Death penalty for Colorado Shooter ?

do you think the shooter of aurora colorado, deserves the death penalty? or rather would deserve to rot in jail until he die of old age, or was murdered by another inmate?

Kill that piece of shit

Beat him to death...

This was a particular atrocious crime. I dont usually support the death penalty in all eligible cases, but in this case FRY HIS ASS. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Of course he should die. Just as anyone found guilty of 1st degree murder. One can't consistently say some people who fall into this category should be put to death and others shouldn't. They're all worthy of death. Not of getting room and board, courtesy of the state, for the rest of their life.

Not sure how it works in Colorado. Many states have a trial, and then a separate penalty phase to decide the sentence. In Colorado, does the judge decide the sentence??

However it works, I certainly believe that the DA that tries the case should go for the death penalty.

couldn't agree more, the only problem is how long does it take to implement the sentence? usuallty too long.

Maybe this particular criminal deserves to die, but, considering all the crime cases I read about or watched about on TV, I would say there are cases in which the victims deserved to die more than the murderers. For example, a man killing two pimps who forced his girlfriend into prostitution and constantly raped her or a woman killing the admitted rapist and murderer of her daughter who laughed while telling her what he did of her daughter. I know such cases are few, I am just bothered by the fact that some people say the personality of the victim and the reason for the murder don't matter. I once had a heated discussion with some people who were against the death penalty but thought that a mafia boss who orders the little son of an informant to be killed and a man who kills somebody who slaughtered his family should get the same punishment.
I personally don't support the death penalty, but I certainly won't cry if the Colorado shooter will be executed. What I mean is that not all murderers are the same in my opinion.

Colorado also has a separate death penalty phase as other states.

the last time in Colorado, where was sentenced to the death penalty dates back to 1977, I saw on TV, it will take a year just to get to trial. and I have seen on wikipedia that in Colorado there is lethal injection, I hope you do not find the vein and that the poison goes into the muscle so he die with atrocious sufferings.

I believe the '77 execution was of Gary Gilmore. Ted Bundy was set to stand trial too but he escaped prison. He prob would have been executed as well.

The Colorado shooter deserves to die by beheading. He's not human.

I'm usually dubious about the death penalty. I don't believe it provides a deterrent to murder. And, there have been plenty of cases where inmates on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence or surfacing of blatently prejudicial law enforcement and trial "justice." I'm also a lifelong scholar of the Rosenberg spy case, in which two absolutely ordinary, innocent people were executed in a McCarthy-era witch hunt.

That said, some people's crimes are so heinous that they simply don't deserve to live. "Justice" includes justice for victims and for society. This guy not only snuffed out 12 lives and wounded more than a score of others, he made life in America that much more uncomfortable, that much more fearful, by invading a place where good people were having fun, and turning it into an enduring nightmare. I hate to say it, but he probably set an example for other lunatics who will see movie theaters as even "better" venues for headline-grabbing slaughter than classrooms. If he's found guilty, he should die.

Gilmore was executed by the State of Utah. His famous last words of "Let's do it" inspired the advertising agency for Nike to introduce their successful advertising slogan, "Just Do It."

Thanks for the correction Klydon.

I'm sure Nike has been forking over royalties to the Gilmore estate ever since...

Gilmore was the first execution after the Supreme Court's suspension of the death penalty. At that time, Utah offered the condemned a choice of how to die: hanging or firing squad. Gilmore chose the latter. I thought that was really bizarre.

Right.

And Gilmore isn't the only despicable sort to contribute to an advertising campaign. Alka-Seltzer benefited wildly from Idi Amin's "I can't believe I ate the whole thing."

I agree, but I've often wondered if state sanctioned death by torture would be a deterrent. Not that I'd support such a thing (well, in this case I probably would), but I'm just curious.

I'm serious. If you know that you're going to die slowly and painfully over, say, a 72 hour period, would you be as quick to commit murder?

Well, I'm sure it wouldn't deter the true psychos.

An interesting possibility PB. In fact, a recent study by a leading university noted that residents of Throggs Neck were deterred from committing crimes by just a stern look.

Lowest crime rate in the borough, buddy .

I agree that it's not a deterrent. But maybe they could model executions after that scene in Casino. The one where Joe Pesci has that guy's head in a vice, they beat him for three days, and then popped one of his eyes out. At the end, he said "I'm gonna put an icepick to your balls. Don't make me be a bad guy."

Or maybe like the crazy guy from Hannibal who wanted to cut Dr. Lecter's legs open to bleed and then let wild pigs eat his body.

Either way.

It still amazes me how much people (usually the ones who are against the death penalty) bring up the deterrent factor. It's not so much about deterrence as justice. When you consider his crime, and the effects long after the fact, him simply getting life in prison (free room and board courtesy of the state) isn't justice. He needs to forfeit his life.

Fry this bastard. Why should our hard earned tax dollars be used to keep this POS alive. Why should there even be a trial? IMO once he pulled that trigger he lost his rights. He's guilty!! burn 'em.

I think that the death penalty really become a deterrent when the penalty will be slow and painful, so I might propose impalement, blunt and covered with a pile of fat that enters the body without causing shock and death can arrive even after days of terrible agony.




Impalement, as a method of torture and execution, involves the body of a person being pierced with a long stake. The penetration could be through the sides, through the rectum, through the vagina, or through the mouth. This method leads to a painful death, sometimes taking days. When the impaling instrument was inserted into a lower orifice, it was necessary to secure the victim in the prone position; the stake would then be held in place by one of the executioners, while another would hammer the stake deeper using a sledgehammer. The stake was then planted in the ground, and the impaled victim hoisted up to a vertical position, where the victim would be left to die.

In some forms of impalement, the stake would be inserted so as to avoid immediate death and would function as a plug to prevent blood loss. After preparation of the victim, perhaps including public torture and rape, the victim was stripped, and an incision was made in the perineum between the genitals and rectum. A stout pole with a blunt end was inserted. A blunt end would push vital organs to the side, greatly slowing death.

The pole would often come out of the body at the top of the sternum and be placed against the lower jaw so that the victim would not slide further down the pole. Often, the victim was hoisted into the air after partial impalement. Gravity and the victim's own struggles would cause him to slide down the pole.

Still, there is one problem: somebody has to be the executioner and get dirty. Some normal person who has never killed before. Whoever does it isn't going to be the same anymore after this. Is it really worth it? I have no pity for such criminals, but in my opinion trying to overcome them in cruelty is no good. If it's really necessary to kill them, do it quickly. Crazy lunatics like this one won't understand anything anyway, no matter how you torture them, it won't serve as a deterrent for the very fact that they are crazy.

What unites the promoters of death penalty and the shooter: Killing as a solution.

The politics of Germany in the 1930s.

??

i think what they should do to him is the same thing that happened to the circus guy in sons of anarchy that raped the girl

That would work for me, but how about crucifixion as a deterrent?

Rome may have fallen, but they still had a pretty good run .

D, SC is right. The Third Reich's pogrom (and that's a rather sedate term to use) sought resolution of a perceived problem in murder.

Again, there are several Board members who don't see their investment in adherence to due process. Why? Because they don't see themselves as ever having to be subject to the criminal justice process. So they eschew it to assuage their emotions.

Well, Oli, as much as you make me bang my head off my keyboard at times, there is truth to that statement. What's the old saying? A Democrat is just a Republican who's been to jail?

Read the rest of my post, Ivy. I made that very point: the victims and society are entitled to justice.

Very true, we are already going downhill anyway due to globalization, etc. The next millenium will be the story of the BRIC's (Brazil, Russia not so much, India, and China).

How about we have evolved as a people and we have due process now, which needs to extend rights to the guilty in order to protect the innocent as well???

That's a refreshing break from some Board posts which seem to be little more than an opportunity for some to emote. They contribute little or nothing.

Again, I'm all for "due process" as long as justice is done in the end. This guy getting "3 hots and a cot" for the rest of his life wouldn't be justice. And, frankly, allowing him to be on death row while the joke of a legal system allows appeal after appeal for the next 20+ years isn't justice either. What's the saying? "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Conduct the trial. And when he is found guilty, which he is, he gets one appeal. After that, take him to another room in the courthouse, make him kneel down, and shoot him in the head. And make his family pay for the bullet.

He committed a horrible act. However, he does seem to be genuinely insane. He had no motive, like political, revenge, financial, or racial. He did it for some reason probably he only can comprehend.

Are you saying that the killings of jews in the 30s (that is before WWII) had anything to do with crime prevention?
I have the feeling I'm not getting what you and SC are really referring to:
Why do you refer to Nazi-Germany at all?
Are you talking about the holocaust, the pogroms or the death penalty in Germany?

You're the one who used the term "killing as a solution". The Nazis called it the "Final Solution".

That was in the 40s. But anyway, I agree. Killing as a solution has something totalitarian.
Strange enough, the US is one of the few democracies which still execute death penalty.

I don't agree with the death penalty. I've went back and forth on it for years, but at the end of the day, murder is murder, whether it is committed by a psychopath or a doctor with a needle. I'm not saying that I don't think there are people out there who deserve to die for their crimes. What I take issue with is justifying one type of killing, but not another. It just doesn't sit well with me.

You make a very good point. The fact that we in the United States are quite discreet and varied on the state and federal level when it comes to defining circumstances when the death penalty can be applied supports your statement "justifying one type of killing, but not another."

According to your thinking, a soldier who kills an enemy combatant in war is a murderer.

I think some people play too many damn video games

Your analogy is misplaced, Ivy. A killing committed by a soldier in combat is not murder, but justifiable homicide. The killing can become murder if a soldier kills an enemy, who is captive and poses no immediate threat to the soldier.

Politicians responsible for starting wars who send soldiers to attack another country can be considered mass murderers and the soldiers who follow the orders WILLINGLY can be as well, from a moral point of view.

Yea, that's not even close to what I said. Murder is murder when their is premeditation, when there is intent to kill someone. The vast majority of soldiers who go to war don't go to kill other people. True, they know that they may come across a situation where killing someone is necessary in order to protect themselves and their squad. But I can guarantee you the vast majority of soldiers don't go out on patrol with the intention to kill someone.

Ever hear of 2nd degree murder? No premeditation involved. And, in war, it's generally understood that soldiers will kill the enemy in certain conditions. And they train just for that.

Bottom line, your "murder is murder" way of thinking doesn't hold water. Because you're saying the state executing a murderer makes them murderers themselves. And it's obviously not that black and white.

Second-degree murder still speaks to an offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. They may not have planned to kill whoever it was that they killed, but their conduct was such that a death was possible based on their actions. On that basis, sure, a soldier killing someone in action could be construed as murder. It wouldn't be construed that way by me or anyone else I know, though.

As for an execution being murder, I know that there are laws and statutes in place that protect an executioner from being considered a murderer. I know that execution is considered a "justifiable homicide." What I feel, and what I know, however, are two different things. It doesn't sit well with me that a state with capital punishment can kill someone because they killed someone else. I don't call that punishment, I call that hypocrisy.

And to reiterate, I'm not saying this guy doesn't deserve to die for what he did. What I'm saying is I don't believe in capital punishment carried out by the state. Period.

Well, I'd argue there are crimes so heinous that nothing but the life of the murderer is truly justice. Certainly not them simply sitting in the cell for the rest of their life. Getting shelter and food courtesy of the state. And often today they don't spend life in prison but are paroled at some point.

That is a valid point, as well, but one could also argue that a man sentenced to death will live a pretty comfortable life sitting on death row exhausting his appeals. That's my second problem with capital punishment.

All the more reason to overhaul and streamline the system. No more 20+ years of appeals.

The problem with a life sentence is that it doesn't mean anything close to life. The prisons are so overcrowded that they cycle people through. Since the vast majority of prisoners are serving drug sentences, if they figured out some other way to deal with them (and I don't mean serious drug dealers, but stupid college kids, for example), that wouldn't necessarily be an issue.

I read the other day that Americans would like to see the Colarado shooter executed for the murder of innocent people.

In the next breath, they praised the man who went on the rampage murdering child perverts!

That's part of my point. Maybe I'd be willing to give more of a listening ear to the bleeding hearts who are against the death penalty if those found guilty of murder actually do serve life. Hell, even those sentenced to life often don't serve life! It's a joke.

As far as overcrowding in prisons, that's another reason for the death penalty. Makes more room.

"Taxpayers have spent $4 billion since 1978 on California's capital punishment system -- and with only 13 executions to show for it.

That's about $308 million per execution."

Source: CNN Money

Sounds like a fine reason to shorten and streamline the whole system! No more 20+ years of appeals.

Of course, it's not like feeding and housing these guys for the rest of their lives doesn't cost a pretty penny too. And those who bring up the cost of capital punishment know this. So it's not really the money that's their major concern, is it?

As I have stated before, my issue with capital punishment is whether or not the government should have the right to kill an individual when we, the people, don't have the right to kill people.

Using that mentality, one could say the government doesn't have the right to imprison people at all because individual citizens don't have the right to imprison people.

That's like comparing apples and oranges, my friend. No one is disputing that people like James Holmes need to be locked up FAR away from regular society.

I agree that life imprisonment works if it truly means spending the rest of one's life in prison. If a jury can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person committed a crime heinous enough to warrant such a sentence, then lock them up and throw away the key. I'm with you on that.

My issue (and therefore my "mentality", as you call it) lies solely with capital punishment, and you can try to twist it any way you see fit, but the bottom line is this: there is something immoral and hypocritical about punishing someone with death for killing another person.

No offense but I think you're coming from a rather naive and idealistic viewpoint. There are people guilty of crimes so heinous, so evil - people that make Holmes look like a choir boy by comparison - that simply life in prison is a slap in the face to justice.

Is Adolf Hitler one of those people who has committed heinous crimes? The biggest serial killer in history? One who never actually killed his victims, and got away with it by committing suicide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Ah, I get it completely. People associate Hitler will all that is evil. However, the recent Olympics situation shows him as the saviour, who with all his mystical fortune telling and cult beliefs, probably knew that the Jews would one day try and destroy the world

As yet, nothing has happened with the Olympics that warrants the British government to bring in martial law to halt the chaos.

You really lost me on this one, DeMeo.

He pretty much lost me from his first post and definitely when he posted about children.

The internet is a wealth of information. As to the Olympic situation, the '2012' in the logo actually spells Zion when it is rearranged. Also, other then the SAS and French special forces, the American FBI, CIA and Israeli Mossad are in London dealing with the security.

The other day, I asked the question to someone: What the bloody hell is Mossad in London for? Like David Icke said, "When you began to piece together the jigsaw, eventually the picture will appear."

You know you're hitting close to home when someone responds with something like this which DeMeo did in a PM to me:

"As someone with Asperger Syndrome who is above normal intellgence, I'm not suprised that you can't follow what I'm saying!"

True. And the Olympic Anthem, when played backwards, says, "Turn me on, dead man."

Ha ha ha ha!!! I thought is said "Paul is Dead."


TIS

Actually TIS, when playing it backwards you can hear Hava Nagila.

and



Does anyone else hear "Twilight Zone" music playing?

If you can see a contradition in my post I would love it pointed out.

It's approaching the time for you to stop trolling. Or get back on your meds.