Well BSG, the first thing I notice from reading the NYT article is that the headline is very misleading:
U.S. Seeks Death for Charleston Shooting Suspect. Victims’ Families Prefer Mercy.
From that headline, one could easily get the impression that all of the family members have come out against the DP, but the text of the article does not support that conclusion. Only two people directly involved are quoted, the mother of one of the victims, (whose quote is kind of cryptic and could be interpreted as opposing the death penalty in this case, though she doesn't say that outright) and an attorney for the survivors and some of the victims family members who never indicates that he is doing anything other than expressing his own personal opinion on the subject...
I strongly suspect there is no unified opinion among the victims' family on whether or not the death penalty should be imposed. (It would be very unusual if there were; normally in a case with multiple murder victims like this one you'll find a division among the family members with some opposed and some in favor. Though obviously it was the intent of the DP-opposing NYT to give a different impression, even though their own reporting didn't support it.)
But laying all of that aside, let me ask you a question I always ask DP opponents when they point to opposition from family members of the victims as a reason to not pursue the death penalty:
If, hypothetically, all of the family members were in
support of imposing the death penalty, would you then support it as well?
You can correct me if I'm wrong, bu mt assumption is that as someone who I believe has expressed opposition to the DP under any circumstances, your response would probably be no...
If that is correct then you really don't feel that the position of the family members should be dispositive in determining the imposition of the DP. (that's fine, I don't either.)
I'm really not interested in getting into yet another debate about the death penalty; you and I and others here could argue about it till the
next anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and nobody's position would be changed. (Nor would anything be said on either side that hasn't already been said. After gun control, the death penalty is probably the most thoroughly flogged expired equine we have on this board.)
I believe that a sense of justice and a regard for the value of human life creates a moral imperative for the imposition of the DP in a case like this. You don't, and no amount of discussion about it is likely to change either of our minds.
I did though want to respond to one other point you made:
Fucking prosecutors are spineless, all about ego & reelection.
The NYT article that you linked to makes very clear that the person who made the decision to reject Roof's offer to plead guilty if the DP was taken off the table (at least for the current federal trial) was US Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch. (In fact the article says that she overruled local South Carolina federal prosecutors in making that decision.)
I'm not Loretta Lynch's number one fan, but she doesn't seem particularly ego driven to me. Also both she and her boss are going to be out of office in a little over a month, and in so far as I know she doesn't have any plans to run for any political office.
I think it's pretty fair to assume that her motivation for supporting a DP sentence in this case is pretty much the same as mine; because she believes that justice demands it.
