PUBLIC OPINION > The Aurora Shooter Should Get the Death Penalty
SodaHead News
2012/07/31 21:00:00
The nation is still struggling to process the tragic events of July 20, when 12 people were shot dead in a Colorado theater during a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." The suspected gunman, James Eagan Holmes, was charged with 24 counts of first-degree murder. That's two for each victim: one standard charge, and one with "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally." We asked the public if the shooter should get the death penalty.
Looking back at Colorado's recent history with capital punishment, we find that only one person has been executed since 1977 -- Gary Lee Davis, for the rape and murder of one woman. There are also three people on death row in Colorado -- Nathan Dunlap, who murdered four people; Mario Owns, who murdered two people; and Robert Ray, who ordered the murder of two people. Given the company, it doesn't sound like it will be that difficult to get the shooter on death row. The public will be happy to hear it.
Proximity Poll
Before we get into the demographics proper, we wanted to compare the results of this poll to one we took in April. At that time, we asked if the death penalty was necessary. About 62% of the public felt it was. However, this time, relating the issue to a horrendous case that's still fresh in our minds, overall support for the death penalty was 14% higher.
Liberals Let Go
Age and politics seemed to have the most significant correlation with how people responded, but the political breakdown was more interesting when compared to the April poll. While conservative opinion remained about the same, liberals almost doubled their support from 33% to 59%. However, that could have something to do with the wording -- "Is the death penalty necessary?" versus "Should he get it?"
Teens Are Torn
Teens were the only major demographic that was still undecided. Only 51% of them think the shooter should get the death penalty. There were several arguments against it -- death is too painless, we shouldn't stoop to his level, some even pitched conspiracy theories and government cover-ups. The most popular response to any of those arguments was the cost of a life sentence.
If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about the death penalty. We'd love to hear from you!
Top Opinion
-
Anonymouse BN-0 ~bibbityboo~ 2012/07/31 23:32:37
+12Don't like the death penalty. Why not let them give back to society? Hard labour, mining, medical testing, there are lots of things we could put scum to work on. Why not use them instead of defenceless animals in early-stage pharmaceutical testing?
Who cares. If your Atheism is correct there is no right or wrong - for you to even be offended. What moral reality exists to be violated under Atheism?
Sorry dude, you haven't found a damned thing wrong with my logic. You just don't like having your Atheism exposed in pure logical reason.
Explain how chemicals determination is free-will?
Explain why Atheists assign morality to 100% chemically determined behavior?
Explain what part of your thoughts and behavior is not 100% causally determined by chemicals?
Explain you objective basis for why any chemical behavior is morally wrong under Atheism?
Don't be dishonest Atheist. You have answered absolutely nothing and avoided everything. You can't answer honestly - and you know it.
Atheism is properly a belief position - not a 'rejection of a belief'. Humans hold belief positions.
Upon what basis do you make this assumption?
God is not physical. God has no gender.
Contingency – Why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause, so Something must self-exist. Self-existence is logically necessary. Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning (self-existent).
Cosmological – Absolute beginning requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.
Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecula...
Contingency – Why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause, so Something must self-exist. Self-existence is logically necessary. Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning (self-existent).
Cosmological – Absolute beginning requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.
Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.
Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.
Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.
Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?
Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?
Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul. Chemicals have no moral duties.
Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.
Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.
Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena
Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.
Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intentionality, intelligence, purpose, free-will…
None of you Atheists can answer anything.
So don't get all cocky with being a Christian, and tell everyone how atheists have not moral standers. We don't need a little black book telling us whats wrong or right.
(fact) You have failed to provide a single example where Christ taught murdering.
Where is your evidence Hitler was a Christian?
(fact) Hitler was deeply into an occultic Teutonic aryan paganism. Hitler killed clergy, confiscated church property and exterminated 7 million of God's covenant people (Jews). Jesus was a Jew. Hitler despised Christianity and had plans to eliminate it as soon as his third reich was established.
I never claimed Atheists have no moral standards. In fact I claimed Atheists live inconsistently with Atheism. Now why don't one of you Atheists actually engage what I argued - rather than deflect and dishonestly spin around it?
(b) my evidence is that the man was clearly not following the most basic teachings of Christ.
(c) The man was thoroughly steeped in materialistic determinism by education.
None of you can answer my questions.
My evidence is a little more solid than yours.
Hell, it sure wouldn't be the first time some crazy Christian went off and killed a bunch of people.
You simply want to deflect away from the monstrous horrors inflicted by Atheists Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Kim Jung, Mussolini... You simply want to deny reality and distract away from the horrific facts.
You failed to answer my questions - as predicted.
You tried to deflect away - and lost.
You try to claim Hitler was a devout Christian. You failed to establish any such thing. I gave massive evidence Hitler was obviously not.
I'll leave you exposed in your Atheist lies.
Goodbye.
Beat it Atheist. Dishonesty sucks.
oh, wait, this is SH... of course ppl HERE think that...
ignorance abounds here.
so you are ignorant of that fact.
but as for bloodthirsty... killing someone in will not bring back the dead or do anything to make the victims or their families heal from this... only time will do that.
at least we can agree he should never be allowed back into society... ever.