If you were to look at the killer I referenced you would see that while I'm all about making sure the innocent go free ... this particular case was quite different. As he was killing people in front of witnesses he told one of them that he would leave them alive to be able to tell his story. I get it that sometimes mistakes are made but when such a horror is known, confessed, and proven a sentence should be given and carried out.
There is another thread on here about the theft of avionics in one of our most respected crime laden cities. What will happen to these thieves if they are ever caught? Maybe a couple of years in a cell with AC and three squares a day, a gym to work out in, cable TV, etc. I'm not suggesting that these be put to death but if they were stealing horses in the wild west ...
Our system is the way it is because of people rushing to punish obviously guilty individuals. If you'll bother to do some research on our Criminal Justice system, you will see where your type of reasoning was misapplied and resulted in several innocent people being executed. After all, it was known, confessed, and proven. Dillon Roof is not the first monster, nor will he be the last.
However, lets do the PoA thing, and solve the problem before us.
First, unlike AKiss20, I am familiar w/ the Dylann Roof case. Because of this, I have no doubt that justice will be served, just not as fast as some may like. So do not construe any of the below as support for him.
Premise:
There should be two layers of justice. One for normal people like you and I, the other for monsters, such as Roof.
(What? You don't like the idea of there being two defined different layers of justice?)
The first layer would get the normal number of appeals, required reviews, etc.
The second layer will not. They will be taken out of the court room, straight to old sparky or a gurney and sent on to their maker. No appeal, no last meal, do not pass go.
(Surely no argument can be made against this, or can it?)
One problem that I can see, how do we differentiate those who get fast tracked and those more normal people?
- Perhaps media coverage. The bigger deal the media makes it, the bigger the monster.
-- Nah, we've seen cases where the media has blown things up out of proportion.
- Perhaps number of people killed or injured.
-- Where do we make the cutoff? 5, 10, 3? Are you really ready to tell the friends and family of the victim's that yes, it is horrible, but your victim's killer isn't a monster because he didn't kill enough people?
-- Probably best not to go down that path
- How about based on public outcry?
-- Nah, because at that point it becomes mob mentality that dictates how a person is tried, this is kinda what got us where we are today.
- How about based upon the recommendation by arresting agency?
-- Too many cases of corruption and incompetence for people to be trusting this situation
- Other possibilities and reasons against them left as an exercise for the reader.
-------------
A second problem, is our jurisprudence. We have two equal problems but that are essential to American jurisprudence.
1) Innocent until proven guilty. This has to exist, or else we end up w/ guilty until proven innocent, which, incidentally, is the approach you took toward Dillon Roof.
- Does this mean some guilty people get found not guilty? Absolutely it does. However, I find it a better solution than innocent people being convicted. (A look at the reality, however, shows we still do convict innocent people, so even being as slow as we are, we still get it wrong)
2) Equal justice under the law. We have to allow equal treatment or else we run into the issues of deciding who gets the 'expedited' justice and who doesn't, all of which are ripe for abuse.
--------------
In closing, I reiterate that I am familiar with the Dylann Roof case, and I have no doubt that ultimately justice will be served.
As a personal note, I have had two of my friends meet untimely violent deaths at the hands of other humans, so I am not unaware of the emotions this situation can bring.
