Dylann Roof sentenced to death

[abaris]

Ted expressed remorse later on. Or at least pretended to, but how can we know for sure if he was or not?

Oh, he pretended, of course. It was one of his last games to manipulate that pastor into believing his remorse.

I'm no expert, of course, but as I said, I read a lot on serial offenders. They tend to be master manipulators and narcissists with no feelings of empathy. The profiler John Douglas wrote a lot about Bundy and how he tried to manipulate them, even after he was sentenced.

[Catholic_Lady]

Out of curiosity, if you were called upon to plead for the lives of the likes of Ted Bundy, Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, etc...at their trials, what evidence would you give, or what would you say to convince a courtroom that their lives should be spared?

Well, since it seems most people don't believe in the old "life is sacred" idea, I'd say there is 0 advantage to getting them killed. Keep them in maximum security for life and try to learn from them so we can better understand these types of minds for the sake of identifying and preventing them in the future.

[Faith No More]

Out of curiosity, if you were called upon to plead for the lives of the likes of Ted Bundy, Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, etc...at their trials, what evidence would you give, or what would you say to convince a courtroom that their lives should be spared?

How about "having this law on the books so we can take revenge on these guys puts innocent lives in jeopardy."

Now a question for you. How many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice as collateral damage for you to be able to fulfill your lust for revenge?

Hint: There is no way to ensure 100% infallibility of a court case.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ted expressed remorse later on. Or at least pretended to, but how can we know for sure if he was or not?

Oh, he pretended, of course. It was one of his last games to manipulate that pastor into believing his remorse.

I'm no expert, of course, but as I said, I read a lot on serial offenders. They tend to be master manipulators and narcissists with no feelings of empathy. The profiler John Douglas wrote a lot about Bundy and how he tried to manipulate them, even after he was sentenced.

Wouldn't be surprised. Apparently he was very charismatic and charming in person, which he also used to his advantage when luring women. 

Here's his last interview: 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Out of curiosity, if you were called upon to plead for the lives of the likes of Ted Bundy, Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, etc...at their trials, what evidence would you give, or what would you say to convince a courtroom that their lives should be spared?

How about "having this law on the books so we can take revenge on these guys puts innocent lives in jeopardy."

Now a question for you. How many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice as collateral damage for you to be able to fulfill your lust for revenge?

Hint: There is no way to ensure 100% infallibility of a court case.

Exactly this. You cannot exonerate a dead man.

Boru

[Brian37]

Out of curiosity, if you were called upon to plead for the lives of the likes of Ted Bundy, Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, etc...at their trials, what evidence would you give, or what would you say to convince a courtroom that their lives should be spared?

Well, since it seems most people don't believe in the old "life is sacred" idea, I'd say there is 0 advantage to getting them killed. Keep them in maximum security for life and try to learn from them so we can better understand these types of minds for the sake of identifying and preventing them in the future.

Who are you talking about CL? 

No we don't think life is sacred in a magical old mythological context. But we most certainly DO value human rights. I cant see how you can agree with atheists then backhandedly make a ignorant comment like that. You are right, but for the wrong reasons.

There is no value in the death penalty we agree. But you don't need an old book of myth of any label to understand that. There are believers who are pro choice, but also ignore when the right screams about abortion, which really isn't a pro life argument, but a pro birth argument, while at the same time ignore that our biggest ally in the east Israel is staunchly pro choice. Funny how our right wingers never call for us to go to war with them. I don't want to but it would seem that if one is  against abortion, then logic would dictate that if it is considered genocide, logic would dictate you try to stop that genocide in order to be consistent with the logic.

This disagreement between you and another theist demonstrates the problem in all religions. You both have the same umbrella but view the same god and same book differently. It also addresses the horrible claim that this alleged god you both believe in didn't give you a manual for life that didn't cause so much confusion. Ironically both of you would be open and do see the divisions that are even far worse in the middle east between Sunnis and Shiites whom both also have the same god and use the same Koran.

The death penalty is immoral because it is merely an act of revenge on top of costing tax payers far more. Not because God or Allah or Yahweh written as claims in antiquity said so. Revenge is also the attitude of Po Pot and Kim Jong Un, simply replacing worship of a god, with worship of the state.

[Shell B]

I don't see it as revenge. You can't get revenge for those kinds of things. What would you do? You can't kill a bunch of people the killer cares about. Most of the time, there are no such people. I see it as taking out the trash. Again, I'm only talking about situations where there is no doubt and the crimes are incredibly heinous. (Don't bother denying the fact that such cases exist. If we thought it was impossible to have no doubt of a person's guilt, we couldn't put anyone in jail ever.)

[Brian37]

I don't see it as revenge. You can't get revenge for those kinds of things. What would you do? You can't kill a bunch of people the killer cares about. Most of the time, there are no such people. I see it as taking out the trash. Again, I'm only talking about situations where there is no doubt and the crimes are incredibly heinous. (Don't bother denying the fact that such cases exist. If we thought it was impossible to have no doubt of a person's guilt, we couldn't put anyone in jail ever.)

View it as you wish, but it still does nothing long term but satisfy your emotions. Just from a taxpayer standpoint it is not cost effective, nor is it a deterrent. 
And again, this isn't about one case, beyond a reasonable doubt I have no problem with. But our reality is a long term climate, not simply about one case. It is much more humane long term to reverse a wrongful conviction than to risk a mob rule climate.

I will always stand by the principle that it is better as someone once said, "I would rather let 10 guilty go free than to convict one innocent person". Even with non murder cases a mere false accusation can ruin someone's life even if they never get convicted. 

It is easy to armchair quarterback with famous cases, but our justice system, like I said, is not disconnected solely for one case. Yes beyond a reasonable doubt is fine, and if the person is convicted on facts alone they should go to prison, but even with murder our system disproportionately hurts those without the money to defend themselves, so you cannot over simplify it with one sample out of a entire history.

There was a case a few years back where a privately contracted lab in Texas illegally fudged numbers on physical evidence and falsely presented those numbers to a court to gain convictions. Because of an over zealous prosecutor. As a result, countless cases had to be overturned or thrown out, and that mentality hurt society in also keeping the guilty in prison. 

We should want dangerous harmful people contained, but it is an oversimplification to make it about one case. 

There is also, not talking about you but a climate in general, that exists of "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about". Innocent people do end up in prison. It is a mistake to ignore and you might not yourself ignore that, but many do.

[A Theist]

Ted expressed remorse later on. Or at least pretended to, but how can we know for sure if he was or not?

Oh, he pretended, of course. It was one of his last games to manipulate that pastor into believing his remorse.

I'm no expert, of course, but as I said, I read a lot on serial offenders. They tend to be master manipulators and narcissists with no feelings of empathy. The profiler John Douglas wrote a lot about Bundy and how he tried to manipulate them, even after he was sentenced.

Definitely on point with Bundy.

Here's an interesting read on the differences between Sociopaths and Psychopaths. It seems that the psychopaths are the more likely serial killers, (although it doesn't mean that all  sociopaths and psychopaths are either violent or killers), cunning, manipulative, educated, charming. Psychopaths have no empathy or emotional attachments to people. Sociopaths, on the other hand, are impulsive, more prone to outbursts, although unlike their psychopathic counterparts they can exhibit limited emotional  attachment to others. Ted Bundy a psychopath, Charles Manson a sociopath (?)

[*]

Differences Between a Psychopath vs Sociopath
By John M. Grohol, Psy.D.

Society has conspired with Hollywood to put two seemingly-sexy psychology terms into our collective consciousness — psychopath and sociopath. Psychopath and sociopath are pop psychology terms for what psychiatry calls an antisocial personality disorder. These two terms are not really well-defined in the psychology research literature, and so there is some confusion about them.
Nonetheless, there are some general similarities as well as differences between these two personality types. Both types of personality have a pervasive pattern of disregard for the safety and rights of others. Deceit and manipulation are central features to both types of personality. Contrary to popular belief, a psychopath or sociopath is not necessarily violent.

The common features of a psychopath and sociopath lie in their shared diagnosis — antisocial personality disorder. The DSM-51 defines antisocial personality as someone have 3 or more of the following traits:

1. Regularly breaks or flouts the law
   
2. Constantly lies and deceives others
   
3. Is impulsive and doesn’t plan ahead
   
4. Can be prone to fighting and aggressiveness
   
5. Has little regard for the safety of others
   
6. Irresponsible, can’t meet financial obligations
   
7. Doesn’t feel remorse or guilt
   

[*]In both cases, some signs or symptoms are nearly always present before age 15. By the time a person is an adult, they are well on their way to becoming a psychopath or sociopath.
[*]Traits of a Psychopath
Psychology researchers generally believe that psychopaths tends to be born — it’s likely a genetic predisposition — while sociopaths tend to be made by their environment. (Which is not to say that psychopaths may not also suffer from some sort of childhood trauma.) Psychopathy might be related to physiological brain differences. Research has shown psychopaths have underdeveloped components of the brain commonly thought to be responsible for emotion regulation and impulse control.

Are you a psychopath?
Take the Psychopathy Quiz to find out!

[*]
Psychopaths, in general, have a hard time forming real emotional attachments with others. Instead, they form artificial, shallow relationships designed to be manipulated in a way that most benefits the psychopath. People are seen as pawns to be used to forward the psychopath’s goals. Psychopaths rarely feel guilt regarding any of their behaviors, no matter how much they hurt others.
But psychopaths can often be seen by others as being charming and trustworthy, holding steady, normal jobs. Some even have families and seemingly-loving relationships with a partner. While they tend to be well-educated, they may also have learned a great deal on their own.
When a psychopath engages in criminal behavior, they tend to do so in a way that minimizes risk to themselves. They will carefully plan criminal activity to ensure they don’t get caught, having contingency plans in place for every possibility.
Psychopath Pop Culture Examples: Dexter, Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, Henry in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Patrick Bateman in American Psycho

Traits of a Sociopath
Researchers tend to believe that sociopathy is the result of environmental factors, such as a child or teen’s upbringing in a very negative household that resulted in physical abuse, emotional abuse, or childhood trauma.
Sociopaths, in general, tend to be more impulsive and erratic in their behavior than their psychopath counterparts. While also having difficulties in forming attachments to others, some sociopaths may be able to form an attachment to a like-minded group or person. Unlike psychopaths, most sociopaths don’t hold down long-term jobs or present much of a normal family life to the outside world.
When a sociopath engages in criminal behavior, they may do so in an impulsive and largely unplanned manner, with little regard for the risks or consequences of their actions. They may become agitated and angered easily, sometimes resulting in violent outbursts. These kinds of behaviors increase a sociopath’s chances of being apprehended.
Sociopath Pop Culture Examples: The Joker in The Dark Knight, JD in Heathers, Alex Delarge in A Clockwork Orange
Who is More Dangerous?
Both psychopaths and sociopaths present risks to society, because they will often try and live a normal life while coping with their disorder. But psychopathy is likely the more dangerous disorder, because they experience a lot less guilt connected to their actions.
A psychopath also has a greater ability to dissociate from their actions. Without emotional involvement, any pain that others suffer is meaningless to a psychopath. Many famous serial killers have been psychopaths.
Not all people we’d call a psychopath or sociopath are violent. Violence is not a necessary ingredient (nor is it for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder) — but it is often present.
Clues to a Psychopath or Sociopath in Childhood
Clues to psychopathy and sociopathy are usually available in childhood. Most people who can later be diagnosed with sociopathy or psychopathy have had a pattern of behavior where they violate the basic rights or safety of others. They often break the rules (or even laws) and societal norms as a child, too.
Psychologists call these kinds of childhood behaviors a conduct disorder. Conduct disorders involve four categories of problem behavior:

• Aggression to people and animals
  
  
• Destruction of property
  
• Deceitfulness or theft
  
• Serious violations of rules or laws
  

[*]
If you recognize these symptoms (and the specific symptoms of conduct disorder) in a child or young teen, they’re at greater risk for antisocial personality disorder.
Summary
Psychopathy and sociopathy are different cultural labels applied to the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. Up to 3 percent of the population may qualify for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. This disorder is more common among males and mostly seen in people with an alcohol or substance abuse problem, or in forensic settings such as prisons. Psychopaths tend to be more manipulative, can be seen by others as more charming, lead a semblance of a normal life, and minimize risk in criminal activities. Sociopaths tend to be more erratic, rage-prone, and unable to lead as much of a normal life. When sociopaths engage in criminal activity, they tend to do so in a reckless manner without regard to consequences.

[*]

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/20...sociopath/

---

Out of curiosity, if you were called upon to plead for the lives of the likes of Ted Bundy, Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, etc...at their trials, what evidence would you give, or what would you say to convince a courtroom that their lives should be spared?

How about "having this law on the books so we can take revenge on these guys puts innocent lives in jeopardy."

Now a question for you.  How many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice as collateral damage for you to be able to fulfill your lust for revenge?

Hint: There is no way to ensure 100% infallibility of a court case.

A question for me? You didn't answer mine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Out of curiosity, if you were called upon to plead for the lives of the likes of Ted Bundy, Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, etc...at their trials, what evidence would you give, or what would you say to convince a courtroom that their lives should be spared?

Why would I plead for their lives at all?  My opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with wishing to see their lives spared.  

Well then, that's obviously not the type of evidence I was talking about, which I made perfectly clear in another post. Also, you're talking about Texas. They need more reform than the average bear.

I understand that, but you might be overestimating our justice system if you think that any other place can guarantee any greater quality of evidence, or that it couldn't happen anywhere (ofc, it already has happened elsewhere, all over elsewhere), that you....or me, or anyone else - even given the "right" evidence...couldn't get the conviction wrong.    

Yeah, this is the part where you think that it bothers me to turn the state into executioners. It doesn't. They've been executioners since the dawn of our country. There have always been people that society is better off without. I'd rather see execution be rare and extremely well-controlled than argue for the life of people like Roof.

IDK, I was asking.  If it doesn't bother you it doesn't bother you.  I also think they've been executioners since the dawn of our country.  That doesn't mean they have to be.  We make that decision anew every single time.  There's no need to argue for people like roof to oppose the death penalty.  Making it about him is to trivialize rather than address the issue, imo.