Why are liberals suddenly so pro death penalty?

Post Reply New Topic

First they embrace capitalism, then they embrace "identity politics", and now the death penalty? While what Dylann Roof did is horrible, I think it's hypocritical to oppose the death penalty in most cases but to make an exception for hate crimes. Is murdering someone for money any more forgivable than killing someone for their race? It's perhaps more understandable, but definitely not any more excusable.

I would even argue that applying a tougher sentence for a hate crime versus an "ordinary" crime is a form of censorship.

Not that I'm sticking up for Roof, he is a scumbag and too sick in the head to be trusted with freedom ever again, I just wish that liberals stuck to their principles more rather than viewed politics as a battle between the races and parties.

I don't think killing him would accomplish anything. Death penalty is one issue I don't waver on.

A lot of hate gets thrown around. Sometimes it's fun to hate the haters, but in the end I simply think the death penalty is barbaric.

I think distinguishing hate crimes from other crimes is problematic.

They didn't seem to be too anti-death penalty when Tim McVeigh was executed either.

I'm a liberal and I think Tim McVeigh should have gotten life without parole and I think the same for Dylann Roof.

Are they? Haven't been paying attention.

I guess most people have a set threshold for their ideals.

It's a good test to see if you're a true believer or not, though.

Well, first, this may come as a shock to you, but establishment politicians of both major parties are pro-capitalism and always have been.

Some more than others of course. And there was of course that weird time when the democrats and republicans traded places, except for conservative politicians in the south, which we called dixiecrats. They caucused with the democratic party, but sided with the republicans on pretty much everything.

Fwiw, this puts us at odds with the rest of the world, which has liberal vs. conservative the other way around.

Hillary Clinton is a hard-core corporate democrat. And it's one of the reasons i hate her. Even though I'm a lefty.

Identity politics go back to at least the 60's, and certainly the early 70's (roe v. wade), when some democrats came out in favor of things like interracial marriage and gay rights, so the republicans cast themselves in the diametrically opposed position and allied with certain nutjob conservative clergy.

fwiw, South Carolina is the only state without a hate crimes law.

I haven't seen a lot of liberals calling to kill this guy. We're too busy having our minds blown by conservatives bending over backwards to avoid having to address the racial aspects. The suspect confessed and told the cops that he wanted to start a race war, but no, Fox News wants to explore other possibilities! Maybe this was anti-christian!? Maybe we'll just never understand!?

I do think he should be charged as a terrorist.

Why?
Because a white southerner (always the bad guy) has killed nine black people (the voiceless, always persecuted minority) in a RED state with a GUN and this has tugged on thier little heart strings (for the time being) and got them all stirred up (for now).
It's not unusual for an anti-gun liberal peacenik in a moment of passion to say they want to shoot someone. I've witnessed it enough times not to be surprised.

Does that answer your question?

Emotional people tend to have rash knee-jerk reactions, remember there was a time in this country that George W. Bush had a 90%+ approval rating and like 75% wanted to invade Iraq because of it.

FWIW, Even though SC may not have a 'Hate Crimes' law, It does have a former cop sitting in the same Cellblock as the Church shooter facing Murder charges for gunning down a black guy who ran away from him a couple months ago. Contrast this with New York, Michigan, Ohio, California, and Illinois which do have hate crimes legislation, yet cops get off scot free for killing citezens, as a 'justifiable use of force'.

Also, why charge him as a 'terrorist'? He specifically went to that church to kill people. That is premeditation. He killed 9 people. That is murder nine times over, planned, premeditated and executed. South Carolina is a Death Penalty state that has no qualms about killing murderers. He will most likely be facing 9 counts of capitol murder. Why add another layer of complication to case that is already complicated enough already? -- This is no differant than that kid that shot up the movie theater in Colorado, and no differant than Beltway sniper.

Intent is what makes it different than the theater massacre. Roof intended to start a race war. This was supposed to be an instigation, not an end unto itself.

Are we talking morally or legally here? Morally, the outcome is of far more import than the specific intent. Nine people were murdered. Whatever specific intent Roof had, nine deaths was the end result.

Legally speaking, there's little value in pursuing incitement or terrorist charges, as the 9 premeditated murders will be sufficient to land a maximum sentence should he be found guilty.

First off the only part of political spectrum was/is against capitalism is the U.S. Communist Party.

Secondly not all liberals are opposed to the death penalty.

Though those who would normally oppose the death penalty, probably decided not to say anything because it is cheaper than life in prison!
The right was constantly hammering them on how expensive life in prison compared to the death penalty.

Roof's crimes will most likely be brought under federal jurisdiction due to racism and the federal statues on crimes of hate. Also SC has a long history of sweeping crime against minorities under the rug, so that is more than enough to warrant federal takeover.

If he were a muslim, we would be kicking down doors to find the people who "radicalized" him.

From the FBI's website:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

This is domestic terrorism, and we should treat it that way.

I thought liberals were always anti-death penalty. I'm a hardcore liberal and I have always been opposed to the death penalty and to some extent am as much of an anarchist as I was in my college days. If they must have a death penalty they should switch to using nitrogen gas which is humane and entirely foolproof. Perhaps you are thinking about the comment in today's news of one of the family members forgiving him but at the same time hoping he meets God sooner than later. That was understandable under the circumstances although a bit hypocritical. As for Dylann Roof, I think they should lock him away in that SuperMax prison in CO for the rest of his life and not give him an opportunity to make a martyr of himself. They say that place is worse than death. They aren't even allowed to see the sky. They were talking about this a month or so ago after the conviction of the Boston Bomber.

Political parties have flip flop attitudes as bad as the politicians they offer up for election. The Dems are supposed to represent liberal views, but take a look at history... until the early to mid 1900s (FDR's time) the Democratic party was the party of southern land owners and the KKK, while the Republicans were the party that freed the slaves. My, my, hasn't time changed? Give it time and it will change again.

Whatever your political affiliation is there will be some talking heads telling you whatever it is you want to hear.

Americans have been polarized to extreme levels, conservatives are fed a bunch of bs that demonizes liberals while liberals are fed bs which demonizes conservatives.

Labeling people and painting them with a broad brush is not productive and intellectually lazy, but unfortunately the media types know all too well that appeals to emotion are much more compelling than appeals to logic.

Investment in ideas also builds up walls of cognitive dissonance, plus the polarization isolates people in pockets of social proof which are psychologically difficult to escape.

Never trust your own beliefs 100%, be aware that you are a fallible human being.

What you have there is a terrible definition of terrorism.

Under this definition, a teacher can be considered a terrorist for shouting out "don't run" at a group of pupils.

Roof cannot intimidate or influence anyone from police custody, and does not have any accomplices. How can he fulfil any of the criteria required to be considered a terrorist?