Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Batman Shooting

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
I do not support state sponsored 'killing in cold blood', but that's another issue entirely.
So what, in your opinion, would justify an execution if this case doesn't?

Conditions that would happen to render the term 'execution' inapplicable.
Like I said, though, that's another issue.

I never understood the idea of "execution if he's sane" vs "interment if he's insane". Is there any real difference to the person if he's killed or put in a small room alone for the next 50 years?

As to killing this individual... where is the benefit to society in that? It would be more more beneficial to use him as human drug testing for the rest of his life. Better him than innocent rhesus monkeys.

While I understand the point you're trying to make, Tedronai, I think context is important here. Due process is obviously an essential cog of the justice system and 'innocent until proven guilty' is just one of those things that set America apart from many other countries in the 21st century. The visceral reaction, however, to the murder of those innocent people, shouldn't be characterised as evil. If you can apply the concept of innocence until proven guilty, you can also apply it to Zuriel & co. A gut reaction isn't an action, nor is it the will to commit murder & bypass due process. A gut reaction, however strongly expressed, is not enough grounds to be called evil.

Clearly it wasn't thought through and obviously if they do take matters into their own hands and try to mete out their own justice upon others, then you step into a completely different territory.

I think, however, that the characterisation of the slowness of justice and its process shouldn't be the sole burden of the US's public institutions. While justice and trials can take time, it can take much more time with good lawyers and lawyers aren't a public institution, it is a for-profit profession and if you are to blame the justice system, then don't lay it all on the government's doorstep.

Justice isn't a slow process because of the government or because of lawyers. Justice is a slow process that takes time because both sides are to be heard and given a chance to prove their innocence/claim. While individuals may want to mete out punishment asap, it is not an appropriate replacement to due process. I understand the visceral reaction to the tragedy, but somewhere along the line, you have to resist the urge. Your eagerness to deal punishment is in direct contravention to what the US justice system has been based on all those years.

[QUOTE=Wippit Guud;5877631]I never understood the idea of "execution if he's sane" vs "interment if he's insane". Is there any real difference to the person if he's killed or put in a small room alone for the next 50 years?
QUOTE]

Yes. $.

Already it begins. Not you, Wippit. Just a lot of people. Is there a reason to determine if he's guilty? Yes. If he is, are there any other extenuating circumstances? Was he upset with life? Was he 'temporarily' insane? And so it begins again.

However, someone early in the thread said there was a need to use the death penalty as a deterrent - and no one jumped down his throat!!! Wasn't the thinking years back that it has been 'proven' (aparently through speaking with death-row inmates - anyone guess why they would say so?) that it's not a deterrent? It's a one-time, immediate deterrent, undoubtedly.

Leave him alone in a cell and suffer the continual psychological profiles, etc., to determine if he's good enough to return to society? Spend the tax money (some of which has to come from the survivors of the victims in an ultimate irony) to keep sliding that food under the door. Or take care of it through tyhe death penalty. It's a matter of $.

This may sound bad... while I'm not an American, I did live there for 6 years....


... I'm shocked someone in the theater didn't shoot the guy themself.

There are some strict gun laws in Colorado.

If it were Montana in the other hand....

I'm actually grateful that didn't happen. If there had been an armed off-duty police officer or current/former military personnel, fine, but the usual amount of training needed for a gun license is not going to prepare someone to deal with a scenario such as this. If there's one thing that could've made this worse, it's the addition of extra people, who are most likely confused, coping with the gas, etc., firing in the theater as well. It'd only add to the panic, and make things much more confusing for law enforcement trying to figure out just what is happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phuse View Post
There are some strict gun laws in Colorado.

If it were Montana in the other hand....
Which is funny, since it was Colorado I lived in. Mind you, I was younger (lived there '75-'78 and '83-'86) so I probably wasn't paying attention to gun laws. I just have that stereotype of Americans, I guess.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us