dylannn-roof-courtesy-newyorkdailynews-com

“The white man charged with killing nine black parishioners at a church in Charleston, S.C., last year will be allowed to represent himself in his federal hate-crimes trial,” washingtonpost.com reports. That would be Dylan Roof, the man recently adjudicated to be mentally competent to stand trial. I consider these developments a classic Catch-22: any person who chooses to represent himself in a death penalty case has a fool for a client and is patently insane. Yeah, about that death penalty part, The New York Times reports that . . .

Mr. Roof has offered, in exchange for a sentence of life in prison, to plead guilty. The government has refused to make such a plea agreement.

The 17-month path to Mr. Roof’s first death penalty trial — the state of South Carolina is also seeking his execution — has been marked by public demonstrations of forgiveness and reconciliation.

But the federal government’s decision to pursue Mr. Roof’s execution is widely questioned, and it is in defiance of the wishes and recommendations of survivors of the attack, many family members of the dead and some Justice Department officials.

Even South Carolina’s acrimonious debate about the display of the Confederate battle flag outside the State House was less divisive in this state, polling shows.

Had to bring that flag deal up, didn’t they? I guess that’s the point: the feds can’t let Mr. Roof rot in jail because racism. The Obama administration’s Justice Department’s political agenda demands that the court make an example of Mr. Roof, to highlight and promote its social justice warrior gestalt.

Now that Mr, Roof has been granted permission to represent himself at trial, the government’s intransigence means the killer will be able to spew his white supremacist nonsense in open court, one way or another. Equally, shooting survivors may have to face Mr Roof from the witness stand.

I’m against the death penalty, full stop. I don’t believe the state should be in the business of executing people. That goes double when pursuing capital punishment opens the door to killers who use court as a venue to, well, show off. The government should make a deal, to avoid prolonging the misery for those affected by Mr. Roof’s heinous crime. And prolong Mr. Roof’s punishment.

Recommended For You

126 Responses to Spree Killer Dylan Roof Has A Fool for A Client

  1. Dylann Roof should burn. No “lethal injection” for that POS. That’s the way you put down a loyal, terminal pet, not a psycho killer. Strap him in, throw the switch and watch him fry.

    Don’t want the government to do it? Go find a safe space with the leftist snowflakes. Me? I want a ringside seat on the right side of the glass.

    • I agree. You need to discourage killings like this from happening by making a punishment that truly fits the crime. No life sentences, no leniency period end of story.

      Death sentence is not good enough for this piece of trash.

    • Agreed. Until these douche bags realize that they will have to answer for their cowardly crimes with their life, not a prison cell with with cable TV, free Healthcare, and access to free education, this is not going to stop.

      • @Corey and Crowbar, I don’t think that zapping Roof is going to deter anyone. We’ve been taught that the purpose of sentencing is deterrence or correction, which may or may not be partially true in some cases. In this case, however, the purpose of the sentence should be retribution.

        Roof murdered nine people in cold blood, including two old ladies and an old man.

        His continued existence is an affront to every decent person on this planet.

        • Ralph, I totally agree. The difference between a long prison sentence and the death penalty is not going to have an effect on someone’s decision-making process to commit murder. Retribution and a sense of justice are the purposes being served by the death penalty.

          And I believe they should be served quickly.

        • To repeat….the death penalty deters the dead convict from ever hurting anyone else, again, ever. All journeys begin with a single step. All solutions begin with a first step.

        • Some people on death row have been exonerated by new evidence.

          That said, this particular case is pretty clear cut. If blatant, premeditated, mass murder of innocent people at worship doesn’t warrant putting someone down, I don’t know what would.

        • I agree Ralph, but if the response for a shooting attack is always death, idiots might pause a moment before doing this.

        • Just to be clear, it was/is Leftist, SJWs who spawned the idea that law should be a deterrent, and rehabilitation should be the only purpose for incarceration.

          Law defines society’s more’. Violate the law, and there is punishment. Simple. The other crap just makes a mess, complicates life unnecessarily, delays actual justice and punishment, encourages law-breakers to play the odds (of not likely to be enforced).

    • Ralph,

      Your system is too easy and lacks excitement. Allow me to propose an alternate system. Government constructs a really tall tower on an insulated base, e.g. a giant lightning rod. Here is where the excitement comes in: we strap the convicted murderer across the insulated base every time a thunderstorm approaches. Each lightning strike could hit the tower and flow through the convicted murderer at the base of the tower as the lightning goes to Earth ground. Or none of the lightning strikes may hit the tower. No one knows, which is where the excitement comes in.

      And imagine the convicted murderer at the base of the tower. They would probably flinch like nobody’s business every time there was a flash of light in the sky. Heck, we could even install a super high-intensity strobe light at the base of the tower and charge people money to activate the strobe light … and then give the proceeds to the families of the victims.

      Someone has to think outside of the box.

        • I don’t see how. The decision of whether he should be executed or not would rest totally in the hands, or paws, or coils or whatever, of the almighty lightning generator, would it not? If it’s wrong, it won’t happen! Easy-peasey, right?

      • One change, and we agree. Strap the killer to your gadget when a storm approaches, then leave him there. Call it 2 weeks, he’ll have been executed one way or another, collect the remains and cremate if still necessary. Play the video repeatedly.

        • How ’bout this?

          Every day, bring each death row inmate into the execution chamber. Follow all the procedures up to the point of death, then return the prisoner to the cell block. Render those whose appeals are exhausted, but at a date uncertain. Release a random few each year. Keep death row prisoners focused on their unknowable, but impending doom. Publish the procedure to the public via every information mechanism.

          The staff to accomplish the above are already on the payroll, there is no actual use of materials. Costs should not even be calculable.

        • “Every day, bring each death row inmate into the execution chamber. Follow all the procedures up to the point of death, then return the prisoner to the cell block.”

          At a KGB prison, the procedure is to once daily walk each prisoner down a bare concrete hallway. On the floor of the hallway is a utilitarian drain cover.

          One of those walks will be your last…

        • It has nothing to do with KGB specifically. It is (well, was, until the 1996 moratorium) the standard execution procedure in USSR and later Russia.

          And they didn’t walk the prisoners deliberately every day. But every now and then, they’d do transfers from cell to cell. And one of those walks would be the last – one of the specially trained guards would be assigned to “escort duty”, and and would catch a good moment and shoot at the back of the head when the prisoner wasn’t looking.

        • It’s actually done for the reverse reason from what you guys seem to be clamoring for – to spare the prisoner the angst of living through a long period during which they know exactly when they are going to die, and are counting days/hours/seconds.

        • Alright. Little modification….on the day scheduled for execution, begin the uncertainty drill, all the way to strap down, or whatever final preparations are necessary to have the death row prisoner believe death is imminent. then return prisoner to cell. at some date in the future (chosen by the warden or representative) complete the execution. Now we have the agony or counting the days, and the uncertainty of when it will actually happen.

          Of course, I don’t believe for a minute the Russian authorities would do anything humane or merciful for its death row prisoners.

        • Why not? It was called the “highest measure of social protection” (note the word “punishment” being conspicuously absent here) in Soviet times for a reason.

    • I rarely agree with you Ralph, but I’m mostly on board. I have no desire to personally watch, but the death penalty is a useful tool in principle, and I think is warranted here. I’m certainly against the death penalty in practice, because it hasn’t always been reserved for cases in which there is no doubt about guilt, and because it often ends up costing the public a boatload of money and taking ages. In cases like Roof’s, I have no problem in principle with a swift execution. Why should he continue to be a burden on society?

    • “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

    • And when WRONG jumps in it with both feet.

      Rule of Life #100 – “Some people need just killin”

      For a likely example see also George Soros

  2. Meh… I’m sure the SJW crowd will keep screaming about “institutionalized racism” even when the “institution” executes a white man for killing black people.

    • Agreed- and they’d probably be right. Any sane person who murders 8 or 9 people deserves to be put to death. Point blank and simple.

    • Call a spade a spade this time. Sure there’s plenty of unbelievably misleading things done by the media. But in this case, the killer’s stated motive was “to start a race war.” That was specifically his entire intended purpose. Nobody has to gin anything up this time, they’ve got it in his own words, so — best to pick your battles when there’s a battle to be won (like the recent shooting of a gangbanger where the media posted pictures of him in a tuxedo). In the Dylan Roof case, it’s open and shut textbook race war material.

      • Not really the point I was trying to make. This scumbag is clearly a piece of shit, but the point is that if racism was as “institutional” as the SJWs claim, he’d be packed off to a club-fed mental institution to come out six months later with a stern slap on the wrist.

    • From what I was able to Google up, the main issue at stake in an appeal would be “The defendant must show that his lawyer’s errors were so serious as to wholly deprive the defendant of a fair trial”. From what I’ve read elsewhere, when the defendant represents himself the judge will backstop him to avoid such a travesty from happening in the first place. So, the judge has the discretion and duty to remove him as his own counsel if he’s making a hash of it.

      ETA: I use “travesty” advisedly. Allowing any defendant to put the noose on his own neck would be one, no matter how awful he may be.

    • I’ve been witness to a defendant standing before a judge stating that he wanted to represent himself…

      The judge made it very clear that he would be unable to appeal based on incompetent counsel if he chose to move forward.

  3. RF…..

    Death penaly, when finally performed is a 100% deterrent; the dead person will never again harm anyone else. There is no moral equivalence between murder and execution.

    However……John Gresham clearly demonstrated the rigor with which any death penalty must be analyzed. Many on death row proved to be victims of justice gone wrong. Happily, the vast majority were placed on death row long before we had the science available today. One might argue that a death penaty based entirely on “circumstantial evidence” is still most problematic, and the argument is valid. (two people in a house. gunshot. one walks out, one lies dead. murder?)

    No none should be allowed to murder (word chosen carefully) another, and live out a life of their own, particularly when there is a possibility (however remote) the murderer will be discharged from prison someday. If the state is not the authority for legally ending a murderer’s life, then it must be left to society at large to nuetralize the threat. Is that a viable solution?

    Life in prison, without parole is its own form of animal cruelty. If prisons were run like college campuses, perhaps a life sentence would be justice. However, the idea that justice is better served by providing free everything to a murderer forever is not justice. Many people believe the biblical charge, “An eye for an eye….” is a call for the harshest penalty, unequal penalty, vendetta. Truth is the charge is placing a limti on penalty. No penalty may be extracted beyond that which results in equal or lesser damage to the attacker. The principle is at the base of the law of torts…setting the victim whole, again.

    • “Many on death row proved to be victims of justice gone wrong. Happily, the vast majority were placed on death row long before we had the science available today.”

      I think I understand your point – that many of the innocents placed on death row were not railroaded in light of modern forensic techniques. On the other hand, though, doesn’t that suggest that several have been wrongly executed because there weren’t the methodologies to exonerate them? How many of today’s death row placements and executions will be exonerated based on the technology of tomorrow?

      While I understand and appreciate the utility of capital punishment, as I mature I question its accuracy. Better a thousand guilty be given life than one innocent be murdered.

      • “On the other hand, though, doesn’t that suggest that several have been wrongly executed because there weren’t the methodologies to exonerate them? How many of today’s death row placements and executions will be exonerated based on the technology of tomorrow?”

        Fair observation. Not looking to perfection, but if today’s science can notably lower the number of innocents executed that is good. If tomorrow’s science can further notably lower the execution of innocents, that is better. Avoiding a course of action because all the science is not yet in place (if ever) is analysis paralysis; justifying doing nothing until everything is known. Have a look at the latest developments in settled physics. Had humans waited until all science was incontrovertably known, we would still be digging grubworms by hand.

        • There should be changes in concepts to coordinate with new technologies. “beyond a reasonable doubt” may not be good enough when the death penalty is a player, but “beyond any doubt” is a real possibility today, when it was a whiskey dream 50 years ago.

        • It would only be paralysis if no other options were available; but life sentence is one that provides the same deterrence effect for that particular individual, and arguably more deterrence to others (on account of being more harsh, and having a living example to point to). And it’s not even more expensive, unless you remove a lot of safeguards that already exist around death penalty (appeals etc) – but if you do, then you’re going to end up executing even more innocent people than we already do.

        • We have seen too many life sentences that weren’t. We have an obsession with allowing hard core criminals more comforts, consideration, protection, support than they granted to their victims. Where is the so-called deterrence when killers are pretty sure they will continue to breathe while their victims rot in the ground?

        • And why weren’t they? Because of parole? Then that is the problem that needs fixing – basically, anyone who’d get executed should get life with no parole (period, no exceptions).

        • I agree with you. However…..(always a “however”), life in a cage is as inhumane as it gets. Penned up behind bars for however long each day, encased in buildings where crime is rampant, living in constant fear of death or grievous bodily harm, poor food, noise to the point of not being able to sleep, etc.

          There is no really good solution. Opposition to execution is mostly borne out of our desire to be able to tell ourselves, “At least I didn’t kill anybody”.

        • Hence my euthanasia suggestion. It doesn’t really solve this problem fully, but at least it gives the condemned a choice in the matter. Which I think is important, since the notion of “inhumane” is inherently subjective, and really only they are in a position to decide that for themselves (and if they’re actually innocent, to decide whether they’d rather live and suffer so long as there’s some hope to prove that innocence, or not). When we impose death penalty, we strip them of that choice.

        • How much “choice in the matter” did the victim have? Why should the killer be given any choice? We arrive again at the place where the criminal is awarded greater concern than the victim.

        • Because you don’t know for certain that the accused is actually the killer (in general). So you do it on the off chance that they’re actually innocent, to mitigate their undue suffering.

        • Again, focus on the criminal. If we don’t want them to suffer, don’t kill them. If we don’t want them to suffer, don’t cage them. If we don’t want them to suffer, send them to counseling and job training, provide adequate housing, and a guaranteed minimum wage so they can become productive citizens.

    • > Life in prison, without parole is its own form of animal cruelty.

      There is a simple solution to that. Offer euthanasia, by request, no questions asked, to anyone in prison for life (or maybe for longer than X years, where X can be 20 or something).

      • Good idea. How ’bout voters decide that “euthanasia” be mandatory under certain circumstances?

        On the other hand, if administered under state auspices, what prevents the State from deciding to euthanize dissenters?

        • Nothing really prevents the state from killing dissenters by other means, such as e.g. falsely claiming that they tried to escape and were killed in the process. The only way to prevent this is to have some checks in place, so that the prison system is more transparent – external observers etc.

          As to “mandatory euthanasia”, that’s death penalty, and like I said in another comment, there’s no rational reason to prefer it so long as possibility of a mistake is non-zero, or at least substantially higher than the possibility of the convict sentenced to life escaping and re-offending. I don’t think that will be the case in general until either reliable truth serums or telepathy are developed. It may be true in specific cases (this one is a good example), but I don’t see a way to generalize it without introducing slippery slope – basically every time someone want to have someone executed, they’ll argue that “this case is crystal clear”, and it’s ultimately a subjective assessment – the only way to make it objective is to aggregate cases and do statistical analysis.

        • RF’s objections are not based on “certainty of guilt”, but on the notion that the State should not have the legal means to execute a resident. Underlying that mindset is the notion that if the State is not “allowed” (by whom?) to execute people, the State cannot expand the authority to wherever/whomever it chooses.

          As a logic problem, we have the question: Should the State be allowed, under any circumstances, to execute a resident?. Once the answer is “Yes”, then we can logically move to the next question: Must society accept that zero margin for error is required before the State is “allowed” (by whom?) to execute a resident?. After that, we can ask the question, “How do we ensure zero margin of error”?

          Usually, we jump from “should” to “zero mistakes”. All based on feelz.

  4. I want the government to spend the least amount possible.. I think a little bit higher “electric” bill wouldn’t be a bad thing…. it costs less money to kill evil then to lock it up…

    • it costs less money to kill evil then to lock it up…

      No, it really doesn’t. Not once the lawyers have finished with the process, that is.

    • I’m in favour of a classic hanging, and NOT the long-drop. Too quick. The slow hanging should be used instead. Or “breaking on the wheel”. Anything else is simply not long enough.

      And I’ll bet “Roofie” (from taking too many roofies and homemade meth) is proud his great-great-great grandpappy was a slave overseer who knew how to keep uppity ******s in line.

  5. I’m all for the death penalty in certain situations. Such as this clown.
    Why the hell should we be paying for this pos to eat and sleep in a prison cell for the rest of his life?
    Strap him in the chair and be done with it. Use the money saved to help homeless veterans or families in need… say like the ones he destroyed.

    • As I said in the post, I don’t like the government to be in the business of executing people — even when the executed deserve it. It sets a bad precedent, one that can be expanded during a crisis.

      • The government kills civilians all the time they are called police officers. It is part of the job. Some people need killing and sometimes there are accidents.
        But even in accidents the police are rarely prosecuted. Why???
        Also killing civilians in war time is normal legal activity.

        Where all the civilians in Germany Japan and Italy in WW2 innocent???
        Was it really worth it to kill so many civilians just to get rid of Tojo, Hitler, and Mussolini???

        I look forward to the government killing Mr Roof.

  6. I AM for the death penalty-full stop. It’s one reason Illinois is sooooo f#cked up. A POS(inChiraq) shot his pregnant baby momma last night killing the baby. On purpose. With malice aforethough. Because convicted felon governor George Ryan abolished the deathpenalty this animal won’t die at gubmint hands. And the mostly young murderers will not be executed in Illinois. Tell me RF how do you FEEL about all those evil Nazis who slaughtered your forebears? They should have languished in Spandeu? Young dumb Roof does indeed need killing…

    • So how about we consider changing the legal system? Why should the government be doing the killing? Give the victims’ families a gun and a free pass. If they choose to exact revenge, then they are immediately pardoned. If they choose not to exact revenge, then the killer gets life in prison.

      Keeps the government out of the killing-its-citizens business, but still gets the d-bag killed if the victims want it that way.

    • I would like to think that I would have the same opinion of the death penalty if someone I loved were murdered. I doubt I would.

      Which is why our society takes the victim(s) out of the sentencing process — although they are now allowed to be heard in open court during a presentencing hearing.

      As for killing the Nazi killers who killed my grandparents, I’m not ready to accept the state as executioner. Not anymore. Not in theory.

      • RF, which particular laws were not in effect to stop the Nazis? Which laws and principles of the League of Nations were not on the books so as to stop the Holocaust? Which prohibitions on state-sponsored murder of its own citizens should have been implemented, so as to force the Nazis to behave more humanely?

        Law never stops Evil. Never. Belief in Law as the protector of the innocent is simply foolish. Regimes will do as they wish when they are anchored in Evil.

        Of course, we can look further east, to the Soviet Union, for an example of how effectively law prevented the slaughter of 20million civilians before WW2 even began.

        The State does not need the permission of its people in order to brutalize them.

        You sound like anti-gunners: “guns are bad, they killed my…..; no one should have one.”

  7. It strikes me that the ever-parental State is actually trying to spare the “black community” the shame of having one of its (former)members murdering Mr. Roof in prison.

  8. The death penalty is a necessary evil in a civilized society. Some simply aren’t fit to live in that society and they prove it by taking innocent life. Roof is not fit to live in this society and there is no evil in taking his life. There’s not even any question that he’s the guilty party.

    I’m honestly not sure how you can be against the government taking this man’s life but be for a gun owner taking a life in self-defense. It would somehow be OK if the police had shot and killed him during the incident, but now it’s not? Weird logic there.

    • And yet there it is. I believe it’s morally acceptable to take a life when yourself or other innocent life face a deadly, credible and imminent threat, but not so otherwise.

      • RF, you are trying to prove how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; equivocating.

        Here is your argument:
        “I believe it’s morally acceptable to take a life when yourself or other innocent life face a deadly, credible and imminent threat…” (in the heat of the moment). But if you are killed, the perp arrested, and a trial conducted, the taking of your innocent life does not justify the death of the attacker.

        Once the cool light of morning, the distance of time, and the legal system get involved, the taking of innocent life cannot be tolerated.

        Whether “in the heat of the moment”, or after due deliberation, the issue triggering justice is the same: the perp took innocent life. Time is not the determining factor of whether taking a guilty life is an acceptable outcome.

        • It’s totally different though. If you are protecting your own life and end up killing your attacker, that’s self defense.

          If the government murders someone after the fact — that’s a totally different thing.

          It’s as much the difference as the difference between self-defense and first-degree murder. You shoot to stop a threat and the bad guy dies as a result, well, that’s what happens, but no charges will be filed. But if find out your wife’s cheating on you so you confront her (and him) and put bullets in their heads — you’re going to have an extremely different experience with the police.

          A different argument that would contradict me and may support more of what you’re saying would be:
          So a guy tries to kill you, and you succeed in defending yourself and the bad guy dies. Situation is that an attempted but failed murderer dies.

          On the other hand, what if he succeeds in killing you? Now he’s an accomplished murder, unquestionably a worse crime, and yet RF says the state can’t kill him for his crime. So as a self-defense advocate he’s saying it’s okay to kill attempted murderers, but not to kill actual murderers!

          I don’t have a good answer for you on that. I think every rational being believes that justice is a good thing. I think RF’s just questioning if the government should be the entity doing the killing — seems like a government killing its own citizens is a thorny scenario to go legitimizing…

        • A self-defense killing is killing because of a “potential” life-ending attack. The killing after a trial is because of an established fact; a completed killing. The justification for self-defense killing is “heat of the moment”. Where else does society and law give a pass for a death “in the heat of the moment”?

          Beneath all the anti-death penalty crying is the desire to not be thought of badly. Somehow, that fear evaporates when we, the same people, can justify our actions with some sort of timing loophole. Killing is killing; dead is dead. Laws permitting “the state” to execute do not facilitate tyranny. A tyranical state will destroy its own populace if it suits the purposes of the state. Lack of a law permitting societial-sanctioned execution is not a deterrent, of anything, at all.

        • One is necessary to preserve life.

          The other is not.

          I’m not saying that I favor the elimination of the death penalty, necessarily… but equating it to defending one’s self from an imminent attack is just silly.

        • “One is necessary to preserve life”
          “The other is not.”

          Executions of killers perserves the lives of those the killer would have murdered in the future.

      • I’m right there with you. If any large number of your readers can’t recognize the difference between taking a life in self-defense, and instituting and maintaining a State apparatus for doing it systematically after the fact – there isn’t much hope for any of us in the long run

        • Yet American (Western) gubermint has operated so much better in the last 30yrs than in the 200 preceding.

        • To follow-up with a return insult….if people here believe that the lack of laws “instituting and maintaining a State apparatus” for legal executions prevents the State from ever acting extra-legally, well, “there isn’t much hope for any of us in the long run”

      • Robert, the Bible is clear on the death penalty. A life for a life (and, in this case, lives). Maybe you’re correct that the government should not perform the execution.

        12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

        Leviticus 24:17 “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.

        The Bible states that the members of the community should perform the execution presumably by stoning. And in some cases the murderer is to be turned over to the family of the murdered person for the execution (avenger of blood). But only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

        I’d wager that if this procedure was followed and the community as a whole was more involved there would be less railroading and more justice and a whole lot less murdering. And definitely no recidivism.

    • “I’m honestly not sure how you can be against the government taking this man’s life but be for a gun owner taking a life in self-defense. It would somehow be OK if the police had shot and killed him during the incident, but now it’s not?”

      Whoa ! Now, that is a show-stopper, right there. Have never put the two situations together before. Very interesting observation/question. Why is it OK for an individual to be judge/jury/executioner in self-defense, but not for government (representing all the individuals) to not have the same capability? And after all the legal hurdles, and pondering associated with death penalty cases?

      Still, the penalty must be applied only in situations where error in prosecution of the defendant is statistically negligible.

        • Indeed. The more apt comparison would be tolerance for vigilante justice versus the state. While I suspect few of us would begrudge a loving parent from raining the fires of Hades on those who harm our children, as a society we have to ask ourselves whether we want that to be the order of the day.

          Just as we allow lethal force by a the individual when faced with immediate harm, we allow the state in the guise of law enforcement to do the same in the same circumstance.

        • Nope. Timeline is irrelevant. There are dozens of non-lethal acts that can be taken in the face of pending death. Time is an equivocation. Additionally, in the hallowed “self-defense” situation, the death of an innocent was not proven to the the outcome, only the possibility. In the legal system, the death of an innocent is incontrovertable. Self-defense can impose a death sentence based on a possibility. Society cannot be moral if it imposes the sentence on a proven killer?

  9. I have no beef with capital punishment in theory. Make the punishment fit the crime and all that. In practice, our criminal justice system does not get it right often enough to suit me, especially when the punishment is irreversible.

    • I get yout point and I agree with it, but let’s keep in mind that years spent rotting in prison are irreversible, too. Missing your children grow up is irreversible. Loss of reputation and the question mark hanging over the heads of even the DNA-exonerated, are irreversible.

      People focus on the death penalty, but really the government can destroy innocent people’s lives in many ways.

      • Look at those four women that just got released after a decade or so in jail for child abuse that the victim now in her 20s said didn’t happen and her father pushed it because of a custody dispute. The medical examiner even came forward that with new science the conclusion would be different today. I would rather see guilty people set free then punishing even one innocent person.

      • Jonathan: True enough, but only up to a point. If I were to be wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death, the fact that a life sentence would ruin my life anyway, even if I were eventually exonerated, would be of little comfort. Alive, at least I have a fighting chance. I know that’s not quite what you were getting at, and I agree that the flaws in our system can easily ruin innocent lives without taking them. But a system is required, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. I’m not sure if I’m the right guy to decide where that line should be drawn, all I’m saying is that capital punishment is too far.

    • Interesting, I have the opposite reaction. I am theoretically opposed to capital punishment for the reasons stated in the article but, practically speaking, I don’t have much protest when a little shit like this gets the chair. Well, the needle. Bah.

  10. “Spree Killer Dylan Roof Has A Fool for A Client”

    Actually, the headline should read:

    “Spree Killer Dylan Roof Has A Murderous Nazi Svmbag for A Client”

    Less euphonious perhaps, but much more accurate.

  11. If this kid had any brains at all, he’d plead guilty without any life guarantee and not fight the death penalty. 50-60 years is a long time drinking out of toilets and getting the fist.

  12. I’m ok with the death penalty, in principle. I’m a stickler for due process, though, which always incites acrimony at cocktail parties and around the water cooler with regard to cases like this.

    This fool is not qualified to represent himself in traffic court, let alone in a capital murder trial. Nevertheless, he’s been found mentally competent. As long as the government appoints a public defender to shadow him and the trial judge keeps the defendant on a short leash, then let him do it without further delay.

    Also, I have no problem with the government declining his plea offer.

    • I’m not sure what you’re saying. While important in its own way, the Confederate flag controversy has no bearing on Mr. Roof’s prosecution, IMHO.

      • I think he’s making the point that supporters of a flag that commemorates a failed rebellion over 100 years ago shouldn’t talk about leaving things in the past.

        His criminal act had a lot to do with what happened with the flag as well.

  13. Nice trigger discipline. Too bad the muzzle’s not pointed at his temple.

    He knows he’s toast. He’s just doing this so he can rant, rave and otherwise torment us. Remember “helter skelter”?

  14. I agree with the author I’m also against the death penalty. It would be worse for this killer to rot in gen pop for decades then giving him the easy way out. Give this killer life in jail and save taxpayers money and victims the ordeal of confronting Roof in open court.

    • Not unlike Jeffrey Dahmer, I don’t think Mr. Roof will long survive in a prison’s general population, especially considering that 37.8% of the Federal Bureau of Prisons population is African-American. There’s not much point in spending a lot of time and money merely to postpone the inevitable.

      • It will take a lot more money to execute him if you look at the actual costs of a long ugly trial and multiple appeals. That’s just the math.

  15. I oppose the Death Penalty for the same reason as RF. The State should not be able to put Citizens to Death. In my opinion the fact the State at Federal, State and Local levels denies many Citizens unfettered access to firearms and the right to carry (bear) those firearms for self defense results in sufficient State facilitated deaths that no further State mandated deaths should be tolerated.

    I have never seen any evidence that the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent. To wit, the subject of the post, Dylan Roof. It is highly unlikely that even an ignorant racist would be unaware that murdering nine people in cold blood could result in the possibility of a Death Sentence at trial.

    For those of you suggesting out-of-the-ordinary methods of execution, let me remind you the 8th Amendment expressly forbids “cruel and unusual punishment”. You are engaging in a form of “cherry picking” the Constitution that undermines your claims of solid support for the Second Amendment.

    • To know if any form of punishment deters any action, one must constantly query the entire population, asking, “What crime did you not commit today, solely because you feared the punishment?”

      The death penalty deters, forever, the deathed person. Why must “deterrence” be required to affect millions?

      • Because that is what deterrence is. That’s the meaning of the word- the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear of punishment. Stop trying to fiddle with language because you want to try and make a point easier.

        • Then no law serves as a deterrent, because we can never know how much law-breaking did not occur.

          And it is rather doubtful the law deters, or that the punishment deters. Maybe, maybe, the likelihood of detection, coupled with the liklihood of capture, coupled with the likelyhood of trial, coupled with the liklihood of conviction, coupled with the liklihood of actual punishment can act as “deterrence”. But even then, we would not know how much lawlwssness was prevented before it could be done.

          Deterrence is sociological babble. Law and punishment is the sum total of the purpose. Deterrence is a side benefit at best, not something upon which to base an evaluation of utility.

      • You answered your own question in response to Hannibal. “Deterrence is sociological babble.” Neither the “death penalty”, nor “life in prison without hope of parole”, apparently, deters crime effectively. Hence, I see no evidence of the Death Penalty as a deterrent.

  16. So the choice was between letting him rot in prison or going through with this spectacle of a trial. Tough call.

    If he thinks he’s going to arose public sympathy for whatever his idiotic mission was I think he picked the wrong target.

  17. I’m a fan of the old system of outlawry. Instead of execution just turn him loose with a tracker implanted in him that the public has access to, with all of the same legal protection of a common rat.

  18. This dipshit sees himself as a hero. In his twisted mind he’s hoping that his brother racists will rise and answer his call and come to the court house and liberate their hero.

    But as he proved in his own actions, the swastika loving brotherhood only hit soft, defenseless targets. None of them are going to take on a court house full of armed cops.

  19. I agree with Robert that it’s worth trading the death penalty for life imprisonment (i.e. he spends the rest of his life there) in order to get Dylan Roof out of sight with the minimum of public attention. However, I don’t agree with him about the death penalty. My sole reason for opposing it is the well proven danger of executing an innocent person. If it’s permissible for a private individual to kill an assailant in self defense, and I believe it is, it’s equally permissible tor the state, which is us collectively, to kill him after he succeeds in his assault. All we are doing is finishing the job that the private individual was unable to complete by himself.

    • He’s going to die eventually anyways. The death penalty takes way too long and costs a fortune. You could put 3 people in super-max for 20 years for the cost of a successful death penalty prosecution. I would rather have him doing hard labor for the rest of his miserable existence, with pictures of everyone he killed taped to his jail cell. As far as self-defense, it isn’t permissible to shoot a person if you already tied him up and called the cops. You aren’t protecting society by tying him to a bed and poisoning him. That’s revenge, which is well and good, but do we really need to pay extra to smirk at the TV?

  20. Maybe he didn’t do it. I never believed the story for one second. He walked in with body armor hanging 6″ below his shirt, and they invited him to join their bible study group? Rev. Pinckney met with Hillary Clinton the same morning he was killed? And the reaction was too scripted. All Confederate flags gone within a week. I think we got played, folks.

  21. Besides being a total P.O.S.- he’s WHITE. The current DOJ must be DROOLING to get the chance to off whitey !
    I believe hardly anyone is more deserving of getting killt dead than this POS [except of course kid touchers!]
    For ONCE I agree with the DOJ under the current racist POTUS. Kill this fool.

  22. I don’t like the death penalty at all because its too hard to get it right every time and only execute the truly guilty. I would like to restrict it to the most serious of crimes where the victims are the entire nation or the world. Spies, war criminals and the like. I’d much prefer that Roof gets to spend the rest of his miserable life in a small concrete box and dies of old age.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *