Mass shootings: Poll question

Lets not forget the true agenda of the liberals is restoritive justice. If this guy had lived, Given the chance the liberals would want to reform him and turn him loose on society. Don forget what the wacky liberal courts did in Kalifornia in the 70's. First they declared the death penalty unconstitutional then they declared life in prison without the possibility of parole cruel and unusual punishment. This is why Manson who actually got the death penalty still to this day comes up for parole every few years.

 

The only really bad thing is that, if he dies, we'll never know his motivation, mental, physical, or otherwise. As in 999,999 officers in charge of pushing the button won't do it without proper orders to do so. I very much want to know about #1,000,000. See what I mean?



QUOTE=PeterS;136643215]In mass shootings, it better to have the gunman (Gun person) dead or captured to stand up for their crime. I'm 50/50. If the gun person gets killed or kills themself, it's a 'done deal'. No trials, tax dollars spent, hearing about abused childhoods, etc. On the other hand, victems and families may want to (or need to) understand why the event happened for closure.

What's your thought on this?[/QUOTE]

 

i think he would be better off alive, for the time being. this way, the families can get a better sense of closure, possibly find out what drove him to do this, and create a better database on what to look for to prevent something like this from happening again.

 

I'd prefer to have him alive to find out why, if not he should be killed by the police or someone else who could stop him, suicide is a cop out.

 

No, because 'the court' will say they are whacked, put them on drugs, think they are fixed, and we will pay for them to be in prison forever like Charlie Manson, or let them out like Mark David Chapman, but we still end up paying for it.
And all we will get out of 'studying them' is to discover they are whacked.

I LOVE financially supporting serial killers on death row for 20-25 years....

Who cares about 'closure' for a serial killer, and the victims' families would want him dead anyway.
(I say 'him' because there has never been a lone female serial killer known to exist..)

 

Doubt it - nobody ever thinks about it, or if they do, they think they won't get caught, that's why they do it, or, they simply don't care if they get caught.
And besides, the ACLU would never allow someone to be 'tortured' before being put to death.

 

I would say Better off Dead but in the IDEAL case we would keep them alive and make them die a LONG and HORRIBLE death.. this goes for anybody who kills somebody even if it is "only" one person (unless it's self-defense or something like that), especially if it was premeditated. Rifledriver brings up a good point, we should put them to sleep like dogs because they are worse than dogs.
And djui5 is right, they commit suicide so that they don't have to deal with the repercussions. That's why I voted "undecided" - I think they'd be better off Dead, but they shouldn't have any control over it, they should be punished with death not liberated by it

 

What about your dungeon, Pap?

The gimp needs company.

 

you make a good point here, but what if this were to happen in a state w/o the death penalty? i don't know what the statutes are that constitute a federal case over a state case, but if it's a state case in a state that has abolished the death penalty, what would you then propose be the punishment?