Skip to main content

View Diary: Does James Holmes, the Aurora killer, deserve the death penalty? (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oppose the death penalty (13+ / 0-)

    I oppose the death penalty in ALL cases, even for a mass murderer such as James Holmes.

    My reasons:
    1) The death penalty is imposed based on racial bias.  Far more black and brown-skinned offenders are given a death sentence than are white-skinned offenders, even when factors such as severity of crime, use of violence in the commission of the crime, age, gender, and socio-economic status are held even.
    2) The death penalty is more expensive to tax-payers than any alternative.  Even if a 18-yr old is given life in prison and then lives to be 80 years old, that is a less expensive sentence (to tax-payers) than imposing a death penalty.
    3) There is no empiric evidence that the death penalty serves to reduce or deter violent crime in any fashion.
    4) In my opinion, a sentence of life imprison is a greater punitive action than a sentence of death.

    In addition, it is my opinion that if we as a society think killing someone is wrong, then it should also be wrong for the state to kill a person.  In other words, it is hypocritical to punish the wrongdoing of killing a person by turnign around and killing the perpetrator.  This goes along with my firm conviction that it is NEVER acceptable to use the bad behavior of others as an excuse for more bad behavior.

    Holmes should get life in prison.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 04:05:33 PM PDT

    •  I think there is some deterrent with it. (0+ / 0-)

      For example, I enjoy smoking pot occasionally even though it's illegal. Fuck it, I don't care, I'll risk it. But if they made pot possession a capital crime, I'd throw the shit out and never touch it again.

    •  Re (0+ / 0-)
      In addition, it is my opinion that if we as a society think killing someone is wrong, then it should also be wrong for the state to kill a person
      All of your other reasons I buy (and fully agree with), not sure I buy this one.

      Kidnapping and imprisonment of people is wrong, too, but we imprison criminals. Taking money from people is wrong, but we fine people, etc.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 06:24:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When we tax or imprison people (0+ / 0-)

        we try not to overdo it. This is why we don't throw people in jail for 20 years for jaywalking; it's also why our government usually runs a deficit. When we can minimize the degree to which we kill someone, then maybe I will reconsider my opposition to the death penalty.

        No, not really. It's really not about the degree to which we kill someone. It's about the fact that it's not strictly necessary to kill a person as punishment for murder. Not when there are other, less extreme alternatives.

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 07:16:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site