Arizona Shooter Pleads Guilty to Avoid Death Penalty: Is Plea Deal Fair?

by AdriHead Posted 2012/08/07 20:05:14

Related Topics: Arizona Shooting, Gabrielle Giffords, Jared Lee Loughner, Death Penalty, Jared Loughner, Rampage, Guilty, Gabrielle Gifford, Prison, Arizona, Sentence, Murderer, Killed, Mass, Image

Read More

880 votes
Read all 740 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	343 votes	39%
	No	537 votes	61%

Jared Lee Loughner, the Arizona shooter who killed six people and wounded 13 others -- including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- pleaded guilty to his charges Tuesday. Loughner won't be executed because of his plea deal, but he will face a life sentence in prison without the opportunity for parole. Do you think the plea deal is fair? Or did you want Jared Loughner to get the death penalty?

NYDAILYNEWS.COM reports:
Mass murderer Jared Lee Loughner pleaded guilty Tuesday in the 2011 Arizona shooting rampage that left six dead and 13 wounded — including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

2011 arizona shooting rampage dead 13 wounded rep gabrielle giffords

+25

Add a comment above

wilsonmja 2012/08/08 02:21:10

Yes

+14
He shot and killed a child in cold blood...we'll see how long he lasts in prison.
>> See Replies

More polls by AdriHead

CODE 11 to Frannin 2012/08/08 18:36:59

+1
Prison life is like a retirement home for criminals....cable TV, weightroom, library..3 sq. meals a day..enought money to buy cigarettes, and candy.and lots of friends to talk to.

reply
Kyle to CODE 11 2012/08/08 18:58:42
nicesteve 2012/08/08 18:02:56

No

+4
How dare Jared Lee Loughner try to save his own wretched hide. Did the six human
beings who he snuffed recive a similar oppertunity for their lives? Unless he can bring
that little girl, that federal judge, and the four others back to life and make them, their loved
ones, and friends completely whole again, then this NON HUMAN VARMIT deserves to die
too. And he should. How I long for the days when villans like Jared Loghner, James Holms, and other murderous outlaws like them could be, and frequently were, hung on the gallows in public.

reply
Katie A... to nicesteve 2012/08/08 18:20:20

+1
No doubt! Well said

reply
Dana 2012/08/08 18:01:54 (edited)

Yes

+4
"I" was glad to hear he pleaded this out... just save the families from reliving the horror of dragging this through the courts and save the tax payers money. Costs a fortune more to have one of these nuts on death row for 20 years, cheaper to have him w/ life in prison.

BUT>>> that said... I did not have my child murdered by him, I did not have my Mother or brother murdered by him, or my sister or Father. I think those who were victims and their families should be the ones to answer this question.

reply
Katie A... to Dana 2012/08/08 18:22:31

+1
Agreed. The family should be the one to actually make the decision.

reply
Mathmn to Katie A... 2012/08/10 17:46:51

+1
Perhaps the families who want "vengeance" should be allowed to actually carry out the execution. I wonder how many would choose this option?

reply
Katie A... to Mathmn 2012/08/13 15:39:47

I bet some would. An eye for an eye.

reply
Mathmn to Katie A... 2012/08/31 14:34:52

and of course that biblical vengeance would bring back the loved one?????

reply
Katie A... to Mathmn 2012/09/11 17:02:16

Nope but it would sure as hell make me feel better

reply
bacon.nivison 2012/08/08 17:54:31

No

+3
Skin him alive and salt him liberally!

reply
Mathmn 2012/08/08 17:53:15

Yes

+2
Yes, the crazy nut job will spend the rest of his miserable life in jail. The taxpayers will save tons of $$$ on appeals. Appealing a death sentences costs more than it does to keep the miserable jackass in jail. Also, murder is murder regardless of who's doing it.

reply
Katie A... to Mathmn 2012/08/08 18:25:07

Why? I am not being rude or a smartass, I promise, I am just truly asking the question. I have seen alot of people say that recently and I don't understand it. I thought most that we're for the death penalty said it was because we shouldn't have to pay for them to be in prison? Just wondering why it's more expensive to appeal it? Thanks! ;)

reply
sha_lyn68 to Katie A... 2012/08/08 23:06:49

Those who say that (which I used to be one) haven't done the research.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2...

reply
Mathmn to Katie A... 2012/08/10 17:40:16

Here's some info:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.o...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.o...

http://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

http://www.kval.com/news/loca...

http://articles.latimes.com/2...

http://www.deathpenalty.org/a...

reply
faustbc 2012/08/08 17:51:41

Yes

+1
As I always say, let him live in jail to see and live the suffering for the rest of his life. Idk why people see the chair as a super punishment. It's quick and over no regrets whatsoever. It's the easy way out. I prefer to let him live the torment for the rest of his life in prison.
I don't believe either another person is being fair by killing someone who killed. It's just getting in the same level of the murderer.

reply
Michael Drakopoulos 2012/08/08 17:47:50

No

+2
I think that if someone is going to commit cold blooded murder they should have no chance what-so-ever to get out of the death sentence. (Even if he probably will be killed in prison.

reply
boneman1 2012/08/08 17:44:22

No

+2
He shouldn't have been given any kind of deal other than the opportunity to take the express lane to the electric chair.

reply
weenyboy 2012/08/08 17:41:28

Yes

+3
I personally don't share the BLOOD LUST of most Americans. Every OTHER civilized country in the world has abolished the death penalty as should we. Here is a country that LOVES guns and has over 300,000,000 in circulation and you want to execute someone for using one? What the hell do you think folks buy them for? If the Arizona State's Attorney thought this a righteous deal, who am I (or you) to question it?

reply
bacon.n... to weenyboy 2012/08/08 17:53:19

+2
No. Execute him for executing a child. We all know the rules, if you want to dance you must be aware of the fiddler. BLOOD LUST?? Unfortunately you do share the .. nevermind.

reply
Wendy to weenyboy 2012/08/08 19:01:36

No dis but our system has been broken for years. We have real criminals in death row but they will never see it! I would rather be put to death than being stoned to death by the comm....

reply
jon 2012/08/08 17:37:55

No

+2
fair is a stupid concept in life it is right that he die.

reply
William Major 2012/08/08 17:30:12

No

+3
kill him ,, hes useless as tits on jesus

reply
Rich Matarese 2012/08/08 17:24:23

Yes

+2
The proper word to use isn't "Fair." Is it a practicable and effective resolution? Yeah.

Loughner suffers from a diagnosed major thought disorder, and a "diminished capacity" defense would be extremely effective. That wouldn't get him out of a lengthy incarceration, but the conditions of this plea bargain give greater surety that he will NOT be released from secure custody for the rest of his life.

Though I haven't seen the lamestream media idiots mention it, he HAD to have been stabilized on potent neuroleptic drug therapy to get him into a mental state in which his guilty pleading could be accepted in court. That's why it's taken this long to get him in front of a judge for this purpose.

The goddam fools who lust for his execution have no idea of either the practical or the legal realities involved in this case. Had the death sentence been pushed by the prosecution, the defense would never (of course!) have counseled their client to offer a guilty plea. They would have gone all-out on the "diminished capacity" line, and precedent case law would have made their prospects of success pretty good.

reply
Mathmn to Rich Ma... 2012/08/31 14:39:59

I'd rather get my information from the "lame stream" media as you call it. For the most part, they fact check and give us unbiased information. All the liberal and right wing bloviators inject all manner of opinion masquerading as facts.

reply
Swaps 2012/08/08 17:17:36

No

+1
Loughner's mother is a practicing Jewess who attended the same synagogue as the Congresswoman. Talmudic law does not allow Jews to be executed for crimes so Loughner had to plea bargain or cause a theological problem .

reply
thebass... to Swaps 2012/08/08 17:37:40 (edited)
Mathmn to Swaps 2012/08/31 14:40:29

Jewess??????? really??????

reply
Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2012/08/08 17:07:42

No

+1
Can you say, "caught red handed"?

reply
Gerald 2012/08/08 17:05:32 (edited)

Yes

+2
If you die.....you don't know it. You won't remember your life, your death, or anything. You're freak'n "dead". He doesn't deserve a quick & easy death. IMO, it's really not much of a punishment. Personally, I would rather die, than languish in a maximum security prison for the next 40-50 years. But that's just me/my personal preference.
On another note, I totally oppose the death penalty. I am NOT defending this piece of human filth. This guy is 100% guilty, beyond any doubt. But there is always the possibility of executing an innocent person, as has been the case on many occasions. The government has imprisoned & executed many people, even when they had suspicions of their innocence. Example: The murder...I mean "execution" of Carlos DeLuna in Texas. Rather than admit they made a mistake & apologize, prosecutors often fight to uphold a sentence or block a new trial, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves innocence (for fear of tainting their courtroom record, professional, political aspirations, etc). IMO...that is "murder"/"kidnapping". Their excuse for those murders/kidnappings is always the same. "he got a fair trial". So, it seems like guilt/innocence doesn't matter that much, as long as there is a trial. (fair or otherwise). But the average ...

If you die.....you don't know it. You won't remember your life, your death, or anything. You're freak'n "dead". He doesn't deserve a quick & easy death. IMO, it's really not much of a punishment. Personally, I would rather die, than languish in a maximum security prison for the next 40-50 years. But that's just me/my personal preference.
On another note, I totally oppose the death penalty. I am NOT defending this piece of human filth. This guy is 100% guilty, beyond any doubt. But there is always the possibility of executing an innocent person, as has been the case on many occasions. The government has imprisoned & executed many people, even when they had suspicions of their innocence. Example: The murder...I mean "execution" of Carlos DeLuna in Texas. Rather than admit they made a mistake & apologize, prosecutors often fight to uphold a sentence or block a new trial, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves innocence (for fear of tainting their courtroom record, professional, political aspirations, etc). IMO...that is "murder"/"kidnapping". Their excuse for those murders/kidnappings is always the same. "he got a fair trial". So, it seems like guilt/innocence doesn't matter that much, as long as there is a trial. (fair or otherwise). But the average person can never get a fair trial, because they can't afford a high priced attorney. I strongly believe that it's "Better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned".
(more)

reply
Chris 2012/08/08 16:57:43 (edited)

No

+1
He shouldn't decide that by getting a plea deal, he murdered 6 people.

reply
Sperry23 2012/08/08 16:57:27

No

+1
How is it right that 6 families, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters, are deprived of their family members forever, and have to pay - through their taxes - for Loughner's room, board, and sundries for the rest of his life?

He should be executed. Period.

reply
Mathmn to Sperry23 2012/08/08 18:02:00

+1
I don't believe that cost is the major issue here. By the way? did you ever research the cost of administering the death penally and subsequent appeals versus the cost of incarceration? The death penalty costs more than 10 times as much to administer. So, if cost were the most important factor, then no one would ever be sentenced to be executed.

reply
Sperry23 to Mathmn 2012/08/09 19:08:18

It's not the cost that matters here. Nor is that what I said or implied. It's the fact that the victims and the victims' families are going to be supporting this scum, keeping him alive and healthy while their loved ones are dead or injured. It is inherently NOT RIGHT!

reply
Mathmn to Sperry23 2012/08/31 14:46:30

I don't understand. You said cost doesn't matter, but your reason is that you object to victims' families "supporting" him. I reiterate; death penalty appeals cost much more than imprisonment. Also, the families are repeatedly slapped in the face as the info on the appeals reaches the public. If he rots in jail, the families might gain solace by his perpetual incarceration.

reply
Luv♥Luv 2012/08/08 16:56:48

Yes

+1
Since I'm pro-life, I'll let God handle the death part.
The most important thing to me is, that he never see's freedom again and that he suffers daily!

reply
ejacksonnm 2012/08/08 16:52:45

Yes

+1
This plea deal guarantees Loughner will be locked up for the rest of his natural life without forcing the families to testify at a trial. Giving Loughner the death penalty would have led to automatic appeal after automatic appeal, forcing the families to go through more hell each and every time. This is the best possible outcome to keep him off the streets. If he is competent to understand what he did and make an informed decision as to his plea, then let him plead guilty, as he did, and accept the punishment, as he has done. There are still the underlying issues of his mental illness and how we should handle people with psychological disorders.

reply
BigKwell 2012/08/08 16:52:44

No

+2
He should've gone to trial immediately - and got the death penalty!

reply
Mark DeBarbieri 2012/08/08 16:51:46

No

+1
According to our Creator, all murderers are to be put to death. There is no plea bargaining with YHWH and no such thing as an insanity plea. The law must apply to everyone, otherwise it means nothing! The Commandment; "Thou shall not kill" is improperly stated, or translated. The proper translation is: "Thou shall not murder", which is the deliberate killing of someone. The scriptures also say that when justice is not quickly carried out, it quells the fears of those that would want to do evil.

reply
Wes to Mark De... 2012/08/08 17:08:43

We can't base our justice system off of the Bible because the First Amendment states that congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.

reply