The saddest thing is that he will eventually be released for the sake of compassion. What about compassion for the victims and their families?
What scares me the most is the complete breakdown of law and order that is taking place. The worst thing about getting a job abroad for me is that my high school students seem to be looking forward to the coming of the purge.
The death penalty is probably inappropriate. He is required to be tortured on a regular schedule. Everything is not cruel and unusual punishment before the moment that he did. Under any conditions, most likely, someone in prison will crack his skull and do the job, something the jury did not want to do. Besides, what if it's anger and revenge? Good riddance.
“Grace is an unlimited resource,” said ms. Mcneil. Compassion is not a limited resource. Mercy is an unlimited resource…”
It was for nicholas cruz. Did the usual of these "extenuating circumstances" prevent him from deciding what was necessary to consider the application without renouncing compassion for innocent citizens who did not harm him? If these people were the cause of his troubles, i do not see the application of mercy. If he were not able to control himself, i am able to see the application of compassion. The question in the title is relevant. Why does the death penalty exist when we can simply chain responsibility so that no one is guilty of their own actions?
I have thought from time to time about the interesting concept of our legal system and the death penalty. This would never happen (cruel, unusual and different), but i think it's especially important.
Leave everything as it is, but the severity of the execution method gets worse the longer the process goes on appeals. Think about it, for the condemned - who, outside of god, are the only ones who epistemologically know their true guilt or innocence - the above provides the final incentive/punishment of the carrot against the stick. If you were guilty (and very much guilty), then you must destroy this quickly and most importantly, painlessly. If you decide to waste your time all for nothing, after 20 years they will bury you up to your neck, rolled in honey and for fire ants.
What the hell is this "fetal alcohol spectrum"? Thing? Is everything currently on the "spectrum"? If the dude was smart enough to plan the massacre, it would have to nullify the whole spectrum. Ridiculous. I figured out that the page was doing its job for the safety of its visitor and should be similar. But in fact, these made-up syndromes, pulling hearts for sympathy, are just idiocy. You have a very dangerous person with no apparent spiritual values (drink, ma) and movie lovers find that he is not guilty of anything due to some kind of syndrome? He'll probably get a sharpened toothbrush to the neck anyway. I can't mention that i would be upset. Convicts have their own police, and more often than not, those who kill children are treated brutally.
I'm starting to want all the male jurors back.
I'm not convinced that at the end of death there is something. In the said context, it is appropriate to keep him active so that he lives in a crappy prison environment. The frustrated are usually like this because they are religious and they don't accept the fact that the prisoner is not in hell.
And she repeatedly reminded the jury that they should not pass the death sentence. She argued that helping means acting out of anger so that it would serve no other purpose than revenge.”
What happened to punishment? Simple punishment. Punishment, which, in addition, can be a deterrent to others. Why can't they be angry? The children died!
And, in the end, what's wrong with revenge in this situation? These kids deserve revenge.
We are talking about the death penalty for really serious cases.. How to take a selfie in the capitol
A supremely democratic catalonia with a democratic judge, providing a completely democratic solution.
What's the trouble?
I am against the death penalty, although the people i know are nice and wise we don't want to be with me , and i appreciate rhardin's remark that the death penalty "reserves the place that society gives to the voice of the victim, the voice that is missing", although there is no guarantee that the victim would require a glance. -Justice behind the eyes.
I think life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is appropriate in some cases. People should forever be deprived of the opportunity to cause even more deadly damage to society. However, in this case, i think that the public defender, although eloquent, made the wrong argument against the death penalty.
Apart from being a “cruel and unusual punishment”, the death penalty does nothing but sacrifice the “poisoned” person to the shadow of society, which, darkening and intensifying, is soon attached to the next the main character. In a never-ending drama of "extenuating circumstances", thus allowing "good" citizens to continue to consider themselves completely incapable of murder and other heinous crimes. Soap, rinse, repeat.
I understand and respect the defense's extenuating circumstances. However, from the point of view of the threat to all people, if the defendant, who missed these critically important furnishings in life, made him a threat to all people and by no means receiving them, you see, nothing has changed, then what is the mitigation from the defendant who committed a similar crime ? Over time. The defense is mistaken in that the death penalty is only revenge. The death penalty is a question to eliminate the constant threat to the existing society.
Mercy does not mean that the viewer is releasing criminals into the sea. Democrats, take note!
Toxic compassion puts the perpetrator above the victim. People who exhibit this syndrome are usually cowards who are afraid to hold others accountable for their actions or to act preemptively on behalf of future victims. They allow the perpetrator to live on without being subjected to effective behavior modification. Which creates more face and requires someone else to act to put an end to the criminal's robberies in terms of others.
The argument that non-original people are somehow morally "superior" to those of us who are accustomed to a pragmatic and apparently more effective behavior modification regime looks deceptive; how many human lives would be saved if we simply executed or deactivated the brains of every vicious predator at the first encounter with problems? Free the criminal? You will be one of their victims. For now, the sane stand aside and let it happen to you.
And naturally, once faith in the legal systemic regime of the day breaks enough, the pragmatic and far-sighted will stop looking at it for a solution crimes and criminality. Instead, they'll deal with it on their own.
Which will look a lot uglier than our previous system may have looked so holy and pure. Imprisoning a few innocents doesn't look too bad once vigilantes set fire to a strange suspected criminal. Or those that come up with something completely different, since hanging is not labeled as "racist". Perhaps a south african-style "necklace"? Will things make sensitive people happier by eviscerating our old system?
The death penalty is designed to ease the "burden" of abortion with criminal intent. The slash is inappropriate.
I am against the death penalty, and for that reason should be glad to see such an argument prevail, but i refuse to play games around big troubles.
Miss. Mcneil's argument was essentially a jury nullification. By her standards, no one gets executed for anything, as everyone has mitigating factors, despair, and sadness before. Her argument belongs to the legislature, the holder does not deserve leadership in court.
Like malise long, i am strongly against the death penalty, but i recognize its constitutionality. My only caveat is this: i am aware that most of the death penalty opponents also want to abolish life imprisonment without parole, so the people who are opposed include unscrupulous people.
Cruz ends up will be released if he is not killed by a third person in prison.
Gary. Never heard it as a proper name before. What do your students think the purge will be?
I'm not a cinephile, but there may have been films along with a series of teen dystopian fiction and film franchises. Promoting the idea of periodic episodes of total anarchy in which the meek barricades themselves and everyone else take part in an orgy of violence and chaos.
These kids scare me in many ways. I'm from the generation of boys who sneaked into the library to look at the national geographic in order to see boobs. My kids keep any amount of free hardcore sex in their pocket at any given moment. Turn on the pornhub theme in your high school classroom and watch the reactions. Our hackers don't watch wile coyote cartoons, they watch youtube sex files where people get maimed in real life and get the same pleasure. They grow up without stopping playing grand theft auto.
These criminal flash mobs began at the beginning of blm and the soros prosecutor's office. They only get worse.
Do the right thing, my ass!
Bullshit. Some children had mothers who drank during pregnancy. This is complete nonsense. I hope one of the poker players in prison gets the punishment this monster deserves.
Malaiselongue: "and while there's no way the victim would have demanded justice" an eye for an eye.”You only talk to dead children. Their parents are also victims here who they said they want the death penalty. I am aware that today you are less likely to be asked permission to do anything in terms of their minor children. (Don't turn me on!) But in this case, their desires had to be granted.
In addition to the "cruel and atypical punishment", the death penalty
<>just for the record: when the founders inserted the words "cruel and wonderful" into our constitution, every state and federal government had the death penalty. If a viewer were to suggest that the death penalty be replaced by life imprisonment without parole, you would be ridiculed.
Let me suggest that the nearest problem with our current criminal justice system is the fact that the death penalty has become too modern and no longer a reliable deterrent.
Anyone argue that the death penalty incites crime? Maybe after nicholas cruz killed two or three children, he decided that such a life https://dirtycunts.com/full-hd-monica-santiago-maid-monica-santhiago-dickdrainers-mix-siterip-004004-hardcore-anal-bbc-rimming-milf-interracial-gonzo-28-gb.html is over, who can kill a dozen more?
Malese long said..."I against the death penalty. , Although the people i know as beautiful and smart are not ready with me, and i appreciate rhardin's remark that the death penalty "reserves a place that society assigns to the voice of the victim, the voice that is not enough", even though there is no guarantee that the victim would demand fair justice with an optical eye."The society has accepted the choice that such a member of the stronger sex should live the rest of his life behind bars. And i will stick to this decision. However there is one thing that the death penalty guarantees. It ensures that the patient never kills again. It is such a serious choice that it will need to be carried out as calmly and impartially as possible. But still it will be needed.
The problem with life imprisonment without parole liberation lies in the fact that keeping a criminal alive without employment costs about a hundred thousand "green" annually. It talks about millions of dollars that are worth spending on your greater good, like better policing schools or medical care for the innocent. Children year after year for the convenience of the mother, society is so reluctant to destroy someone like cruz, who received no redeeming value.
I understand that the death penalty is final, that mistakes can be made, that there is a chance to execute the innocent. However, there are many cases in which guilt is not at all amenable to any reasonable doubt, as, for example, in the case of cruz. As the relatives say, in the event that you never apply the death penalty to cruz, then there will be no death penalty at all.
Her apology denied his advantage and free will, it was like due to circumstances, he cannot be held responsible for the purchased choice. Deja vu.
If there were enough mitigating circumstances to save his life, are they not enough to free him from a long prison sentence?
Maybe ' one wonders if the police spend as much time and effort protecting the common street thugs they are supposed to represent, preventing them from agreeing to deals with the investigation forced by the prosecutors.
At least the death penalty would have kept him out of jail for 15 to 20 years of endless appeals and stays of death sentences. Now he's been given a (fetal alcohol syndrome) license to kill and room-to-room fans looking for victims. At least they'll get a chance that his high school victims didn't. Well, okay, the next example of weak-minded liberals returning civilization to the law of the jungle.
And about all the wringing of hands over the method of applying the death penalty.
I think a glass of water and a fentanyl tablet should do the trick.
The society has decided that the guy who is given should live out the rest of his life behind bars. And i will abide by that decision.
The problem is, they rarely do that. They freed manson and sirhan for heaven's sake!
They should use him for organ donation. Benefit from this parody.
It was right to sentence him to death.
Why do liberals always claim to seek "the right thing."
Effective gibberish. I wish an experienced persuader would appreciate the fact that the porno bunny was asserting. My reaction is that she put the blame/responsibility on a jury that caved in.
I thought the killer's difficulties in life were a mitigating factor, but i doubt i would be persuaded by a lack of contact with the crime.
As far as deterrence, it's inexplicable to me that the people speaking for the death penalty, effectively lost that debate, at least publicly. Partly, i think, leftist media bias has influenced this issue.
It seems clear to me that an immediate death penalty will deter some killers. This juror tells the future school shooter that he will not be executed.
As a deterrent, i remember the local murder of a 16-year-old girl about 20 years ago.The killers discussed whether to kill her and made a decision to do this so that she does not become a witness to the crimes, and they did everything else. What kind of "thinking" demonstrated the thought process of the killers like that, proved that the fear of the death penalty could deter them. They had a rational discussion of her status as a witness. If prostitutes were afraid of execution, they could have an equally rational discussion of this issue.
As for the question of deterrence posed by this, i have long wanted the state to introduce mandatory life sentences for every criminal offense using firearms so we can evaluate the deterrent effect of this approach.
Should be unanimous in the direction of the death penalty. Was there a break in voting? Has everything been announced?
Fox reports 11-1 towards death.
"This leads to a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, it was misdiagnosed by experts in world. The life of mr. Cruise ... "
If, of course, the professionals were not mistaken and cruise did not suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome.
This is a moot point. If they do not to keep him in uninterrupted solitary confinement, he would not live a year in prison.
To do so would be to act out of anger, she argued, and would not yet be able to please any other goal at all, except revenge" .
I am no longer a supporter of the death penalty, at first out of fear that some may wrongly condemn, but its function is often not or necessarily associated with anger or revenge.It is largely an apotropaic ritual. A way to remove the stain or infection of an offensive action from the community, but a ritual (of re-creation) of what has been accumulated and violated, namely the moral and ethical structure of the community.
Life in alone with no windows, no books, no radio, no tv. Boring until you have the courage to hang yourself
I agree with the notion that once society is stripped of its right to retaliate against criminals on behalf of victims, we are on a slippery slope back to vigilance. This is reflected in a general apathy to the point of openly approving the violence in prisons and a complete lack of understanding of the fact that burning is punitive unless someone has committed an act that offends the feelings of the protected classes.
I i wouldn't vote for the death penalty either. In a seated position in court with his female lawyers, nicholas cruz appeared to be a defenseless, sad child, not a threat or a monster capable of killing the 17 people he obviously killed. And i consider myself a supporter of the death penalty. But would life imprisonment be an adequate punishment? No.
I think this is quite successful in preventing reoffending. In previous eras, the death penalty was probably abused because it was difficult to imprison one of your colleagues for years. Now we are living in a fresh decade when left-wing "prosecutors" and judges are freeing prisons, including from murderers. I argue that we have needed the death penalty for more than the last 70 years.
"Why does everyone need the death penalty?"
To protect against current and future human threats existence. The only justification for using deadly force is to protect life. Is this accused a real and ongoing threat that imprisonment cannot eliminate? Will he continue to remain dangerously locked in a cell for the rest of his life with the same strength? I feel that something specific personification of evil must be rooted out.
Spyros pappas: "is anyone making an argument that the death penalty encourages crime?"Maybe i'm missing the point your idea, but murderers do not rationally evaluate the consequences of manipulation.
I knew a federal appeals court judge known for her conservatism who told me that despite her belief that the death penalty is not cruel or unusual, she resisted its imposition almost in any case.Her reasoning was that once someone was on death row, the endless hamster wheel of appeals and writs consumed too much judicial resources to generate a net benefit to society from the death sentence.
Ms. . Mcneil's argument was juror nullification at length.
Jurors - as members of the community who are completely separate and distinct from the government - exist specifically for the purpose of nullifying. This is the whole reason for their existence. Juries do not exist as the best fact-finders - judges, "manufacturers, and small and laptops are able to do the same high-paying job. Juries exist to check and balance the terrible power of government.
"The