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

[YE]

I am pro-life.

[Person Man]

Life without parole.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes

[Ferguson97]

Life without parole, I don't believe in the death penalty.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Of course.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Life without parole, I don't believe in the death penalty.

If it was legal would you support sending him to a guantanamo style prison

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am pro-life.

[Alcibiades]

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.

[Ferguson97]

Life without parole, I don't believe in the death penalty.

If it was legal would you support sending him to a guantanamo style prison

No, I believe that is cruel and unusual punishment.

The point of life in prison isn't to make his life miserable, it's to segregate him from society because he is unable to behave properly.

[S019]

He should get life without parole.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

I completely agree. If he's up for parole in 2050 or 2060 and still believes the same things and behaves the same ways he believes and behaves now, the parole board can, should, and almost certainly will just deny it.

[MarkD]

Yes, and I hope he gets executed by firing squad (by the federal government -- NYS does not have the death penalty available per rulings made by the state courts).

I also hope that the firing squad is made up of ten black people.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Life without parole, I don't believe in the death penalty.

If it was legal would you support sending him to a guantanamo style prison

No, I believe that is cruel and unusual punishment.

The point of life in prison isn't to make his life miserable, it's to segregate him from society because he is unable to behave properly.

But taking that Position to the logical end could  justify giving him Norway style prison conditions like Breviek gets and imo that is something we should absolutely not to do .

The punishment has to be far far far harsher

[Schiff for Senate]

While there are people who deserve to die (such as Grendon), executing someone is such a finality and such an ultimate punishment that it's just something society just should not be allowed to do to any of its members, unless society can determine with absolute precision who deserves to die, which it can't.

I and many other people can guarantee you that Gredon does, in fact, deserve to die. That's what we're talking about. There is literally zero doubt about his guilt. He killed 10 people and is an evil white supremacist. He does not deserve to live any longer and he needs to be executed.

[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.

Agree with everything but the last sentence. This would basically be bloodlust and serves zero purpose. It would add literally nothing of value and would just send people the wrong message. Kill him, and give him a painful death, but there's no reason to turn it into a spectacle. Yes, he absolutely needs to die, and I 100% agree with you on that much, but death is never something to turn into a spectacle or to celebrate. Not even in this case. I'm reminded of the French Revolution in the 1790s, when French royalty was publicly hanged, not quenching but exacerbating the bloodlust and thirst for blood of the mobs. It will lead to no good and will cause only more pain and hate. (Though I would be interested to hear your take on why public viewings for executions is a good idea. I wouldn't be persuaded, but I'd like to hear your argument nonetheless.)

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

I completely agree. If he's up for parole in 2050 or 2060 and still believes the same things and behaves the same ways he believes and behaves now, the parole board can, should, and almost certainly will just deny it.

If we can't agree he should die, can we at least agree he should rot in jail and pay the consequences for his actions? He should stay there and realize what he's done. He should face the repercussions. After taking life from 10 people this evil, vile man does not deserve to live in society with other people and should never, ever be given the opportunity to do so. I don't care if he 'reforms' or 'sees the error of his ways' (which I somehow doubt he will, given that he practically wrote a book advocating white supremacy and the great replacement theory). That won't bring the lives of the 10 victims back. Besides, it's possible he behaves like David Duke and puts on a good act that he's reformed his ways, then gets out and guns down another 10 black people. That may be a risk you're willing to take, but it's not one that the people of Buffalo should be forced to take.

I understand opposing the death penalty if you're against the death penalty on principle. It's very understandable. But at the very least, he should spend the rest of his life rotting in a jail cell until he dies and rots in hell. He does not deserve to breath freely or live in a society with normal people. Besides, it's absolutely naive to think this guy will change his mind on white supremacy while sitting in a jail cell. And even if he does and genuinely sees the error in his ways, he can still rot in jail till he dies, no questions asked.

[Vosem]

Almost certainly. I think, in general, it is an insult to the citizenry to keep alive a mass murderer using shared public resources.

That said, I do think society has a responsibility to attempt rehabilitation where possible, and I've adopted a view that the penalties for serious crimes should probably increase with age, so that nobody is ever serving life or de-facto life sentences but very young offenders are at least given a chance. But I am not sure that rehabilitation is possible for a racially-motivated mass murderer who commits his crime at any age; I think not. Voted Yes in the poll.

[Alcibiades]

Almost certainly. I think, in general, it is an insult to the citizenry to keep alive a mass murderer using shared public resources.

The death penalty costs the taxpayer a lot more than life imprisonment (not that that’s anywhere near the most important argument against capital punishment, but still, your point makes no sense).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Almost certainly. I think, in general, it is an insult to the citizenry to keep alive a mass murderer using shared public resources.

The death penalty costs the taxpayer a lot more than life imprisonment (not that that’s anywhere near the most important argument against capital punishment, but still, your point makes no sense).

That’s cause of how many appeals they get and that includes being able to appeal the sentence. Imo only the verdict really should be able to be appealed in a case like this as every mass murderer should get the death penalty as a mandatory minimum

[RINO Tom]

I’ve gone back and forth lately RE: my death penalty opinion, but he’s as deserving of it as anyone else.

[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.

[Tintrlvr]

Life with the possibility of parole (not that parole is especially likely in this circumstance, but the point is you don't know what will change in 20-40 years), which should be the most serious punishment available for any crime.

[Alcibiades]

Almost certainly. I think, in general, it is an insult to the citizenry to keep alive a mass murderer using shared public resources.

The death penalty costs the taxpayer a lot more than life imprisonment (not that that’s anywhere near the most important argument against capital punishment, but still, your point makes no sense).

That’s cause of how many appeals they get and that includes being able to appeal the sentence. Imo only the verdict really should be able to be appealed in a case like this as every mass murderer should get the death penalty as a mandatory minimum

So you basically want to undermine the rule of law, bizarrely make the most serious, only irreversible sentence the only one that can’t be appealed, and execute even more innocent people than already are, all to satisfy some primal bloodlust?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Almost certainly. I think, in general, it is an insult to the citizenry to keep alive a mass murderer using shared public resources.

The death penalty costs the taxpayer a lot more than life imprisonment (not that that’s anywhere near the most important argument against capital punishment, but still, your point makes no sense).

That’s cause of how many appeals they get and that includes being able to appeal the sentence. Imo only the verdict really should be able to be appealed in a case like this as every mass murderer should get the death penalty as a mandatory minimum

So you basically want to undermine the rule of law, bizarrely make the most serious, only irreversible sentence the only one that can’t be appealed, and execute even more innocent people than already are, all to satisfy some primal bloodlust?

I only think mass murderers should get that mandatory minimum and I said they should be able to appeal the verdict.

[Schiff for Senate]

Almost certainly. I think, in general, it is an insult to the citizenry to keep alive a mass murderer using shared public resources.

The death penalty costs the taxpayer a lot more than life imprisonment (not that that’s anywhere near the most important argument against capital punishment, but still, your point makes no sense).

That’s cause of how many appeals they get and that includes being able to appeal the sentence. Imo only the verdict really should be able to be appealed in a case like this as every mass murderer should get the death penalty as a mandatory minimum

So you basically want to undermine the rule of law, bizarrely make the most serious, only irreversible sentence the only one that can’t be appealed, and execute even more innocent people than already are, all to satisfy some primal bloodlust?

I actually agree with OSR, but only when there's absolutely zero doubt regarding guilt. In this case, I think it's extremely, exceedingly obvious that this guy is guilty for killing 10 people. He is a white supremacist who killed 10 people. There is nothing to be appealed. Don't waste taxpayer dollars on that. Just execute him ASAP.