[Redolent]

These people saying he should be tortured and suffer - would you do it to him?

Would you do it with your family and friends watching you?

Is that what you think being civilised is?

[Stalin]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
There is a man standing right next to you, you have a gun pointed at his head and he holds a switch which will immediately blow up 10 people.

Do you shoot him, or let him kill?

Because as you said.. you don't decide whether he lives or dies and you don't decide whether his victims live or die.

That isn't the point.

The person in your scenario is a threat to society; James Holmes is no longer a threat because he's spending time in a cell awaiting his trial.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by benpearson1)
Of course you kill him if you have the choice. But that is almost entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about here. Capital punishment occurs after the crime(s) have been committed. You can't save those 10 lives by killing someone after, nor can you bring them back.

A long, long, long prison sentence is the best thing for all concerned in my opinion. It costs the taxpayer less and should serve as a fair justice for the families involved. If I had the choice between spending the rest of my life in prison and getting a hard time about it (believe me, this guy will), and having the option to be humanely put to sleep within the year I'd definitely choose the latter. Wouldn't you?

Well this girl here says she wouldn't kill him. And no, I wouldn't chose death. As far as the costs is concerned, he can disposed of for free without any charge easily.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by Stalin)
That isn't the point.

The person in your scenario is a threat to society; James Holmes is no longer a threat because he's spending time in a cell awaiting his trial.

I'm not comparing this scenario to his, please read the post I was responding to.

[Id and Ego seek]

Hopefully he gets Dahmer'd in prison.

[Endless Blue]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
But this man is useless!

No way will he ever be released back into society, he'll just be in prison for the rest of his life.

You obviously don't understand the quote then. Read it again and think about. I wasn't saying that he could be reformed and integrated into society at all.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by Redolent)
These people saying he should be tortured and suffer - would you do it to him?

Would you do it with your family and friends watching you?

Is that what you think being civilised is?

He lost his entitlement to civility when he opened fire on those victims.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
There is nothing expensive about taking this man into the middle of the sea, putting a bullet into his head and throwing him overboard.

Except, of course, if it turns out that James Holmes was innocent.

[Marlena002]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Well this girl here says she wouldn't kill him. And no, I wouldn't chose death. As far as the costs is concerned, he can disposed of for free without any charge easily.

I don't quite get what you find so hard to understand. I wouldn't kill another human being, regardless of what kind of ridiculously improbable scenario you dream up. I've never held a gun in my life - if I were put in the position, I most likely wouldn't even know what to do with it. I answered you honestly. Let it go.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by Stalin)
Except, of course, if it turns out that James Holmes was innocent.

How is he innocent? They know for a fact he did it. He's admitted he did it, it's on CCTV he did it, there are witnesses he did it, his parents even said when they heard about the killings they knew his son was the one who did it.

[whyumadtho]

It's quite strange seeing people argue whether or not someone (who is now harmless) should be killed depending on how valuable they are to the sociopolitical institution under which we reside.

[coastbeats]

(Original post by MattyJo)
No in my opinion the death penalty is never right.

(Original post by Redolent)
Spend the money on giving them social support instead of satisfying a lust for revenge

I have never agreed with revenge - that is a sole person committing a murder for PERSONAL gain and self-satisfaction. But what is justice? It is a system of rulings created by a society to charge criminals with certain crimes and give them the appropriate sentencing. But why do I agree with capital punishment? I seem to contradict myself but I think people are using REVENGE and LUST in the wrong way.

When a court sentences a person, it is not the victim who does so - it is a democratic society. If society comes to a decision that this person is not worthy to live, then the death penalty is appropriate. It's not revenge because the decision doesn't come from the emotions of a person alone but from a group of neutral people (Society) - and this is a different entity to a lone human.

There's my argument.

[jayjamine]

Yes he should! Sounds harsh but people like that don't deserve a second chance, nothing will bring back those lost!

[Stevo F]

The amount of money it costs to lock a high threat prisoner such as him away per year is ridiculous. If that money was given to cancer research or other medical research foundation, countless innocent lives would be saved but we instead prioritise "rehabilitating" somebody who has killed multiple people and in all honesty is never going to benefit society.

I think the death penalty should be used but only for those committing the worst crimes and who we are sure are guilty.

[Americaniamh]

(Original post by benpearson1)
Of course you kill him if you have the choice. But that is almost entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about here. Capital punishment occurs after the crime(s) have been committed. You can't save those 10 lives by killing someone after, nor can you bring them back.

A long, long, long prison sentence is the best thing for all concerned in my opinion. It costs the taxpayer less and should serve as a fair justice for the families involved. If I had the choice between spending the rest of my life in prison and getting a hard time about it (believe me, this guy will), and having the option to be humanely put to sleep within the year I'd definitely choose the latter. Wouldn't you?

I agree with you up until your characterisation of the death penalty as being "humanely put to sleep".

I'm on my phone right now so I can't write a screed but the death penalty is nowhere as peaceful as that.

The lethal injection is incredibly horrific - we don't know the extent of its pain and some believe over 40% of prisoners are conscious when they are killed. (Link at bottom.) Prisoners on death row are in a state of limbo - they don't know if they will live or die or not from day to day. The psychological damage this can cause is incredible.

I personally would choose life imprisonment.

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/a...-painless.html

[Ham22]

No, I don't believe the state should have a right to take the lives of any of it's citizens, no matter what they have done. I also think it's kind of escaping punishment as well.
I don't like this baying mob mentality- kill, kill kill! These people bring themselves down to the murder's level.

We've also had no report from a psychologist as to his state of mind as yet, so we don't know if this was purely sadistic and he is a psychopath or if he's suffering from some kind of psychosis or extreme emotional turmoil. This has a bearing on my view with regards to him being a 'monster' and 'evil'- which I feel is basically a stupid and shallow assessment of this event.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
How is he innocent? They know for a fact he did it. He's admitted he did it, it's on CCTV he did it, there are witnesses he did it, his parents even said when they heard about the killings they knew his son was the one who did it.

I didn't say James Holmes is innocent, but rather the problem with capital punishment, which you vehemently support, is that innocent people have been killed in the past, despite mugs like you being 1000% sure that the suspect is guilty.

The amount of times I've heard that someone did x, y and z, they admitted to doing it, witnesses claimed the person did it, et cetera, yet twenty, thirty, forty years later new evidence suggests otherwise.

This is why we have a court case, and don't jump to conclusions despite it being more than likely that James Holmes killed the people in the cinema. It's the reason for imprisonment, not some Bronze Age justice-style execution.

[Redolent]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
He lost his entitlement to civility when he opened fire on those victims.

Well, would you put the bullet through his head?
Even if your friends and family were watching you, standing there with the gun to Holmes' head, as he begs you for mercy?
Wouldn't you feel like a killer, just like him?

I know this is all very emotive and overblown, but we're talking about human life, and it's all too easy to detach yourself and say, someone else should kill him, in a locked up room somewhere where we can't see it and can't face the reality of what we have done.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by Redolent)
Well, would you put the bullet through his head?
Even if your friends and family were watching you, standing there with the gun to Holmes' head, as he begs you for mercy?
Wouldn't you feel like a killer, just like him?

I know this is all very emotive and overblown, but we're talking about human life, and it's all too easy to detach yourself and say, someone else should kill him, in a locked up room somewhere where we can't see it and can't face the reality of what we have done.

Yes I would.

I would never do it to anyone else, ever. If I was a raving murderer I wouldn't be on here arguing for him to get the death penalty, but after descriptively reading witness accounts I would happily murder that man.

And my family wouldn't be watching.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by Stalin)
I didn't say James Holmes is innocent, but rather the problem with capital punishment, which you vehemently support, is that innocent people have been killed in the past, despite mugs like you being 1000% sure that the suspect is guilty.

The amount of times I've heard that someone did x, y and z, they admitted to doing it, witnesses claimed the person did it, et cetera, yet twenty, thirty, forty years later new evidence suggests otherwise.

This is why we have a court case, and don't jump to conclusions despite it being more than likely that James Holmes killed the people in the cinema. It's the reason for imprisonment, not some Bronze Age justice-style execution.

Where did I say I support the capital punishment? I don't.

I just believe that in this such high profile case which I have such an interest in, where the person had a lust to kill and where we're 100% sure he did it.. he should be killed.