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