can an act of "insanity" be carried out in such a well planned and meticulous manor?? Cases will all vary but in this case in particular everything was very thought out and most definitely planned. Anyone can plead insanity.
I will be honest in saying that although my husband and I, very willingly went yesterday to see "The dark night rises" we both were paying close attention to the exits and our fellow movie patrons actions. Our caution did not take away from enjoying the GREAT movie, but we were a little on edge.
I will go to the theater sometime but this event will be in the back of my mind. I know we aren't supposed to live our lives in fear but i cant say i wont be a little scared because people are insane!
No one can deny this was a tragedy, but we cannot allow such awful acts to dictate how we live our lives. To do so would be to give in to fears much like that of McCarthyism in the 50's and being afraid to voice any kind of dissent toward our government as is our duty and right as American citizens. Or, as you pointed out Ryan, flying due to the events of 9/11. I will not allow such horrible events or tactics to dictate how I live my life. Only two months after 9/11 I flew home before the holidays to spend time with my family. The moment we give in to fear and the actions of people like Mr. Holmes and others like him we lose a little more of that freedom we all hold so near and dear to heart. Not to mention the irrational decisions we (American government) make after such tragedies in lieu of trying to feel safer. I am of course talking about things like the Patriot Act and ineffective gun laws that have no real chance of deterring such unspeakable acts. I'll save the rest of my argument concerning gun laws for another time and another rivalry.
Is anyone else as disturbed by this as I am? I can understand being frustrated by the status quo and lackluster performance of the 112th Congress to date, but do her actions really warrant such a seditious attitude? What do you think?
Several of the studies go way beyond just what appears on the surface. Many of them consider crimes other than the typical first degree murder or capital murder in order to get the death penalty. The main reason I'm against this particular rivalry is because people like Mr. Holmes are obviously mentally unstable and the threat of the death penalty is never something someone with his clear mental disorder even considers.
As far as closure for the family of a victim I have nothing to say on the matter. My entire belief against this particular penalty is based upon the law and the effectiveness of deterrence used to enforce it.
While I certainly see your logic I don't approach it from an idea that deterrence is the ultimate goal of the punishment.
When someone commits crimes such as mass murder they are stripping life away from the victims and should not be rewarded with a life of free meals, room and board, and opportunity to continue breathing. This is something the victims weren't offered.
Not to mention people disturbed enough to take the lives of countless innocent victims aren't going to be deterred by the threat of losing their life in the gas chamber. So I can see why if you look at it simply as a deterrence then it wouldn't be a effective way to combat the crimes; I'm not convinced there's any way to stop lunatics from committing these types of crimes (Let's not expand this to gun control because that's a whole other rivalry on its own).
However Justice should be served for the those who lost their lives as well as their loved ones. And I may be going out on the limb here but allowing this ?@?!$!! to live his whole life behind bars isn't what I'd consider justice. If you want to call it an eye for an eye then so be it. If it was my family member lost then you better believe I'd want him dead; not 12 years from now as he awaits all of his appeals but NOW.
Preface: I didn't not have a chance to look at the sources provide but wanted to raise some questions as a devils advocate.
While I agree that Capital Punishment isn't necessarily an ideal way to deter horrendous crimes I do want to ask a couple of questions.
Does the research look at other variables that could affect the rates of murders? Such as the amount of gangs, demographics, gun control laws, poverty statistics, unemployment statistics, etc... ?
I guess simply; Do they only look at the murder rates of states that impose capital punishment vs the states that don't? Or do they dig much deeper in the research? I'm just curious.
Also, the main question raised in this rivalry is the question of insanity. While I'm guessing since you aren't for capital punishment in general this would apply to those that are insane as well. But for fun, If you were in favor of the death sentence would an insane criminal be disqualified from the punishment?
I have chosen this side mainly due to deterrence. A small fraction of my decision is based on morality, but not much. Specifically I have seen over 30 studies and statistical data which has proven over the course of 50 years that the death penalty as a deterrent of heinous crimes simply does not work. In the last 10 years alone it has been shown that of the current 17 states that do not use the death penalty have had a murder rate of anywhere between 10-50% less than those states with a death penalty. Bottom line: If, after 50 years of collective study, those states with a death penalty had shown significantly lower murder rates I would consider it an effective deterrent. However, all evidence is to the contrary. I know some people would argue that leaving them locked up for life costs too much money, but I do not believe we should sentence any one to death simply because it would be more cost effective. I will include a few links for citing purposes.
I guess for me it will be a lot like the feeling I get when I travel in an airplane; it obviously won't stop me from doing it but It will likely be in the back of my mind much like the 9/11 events. Extremely sad that the question is even asked.
Here is a link to the document which explains her subsequent decision to leave the Senatorial race in Iowa's 34th District to join the Republic of the United States.
Randi Shannon, the tea party and republican candidate for her local district Senate position has decided to call it quits. In turn she has decided to take the position of Senator for her home state to represent the Republic of the United States of America. This is not a joke. I repeat, this is not a joke. In a lengthy worded explanation on her Facebook page Ms. Shannon has concluded that she can longer serve the current government and has decided to join the Republic for Iowa and Republic of the United States. In addition, she has stated that this government will not recognize any amendment after the 14th Amendment, as it was created by the United States Corporation. What do you think about that? Do you honestly think she has a legitimate claim to join this government, or has someone gone a little too far off the reservation this time?
As far as closure for the family of a victim I have nothing to say on the matter. My entire belief against this particular penalty is based upon the law and the effectiveness of deterrence used to enforce it.
When someone commits crimes such as mass murder they are stripping life away from the victims and should not be rewarded with a life of free meals, room and board, and opportunity to continue breathing. This is something the victims weren't offered.
Not to mention people disturbed enough to take the lives of countless innocent victims aren't going to be deterred by the threat of losing their life in the gas chamber. So I can see why if you look at it simply as a deterrence then it wouldn't be a effective way to combat the crimes; I'm not convinced there's any way to stop lunatics from committing these types of crimes (Let's not expand this to gun control because that's a whole other rivalry on its own).
However Justice should be served for the those who lost their lives as well as their loved ones. And I may be going out on the limb here but allowing this ?@?!$!! to live his whole life behind bars isn't what I'd consider justice. If you want to call it an eye for an eye then so be it. If it was my family member lost then you better believe I'd want him dead; not 12 years from now as he awaits all of his appeals but NOW.
Preface: I didn't not have a chance to look at the sources provide but wanted to raise some questions as a devils advocate.
While I agree that Capital Punishment isn't necessarily an ideal way to deter horrendous crimes I do want to ask a couple of questions.
Does the research look at other variables that could affect the rates of murders? Such as the amount of gangs, demographics, gun control laws, poverty statistics, unemployment statistics, etc... ?
I guess simply; Do they only look at the murder rates of states that impose capital punishment vs the states that don't? Or do they dig much deeper in the research? I'm just curious.
Also, the main question raised in this rivalry is the question of insanity. While I'm guessing since you aren't for capital punishment in general this would apply to those that are insane as well. But for fun, If you were in favor of the death sentence would an insane criminal be disqualified from the punishment?
http://http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/us/absence-executions-special-report-states-with-no-death-penalty-share-lower.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://marion.patch.com/articles/randi-shannon-drops-out-of-district-34-iowa-senate-race#pdf-10652689