Should Payton Grendon- the Buffalo, NY shooter- be put to death?

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes. This is one of those cases where it's a uniquely horrific crime and the identity of the killer is under no dispute whatsoever. Those are the cases the death penalty is made for. And I'll add my usual unpopular opinion that it should be a public execution.

I'm coming around to agreeing with you on this.  I have my problems with the death penalty and am not at all a fan of it, but for such a heinous crime, I think you can make the case that it is justified here.  I don't think it should be used for most other crimes.  The public side of it seems a bit barbaric, especially as it could turn into bloodlust for the crowd, but on the other hand, it might be good to show the rest of the people that when you commit such horrible actions, you have a nasty end.  It seems with many of these shooters, they disappear into prison and you never hear from them again, but a public execution does not leave people with that impression.

I agree with the rest of your post, but a public execution, as you yourself said, is barbaric and is just basically bloodlust. He needs to die, but that's nothing to be celebrated and it's not something that requires a show or any fanfare. This isn't the 1790s anymore. Kill him, and I absolutely support that, but there is still no need for the execution to be public. That would be extremely backward, barbaric and medieval. Everyone should know the guy is being executed. No need to belabor the point and certainly no need to turn the execution of somebody into a spectacle. That never ends well (as I said, during the French Revolution, this happened to satisfy people's bloodlust, and all it did was rile them up even more and make them excited to kill more people) and always sends the completely wrong message.

[beaver2.0]

Yes. This is one of those cases where it's a uniquely horrific crime and the identity of the killer is under no dispute whatsoever. Those are the cases the death penalty is made for. And I'll add my usual unpopular opinion that it should be a public execution.

I'm coming around to agreeing with you on this.  I have my problems with the death penalty and am not at all a fan of it, but for such a heinous crime, I think you can make the case that it is justified here.  I don't think it should be used for most other crimes.  The public side of it seems a bit barbaric, especially as it could turn into bloodlust for the crowd, but on the other hand, it might be good to show the rest of the people that when you commit such horrible actions, you have a nasty end.  It seems with many of these shooters, they disappear into prison and you never hear from them again, but a public execution does not leave people with that impression.

I agree with the rest of your post, but a public execution, as you yourself said, is barbaric and is just basically bloodlust. He needs to die, but that's nothing to be celebrated and it's not something that requires a show or any fanfare. This isn't the 1790s anymore. Kill him, and I absolutely support that, but there is still no need for the execution to be public. That would be extremely backward, barbaric and medieval. Everyone should know the guy is being executed. No need to belabor the point and certainly no need to turn the execution of somebody into a spectacle. That never ends well (as I said, during the French Revolution, this happened to satisfy people's bloodlust, and all it did was rile them up even more and make them excited to kill more people) and always sends the completely wrong message.

You make good points, which is why I was hesitant to make my post because I'm not sure I fully agree with it.  In my ideal scenario, people would see the execution and then realize that it would be awful to be in that situation.  I envision it not as being something people would enjoy, but unfortunately I do agree with you that it would just encourage bloodlust.  Your suggestion of making the execution well-known but not making the actual event public might work just as well.

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes. This is one of those cases where it's a uniquely horrific crime and the identity of the killer is under no dispute whatsoever. Those are the cases the death penalty is made for. And I'll add my usual unpopular opinion that it should be a public execution.

I'm coming around to agreeing with you on this.  I have my problems with the death penalty and am not at all a fan of it, but for such a heinous crime, I think you can make the case that it is justified here.  I don't think it should be used for most other crimes.  The public side of it seems a bit barbaric, especially as it could turn into bloodlust for the crowd, but on the other hand, it might be good to show the rest of the people that when you commit such horrible actions, you have a nasty end.  It seems with many of these shooters, they disappear into prison and you never hear from them again, but a public execution does not leave people with that impression.

I agree with the rest of your post, but a public execution, as you yourself said, is barbaric and is just basically bloodlust. He needs to die, but that's nothing to be celebrated and it's not something that requires a show or any fanfare. This isn't the 1790s anymore. Kill him, and I absolutely support that, but there is still no need for the execution to be public. That would be extremely backward, barbaric and medieval. Everyone should know the guy is being executed. No need to belabor the point and certainly no need to turn the execution of somebody into a spectacle. That never ends well (as I said, during the French Revolution, this happened to satisfy people's bloodlust, and all it did was rile them up even more and make them excited to kill more people) and always sends the completely wrong message.

You make good points, which is why I was hesitant to make my post because I'm not sure I fully agree with it.  In my ideal scenario, people would see the execution and then realize that it would be awful to be in that situation.  I envision it not as being something people would enjoy, but unfortunately I do agree with you that it would just encourage bloodlust.  Your suggestion of making the execution well-known but not making the actual event public might work just as well.

Just make it clear that he's being executed. No need to belabor the point beyond that. People get the message that he's being executed. He absolutely needs to be executed and it would be nice if his death could discourage criminals. But I would absolutely oppose a public execution, no matter the excuses made for it. We are not in the 1700s or 1800s anymore. We are in the 21st century and should act like it. Public executions are the stuff of third-world countries, places with REVOLUTION, or countries in the eighteenth and nineteenth century - not in the 21st century in the country that is supposedly the greatest in the world (which has not undergone a violent revolution). And your reason - to set an example - is kind of eerie in a way to be honest, inthat it's the same reason you hear terrorists use when they want to silence dissent and stoke fear. Killing its own citizens is justifiable in this case, but doing so publicly is absolutely barbaric and deplorable.

[Walker Jones]

Of course

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Yes. (sane)
Everybody who disagrees is simply a closet racist.

I am pro-life.

Does that solely apply to gory racists, but also to innocent, defenseless embryos?

[YE]

I oppose the death penalty and abortion.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No, he should not be put to death.

He should receive a Life sentence if convicted.  Federal Courts have, IIRC, set an age limit by which defendants committing crimes at a young age can receive a life sentence.  That will be a matter for the Courts.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Absolutely not to the death penalty.

I only think life without parole should be applied in extremely rare cases where the murderer has committed a particularly depraved crime(s) and is likely to remain a permanent threat to society; while Grendon obviously meets the first criterion, his very young age gives me pause as to the second.

So it’s hard to say without being a judge with access to the full facts of the case, but on balance most likely a life sentence with a long span until eligibility for parole, but nonetheless with that chance for parole still a possibility.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes. (sane)
Everybody who disagrees is simply a closet racist.

Or maybe they don't believe in killing people solely for punitive purposes ever.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, he should not be put to death.

He should receive a Life sentence if convicted.  Federal Courts have, IIRC, set an age limit by which defendants committing crimes at a young age can receive a life sentence.  That will be a matter for the Courts.

Yes but he's 18 so he qualifies for any sentence.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No, he should not be put to death.

He should receive a Life sentence if convicted.  Federal Courts have, IIRC, set an age limit by which defendants committing crimes at a young age can receive a life sentence.  That will be a matter for the Courts.

Yes but he's 18 so he qualifies for any sentence.

The issue is whether or not he would be mandated parole.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, he should not be put to death.

He should receive a Life sentence if convicted.  Federal Courts have, IIRC, set an age limit by which defendants committing crimes at a young age can receive a life sentence.  That will be a matter for the Courts.

Yes but he's 18 so he qualifies for any sentence.

The issue is whether or not he would be mandated parole.

18-year olds can be sentenced to life without parole.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No, he should not be put to death.

He should receive a Life sentence if convicted.  Federal Courts have, IIRC, set an age limit by which defendants committing crimes at a young age can receive a life sentence.  That will be a matter for the Courts.

Yes but he's 18 so he qualifies for any sentence.

The issue is whether or not he would be mandated parole.

18-year olds can be sentenced to life without parole.

It can be, but there are potential mitigations to this, even in his case.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No, he should not be put to death.

He should receive a Life sentence if convicted.  Federal Courts have, IIRC, set an age limit by which defendants committing crimes at a young age can receive a life sentence.  That will be a matter for the Courts.

Yes but he's 18 so he qualifies for any sentence.

The issue is whether or not he would be mandated parole.

18-year olds can be sentenced to life without parole.

It can be, but there are potential mitigations to this, even in his case.

Which mitigations

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, he should not be put to death.

He should receive a Life sentence if convicted.  Federal Courts have, IIRC, set an age limit by which defendants committing crimes at a young age can receive a life sentence.  That will be a matter for the Courts.

Yes but he's 18 so he qualifies for any sentence.

The issue is whether or not he would be mandated parole.

18-year olds can be sentenced to life without parole.

It can be, but there are potential mitigations to this, even in his case.

Which mitigations

Well prosecutors and judges usually go easier on 18-year olds than older adults, even if they're being tried as an adult and subject to the same standards as a 30-year old. However that's usually for things like vandalism, petty theft and drugs, not premediated mass murder.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No, he should not be put to death.

He should receive a Life sentence if convicted.  Federal Courts have, IIRC, set an age limit by which defendants committing crimes at a young age can receive a life sentence.  That will be a matter for the Courts.

Yes but he's 18 so he qualifies for any sentence.

The issue is whether or not he would be mandated parole.

18-year olds can be sentenced to life without parole.

It can be, but there are potential mitigations to this, even in his case.

Which mitigations

Age and Mental Health.

These are legal arguments for his attorney(s) to make.  The mitigation would likely be one which would allow parole at some date.  His age would be a consideration, though not as strongly as if he were just under 18 instead of just over 18.

[GregTheGreat657]

Yes, but because NYS doesn´t have the death penalty, it won´t actually happen