Nikolas Cruz, Parkland Shooter Gets Life Without Parole

I agree. He took 17 lives. Those families will never have their children back but Cruz will stay alive and healthy behind bars.

The families will be able to say their peace on the verdict November 1st. The Judge will have to sentence him to life in prison without parole because the jury spoke.
 
Last edited:
SeniorBen said:
He had a history of violent, anti-social behavior yet was able to legally purchase an AR-15. It's society that's sick for allowing that. Life without the chance of parole was the right decision.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the sale to, and possession by, civilians of semi-automatic weapons should be outlawed. As for the life sentence, agreed that the death penalty would be a better outcome from the popular perspective, but a life in prison surrounded by guards and prisoners who would rather spit on him than talk to him might just be an unpleasant way to live. Hard to say which is worse, death now or a life of almost certain misery followed by death.
 
Don M. said:
If he lives for decades, the taxpayers will spend millions "warehousing" this murderer. I'm not a fan of most aspects of Sharia Law, but in cases like this, I agree with that.....the trial is on Monday, and execution is on Tuesday.
Click to expand...
That's not how it works, though. When there's a death sentence, there are numerous appeals, and it could take decades and cost taxpayers millions. And each time there's an appeal, the families of the victims are put through the ringer by both the hearing and the media.

The death sentence can also be politicized where a politician, wanting to appear tough on crime, helps get a suspect convicted and sentenced to death. Innocent people can be executed.

At least with a life sentence with no possibility of parole, it's over. Perhaps social scientists and psychologists can study Cruz and find out what made him snap. If he's dead, they can't do that.
 
I'm against the death penalty too, but not for the usual reason. Life in prison with no chance of getting out has to be the worst, he's young and other men will find him fetching. Others will hate him for killing children, they will make his life miserable, they may even murder him. If they murder him, it won't be fast and gentle.
 
SeniorBen said:
At least with a life sentence with no possibility of parole, it's over. Perhaps social scientists and psychologists can study Cruz and find out what made him snap. If he's dead, they can't do that.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Not sure I understand. Depending on what the social scientists discover might his sentence be reduced, changed, or eliminated so that he can receive psychological treatment or counseling?
 
ElCastor said:
Hmmm. Not sure I understand. Depending on what the social scientists discover might his sentence be reduced, changed, or eliminated so that he can receive psychological treatment or counseling?
Click to expand...
I don't think so, since part of the sentence was "without the possibility of parole." But understanding why people do crazy and sick things like he did might help law enforcement prevent another attack by someone else. Then again, there were warning signs and nobody did anything, and he was allowed to legally purchase an AR-15, even though he had a history of antisocial behavior. But at least we could understand human nature a bit more. That's something that interests me.
 
Those against the death penalty will sometimes not admit to that bias during capital offense trial jury selections in order to prevent it being applied to those convicted. ACLU types advocates that law thwarting practice.
 
Last edited:
Prospective jurors merely have to deny they won't oppose the death penalty even if that is a lie since it is not something anyone can otherwise prove.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/1015
US Supreme Court snippet:

Does a state statue that provides grounds for the dismissal of any juror with "conscientious scruples" against capital punishment violate the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an "impartial jury" and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process?
Conclusion

Yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court held 6-3 that Witherspoon's death sentence was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that a jury composed after the dismissal of all who oppose the death sentence was biased in favor the death sentence; such a jury was not impartial and thus violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that while jurors who say they will not impose the death sentence can be dismissed, jurors who simply oppose the death sentence as a personal belief may not. Justice William Douglas, concurring, argued that it also unconstitutional to dismiss prospective jurors who say they will never impose the death sentence.

Justice Hugo Black, with whom Justices John Harlan and Byron White joined, dissented. Douglas argued that the Constitution allows the dismissal of all jurors who oppose the death penalty personally, because they will be necessarily biased against the death penalty. In a separate dissent, White argued that the Illinois legislature was allowed to exclude "those with doubts" about "one of the punishments among which the legislature sought to have them choose...."
 
SeniorBen said:
I don't think so, since part of the sentence was "without the possibility of parole." But understanding why people do crazy and sick things like he did might help law enforcement prevent another attack by someone else. Then again, there were warning signs and nobody did anything, and he was allowed to legally purchase an AR-15, even though he had a history of antisocial behavior. But at least we could understand human nature a bit more. That's something that interests me.
Click to expand...
Well they can interview to their hearts content, but almost certainly to no avail. What would be useful would be a ban on semi-autos. I have a feeling you and I are on opposite sides of the aisle, but on that I believe we can agree.
 
David777 said:
Those against the death penalty will sometimes not admit to that bias during capital offense trial jury selections in order to prevent it being applied to those convicted. ACLU types advocates that law thwarting practice.
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure what all that means, but the death penalty will not:
1.Provide closure for the victim's family
2.Be a deterrent.
3."Save" taxpayer's money, rather will be much more expensive than life without parole.
If anyone thinks that spending one's life in prison is going to be a "cakewalk", then you better do some research, or quit listening to the bs.
 
Been There said:
The shooter will be placed with the general population. His chances of survival are slim.

I can’t see why he can’t also be tried in Federal court since he violated the victims their constitutional rights with a different outcome.
Click to expand...
Murders which are committed against STATE laws, as opposed to FEDERAL laws do not qualify for the death penalty. So, being tried in FEDERAL court would not achieve any different sentence.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top