For what it's worth, I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, as I've always said I'd only support it if I could pull the lever myself.

That said, the real reason for the post was to come back on the methods discussion earlier - as far as humane methods, what is the problem with the Dignitas method (barbiturates, I believe?). If it's humane enough to do voluntarily, why not for executions? Is it simply because the drug companies won't supply the drugs for use in executions but will for voluntary euthanasia?

I never thought you were all bad, and I tried to respond to your comments respectfully as in general I've enjoyed your posts on a wide variety of subjects. I also agree (even though your tongue was in your cheek) that animals are better than Roof. But intentionally or not, you are right about punishing Roof (merited) while putting to sleep animals (something entirely different.)

Beyond that, I simply cannot reconcile myself to it ever being justified to take a human life, whether you do so as a murderer or as a state-sanctioned executioner. Killing someone, to me, is killing someone. It's never justified and there aren't any degree of justification either. The arguments barely matter to me; I just think it's wrong. I know you disagree and I'm not trying to change your mind; I'm just explaining my own viewpoint as clearly as I can.

For the record, I'm not religious so there's nothing neo-Christian about my position. I just think it's immoral and dangerous to allow states (which by and large abuse power in one way or another on a daily basis) to have the power over life and death. If you get a slippery slope (and that is a slippery slope) sooner or later you'll fall over.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

I can't speak for Jamie but you are wrong about me. I am not more concerned about the death of a murderer but I am equally concerned if (and only if) his death is the result of an action by the state. If Roof had died in a car accident as he fled the scene of the crime, I'd be saying "good riddance to bad rubbish." But he wasn't, and I don't think the state has a right to cold-bloodedly kill him. As the families of the victims of Charleston have courageously showed us, a life is a life. The loss of a criminal life does nothing to better the lot of the victims of a loving one.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

I think you have to have some capacity by which 'society forgives and freedom' can be earned, even allowing for very serious crimes. Only those who have given a whole life tariff should arguably face the inevitability of death behind bars.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Thanks Syd,i also enjoy your posts as i do Jamiemartin and others.

i meant what i said about animals i used to have cats whom i love.

it's just people like Roof sicken me which maybe make me say things that i should'nt.

i should'nt refer to Roof as an animal as it's disrespectful to animals,i still believe people like Roof should be punished for what he did,i saw a picture of him and he looks pure evil.
.

That Roof should be punished -- savagely so -- is beyond doubt. To me, justice has to serve the dual purpose of both punishment and, in so far as possible, rehabilitation but the punishment comes first. He should serve life without parole and the early part of that sentence should be unremittingly and mercilessly hard, whatever that may entail. At some point the punishment element has to be considered largely discharged simply because it makes no sense to have a human being that you don't make some effort to rehabilitate but he has to suffer for what he's done wrong before any attempt should be made to encourage him to do right.

Roof sickens me but -- and you may dislike this -- just as society takes credit for the good it creates so the evil it produces is also a reflection of the society as a whole. Roof didn't emerge from his mother's womb a fully formed hatred machine; society at least helped to shape him. That is not to let him off the hook or blame society for what he did. No way; he alone is responsible for his actions and he alone should pay for them. But as a society, it would be irresponsible not to ask ourselves "where does race hate come from?" If we don't ask the question then we miss the chance to address the problem.

Is Roof pure evil? It's an interesting question. I doubt it. When I look at his photo I see pure stupidity; a child masquerading as a man, hiding under the iconography of race hate as if that somehow bestowed on him adult status and legitimised his view of himself as a "freedom fighter" (sic), an emancipator of his race. Evil in one way yes, but confused, stupid, low IQ, easily led, almost a cartoon villain in another. Roof is the answer for a village in search of an idiot.

He, it seems to me, lacked the wit to even articulate his position as a mass murderer to any great effect; he's ended up as just another dumb southern white kid with a gun. Evil? In one way, yes. But more witless, pointless and ignorant in another. I doubt Roof is really clever enough to be evil. That, if nothing else, requires guile and intelligence. Like most people who do stupid things he probably just wanted attention and lacked the nous to even go about something that simple in an effective way. He's two-bit scum, but not even really capable of evil; just rank, base and utterly destructive idiocy.

His story is a mixture of ignorance, tragedy and despair. I hope he burns in hell, but not at the behest of the state.

Edited by sydtheeagle (22 Jun 2015 5.12pm)

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.