Replies

Why must the only consideration be to "punish" them? Why can we not simply acknowledge that they represent an ever present danger to others and therefore ought to be killed on that basis alone? This is the methodology we use with bears that kill, or mountain lions, or dogs, or monkeys.

1. Humans are not animals

2. At one time we burnt people at the stake believing they were witches when in fact they were insane or mentally disturbed at the time.

3. I think people who commit crimes like this shooter should be locked up for life.

4. We should be more proactive with these people rather than reactive as another poster suggested.

4. It's been proven that many people who are violent have a chemical defect or portions of their brain missing that cause these outburst which normal people do not have. I suspect 50-60 years from now we will be able to treat people with mental illness before they go off..maybe even in the womb through medication.

5. I believe some people are just evil and do violent stuff.

We kill "sane" people who murder. Do we do this to "punish" them? Or do we do this for it's deterrence effect on other potential murderers?

Lettuce be real, the death penalty is not a deterrent. Murders only have remorse and are afraid of the death penalty only after they get caught.

I agree a lot more with Diogenes than trailhkr, but I’d like to address a couple of points.

“Human beings are not animals,” No, we’re not, and that’s why when a coyote kills a squirrel we don’t try him for murder. It’s when a PERSON gets killed that a murder occurs. Biblical law requires, if an animal attacks and kills a person, it is to be put to death.

which leads me to. . .

I don’t think the main point of the death penalty is a deterrent, although it may be a powerful deterrent. It’s really not perfectly proveable. What I do think it is is JUSTICE, and that is what is required, here.

The fact that people were supposedly burnt for being insane in the past is not relevant to this discussion. Murder occurs all the time. People were burnt at the stake for any number of reasons. It doesn’t therefore follow that the death penalty is worthless.

No one here is advocating for anyone with a mental illness to be punished just because they are mentally ill. But when they cross the line and kill someone or harm them, they should be punished. They have gone from mental illness to criminal behavior.

3. I think people who commit crimes like this shooter should be locked up for life.

I think people who believe that murderers should be kept alive at tax payer expense should have to pay for the entire cost by themselves. Those of us who believe they should be killed ought not be forced to pay for a policy with which we vehemently disagree.

4. We should be more proactive with these people rather than reactive as another poster suggested.

And what does that mean? Since we don't know who will commit a crime before the fact, it appears you are suggesting the creation of a "Department of Pre-Crime" as was demonstrated in the movie "Minority Report." I suggest that killing murderers will prevent future crime without the need to predict who will commit it before the fact.

I don't care. It concerns me not at all WHY they did it. I am only interested in the fact that they have demonstrated themselves to be a threat to others around them. We shoot rabid dogs, and we do not think it an injustice because the dog didn't mean to be rabid.

Lettuce be real, the death penalty is not a deterrent. Murders only have remorse and are afraid of the death penalty only after they get caught.

Nonsense. The death penalty is not a very strong deterrent the way *WE* have been implementing it. Given that it takes a decade to execute someone, whatever deterrence effect it would have on criminally minded people is severely diluted. The way it used to be implemented, it was a very good deterrent. Look at murder statistics from prior to the Courts becoming liberal.