other people as monsters, no matter what they’ve done. Rehabilitation to me doesn’t necessarily equal them being free ever again. Just means that they’ve changed as a person and truly regret their actions.
What about the families of these 10 victims? They deserve justice more than this kid deserves freedom. I’m not saying he can’t be rehabilitated. I am saying that it is very injust to let this kid to ever have a free life after he ended the lives of 10 people.
What makes you think the families will all agree with you that this is what the killer deserves?
I mean I’m not 100 percent that all of them would want it, but it’s what the families want in the majority of these cases. Anytime you see a murderer come up for appeal you usually see family or friends of the victim in interviews saying how they don’t want that to happen.
How often do you actually see what victims’ families say when murderers are put on parole? For me it’s occasionally when the news reports on it. I don’t think we can say what the majority want.
The other issue is that it quite frequently costs exponentially more to administer the death penalty due to years of appeals. I’m not sure how that would work in this case, since as you said, it’s apparent that the defendant is guilty.
I mean, given the choice of paying for him to have 3 squares and a place to sleep, I’d rather pay a little more to be rid of him.
It’s not “a little more” to prosecute a death penalty case. It’s a lot more depending on the state. I strongly recommend reading the link but here are some snippets from it.
A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
Now consider that there is a very strong agreement among experts that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to other criminals.
That means that the extra expense of pursuing the death penalty has no effect on increasing public safety since the convicted criminal, whether they are executed or are spending the rest of their life in prison, is not a risk to the public. Finally, all that extra money spent on death penalty trials is money that could be better spent on measures that really would improve public safety such as reducing poverty or improving education.
I don’t care. That prick has forfeited his right to keep living. That’s the bottom line. I would rather pay $3 million for him to die that $1 million to keep feeding, housing, and otherwise caring for him.
And face it. You present a false choice. The money would not be spent on education or reducing poverty. It would be used to give the rich larger tax cuts first.
If it were up to me, pricks like this should the tortured to death. Call me ruthless of you want, but what else does the guy who decided to kill innocent people because they are black?
I get that that is your preference. Personally, I would choose to spend the money where it would do some good rather than just slaking some people’s need for revenge.
What on earth makes you think that is where politicians would choose to spend the money? Heck, we could spend that now and don’t.
As a poor, I would rather let him rot in prison and have that money go to making my life materially easier to live
If you could point out even one benefit to the death penalty in our modern world, I’d be willing to consider it. There is none. Not on a moral, societal, safety, or fiscal level. There is certainly harm caused by it, not least of which is the belief that it’s okay to take someone’s life for any other reason than the immediate risk of life and health of another person. Some people think it’s okay to kill 10, some think it’s okay to have the government kill 1.
For many of us, simply knowing we will no longer be sharing this planet with them is enough. That’s a moral and societal benefit most definitely. He who deprived others of life gets deprived life themselves.
Hell, if nothing else, the death penalty can save a trial by providing leverage for a plea. If you are guaranteed life imprisonment, why not force a trial? But if you might be executed in such a clear cut case, maybe you plead guilty on exchange for life imprisonment to save your life. Save victims having to testify.
The bottom line for me is that this guy is pure evil. The cops shouldn’t have taken him alive to begin with.
There is a moral cost for treating life casually. When police kill a suspect who shoplifted $100 from a store and engineer some flimsy excuse to claim self defense when they flee or use excessively brutal force when arresting a drug user and possible petty counterfeiter isn’t so surprising when we have the public advocating for summary police justice rather than doing what they can to uphold the rule of law, which does not include gunning down criminals in the street.
Also, a whopping 2.3% of federal criminal cases go to trial already. So your other justification for capital punishment is that number is just too high?
Why do you people present this is as an answer to the previous statement? EVERYONE knows this at this point, it doesn’t change thee previous statement in the slightest. It’s like when people smugly respond “that’s not how free speech works”…no, not according to everyone who prefers to limit it, it ain’t. You’re rebutting someone’s principles with regulations made by people don’t care for that specific philosophy and saying more about yourself than you think.
His appeals will be focused on procedure, rather than facts. Pretty much the go-to defense strategy when a suspect is caught red handed. If you can’t argue the facts of the case, try to get the facts thrown out on technicality (like maybe the police mishandled evidence so it’s not admissible anymore,) or try to minimize the person’s crime as much as possible. Try to get the sentence reduced, try to downplay the convict’s actions, emphasize how much they have changed, etc…
Basically just damage control. Accept that you aren’t going to come out of it unscathed, so just work to mitigate the damage instead of trying to avoid it altogether.
Which is why you execute them immediately, not 20-30 years later. I don’t want to hear about innocent people in jail that long, I don’t even want to hear about guilty people in jail very long. Just kill em and move on regardless, it’s really less cruel.
We are all meat popsicles. Either way, I could care less. War, what is it good for?
I don’t even kill spiders. It’s hard to look at that photo and understand, how this young adult even considered doing this. What broke him like that? Maybe, instead of killing him, we can somehow guarantee no new guys like him would happen. Not in a genetic crime bullshit fashion, but in providing psychological services, making regular checks, noticing them and reaching out before they act like that? He’s a fucking idiot, but also a guy that fell through many safety nets proving them ineffective.
Maybe, instead of killing him, we can somehow guarantee no new guys like him would happen.
How are those mutually exclusive? Do you think killing him will make him respawn somewhere?
What’s that thing you gamers do where you hang around the respawn area and kill people as they come back?
Spawncamping, not sure how that’d work here though.
Shoot his mom in the vagina?
That’s not how the prison industry works. There’s no money in fixing people if you can use them as unpaid labour.
“prison industry” - I like that
There are actually privately owned prisons, with investors, and profit incentives, and they’re a problem.
And they literally do forced labor for corporations, who pay the prison for that, which is legal because slavery is still legal in prisons. It’s absolutely an industry.
I know in the early 2000s both McDonalds and Applebee’s were known to have used prison labor to have their uniforms made.
I write about what can be done before the bloodshed and the prison sentence. But yeah, the next logical step is to look into these fuckers too.
I seen some doc about some ultra tough texan prison guy. He was all “We need to punish people and my prison the best because we break our prisoners and make them behave perfectly and control everything they can do so they do no wrong. Then finally after decades of doing that we release then into the public all fixed”
So the doc was about him going to Norway where they live on this island and have a room and “freedom” to wander around. They just have to be at certain places at certain times and can’t do lots of stuff. He gets on the ferry and the guy running the ferry is a prisoner in a paid job. He tells him he tried to get that job because that’s the easiest way to escape. But then he laughed and told him he was joking.
The whole time this texan is just confused that a prison like that has better rehabilitation and lower repeated criminals than his prison
People who feel like they have nothing to live for often take their frustration out on others.
It’s like they know their lives suck and likely won’t get better, so they focus on making other people’s lives worse because it’s literally all they feel they can do.
I don’t think people realize how true this is. People like this are a symptom of society failing them, not them failing society.
It is these people that need love and compassion the most. Preferably before they go crazy.
I don’t like the death penalty and how inequally it’s applied, but in this case I say we decrease the surplus population.
Rest in piss, asshole.
Should we tackle the mentally inferior and physically infirm next?
Just kill the useless and dangerous folk and it’ll work out in the benefit of society.
The only danger that creeps in here is ‘who gets to decide who is useless and dangerous?’ because I wear glasses and don’t feel like being on the receiving end of a Khmer Rouge style microcide.
Good for you, it’s not glasses this month, it’s the hearing aids that indicate “useless” status and crutches for dangerous because you can use them as weapons.
Who will be deemed useless and dangerous?
Who will have this power to judge?
Will they be responsible, or corruptible?Me. I see no problem with this. All of me in favor, say aye. Aye. The ayes have it, motion passed.
Will you still have no problem with this if you’re deemed useless?
Let me check. Do I deem myself useless. No. Looks like we’re good to go.
Exactly. I said that to make the death penalty look bad, which it is.
What alternative do you have for people actively detrimental to societies such as serial killers and child rapists?
It’s pretty easy to not-murder. I’ve been doing it my whole life. Even went vegan!
You know that life in prison means they usually don’t go out to kill and rape again, right?
You know that most rapists never actually see a day in court, let alone are jailed, and rape actually does not net people life sentences, only a few years at most, right?
But who needs facts or to take anyone else’s feelings into consideration when your personal feelings are so much more important than the rest of the planet’s and the women you subjugate with your shit?
-
I didn’t say that rape gets you life in prison, I said that life in prison means you don’t get to rape and murder anymore
-
It is a travesty that those rapists who do get caught only serve a few years, but the death penalty is proven ineffective at reducing crime rates. Nobody would be helped by executing rapists instead of just imprisoning them for life
-
That most rapists never see a day in court means that the death penalty wouldn’t help anyway
Instead of killing up to five innocent people per hundred executed, how about we just… Lock them up? Then if it comes out later that they actually didn’t set that fire that killed their family, they can be released from prison instead of the state just pretending they didn’t end someone’s life for no reason
-
Reform, and if they continue to pose a risk for society keep them in a prison/psychiatric ward until they die or are reformed.
Look at how Norway handles Breivik for example. That guy is a proper monster. But he still gets treated according to human rights, cause he is still human. We as a society should be better and more rational than the monsters that we condemn.
There’s this thing we have called ‘prison.’
Out of pure academic curiosity, how is the death penalty part of this under federal jurisdiction?
The article refers to federal hate crimes.
There are federal crimes that include hate crimes and violation of civil rights, but from what I can tell in the list of federal capital crimes, neither of those appears to me to qualify as subject to the death penalty.
I looked up Derek Chauvin as a base then realized he was never under threat of death penalty.
One death penalty still has a lot of wiggle room given there were ten lives taken. Hope justice is served here.
How old are you?
It’s a worse punishment to let him rot in prison.
deleted by creator
Actually, it costs a lot to kill people, ahem I mean, to “death-penalty them”.
Do you think the families of the victims prefer this as well? Personally I would think the death penalty would give those families closure once it’s done.
There are multiple cases of families of victims opposing the death penalty for the killer.
I don’t think closure is relevant here
It’s the justice-system, not the revenge-system, isn’t it?
It’s not good to report the number of deaths in headlines without humanizing the victims in some way. It’s better to list each individual name in the article itself.
This dude probably thought he was setting a number score that would put him in the spotlight, but he didn’t realize he’s just another tally for the Executioner.