The victims of the Fort Hood shootings carried out by the Islamic infiltrator, Major Nidal Hasan.
A justifiable conviction and sentence. There was no doubt who did the Fort Hood shootings, nor was there any doubt that Hasan was motivated by Islamic jihadist ideology. This man is not ‘sick’ in a mental health sense, he made the deliberate choice, calmly and with calculation, to kill fellow Americans because he believed that Allah told him to do it.
Die quickly and rot in hell, Hasan. It is no more than you deserve.
Link
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/fort-hood-jihad-mass-murderer-gets-death-penalty.html
YES!!!
Where do I volunteer to “throw the switch”????
These premeditated murders are a source of widespread anger, but the perpetrators score again when civilised folk react similarly.
Think again when rage has passed, F.
“Where do I volunteer to throw the switch????” Paralympics, Rio de Janeiro.
I’m normally a lot more measured when it comes to the death penalty. I support it but with reservations. It is a sentence that is not reversible if later evidence throws doubt on the original conviction. There are no doubts, reasonable or wacky as to Hasan’s guilt for these murders, neither is their doubt about his motivation. The death penalty is truly justified in this case. Hasan has had much more than his ‘day in court’ and there is no way that he can be said to have been tried unfairly.
There is of course the danger that to other Bearded Savages he will be seen as a martyr, but leaving him alive means that he becomes a focal point for campaigning by Islamic groups and their lunatic Left allies. Look how the left have used the cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal as a rallying point for their attacks on the death penalty and how they have used the case to scream ‘racism’ at every possible opportunity.
No argument could justify State murder, yet many would lean towards a middle ground. In political terms it’s the elephant in the room, but for very long term prisoners and subject to obvious reservations, there is certainly a case for compassionate ‘pain-free’ voluntary euthanasia. Economical and merciful whilst providing an ethical source of healthy donor tissues.
I can see where you are coming from with regards killings by the state. However in a limited number of cases, where there is no controversy about evidence then either the trial jury or a different specially empanelled sentencing jury should recommend either life imprisonment or the death penalty in capital or potentially capital crimes. People like Hindley and Brady should have hung for example although debate still goes on as to who was more culpable of the pair.
Personally having read Michael Burleigh’s ‘Death and Deliverance’ a study of ‘euthanasia’ in Germany from 1900 to 1945 I’m more morally concerned with the idea of offering long term prisoners euthanasia than having executions. Justice is or should be an open thing, with courts deciding guilt and sentence. The sort of psychological pressures to be killed that could be put on a prisoner in the privacy of a cell or by prison staff are not as open and transparent as courts are or rather should be. Much better that the death of a criminal be decided in public than in dark corners out of sight and out of accountability.
XX but for very long term prisoners and subject to obvious reservations, there is certainly a case for compassionate ‘pain-free’ voluntary euthanasia. Economical and merciful whilst providing an ethical source of healthy donor tissues. XX
DAMN Melvyn, I think I could almost go along with that…..
I am getting soft im my old age! 🙂
“People like Hindley and Brady should have hung for example..” It’s another argument to propose a clement State would have executed one or both rather than match the bestial treatment of victims…if you are suggesting it.
“I’m more morally concerned with the idea of offering long term prisoners euthanasia than having executions” I share those concerns which is why I qualified the proposal with ‘subject to obvious reservations’.
XX “People like Hindley and Brady should have hung for example.XX
Quite.
O.K, my rules would be; “one strike” (to use an American term or phrase), then O.K benefit of the doubt, and all that. Prison term, maybe even probation. Depends on the case and the history/circumstances behind it.
Twice…. “We are starting to look at you funny, boy!”
Three times, and you are OUT! “Here comes Albert Pierrepoint!!!:-) 🙂 “This will not hurt and it is all over before the prison clock tower strikes the eighth bell… Anything you wish to say?”
Hindley/Brady deffinately fit into the third categorie.
XX
There is a chap who murders homosexuals and has just killed his third, admittedly it was a rich chap who the murderer had met while in prison and the rich bloke had been sentenced for ‘inappropriate behaviour with young boys’. However the fact that a man had killed two people and was still allowed out of jail is terrible. Definitely in the third category.