Why is this more deserving of the death penalty than other crimes like raping and killing a child?

I'm pretty much a lurker here and your shtick is getting old.

Why can't someone be outraged about this? Why must you diminish their message with your "why is this more deserving....."? But, going by how you typically post here, I'm not surprised.

It's a legitimate question. I think he should have died a long time ago. I also think people that torture kids should die. I'm curious why this is more deserving than other crimes in the OP's opinion.

What are your thoughts on the death penalty?

Because the OP said " Not a proponent of the death penalty, but I'll make an exception tonight". Windy was basically saying that some other crimes should/may deserve the same "exception".
to the OP, I FULLY share you feelings on this crime.

Murder is depraved no matter how it's done. But some methods are simply sick beyond compare. This was one of those instances.

So what kind of premeditated murder and/or murder with extenuating circumstances, dependent on the jurisdiction, is not death penalty worthy?

You might think it's a legitimate question, but your intentions typically seem to be confrontational. the OP was in no way saying that this crime is higher than other crimes, they're simply stating an opinion about this crime. I can think of other crimes that I would support the death penalty in, but I'm not here questioning why those things are not being brought up instead of the article that was posted.

For the record, I support the death penalty. I also support a robust and rigorous process to ensure that the government is murdering people who deserve to be murdered. I also believe that capital punishment, AKA government murder, is a last resort for those crimes which are heinous enough that there's no question that that person should not be allowed back into society. I feel that in this case the crime was so motivated by hatred that the death penalty is warranted. Hey, I also believe that people who do things to children should also be punished, but those crimes are not what the article was about.

In fairness to Windy (who does have a confrontational tone to many of his posts), the OP was absolutely implying that this crime was worse than others. The title of this thread indicates that normally the OP would not support capital punishment, but because this crime is so heinous, in this case he does. The certainly implies that he views this particular crime as more egregious than all the other crimes for which he wouldn't support the death penalty.

The Byrd murder was certainly horrific. However, we have a couple just arrested for allegedly murdering their 5 year-old son after apparently abusing him for basically his whole life. We have another couple who tortured, starved, and tied up thirteen children over a period of something like 17 years. There's a guy in PA who allegedly killed a 19 year-old after she declined his marriage proposal by strangling her, snapping her neck, gouging out her eyes, and then beating her with a hatchet. We have a woman in ND who killed a pregnant woman and cut her unborn child out of the womb with a carpenters knife, then attempted to keep the baby with her boyfriend while dumping the mother's body in a river.

These are just a handful that have been in the news over the past year or two. I don't know that the Byrd murder was somehow significantly more egregious than some of those, such that a principled stance against the death penalty would be set aside for Byrd's killers but not for the others.

It's an interesting line to explore.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Sheesh. Lighten up people. That's not what I read in the OP at all. When reading about the events of this crime, it's natural to have an impassioned response where you turn off rationality for a second. "Fuck it. Let the dude fry." It absolutely does not mean that he's rationally placed his crime in an ordinal list with all other conceivable crimes and found it to be the highest. The "one night only" is kind of a clue.

He's just being a damn human for an instant, not playing SCOTUS judge. Let him do that!

Sure, I'll concede that the post can be read as this crime is higher than other crimes, but to what end is windy asking their question? It's a charged question. It was intended to be confrontational. It was calling into question tiger's opinion on the severity of the crime as compared to some other arbitrary crime(s) that Windy thought up.

We as humans have the capacity to be outraged by many things simultaneously, right? Omitting something or focusing on a singular point doesn't mean I don't care about all those things that go unmentioned. That's my point. We can go "what about this...." all day and never get anywhere productive with the conversation. Case in point...me complaining about Windy and derailing this thread.

But I digress. All of those crimes you mentioned are rather horrorific. I completely agree. But those crimes are different than the Byrd case, in my opinion.

I don’t think he should be executed.

Or anyone else.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Not a proponent of the death penalty (does not support the death penalty) but I'll make an exception tonight (but will make an exception).

Why? What makes this crime worthy of the death penalty exception? That's the question.

Death penalty is sought in very specific usually horrific circumstances. I am curious why this is worthy of an exception but other horrific crimes are not. Personally I think you're either all in or all out on the death penalty and to state otherwise is illogical. It's not like death penalties are sought for parking tickets.

So you can read my mind? It was a blunt question. If this is an exception that implies opposition generally. But if you have numerous exceptions does that not imply support?

I think he should have been executed long ago and still should be executed. Evil incarnate is a real thing. When it presents itself, it needs to be removed from this world. It presented itself here. It should be removed.

Your position confuses me. If a lawful concealed carrier witnessed the event, drew a firearm, and shot this guy dead attempting to save the life of the victim, you would applaud (please don't bother to claim otherwise). Same end result only this way he was afforded full procedural and substantive due process which you would have claimed he was not entitled to if shot by that lawful concealed carrier while he was committed such a heinous crime (please don't bother to claim otherwise). Should you choose to dispute these facts, I will not continue to debate them with you, I (along with everyone else in the LR) will just laugh.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Me either. Not a power the government should be entrusted with. But I understand the human urge to kill some people.

Just by reading the account of what transpired, the passionate hatred shared by the murderers towards the victim is different.

Ultimately, the lynching was intended to terrorize the black community (they dragged Byrd for miles behind a truck and left his mutilated body in front of a black cemetery) and the victim likely could have been any black person within proximity of the three white supremacists.

I'm sure there are large communities here in our country that celebrate James Byrd's murder still today, and that's why it's different. It's terrifying to me as an American that this can happen.

Attmepting to stop or actually stopping the commission of the crime is completely different than ex post facto execution. His position is reasonable, wrong, but reasonable.

Eyeroll emoji

He would also be fine with a family member of the victim who witnessed the crime pulling out a gun and shooting the guy immediately after the crime. So, no, his general position is only reasonable to the extent that just about anything can be "justified" in one's own mind.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

And that person will be charged. Will get off, but will get charged

If he’s shot dead while in the process of committing the murder I wouldn’t mind. I’d rather some other course of action is taken if possible. If killing him prevents his committing of murder of an innocent person then it is fully justified and I encourage it.

If the killer is killed while resisting being apprehended I don’t mind.

If the CCW holder witnesses him murder (and the victim is clearly dead) someone and that CCW holder then shoots the dude because he was pissed, then that’s another murder and do not support it.

I do not support The State executing criminals who, if incarcerated, pose no threat to society.

The fucker should rot in jail for the rest of his life. I don’t support state sponsored revenge killing.

Laugh away.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I would say some people certainly don't care this kind of hate crimes. The OP mentioned hearing it on the radio. 3 weeks ago while driving I heard on NPR that three black churches in Louisiana were set on fire. for whatever reason it really bothered me as it was historical churches, with old graveyards and generations of people connected to these places. A white man was charged with setting the fires. These hate crimes are a threat to us as a society. As to the death penalty, its a different issue but it sure plays into this case.

If you’re talking about me here you’re wrong. I would not be fine with that.


this makes no sense.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I fully understand the pro-capital punishment sentiment. I used to be all in favor of it.

I’ve changed my mind on this issue. I just don’t think it’s something the State should be responsible for.

My opposition to it isn’t coming from a mindset of protecting the criminals, btw. It’s comes wanting to protect the people that would be involved in carrying out the executions.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

This is a thread about murder and the death penalty. I'm not sure "lighten up" is an applicable phrase to use.

I think the question is valid. I agree with others who think Windy tends to be deliberately confrontational in his approach.

When discussing death penalty, unless your position is "Never, under any circumstances," then asking where you draw the line and why, is a reasonable line of discussion. Especially when you highlight one particular incident as being past your personal line.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

It is perfectly valid. I just thought people were being too hard on the OP. I just thought he was airing out his revulsion to the description of the crime, not making grand claims about the jurisprudence of capital punishment.

I don't see it as confrontational just being blunt. People generally don't like to be told they're wrong and even moreso don't like to admit it when evidence is presented eviscerating their position.

Then shouldn't have mentioned the exception. Should have said too bad it took so long and so much money was wasted before the fucker died.

And potential innocent people. Though there are many layers of protections, the rate of falsely convicted people is almost certainly non-zero. Maybe very small, but non-zero. And executing an innocent person is horrific.

Tough crowd here.

But life in prison is better? Wouldn't putting them out of their misery be the humane thing to do?

Being alive preserves the chance that exculpatory evidence can re-open the case. E.g. DNA evidence or death-bed confession by the real killer, etc. The Innocence Project has examples.

And second, though prison sucks, I'd *think* I'd prefer to be there than dead. You can read a lot of books, which I'm fine doing. Draw things. You can have a social life to some degree, make friends. Brew up a batch of prison hooch. Watch some TV.

Why would they need protection? Aren't they volunteers? Or have they been ordered to execute with some legal consequences if they refuse?

Even more, people don't like being crapped on by blowhards who always think they're right and others are wrong, and that they have a responsibility to tell everyone how they're wrong.

If you don't see why your posts are taken as confrontational, you might want reread your words above and engage in some self reflection.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"If we get caught, we're not going to white-collar resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison."

-Michael Bolton

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don’t think he should be executed.


Or anyone else.


Me either. Not a power the government should be entrusted with.


I agree with you and Duffy. Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Other factors such as economics, race, mental capacity, parental upbringing often play a big role. That's not even considering the time and money involved in the legal process, the risk that you execute an innocent person, the fact that most people who are killed are poor.


Killing criminals doesn't undo what has been done. I've always found it a little strange that there is an inconsistency in people's views, often from people of religion. They will strongly oppose things like abortion or mercy killing but then support capital punishment. It seems if your view is that you value life, it means all life.


As a person of faith, life/death decisions are not up to us and certainly not up to government.

yup. I dont think the state should have the power to kill its citizens. Life in prison with no possibility of getting out is fine. Too many cases of wrongly convicted people in going to jail. Its not a deterrent, and killing the convicted doesn't bring back the dead. There is no religious basis for my personal opinion.

A few observations...

1.) This is the LR. Confrontation happens. Sometimes it's a key to examining ourselves and learning.
2.) I agree that Windy can be pretty high on the confrontation scale.
3.) Even given #2, I reread Windy's first comment. It's just questioning why this crime is special vis-a-vis many other crimes for which the death penalty can be given. It's the natural, logical question to such an OP IMHO.

Oddly enough I don't have a strong opinion on the death penalty. I can imagine an admirable society implementing it in an appropriate way, and I can imagine an admirable society never implementing it. I could be proud of my fellow citizens under either scenario.

1. Yep.
2. Yep.
3. Yep. I didn't really have an issue with his first comment.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I beleive I acknowledge why they are perceived to be confrontational above.

I realize you said you could imagine, and not there are, admirable societies implementing the DP. But I think you have one hell of an imagination as in practice and application these are your primary practitioners.

Countries with the Most Confirmed Executions in 2018
1. China (1,000s *see above) 5. Iraq (52+)
2. Iran (253+) 6. Egypt (43+)
3. Saudi Arabia (148) 7. United States (25)
4. Vietnam (85+) 8. Japan (15)
Countries with the Most Confirmed Death Sentences in 2018**
1. China (1,000s *see above) 4. Pakistan (250+)
2. Egypt (717+) 5. Bangladesh (229+)
3. Iraq (271+) 6. Malaysia (190)
** Death-sentencing totals unknown for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea

The bar for the death penalty should be high. Both in evidence of who committed the crime and the nature of the crime but cases like a Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacey, BKT..... murders that were purposefully committed to torture and maximize the victims pain, suffering and terror I would have no problem seeing the death penalty implemented. Dragging someone to death behind a vehicle would qualify for me.

Yeah, I think you are confused. It's not a competition to see who can get the most executions.

No, not a competition. Not sure why you thought it was? But these are the countries currently implementing the DP. So while your admirable society might be theoretically possible, this is the reality and the company that we keep.

Does anyone know the cost difference between life in prison and carrying out death sentence.

It differs from state to state but typically 1.2-1.7 million more cost to tax payer for death sentence. (US figures only) over a fully served life sentence.

I can imagine countries where there is a less stringent legal system this would change (aka found guilty, take em out back and shoot em).

There are four main goals of corrections; retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation and deterrence. Causing more burden on tax payers isn’t one of them. Is it worth killing them at a cost of 1.2-1.7 million? No.

Watching a doc the other night. Guy is on death row in Texas for a quadruple homicide. He was stopped while high on meth, given a police prepared statement to sign........signed it. Zero actual evidence linking the person to the crime.

Come to find out later that facts the killer should have known were wrong in the confession the police prepared versus the evidence. Didn't matter, just the meth head signed confession.

Then come to find out, police didn't even talk to or put on the stand an employee who had a very violent interaction with a future robber/murderer who did commit lots of local murders. Same location.

So, this guy might wind up dying because he was high on meth and signed a confession.

Oh, and the prosecutor's excuse when asked about the lack of evidence........"God told me that this guy did it and to have faith we were going to execute the right guy someday."

Let that one sink in for a bit. We're not getting it right. Have proven time and again that we can't be trusted as humans to dole out this punishment.

However much sometimes even I think we should dole it out, knowing some of the things we know.........we can't be trusted with it.

You realize that documentary films aren’t sources of news and that they are, at best, fiction by omission?

Do you have any actual news sources that corroborated the claims in the documentary?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

We obviously don't need to be trusted with it if God (assuming it's this particular god) has the wheel.

Making a Murderer is a perfect example of fiction by omission.

It's OK to question the validity of something that's not really into the details. I'm not going to convince hardcore pro death penalty folks by a Netflix doc. If anything, it's confirmation bias. So no, I'm not even going to bother.

But, there are plenty of exonerations of both lifers and DP folks that have been in the news the past few years. People can claim "that's the system getting it ultimately right" all they want. But it often ends up taking a determined prisoner and someone extra advocating on the outside to get to the outcome. Left to the state, the person would be dead and gone or never see parole.

I do not trust the state whatsoever to get it right. Or the jury that's watched too much CSI and either fell for the crime lab's jaded view.......OR they expect too much and won't convict someone who they've pretty much got on video and DNA doing it. Wellllll, there is that one in a zillion fake twin out there somewhere.....

Me neither. And not just with capital punishment.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb