Even if the inmate tortured him to death, you would still say it's karma?

You can keep throwing up straw man's, bud…ain't gonna change my answer…

He should be put to death…period…

Would you say the inmate shouldn't be punished for killing him, since you said it's karma?

You said he should be sentenced to death, but I'm asking if you think an inmate should be punished if they do the job themselves in a very brutal manner.

I've always felt the killers that hunted and stalked their victims should be released into a big corn field. Tall stalks everywhere. Fenced in, but lots of space. Plenty of food and water.

And give them a full ten minute start over the hungry lions.

What about a Hunger Games between 24 killers until there's one killer left?

lethalninja said:

---

Would you say the inmate shouldn't be punished for killing him, since you said it's karma?

---

Extrajudicial killings are not good, no matter how much we hate someone. Not saying I'd mourn the guy or feel bad about it, but prison justice deserves to be punished the same as any other type of vigilantism.

Edit: I guess the article I read about the juror vote was incorrect.

I'd prefer a Running Man ending. Except no Arnold there to break the system.

I agree that the inmate should get some time added onto his sentence if they kill him (like five to ten years and being allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter or aggravated battery instead of murder to avoid a longer sentence), but you think they should be punished the same as a regular murderer?

There were two other jurors that voted against the death penalty (they didn't lie to get on the jury), so that juror wasn't the only reason he got life.

lethalninja said:

---

I agree that the inmate should get some time added onto his sentence if they kill him (like five to ten years), but you think they should be punished the same as a regular murderer?

---

I think he should be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines of the act he commits. I'll leave it in the hands of a judge and jury to determine just punishment.

Also, it's not going to be the guy with 8 months left of time to shank him. It's going to be a guy that doesn't care about another life sentence. So it's not like this really matters.

Would you think it's fair if they were allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter or aggravated battery for killing him instead of murder because of what Nikolas Cruz did? Like if the prosecutor had a very easy case to convict them of murder, but he let them plead guilty to a lesser charge because of who the victim was.

lethalninja said:

---

Would you think it's fair if they were allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter or aggravated battery for killing him instead of murder because of what Nikolas Cruz did?

---

Depends on the circumstance, but probably not. That being said, I don't think I'd protest a DA making that decision.

Would anyone here think it's fair if Nikolas Cruz was released on lifetime probation with very strict conditions (with the condition that if his probation is revoked, he would get life without parole) if each of the seventeen families of the victims that were killed agreed to it in exchange for each family getting two minutes to do ANYTHING they wanted to him, and if he survives the 34 minutes, he gets released on lifetime probation? The families would be immune from prosecution for anything they do to him within those 34 minutes.

Would anyone here support the idea I mentioned in the previous post, but instead of lifetime probation if he survives the 34 minutes, he gets life without parole?

Your straw man's are getting a little out there, bro…

Those aren't strawmen, I'm just wondering if people would support that as a sentence, since several comments in this thread are about wanting him to suffer. I wouldn't care if that sentence happened to him, but I wouldn't specifically want it to happen.

The only exceptions are Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Nebraska and Montana. The laws differ in those states, but they are the only five states that don't require jury unanimity in death sentences.

Alabama
WHAT HAPPENS IF JURY CANNOT REACH UNANIMOUS SENTENCE State Can Retry Multiple Times. (Alabama is the only state that permits a judge to impose the death penalty based upon a jury's non-unanimous recommendation of death. Ten votes are required for a death recommendation. If the jury is not unanimous and fewer than ten jurors recommend death, the state can conduct a new sentencing hearing.)

Indiana
WHAT HAPPENS IF JURY CANNOT REACH UNANIMOUS SENTENCE Judge Imposes Sentence (Can Be Death or Less)

Missouri
WHAT HAPPENS IF JURY CANNOT REACH UNANIMOUS SENTENCE Judge Imposes Sentence (Can Be Death or Less)

Montana
WHAT HAPPENS IF JURY CANNOT REACH UNANIMOUS SENTENCE N/A - Judge Sentencing based on jury finding aggravating factors

Nebraska
WHAT HAPPENS IF JURY CANNOT REACH UNANIMOUS SENTENCE N/A - Panel of three judges decide sentence; if the panel is non-unanimous, then automatic life sentence

Every state that doesn't require a unanimous jury for someone to be sentenced to death

Texas has the same rule as Florida, where if there's not a unanimous jury, the defendant automatically gets life without parole.

One of the jurors who spoke to the New York Times is named Andrew Johnson, like the seventeenth president.

lethalninja said:

---

There were two other jurors that voted against the death penalty (they didn't lie to get on the jury), so that juror wasn't the only reason he got life.

---

Yeah but the juror who lied to get on the jury gave them reason to say no.

Those 2 could have possibly been swayed had the hard no not existed on the jury to begin with.

Group psychology is a thing.

Vanoy also set the record straight on reports that there was one holdout juror who was set on voting for life before deliberations even began.
"I think the assumption is that because she came to her decision earlier than most that she walked in with her decision," she said. "But during the deliberation…we each had our list of evidence. We organized it in the room so we could each go and easily pull…what we wanted to see."

Quote:

---

"So she was doing just like everyone else; pulling key parts from both the prosecution and defense that she wanted to look at closely. She just announced…based on what she had seen and heard during the trial as well as what she was looking at on that day that she felt that she knew where her stance was."

---

That's from Dr. Melody Vanoy. She was one of the jurors that voted for life, but she was undecided at the beginning of deliberations.

lethalninja said:

---

One of the jurors who spoke to the New York Times is named Andrew Johnson, like the seventeenth president.

---

And this is relevant because?

For some reason you just seem to want to constantly bump your own threads.

lethalninja said:

---

Would anyone here think it's fair if Nikolas Cruz was released on lifetime probation with very strict conditions (with the condition that if his probation is revoked, he would get life without parole) if each of the seventeen families of the victims that were killed agreed to it in exchange for each family getting two minutes to do ANYTHING they wanted to him, and if he survives the 34 minutes, he gets released on lifetime probation? The families would be immune from prosecution for anything they do to him within those 34 minutes.

---

Dude, MOVE ON!

That post was from five days before you replied, so I have moved on from asking people what they think his sentence should be.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/families-final-parkland-shooter-sentenced-92386920

His official sentencing will last two days and it starts on Tuesday

Why do you keep bumping your own threads, even after being told to stop doing it, and getting banned for it?

I'm not bumping my threads anymore on the Aggieland forum, since I got banned, but the politics forum doesn't care about bumping threads. Also, this case is still going on, so it's still relevant.

Back in 2017, the laws in Florida changed, requiring a unanimous jury to recommend the death penalty. DeSantis said he wants to challenge these laws of requiring a unanimous jury to recommend death, possibly going back to majority rules.

lethalninja said:

---

That post was from five days before you replied, so I have moved on from asking people what they think his sentence should be.

---

That's just one of many posts I could have responded to. You were still posting on the day I wrote that. Odd obsession.

On the same day I made that post, dreyOO gave a specific example for what they thought should happen to Nikolas Cruz (being hunted down by hungry lions in a big corn field with plenty of food and water and a ten minute head start over the lions), so I came up with a specific example of my own, since I was wondering if anyone would think my example should happen to Nikolas Cruz.

What's the irony for death by firing squad.

It's ironic because he shot and killed several people, and now he's getting shot and killed.

Together, the costs of housing and supervising Cruz in his cell bring the total to $2,595,641, the motion said, according to the newspaper. However, the sheriff's office noted that "the actual costs incurred by BSO for housing Nikolas Cruz far exceed this amount quoted above."

Meanwhile, the state of Florida spent more than $2 million prosecuting Cruz.