I have no objection to your description of this crime. But why do you think that the death penalty should be applied to these heinous crimes?
1 Like
Do you believe the government and the courts have demonstrated the appropriate level of trustworthiness, infallibility and competency to entrust them with such a power?
4 Likes
I would probably have to write a book to fully answer that, but it boils down to justice for the victims.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, but …damn; nine eyes? If the death penalty EVER should be applied, it should be applied here.
No. Too often it is used as a bargaining chip to get a plea deal. Too often people on death row are exonerated. And death penalty cases are much more expensive.
But at the same time, for cases so heinous and so clear who did it, one might be willing to make an exception.
In theory that already describes EVERY person sentenced to death. In practice not so much. That’s one reason I don’t favor “exceptions.”
7 Likes
Many of those victims’ families don’t support the death penalty either.
5 Likes
I speak for myself.
I understand the point of view. I simply do not share it.
1 Like
Also, @Mister44:
It was events like this and the ones that @wanderfound listed which helped create the great migration, which was a massive ethnic cleansing of the south.
Let’s not forget the lynching epidemic which had much the same effect. And of course, violence was used on a regular basis to maintain the racial order right up to the civil rights era, so, living memory still.
7 Likes
I’m going to be intellectually honest here, and say that I don’t think their views should be taken into account, because I wouldn’t want “The family wants this guy to die” to be taken into account either. I think that sentencing should be done objectively, and “what the victims/families want” is about as subjective as you can get.
That said, I think that the death penalty provides zero benefit to society, and am against it both in general and in this specific instance.
5 Likes
Yes, the theory sounds ok, the practice not so much, and that is why many years ago I decided we should go ahead and get rid of it.
I am aware of the history. My comment earlier about not knowing about linked events was sarcasm. Growing up in Kansas, for example, I know more than the average person about Bleeding Kansas, and I am fairly well read on the history of the US in general, though there are always new things to learn.
I tried to head this off with measured comments, but I guess I didn’t put enough disclaimers so let me try again.
I am talking about now, 2016. Not 50 years go, not 100 years ago not 150 years ago. All I said was the millions of racists out there today are committing “almost no mass killings in the name of White Supremacy” today. They aren’t going around shooting up churches full of innocent people. We have this one exception where you had someone full of enough hate and crazy to make it happen.
That isn’t to say there WEREN’T mass killings on the past. Clearly there were. That also isn’t to say there isn’t racial VIOLENCE TODAY, clearly there is. That isn’t to say there isn’t still racial prejudices and discrimination and hatred today - there is. Saying that it isn’t nearly as bad NOW as it was THEN doesn’t mean everything is OK.
I feel like anytime someone tries to bring up nuance or a statement that doesn’t perfectly align with a view, then it is seen as trying to contradict or override that entire view. That isn’t the case at all and is rather disingenuous to assume that.
I really don’t understand what point one is trying to make when I say people aren’t going around killing blacks in mass shootings today by bringing up events from the past. If one assumes I am ignorant these events happens, I am not. If one assumes this means I am ignorant of other bad things happening in the US (arson, assaults, harassment, slurs, murders, systemic discrimination, etc), I am not. If one assumes I am excusing any of these actions or suggesting nothing is wrong today, I am not.
I hope that clarifies things.
1 Like
Maybe they thought you were trying to do more than say something blazingly obvious? I really don’t understand why you think that even needs to be pointed out.
Anyway, while no large number of people in the U.S. are doing that, Roof did do it, and he was inspired by racist propaganda promulgated by people who dream of doing that, and who applaud him for doing that. Where I saw you going wrong upthread was claiming that he’s instead just a lone-wolf crazy person, a common description for white mass killers that fails to acknowledge factors that contributed to the killing.
http://www.alternet.org/story/10560/school_shootings_and_white_denial
4 Likes
That one sentence was among many others to make the point that one not necessarily requires others to become radicalized to commit mass murders. And indeed I think his mental wellness was the main factor.
And then for some reason that one sentence is cherry picked out, as if that was the main point, and here we are.
While I relate to your point, I don’t think describing him as lone wolf necessarily fails to acknowledge that one’s opinions don’t happen in a vacuum. And I tempered my statement by saying he could have had none, some, or a lot of direct influence from people. Like I said, I see many parallels between Roof and the Orlando shooter. He too aligned with a radical group, even though he had no direct engagement with them (that I am aware of). His hate also inspired by propaganda and a belief system and was also applauded by those people. Yet I see him being portrayed as a lone wolf, and I don’t think doing so means it ignores that his ideology came from somewhere.
Fair enough.[quote=“Mister44, post:110, topic:91250”]
We have this one exception where you had someone full of enough hate and crazy to make it happen.
[/quote]
There are far more cases of people defacing churches recently, though. We also know there was a post election spike in racial motivated incidents (even accounting for the few that have poppped up that have been shown to be made up). There doesn’t need to be a mass murder for white supremacy to continue to have an impact. And what do we do about the continued tense and fraught relationship between police and communities of color? All of these are interrelated and say a good deal about how the history of white supremacy is still with us and informing how our society looks. [quote=“Mister44, post:110, topic:91250”]
Saying that it isn’t nearly as bad NOW as it was THEN doesn’t mean everything is OK.
[/quote]
Fair enough again. But then again, why shouldn’t we bring up what @anon15383236 points out is obvious, when there is still this problem in our society that far too many white people can and do regularly ignore? If some of us have had something of a knee jerk to your comment, it’s likely because when many say things like “there are no mass killings” it’s generally meant to express the view that there isn’t really a problem with race anymore. [quote=“Mister44, post:112, topic:91250”]
And indeed I think his mental wellness was the main factor.
[/quote]
I disagree. Racism isn’t a mental defect, even if you and I don’t think that way. It’s a world view, based on a wrong set of beliefs, but it’s a coherent one that a surprisingly large number of people still think has meaning for their lives. [quote=“Mister44, post:112, topic:91250”]
lone wolf necessarily fails to acknowledge that one’s opinions don’t happen in a vacuum.
[/quote]
From what I understand, the lone wolf phenomenon was deliberate on the part of white supremacist groups in the first place - the point was not to have groups operating to implement their goals, but rather to radicalize individuals into their world view and make them believe that it’s heroic to act on behalf of their “race” rather than to suffer silently as the world changes around them. It’s why people like William Pierce turned to white power bands and wrote books like the Turner Diaries - to reach out to alienated young men and goad them into acting. The lone wolf phenomenon is now being employed by groups like Daesh, who are reaching out to radicalize young Muslim men who are living in places where people are acting hostile to them and their communities. The lone wolf phenomenon isn’t, then a by product, but is rather a deliberate strategy.
8 Likes
But we are talking about people being compelled to commit mass murder on innocent people. My statement does nothing to say there aren’t other bad things happening. I shouldn’t have to put an asterisk on my statement and then spend a paragraph acknowledging all the other issues related to, but not directly about what I am talking about.
Yeah, except that one statement was to bolster the point of my opinion that his mental state had more to do with him committing mass murder than his racist views. And then that got cherry picked out as if that was my main point. And since then I have spent a plethora of text acknowledging that there are race problems. IMO, one shouldn’t assume that a single statement like that comes with the added baggage that there are “no other problems, move along, nothing to see here”.
While this issue has reasonable arguments for both views - and probably the reality is a “a bit of both” - I will restate my view:
I think racism gave him a focus on who to victimized. I think his mental issues is what caused him to go through with it and want to kill people in the first place. See more below.
Now, this doesn’t excuse racism or say that racism isn’t a problem. Because while a small number of people today are willing to KILL over it, there are a lot of people willing to commit assaults, graffiti, arson, verbal attacks, harassment, etc.
That is a valid point and one I am not ignoring. I specifically said that he could have had no, some, or a lot of influence from outside sources encouraging him. My point was that it wasn’t necessarily a fact that others radicalized him. That one can become self radicalized with a combination of certain ideologies and mental issues. The Orlando shooter had propaganda and an ideology of hate to target gays, but I don’t believe there was evidence that anyone actually directly encouraged him. The Newton shooter didn’t ideology or propaganda telling him to murder children. One could say that sexism is prevalent in society, but while that might have some influence on the various serial killers who target women and have a hatred of women, we generally put the full blame on them.
I still contend his mental illness was the deciding factor on becoming a mass murderer. Had we some how found out his plans ahead of time, what would we be treating him for? His racism or his psychopathic mind? If he didn’t have this mental illness, he would still be a racist asshole, but he wouldn’t be a murderer.
And as a footnote, we still have a long way to go with eradicating racism, and that is a worthy goal for all of to work towards.
Yet many of the victims’ families don’t want him executed. How then is this justice for the victims?
7 Likes
Like I said… I speak for myself. I don’t think there is unanimous agreement amongst the family as to what sentence they are hoping for. I would assume there are those that share my wishes that the death penalty be applied.
I wonder how quick you are to say that about other kinds of terrorists. I wonder because you’re reminding me of so many others who are quick to treat white versus other-raced terrorists differently that way.
7 Likes
So it ISN’T about the victims then.
4 Likes
What’s the deal here y’all? I’m not going to write a book about this. My opinion is my opinion. I’m not speaking for anybody but myself. I don’t know any of the victims or their friends or family members.
What is so confusing?
1 Like
Shame then that the GOP is unilaterally opposed to improving the mental health of anyone, let alone keeping them away from such weapons.
5 Likes
