Hineous crimes, and those that commit them.

[KaFKa]

A couple of days ago, a man by the name of Beau Maestas was sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole; in lieu of the death penalty.

His crime? stabbing a 3 year old child to death, and then stabbing her sister (13 years old) over twenty times, hitting almost every vital organ and severing her spinal cord. A crime so hineous i shudder to think about it.

The trial ended, and the jury came to a 10-2 decision, in favor of the death penalty.

Only in the American judicial system can someone who commited such a terrible crime not be sentenced to death.

Thoughts?

(and please refrain from "those two jurors should get beat up/etc" posts, as they only derail the thread.)

[Scrub]

Killing somebody because they killed somebody else just starts an endless cycle if fulfilled. :|

[KaFKa]

On 2005-06-12 06:57, GreyPhantasm wrote:
Killing somebody because they killed somebody else just starts an endless cycle if fulfilled. :|


endless cycle of what?

and also, what are we wo do to those that kill? lock them up in prison? that is a more vicious cycle, and also one that can backfire more easily.

[Sayara]

I use to figure, The death sentence as "Cruel and unusal" punishment, and thats against the admendments we've put together.

Though the death sentence for this situation should be the case.

[ABDUR101]

Murder in cold blood, yeah it should end in a death sentence.

My tax money goes to feed, cloth and house people like that, and instead of sending them to jail to be "rehabbed" to be fuctional members of society again(sometimes)? Hell with that.

Sure, everyone makes mistakes, but when I start making "mistakes" that end with me killing people in cold blood, I'd deserve the death penalty. I ceased someone else's existance for no reason, why should I be allowed to live?

Shit, sending someone to jail for life because of cold blooded murder is a slap on the wrist if your living standards in life were rather low. You get fed, you get clothed, you get shelter, protection. Even super-max prisons have sections that are laxed and have comradery between in-mates.(Ever see the show Super-Max on Discovery channel I beleive?)

And there is no vicious cycle to continue. If someone kills another person(or persons) in cold blood, and that person gets the death sentence, that particular chain ends. Whereas if they are put in jail, or even left off, there's the possibility that they'll do it again, except this time take action not to get caught so easily, thus leaving events un-solved and them still about.

I used to feel bad for people who killed someone like 30 years ago, and you hear them on TV in an interview very sorry about what they did, and how stupid it was, and how if they had it to do over, it would'nt have happened. Well, guess what, thats the cost of not taking into consideration ones actions and how it will effect everyone. From the relatives of someone you kill, to the people you're related to.

I don't care about rehab'ing someone over half of their lifetime just so they can feel regret over what they did(and what of those who don't regret it? and would do it again if they "had" to?)

Ah well anyway. I don't see someone who can stab a three year old and a thirteen year old as someone who I'd want in the world anyway.

[Daikarin]

That's horrible. Just imagining that guy doing that to anyone in my family makes me that guy was dead, but I'm aware that it's not the best of solutions to just get rid of a problem, as much as my feelings tell me it is.

But of one thing I'm sure. If that guy ever pleads for his life the moment they decide to finish him off, then it just shows he's a coward like every other criminal around.

I'm not in favour of death penalty, for two reasons: There is punishment worse than death, and because that, I refuse to believe that in a modern world with human rights and moral values by the ones placed on high places, killing is still an option.

[AndvariAR]

i generally agreed with the original post until 'life and times of david gale.'

[ForceOfBrokenGlass]

Maestas should have gotten death. The bad thing about the Nevada judicial system, is if a criminal is given the death penalty they get an automatic appeal.

Death sentences should be given out more than life imprisonment. It's not rehab if they're not getting out of prison.

[darthsaber9x9]

On 2005-06-12 06:36, KaFKa wrote:


Only in the American judicial system can someone who commited such a terrible crime not be sentenced to death.





Oh the irony.

[Neith]

I think locking someone away for life, without any chance of ever having parole is a better punishment. Hope it drives the bastard crazy.

IMHO, The death penalty is the easy way out for someone like this.

[Saiffy]

Almost makes me sad that Canada doesn't even have the death penalty anymore.


The way I see it is, if you take a life(lives), and there's no way in hell that your innocent, what makes you think you deserve to live?

[ABDUR101]

On 2005-06-12 13:46, UrikoBB3 wrote:
I think locking someone away for life, without any chance of ever having parole is a better punishment. Hope it drives the bastard crazy.

IMHO, The death penalty is the easy way out for someone like this.


Sure, that can be a bad punishment for some, life imprisonment, but shit, the majority of prisons have everything one would ever need, including luxuries like airconditioning.

I remember one prison in Texas, alot of prisoners were outside in tents, thats where they slept and everything. It was like tent city, rows and rows of tents, big army tents.

Thats how prison needs to be for criminals who kill and do major crimes(if they don't get the death penalty). That means less cost to those of us who have to pay taxes that go to take care of them as well.

The fact is though, there is no "easy way out". Fuck having an easy way out, get rid of them, who cares. An easy way out for them? Fine, death sentence, then I don't have to feed, cloth and pay for them to live.

Would also cut back on mis-spent money as well, put that money toward helping local communities and other ventures.

[Jive18]

On 2005-06-12 13:53, Saiffwin wrote:
Almost makes me sad that Canada doesn't even have the death penalty anymore.


The way I see it is, if you take a life(lives), and there's no way in hell that your innocent, what makes you think you deserve to live?



The never-ending debate of life and death rages on...

I've never known what to think about the death penalty. There are many pros, and there are many cons. When I hear of a crime like the one mentioned in the topic, my first natural instinct is "kill the fuckhole now". But how can anyone really understand the dealing of death and judgement. You can have all the data and analysis to claim someone guilty, yet people are often put to death after really being innocent the whole time.

People talk about life in prison and use it as the best alternative to killing someone. Though this may be, in the end the murderer has beat the system if he chooses to believe so. It would be like keeping a fish in a bowl for the rest of it's life: in the end that person/fish is going to get over it. Abdur gave the good arguement over taxdollars and funding for the prison system. There are just as many cons to life behind bars as there are for being put to death.

Therefore, how can people ever really decide what is right? How do we know that someone would be better off dead or alive in the end? Can we truly deal justice in the face of society? I'm pretty sure we can't. No matter what, people will always find those who oppose them on an issue like the death penalty.

Look at abortion. It is exaclty the same way. People will all have their own opinions about the exact moment when that tiny bit of reality becomes a gift of life, whether it be at the very start as an egg or the first heartbeat. But it is a matter of fact that not everybody is going to agree.

So in the end, all we are left with is opinion and guessing. The death penalty seems like rolling a dice and randomly seeing what a person's future will be. I hate the idea that there is always a chance the killer, the guilty one anyway, will come out on top, either having no regrets and continue life or die instead of facing the punishment like they should.

[Blitzkommando]

Then you have people like Charles Manson who would do it all over again. Yeah, the death penalty is indeed the situation here.

Though this reminds me of something that recently happened near here. Three girls go shoplifting. Ok, fine that's bad but at least nobody was getting physically hurt. Not this case. They sped off, ran over some poor guy in the parkinglot and continue to speed off. They crash the car, leave their ID cards IN the car. (genius no?) And run to hide. Well, that guy who was hit died. Now all three are getting Vehicular Manslaughter charges. Real great, you had to have those clothes didn't you? Enough to kill a guy.

The most precious gift you can give someone is your time. The most precious give you can have taken from you is your time. People who steal other's time here need to have an equal punishment for the crime.

[Neith]

On 2005-06-12 14:11, ABDUR101 wrote:


On 2005-06-12 13:46, UrikoBB3 wrote:
I think locking someone away for life, without any chance of ever having parole is a better punishment. Hope it drives the bastard crazy.

IMHO, The death penalty is the easy way out for someone like this.


Sure, that can be a bad punishment for some, life imprisonment, but shit, the majority of prisons have everything one would ever need, including luxuries like airconditioning.

I remember one prison in Texas, alot of prisoners were outside in tents, thats where they slept and everything. It was like tent city, rows and rows of tents, big army tents.

Thats how prison needs to be for criminals who kill and do major crimes(if they don't get the death penalty). That means less cost to those of us who have to pay taxes that go to take care of them as well.

The fact is though, there is no "easy way out". Fuck having an easy way out, get rid of them, who cares. An easy way out for them? Fine, death sentence, then I don't have to feed, cloth and pay for them to live.

Would also cut back on mis-spent money as well, put that money toward helping local communities and other ventures.



Good point, and I think the death penalty is a good deterrent for some people. The quality of prisons is a joke- TV's, gyms, all kinds of entertainment. Since a prison is meant to be for PUNISHMENT, I totally disapprove of the money fed into the system to keep them comfortable. If it's meant to be a punishment, prisoners (regardless of crime) should not have the pleasure of these activities. We should hark back to medieval prison systems, that'd be more fitting for people like this.

Call me sadistic or whatever, but people like these should be tortured slowly, thrown in a damp cell and left to rot. Whoever decided murders should have any kind of rights should be shot.

I just don't think the death penalty is punishment enough for individuals like these.. that's my opinion anyway, a lot of people (like many posters here) would favour the death penalty, I want people like this to suffer as much as the people they killed.


Edit: If anyone wants me to delete/edit parts of this post, I'm more than willing to, since I'm not sure on PSOW's rules on the views I expressed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: UrikoBB3 on 2005-06-12 15:39 ]</font>

[Solstis]

On 2005-06-12 14:11, ABDUR101 wrote:


On 2005-06-12 13:46, UrikoBB3 wrote:
I think locking someone away for life, without any chance of ever having parole is a better punishment. Hope it drives the bastard crazy.

IMHO, The death penalty is the easy way out for someone like this.


Sure, that can be a bad punishment for some, life imprisonment, but shit, the majority of prisons have everything one would ever need, including luxuries like airconditioning.

I remember one prison in Texas, alot of prisoners were outside in tents, thats where they slept and everything. It was like tent city, rows and rows of tents, big army tents.

Thats how prison needs to be for criminals who kill and do major crimes(if they don't get the death penalty). That means less cost to those of us who have to pay taxes that go to take care of them as well.

The fact is though, there is no "easy way out". Fuck having an easy way out, get rid of them, who cares. An easy way out for them? Fine, death sentence, then I don't have to feed, cloth and pay for them to live.

Would also cut back on mis-spent money as well, put that money toward helping local communities and other ventures.



This is the exact sort of reasoning that bioethicists use to validate killing the handicapped, miserable elderly, or erstwhile unhappy persons.

Kinda funny.

[ABDUR101]

On 2005-06-12 15:48, Solstis wrote:
This is the exact sort of reasoning that bioethicists use to validate killing the handicapped, miserable elderly, or erstwhile unhappy persons.

Kinda funny.


Major difference being that I'm talking about murderers, and not the handicapped, miserable elderly, or erstwhile unhappy persons.

Shit, I take care of the handicapped and elderly.

[Solstis]

On 2005-06-12 16:00, ABDUR101 wrote:


On 2005-06-12 15:48, Solstis wrote:
This is the exact sort of reasoning that bioethicists use to validate killing the handicapped, miserable elderly, or erstwhile unhappy persons.

Kinda funny.


Major difference being that I'm talking about murderers, and not the handicapped, miserable elderly, or erstwhile unhappy persons.

Shit, I take care of the handicapped and elderly.



What a freakin' modernist. http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

[Jett_Kakashi]

I have a better idea. Kill him the same way he killed those two girls. Honestly, if you shoot someone to death, you deserved to be shot to death. If you litteraly cut a person into seven hundred peices, then you deserve to be cut into seven hundred peices. And so on and so forth.And Uriko is right. Why waste our money on people who are in prison for a crime they committed, yet they're still comfortable. Most just say "Only a few eyars and Im out." And once they're out..they go and do the samething they did before.
Also: Ammendment 6 (I think) states it grants criminals a right to a fair speedy trial. That ammendment should be taken off the constitution. Because its basically saying: "Oh you did something bad, yet we'll go easy on you." Its a load of crap. People should have enough common sense to know that if you commit a crime, theres a price to pay. Period.

Im pretty sure you all agree with this, so..thanks for hearing my rant. XD



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jett_Kakashi on 2005-06-12 17:08 ]</font>

[KaFKa]

On 2005-06-12 13:44, darthsaber9x9 wrote:


On 2005-06-12 06:36, KaFKa wrote:
Only in the American judicial system can someone who commited such a terrible crime not be sentenced to death.


Oh the irony.


take your trolling elsewhere, jackass.

I agree with Abdur, in that if they are to take life in prison with no chance of parole, they should be kept in much worse conditions than those who are serving relatively light sentences. (IE; petty drug charges.)

and since i couldn't procure the link earlier here (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-28-Sat-2005/news/26616663.html) is one of the many news articles concerning the trial.


and Jett, Uriko, i asked once, and will ask again, please refrain from simply or elaborately saying "he should be tortured"

On a completely unrelated note; Abdur finally got 10k. omgwtfbbq

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: KaFKa on 2005-06-12 17:08 ]</font>

[astuarlen]

Disclaimer: While I may "target" certain posters, I'm not interested in attacking you as a person; I take issue with opinions, not individuals. And I'm not particularly diplomatic, so...


I'm not in favour of death penalty, for two reasons: There is punishment worse than death, and because that, I refuse to believe that in a modern world with human rights and moral values by the ones placed on high places, killing is still an option.

Agreed.


Death sentences should be given out more than life imprisonment. It's not rehab if they're not getting out of prison.

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but in the case of heinous crimes (murder, rape, etc) I see imprisonment as a matter of punishment and public safety, not rehabilitation. On the other hand, I don't believe we should use the justice system to get revenge.



On 2005-06-12 16:56, Jett_Kakashi wrote:
I have a better idea. Kill him the same way he killed those two girls. Honestly, if you shoot someone to death, you deserved to be shot to death. If you litteraly cut a person into seven hundred peices, then you deserve to be cut into seven hundred peices. And so on and so forth.And Uriko is right. Why waste our money on people who are in prison for a crime they committed, yet they're still comfortable. Most just say "Only a few eyars and Im out." And once they're out..they go and do the samething they did before.
Also: Ammendment 6 (I think) states it grants criminals a right to a fair speedy trial. That ammendment should be taken off the constitution. Because its basically saying: "Oh you did something bad, yet we'll go easy on you." Its a load of crap. People should have enough common sense to know that if you commit a crime, theres a price to pay. Period.

Im pretty sure you all agree with this, so..thanks for hearing my rant. XD



http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_cry.gif Although I found this entire post disturbing, the bolded item stuck me the most. Can't say I've ever heard someone call for the repeal of the 6th amendment. Do we have the fine public schools of America to thank for this? I can't fathom anyone objecting to a fair process, but then I guess I just don't have much of an imagination.

darthsaber9x9 > That one elicited a little (uneasy) chuckle from me, too.


Fine, death sentence, then I don't have to feed, cloth and pay for them to live.

Would also cut back on mis-spent money as well, put that money toward helping local communities and other ventures.

Interestingly enough, the death penalty is more expensive than a life sentence (think of all those mandatory appeals for death row inmates, as an example). But I guess we could get rid of the appeals process... [/sarcasm] I'm sure we can all find statistics to back up our positions, though, so I must admit this is not the most compelling argument either way.
Edit: I do agree, however, that there are better ways to spend tax money than throwing it at prisons. Perhaps we should stop tossing people in prison for petty crimes (some drug offenses, for example). I don't know, but you're right that we ought to be improving living conditions for all citizens.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astuarlen on 2005-06-12 17:26 ]</font>

[ABDUR101]

Quote from the article



In arguing for a death sentence, prosecutors are expected to present to the jury a letter Beau Maestas wrote to a girlfriend while he was in jail.

It has been widely speculated that the letter glorified the crime, though authorities have refused to release a copy or discuss its contents until it is presented as evidence at trial.

"This letter, I'm told, is rather incriminating," the judge said.

Defense attorneys asked Mosley to rule the letter inadmissable, saying Beau Maestas was never alerted that his mail would be monitored while in custody. Mosley, however, ruled the letter admissable.

"I don't know that the law requires an individual be insulated from his own stupidity," the judge said.


A-Fucking-Men. How god damn retarded and ignorant would you have to be to write a letter about what you did, then someone say "Oh well he did'nt even know his mail would be monitored or he would'nt gloat about it!". Christ. >=


However, I beleive that everyone, petty or severe crimes, need to have worse prison conditions. Prison isn't supposed to be like summer camp, it's supposed to be something horrible, something you don't want to experience.

By taking care of prisoners to the extent that we do in most states, it's nothing, all they've lost is time, but seemly for the most part life is very laxed and they have better luxuries than many people in this country who have done nothing wrong.

Shit, we have people starving on the streets and homeless that could have that money used for housing, as I said, better the money be spent on local communities than to make the "rigors of prison more bearable".

[Jett_Kakashi]

On 2005-06-12 16:56, Jett_Kakashi wrote:
I have a better idea. Kill him the same way he killed those two girls. Honestly, if you shoot someone to death, you deserved to be shot to death. If you litteraly cut a person into seven hundred peices, then you deserve to be cut into seven hundred peices. And so on and so forth.And Uriko is right. Why waste our money on people who are in prison for a crime they committed, yet they're still comfortable. Most just say "Only a few eyars and Im out." And once they're out..they go and do the samething they did before.
Also: Ammendment 6 (I think) states it grants criminals a right to a fair speedy trial. That ammendment should be taken off the constitution. Because its basically saying: "Oh you did something bad, yet we'll go easy on you." Its a load of crap. People should have enough common sense to know that if you commit a crime, theres a price to pay. Period.

Im pretty sure you all agree with this, so..thanks for hearing my rant. XD



http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_cry.gif Although I found this entire post disturbing, the bolded item stuck me the most. Can't say I've ever heard someone call for the repeal of the 6th amendment. Do we have the fine public schools of America to thank for this? I can't fathom anyone objecting to a fair process, but then I guess I just don't have much of an imagination.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astuarlen on 2005-06-12 17:26 ]</font>
[/quote]

Ah..I just remembered. I forgot something: Having a fair trial is good, but when it gets to the point where most murderers can get out with like, one year of prison and a small fine. And when the Supreme Court, I think between the 20s- 40's, dont exactly remember, passed that ammendment, alot of people upraoared, saying the judge of the Supreme Court favored criminals.

Also: Sorry if I scared anybody. ^_^;;;;



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jett_Kakashi on 2005-06-12 17:43 ]</font>

[KodiaX987]

Here's a little parallel I'd like to make concerning a story going on in Canada:

Yahoo! News search results for Karla Homolka (http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&p=%22karla+homolka%22)

Several years ago, Paul Bernardo and his wife Karla Homolka raped and killed 3 girls, one of them being Karla's sister. Paul Bernardo was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Karla, in exchange for confessing to the crimes and speaking against her husband, was sentenced to 12 years. She is scheduled to be released between end of June and beginning of July of this year. She also changed her name to Karla Leanne Teale... Knowing that Leanne Teale happens to be the family name of another known serial murderer.

Despite encouraging psychological results from the experts, most common people are outraged at the fact that Karla's sentence was so short, moreso by the fact that several tapes were found after the sentence was dealt, showing Karla happily taking part in the rapings and murders and consisting far more incriminating evidence than anything seen before (and contraticting her previous statement that she was "being manipulated") So far, she is supposed to live in Quebec, under a flurry of conditions, most of them having to do with not contacting her husband's or the victims' families, not being in contact with drugs (legal or illegal) and not being around little kids.

I thought this little parenthesis would enrich the current conversation.

[Solstis]

On 2005-06-12 16:56, Jett_Kakashi wrote:
I have a better idea. Kill him the same way he killed those two girls. Honestly, if you shoot someone to death, you deserved to be shot to death. If you litteraly cut a person into seven hundred peices, then you deserve to be cut into seven hundred peices. And so on and so forth.And Uriko is right. Why waste our money on people who are in prison for a crime they committed, yet they're still comfortable. Most just say "Only a few eyars and Im out." And once they're out..they go and do the samething they did before.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jett_Kakashi on 2005-06-12 17:08 ]</font>


Astuarlen did the other bit, so I'll focus on the first part.

Who would cut the person up in seven hundred pieces? A prison guard? A family member? A cold, emotionless piece of machinery?

Didn't anyone watch Minority Report? The 6th Amendment exists for a good reason.

Also, if I was convicted of a crime that I didn't commit, and was sent to death row, I damn well would want an overpriced appeals system.

I'm sorry, "but what's good for society," in terms of the death penalty, could just as easily turn a nation into a bunch of heartless bastards.

Killing off the murderer out of vengeance, boiled down, is the very same premise that he used to commit the crime. Someone may say, "well, he did it for a stupid reason." Well, I think that killing a man because ya damn well felt like it, regardless of the condition, is a negative act.

[CupOfCoffee]

As others have more or less said, the judicial system should not be about getting revenge. True, I have no love for the murderer and wouldn't be sorry in the least if he died, but to say that those in power should have this man cut into 700 pieces seems rather immature to me.

I don't think he should be allowed to just hang out in a cozy prison with cable TV, air conditioning, and three hot meals a day, but the days of the Tower of London were called the dark ages for a reason.

[Sagasu]

The sole purpose of death is to provide for new life.

Not as a justification for the bruised mind.

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-12 18:52, Solstis wrote:
Killing off the murderer out of vengeance, boiled down, is the very same premise that he used to commit the crime. Someone may say, "well, he did it for a stupid reason." Well, I think that killing a man because ya damn well felt like it, regardless of the condition, is a negative act.


Same premise? If you mean that a death occurs, why yes it is the same premise. But we are not talking of endresults here. Were talking about that first piece of the domino effect that lead to those crimes. That person took two lifes, killing him wont bring them back and that is true. But what do you suggest it to be done. Let him be, call it a force of nature like when animals kill each other. And hope he wont do that again? Lets abolish the death sentence because we "have" to be better than the criminals out there. Let us turn the cheek so they can slap it again and again?

[ABDUR101]

I don't think a murderer needs to be killed the same way he did in his victims, that would'nt be a very positive job for anyone to have. While I don't doubt that there are people who could or would do it, there's a risk in that after a length of time, not to mention the guilt of having to do it themselves that it could change someone in a negative way.

I doubt even pulling the switch or inserting a needle is done lightly, unless the person getting the jolt is highly hated for their crimes.

As well, my gripe isn't with the appeals system. If there's in-conclusive evidence, there should be a fair trial and everything included to make sure mistakes weren't made.

However, when there is overwhelming evidence, including someone stupid like this that even wrote a letter about what they did, they need to go straight to the front of the line for a death sentence. No appeals, no cries for mercy. They killed in cold blood, willingly and thoroughly, they gave no mercy, they get no mercy.

[Ness]

Kill that guy is not going to bring those two girls back, also the death penalty only causes more pain. Why add more suffering to an already bad situation.

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-13 14:48, Ness wrote:
Kill that guy is not going to bring those two girls back, also the death penalty only causes more pain. Why add more suffering to an already bad situation.


And rewarding him with shelter and food is the best way to go. Wow. Hmm. Im going to be homeless soon, guess Ill go kill someone so I have a place to sleep for the next 25 years of my life.

[Daikarin]

On 2005-06-13 15:05, Scejntjynahl wrote:

And rewarding him with shelter and food is the best way to go. Wow.



From my point of view this is not about bringing the girls back either, as cold as that may sound. Unfortunately, they're gone and no supreme form of justice of punishment can bring them back. It's a moral issue, to decide on what to do with a guy who does that kind of sick stuff.

He (The criminal) may deserve to be dead, but the question is, what good can his death do? Sure, it can prevent him from ever doing that again, but locking him for life can do that too. I'm not saying counselling is always the solution, especially because some guys are way beyond treatment.

This is not my field, but even I can tell killing someone is wrong. It's like sending someone to be burnt alive, or had his head cut, like they did in the middle ages.

We're not in the middle ages, we're not in a jungle, we're clever, intelligent, spiritual beings.

Who destroy the planet and kill our fellow man, but that's another story for another day.

[InfinityXXX]

Life is something that shall never be taken by another. You know, we don't have the right to take a life of anyone. Even if someone killed someone its not our right to kill that person just like it wasn't that person's right to kill his/her victim.

Some of what I siad in my post may be useless to you but what i'm just tryin to say is that Life is a beautiful thing to me. All of us, everyone of us on this board and in the world are Equal. And none of us our so high above another to decide ones faith or take ones life. And for those that do even if they do it in the name of justice, good, or evil they should be punished/tortured or treated.
on my cousins house, my cousin op
Some of you may say I don't know what i'm talking about but when i was little a close cousin of mine was killed by some jamaican dude. The guy knocked on my cousins door and he opened the door and the guy shot him in the head. When he went to court and was found guilty(and was sentenced to die) and when people asked him why? That bitch didn't even know.

But throguh his ignorance I still thought it was wrong to sentence him to die because it wasn't in our power, we were equal to him. We didn't create his life so we shouldn't take it.

(When I say creating life and taking it away I don't mean that if you and your husband/wife have a kid you have the right to kill it lol)



Edit: I would like to say that not all Jails are comfortable and luxury. My mom use to be a probation officer, she saw a lot of things. She said that the mini series on HBO called OZ, didn't even come close to what she saw.


Also, one thing that may be off topic, I feel that jail should be for killers, molestors, rapist, anyone that hurt someone. Drug dealers, (who haven't hurt anyone, by this i dont mean by their drugs) and people caught with weed shouldn't really be in jail. We're like wasting our money and space making jails to fit these people when we need to be fitting in people who ahve hurt someone. In most prisons, my mom says, theres more people who dealt or got caught with drugs than people who actually hurt someone.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: InfinityXXX on 2005-06-13 15:33 ]</font>

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-13 15:23, Even_Jin wrote:


On 2005-06-13 15:05, Scejntjynahl wrote:

And rewarding him with shelter and food is the best way to go. Wow.



From my point of view this is not about bringing the girls back either, as cold as that may sound. Unfortunately, they're gone and no supreme form of justice of punishment can bring them back. It's a moral issue, to decide on what to do with a guy who does that kind of sick stuff.

He (The criminal) may deserve to be dead, but the question is, what good can his death do? Sure, it can prevent him from ever doing that again, but locking him for life can do that too. I'm not saying counselling is always the solution, especially because some guys are way beyond treatment.

This is not my field, but even I can tell killing someone is wrong. It's like sending someone to be burnt alive, or had his head cut, like they did in the middle ages.

We're not in the middle ages, we're not in a jungle, we're clever, intelligent, spiritual beings.

Who destroy the planet and kill our fellow man, but that's another story for another day.



Very elloquent Even_Jin. But you too do not offer a solution. What is there to do with this individual? Feed him, shelter him, keep him away from society? Wait long enough for the scars to heal on their own so he may plead for an appeal and say he is "remorseful" and perhaps win his freedom? What of the freedom of the two he murdered? What of their future? Do they get a chance to live? This person acted as judge/juror/and executioner of two that had no means to defend themselves. You are willing to give him that chance where he did not do the same? What will be done with him? What we are to be better because we are rational? Put up with it because we are humaninatarian? Forgive because we can? What ever happened to the golden rule..."Do onto others as you would have them do onto you"?

[Ness]

On 2005-06-13 15:05, Scejntjynahl wrote:


On 2005-06-13 14:48, Ness wrote:
Kill that guy is not going to bring those two girls back, also the death penalty only causes more pain. Why add more suffering to an already bad situation.


And rewarding him with shelter and food is the best way to go. Wow. Hmm. Im going to be homeless soon, guess Ill go kill someone so I have a place to sleep for the next 25 years of my life.



And so that just makes killing him fine and dandy? On that note, however, there are several people who have committed crimes just to be in prison. besides, what do we have to gain by killing him?

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-13 15:34, Ness wrote:


On 2005-06-13 15:05, Scejntjynahl wrote:


On 2005-06-13 14:48, Ness wrote:
Kill that guy is not going to bring those two girls back, also the death penalty only causes more pain. Why add more suffering to an already bad situation.


And rewarding him with shelter and food is the best way to go. Wow. Hmm. Im going to be homeless soon, guess Ill go kill someone so I have a place to sleep for the next 25 years of my life.



And so that just makes killing him fine and dandy? On that note, however, there are several people who have committed crimes just to be in prison. besides, what do we have to gain by killing him?


By killing him? Hmm. How about the possibility that "he" will never do that again. Ever. Will this work as a deterrent for others to stop committing crimes? Perhaps not. But if the "punishment" is just jail time, even less.

[Daikarin]

On 2005-06-13 15:30, Scejntjynahl wrote:
"Do onto others as you would have them do onto you"?


Exactly, don't you see? That criminal is a product of his own generation. The fact that he wasn't raised normally, didn't get affection or simply shelter as a kid, may have contributed to what he is right now. The fact that he didn't solved his own issues is relevant too, but the problem doesn't start with him, it goes way back and spreads to what makes up a society.

I may be aware of a possible solution, but I prefer not to share it here, forgive my decision.

[InfinityXXX]

And for those people that kill people just to go to jail and get free food they fail to realize how bad it is. Most of the time their food is poisoned or has someting in it. They can get beat up for no reason. Raped by people or objects like knives and broom sticks. And majority of the time the security guards are so shady they let it happen w/o stopping it. All sorts of torture goes on in prison. Try to get a hold of a series called OZ, thatll give you a bit of how prison life is. The media sugarcoats how it really is. Yes there is stuff like people who get playstations and TV but do you know how they got it?

Either by selling drugs in the jail and making deals with security guards or by sleeping with securtiy guards. The whole luxury thing is never given to them, even if they act good.(In the case of them acting good and nice they may get their sentence decreased).

My mom was a probation officer, she told me stories of how bad it is and then I got friends at school who be bringing letters to school that their boyfriend wrote from jail. Its not fun

[Ness]

On 2005-06-13 15:39, Scejntjynahl wrote:
By killing him? Hmm. How about the possibility that "he" will never do that again. Ever. Will this work as a deterrent for others to stop committing crimes? Perhaps not. But if the "punishment" is just jail time, even less.



The death penalty is not a detterent because people aren't thinking rationally when they commit a captial crime. They aren't thinking, "Hmmm, if I do this then I will get the death penalty and that sucks."

People will always kill other people, no matter what the punishment is. Our judical system should focus less on punishment and more on rehabilitation.

[ABDUR101]

On 2005-06-13 14:48, Ness wrote:
Kill that guy is not going to bring those two girls back, also the death penalty only causes more pain. Why add more suffering to an already bad situation.


Everyone else is replying in paragraphs and going in-depth about what they think, and you're only giving two mediocre sentences?

It's not about bringing the girl back, or saving the one in a coma, and I'll gladly take the suffering of a murderer anyday. If anyone should suffer, why not a cold-blooded murderer?

This is the mentallity I'm talking about. "oh no, we can't cause more suffering". Fuck that, these kind of people give up the right not to suffer when they cause such harm to others and don't care about it. When they kill in cold blood and with full intent, they forfeit their life just as they snuffed out someone else's.



This is not my field, but even I can tell killing someone is wrong. It's like sending someone to be burnt alive, or had his head cut, like they did in the middle ages.

You don't think murderers do that to people? A murderer stabbing someone thirty or so times isn't bad enough to warrant their own death sentence?



We're not in the middle ages, we're not in a jungle, we're clever, intelligent, spiritual beings.

ok, when a relative of yours, or God forbid, your child, gets raped and then murdered in cold blood with no remorse, you stand infront of judge, jury and murderer and say "We don't live in the middle ages, I don't think you should be put to death for your actions, life imprisonment will do."

My uncle was murdered in cold blood years ago, he was tied up, stabbed and left to die in the back of his truck in the middle of a field he was clearing. He laid tied up in the bed of his truck for days, in the heat of the summer, until the person who's field he was clearing came looking for him. The murderer was never found.

The thing is, there was bad blood between him and another family member in the area, and the family member in question is wanted in numerous states for rape, assault and numerous other charges. Not to mention the person is a member of numerous gangs who are not known for their kindness.

So honestly, no, I don't feel remorse for those who end the life of others. No more mercy for them than they had during the act.

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-13 15:44, Ness wrote:


On 2005-06-13 15:39, Scejntjynahl wrote:
By killing him? Hmm. How about the possibility that "he" will never do that again. Ever. Will this work as a deterrent for others to stop committing crimes? Perhaps not. But if the "punishment" is just jail time, even less.



The death penalty is not a detterent because people aren't thinking rationally when they commit a captial crime. They aren't thinking, "Hmmm, if I do this then I will get the death penalty and that sucks."

People will always kill other people, no matter what the punishment is. Our judical system should focus less on punishment and more on rehabilitation.


Rehabilitation after the fact is a moot point. The crime has already been committed. Then what? Im all better sorry about that? They arent thinking you say? Its more like selective thinking. Im sure there was some thinking when the weapon was used. Or you going to go the "blind rage" issue? Oh wait, maybe he had too much sugar that day. Or like Even_Jin suggested, it was his background that made him do it. And you are right Ness, people will always kill people. We can go in circles for ever. But this I know. If those were my children, or if I was there when that persons was snuffing the life from them, he would be dead. And I would expect to be put to death myself for I have forfeited my life when I took that bastards. But all of this is stipulation. In the end the fact remains. He killed. He was judged. And to prison he goes. What we want doesnt really matter anymore, does it?

[Ness]

On 2005-06-13 15:55, Scejntjynahl wrote:
Rehabilitation after the fact is a moot point. The crime has already been committed. Then what? Im all better sorry about that? They arent thinking you say? Its more like selective thinking. Im sure there was some thinking when the weapon was used. Or you going to go the "blind rage" issue? Oh wait, maybe he had too much sugar that day. Or like Even_Jin suggested, it was his background that made him do it. And you are right Ness, people will always kill people. We can go in circles for ever. But this I know. If those were my children, or if I was there when that persons was snuffing the life from them, he would be dead. And I would expect to be put to death myself for I have forfeited my life when I took that bastards. But all of this is stipulation. In the end the fact remains. He killed. He was judged. And to prison he goes. What we want doesnt really matter anymore, does it?



Like I said, the person wasn't thinking rationally. Killing is usually done based on instinct and not rational thinking. What we think about his case doesn't matter, but there will be others and that's what we are fighting for.


Everyone else is replying in paragraphs and going in-depth about what they think, and you're only giving two mediocre sentences?

It's not about bringing the girl back, or saving the one in a coma, and I'll gladly take the suffering of a murderer anyday. If anyone should suffer, why not a cold-blooded murderer?

This is the mentallity I'm talking about. "oh no, we can't cause more suffering". Fuck that, these kind of people give up the right not to suffer when they cause such harm to others and don't care about it. When they kill in cold blood and with full intent, they forfeit their life just as they snuffed out someone else's.

I've been making short replies since you met me back in 2002 and you wait until now to complain about it? What you said was nice and all, but you still haven't told me what people ahve to gain by having the murderer suffer. Yes, what he did was bad, and yes he should be punished for it; but the death penalty makes us no better than he is.

[Daikarin]

On 2005-06-13 15:52, ABDUR101 wrote:
You don't think murderers do that to people? A murderer stabbing someone thirty or so times isn't bad enough to warrant their own death sentence?


When did I ever say that murderers were innocent? And did you ever thought about what made that guy do the things he did?

Sure, we all know he's sick, but when we're gonna approach his case, we're not simply gonna say "He kills, he's gonna be killed". We have to think about the "what's" and the "why's" that made a guy go so low, and study appropriate solutions.

I don't want to give the impression that I totally take off the guilt from a murderer's hands. Never, it's his fault. I'm just saying people are too quick to jump out to the quickest, most immoral solution.

Suppose if you had a brother or a cousin with homocidal tendencies, Abdur. Suppose he's short-tempered. Suppose you knew he had a tough background with people who never helped him get over that and never told him the difference between good and bad. Suppose you knew he was more than just a guy with some mad impulses, driven by an override of negative emotions and child traumas.

Would you tell him, "You deserve to die"!? Sure, I know you're on the victim's side of the field, but what if you were on the other side of things?



ok, when a relative of yours, or God forbid, your child, gets raped and then murdered in cold blood with no remorse, you stand infront of judge, jury and murderer and say "We don't live in the middle ages, I don't think you should be put to death for your actions, life imprisonment will do."


I was never in favour with just life imprisonment either. That's why I said some people are a product of their own generation. Some penalties are wrong, excluding the death one.



So honestly, no, I don't feel remorse for those who end the life of others. No more mercy for them than they had during the act.


Heck, I'm human too. I'm sure to feel anger, and not easily forgive someone who does something like that to one of my relatives myself.

But sometimes you have to put your feelings aside, and think objectively. When you can do that, you can think about something more logical than "Kill that murderous bastard who shows no respect for human life, so that we show that we have no respect for his human life too."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Even_Jin on 2005-06-13 16:15 ]</font>

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-13 16:04, Ness wrote:
I've been making short replies since you met me back in 2002 and you wait until now to complain about it? What you said was nice and all, but you still haven't told me what people ahve to gain by having the murderer suffer. Yes, what he did was bad, and yes he should be punished for it; but the death penalty makes us no better than he is.



Why should "we" have to be better? Why is he excempt? And exactly how is the murderer suffering? Knowing that he will die is suffering? Shit. He still has a chance at doing something, appeals, lawyers, some stupid cop made a mistake in getting evidence, someone forgot to read his Miranda Rights... etc etc. But of the victims? What who cares? Their dead already right? Nothing to be done but to bury them and go on, because we are better. Hmm... sorry for this outburst...FUCK THAT.

[ABDUR101]

On 2005-06-13 16:04, Ness wrote:
What you said was nice and all, but you still haven't told me what people ahve to gain by having the murderer suffer. Yes, what he did was bad, and yes he should be punished for it; but the death penalty makes us no better than he is.


Peace of mind, that the person will never harm another person. Peace of mind, that one who so easily snuffed the life out of their loved one(s) won't have the satisfaction or joy of life, when they so easily took it from someone else.

And you don't even understand the mentallity behind it. No better than him? The very fact that we're not doing it "just to do it", that it's retribution and payment in full for taking the life of another in cold blood. If you give it some thought, it does not make us equal to him in the ideal that he murdered and now we're murdering him, thus we're both murderers.

Guy walks in, kills two people, maybe ten people, maybe a thousand people. Each death causes a ripple that not a single one of them deserved to die, not a single one of their friends or family deserved to lose them merely because someone felt the urge to kill for whatever reason.

"Oh, then what about the murderer? What about his family and friends?"

It's moot, he forfeit his life when he killed. It's because of him that his family and friends will no longer have him in the world, no one decided it for him.

Let me spell it out for you. It's the issue of control. If someone is murdered, someone took control, and ended their life without care.

The person did'nt ask to be killed, to have their life ended, someone took it upon themselves to do it. Upon the murderers decision to take control of someone else's life and end it, they lost control of whether they, themselves, should live or die. Their life then rests in the hands of those who handle the matters in a law-based system.

Thus.

[Ness]

On 2005-06-13 16:14, Scejntjynahl wrote:

Why should "we" have to be better? Why is he excempt? And exactly how is the murderer suffering? Knowing that he will die is suffering? Shit. He still has a chance at doing something, appeals, lawyers, some stupid cop made a mistake in getting evidence, someone forgot to read his Miranda Rights... etc etc. But of the victims? What who cares? Their dead already right? Nothing to be done but to bury them and go on, because we are better. Hmm... sorry for this outburst...FUCK THAT.



I sort of see where you are coming from. Crimes has henious as his are angering to most people, but that doesn't justify countering violence with violence. Also even if you do gain some sort of satisfaction from this guy getting killed, you will feel empty shortly afterwards. That is the nature of revenge and vengance. If you want to truly do something, you should try to prevent such an atrocity from happening again.

[ABDUR101]

On 2005-06-13 16:39, Ness wrote:
I sort of see where you are coming from. Crimes has henious as his are angering to most people, but that doesn't justify countering violence with violence.

Gee yeah you're right Ness. We've tried life inprisonment, death sentences..I say we just start cutting them loose. Or, group hug therapy where everyone gets together and we make them all feel better about themselves, then maybe, they won't have to kill someone else anymore.



Also even if you do gain some sort of satisfaction from this guy getting killed, you will feel empty shortly afterwards. That is the nature of revenge and vengance.

Please, that is so cliche to say. Honestly, I won't feel anything when this guy fries, gets maimed, or injected. All that'll pass through my head is "One less peice of trash to worry about." And thats even if I care enough to know when he's getting the juice.

Not a smile will pass my lips, nor a sigh of releif. Just knowing that it's done and he's gone is all there will be.



If you want to truly do something, you should try to prevent such an atrocity from happening again.

You can't stop humanity from being humanity. Humanity, as I've said, has fools, saints, and deviants, of all variants. It always has, and it always will. You've got your Ghandis, and you've got your Hitlers. There is no stopping it, it's humanity.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ABDUR101 on 2005-06-13 16:50 ]</font>

[Daikarin]

You're letting that experience get the best out of your judgement. I can't blame you, if I were on your shoes I'd have a hard time seeing any other way other than just terminate the problem once and for all.

Sure, I'm already aware that anyone who does that kind of stuff is sick, has no respect for human life, has issues, blah blah.

But for crying out loud, can't you all see that goddamn obvious cycle that killing makes? Someone out there kills, then is killed. Then those who killed are killed. Why? Who killed first? And who cares who killed first? The cycle has to stop someday.

I'm not thinking straight to form a coeherent opinion, so I'll end it here and go to sleep.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Even_Jin on 2005-06-13 16:50 ]</font>

[ABDUR101]

Jin, this isn't a repeating gang crime, or a turf war, or a racial back and forth killing.

This is someone breaking the law, and the judgement being called upon. Putting him in jail for life could end the cycle, unless he kills in jail, but I've already gone into my discussion about supporting known murderers for life imprisonment and paying for them to live. No need to hit that mark again.

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-13 16:50, Even_Jin wrote:
You're letting that experience get the best out of your judgement. I can't blame you, if I were on your shoes I'd have a hard time seeing any other way other than just terminate the problem once and for all.

Sure, I'm already aware that anyone who does that kind of stuff is sick, has no respect for human life, has issues, blah blah.

But for crying out loud, can't you all see that goddamn obvious cycle that killing makes? Someone out there kills, then is killed. Then those who killed are killed. Why? Who killed first? And who cares who killed first? The cycle has to stop someday.

I'm not thinking straight to form a coeherent opinion, so I'll end it here and go to sleep.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Even_Jin on 2005-06-13 16:50 ]</font>


Religious end: Judgement Day
Human end: Nuclear War.
Earth end: Sun goes Nova, water supply ends, etc etc.

Cycle of killing? It is a cycle of killing, but not all cycles are perfect circles. As it stands the only "natural" enemy man has... is man. Theres your cycle for you.

The cycle truly ends when we all die Even_Jin. That is the only way. That, or become void of all feelings and desires, become animals once again and forego rational thought.

[Ness]

On 2005-06-13 16:49, ABDUR101 wrote:
Gee yeah you're right Ness. We've tried life inprisonment, death sentences..I say we just start cutting them loose. Or, group hug therapy where everyone gets together and we make them all feel better about themselves, then maybe, they won't have to kill someone else anymore.


Because that's soo what I said http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

On that note, however, I think a little group hug therapy would ahve done you some good. You've become so bitter in recent years.


Please, that is so cliche to say. Honestly, I won't feel anything when this guy fries, gets maimed, or injected. All that'll pass through my head is "One less peice of trash to worry about." And thats even if I care enough to know when he's getting the juice.

Not a smile will pass my lips, nor a sigh of releif. Just knowing that it's done and he's gone is all there will be.


This was directed more at Scen than it was at you. However, there are ways to isolate the piece of trash from society without killing him.



You can't stop humanity from being humanity. Humanity, as I've said, has fools, saints, and deviants, of all variants. It always has, and it always will. You've got your Ghandis, and you've got your Hitlers. There is no stopping it, it's humanity.

Sure there will always be killers, but you can do things and help people so that there will be fwer killers.

[ABDUR101]

On 2005-06-13 17:01, Ness wrote:
Because that's soo what I said http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

You're not offering anything, no alternative, all you offer is for someone else to think up a better solution. Why not yourself? Can you offer something better?



On that note, however, I think a little group hug therapy would ahve done you some good. You've become so bitter in recent years.

Not quite bitter, but attuned. I don't sugar coat what I think. I don't bullshit around what I think, it's there, it makes sense to me, I'm not trying to mold it to fit a religious ideal, or something society would find acceptable.




This was directed more at Scen than it was at you. However, there are ways to isolate the piece of trash from society without killing him.

And if you've read the entire topic, you'd know my stance on life imprisonment.




Sure there will always be killers, but you can do things and help people so that there will be fwer killers.

And you've ignored a former post, where I stated you can't breed out of humanity, what is a part of humanity. Here, look, I'll even copy/paste it so you can read it again.

You can't stop humanity from being humanity. Humanity, as I've said, has fools, saints, and deviants, of all variants. It always has, and it always will. You've got your Ghandis, and you've got your Hitlers. There is no stopping it, it's humanity.

Unless you have something to add that would be the answer, or lead to a possible answer as to how one can "make" there be less killers in the world?

[KodiaX987]

Kill the motherfucker; Jesus, how hard is it to get this into your thick skulls? We ain't taking revenge, we ain't making him suffer, we're just sweetly moving him out of the way. Hell, the way death sentences should be announced should be this way:

"Well, you've killed a coupla people, we know you could kill more, we know you won't ever change your mind and we ain't gonna spend precious tax cash on your ass to get you housed and fed for the rest of your life since you'll be spending it trying to get away. Sorry, guess it's off to the voltchair for ya. Later, bud!"

[Ness]

On 2005-06-13 17:18, ABDUR101 wrote:
You're not offering anything, no alternative, all you offer is for someone else to think up a better solution. Why not yourself? Can you offer something better?


That doesn't give you the right to put words in my mouth. As for something better, the only thing I can currently think of is life in prison.


Not quite bitter, but attuned. I don't sugar coat what I think. I don't bullshit around what I think, it's there, it makes sense to me, I'm not trying to mold it to fit a religious ideal, or something society would find acceptable.

Nor am I, but that doesn't mean I have to be cold towards certain people. It seems that lately you've been acting extremely cold towards me and I can't figure out why.




This was directed more at Scen than it was at you. However, there are ways to isolate the piece of trash from society without killing him.

And if you've read the entire topic, you'd know my stance on life imprisonment.



And you've ignored a former post, where I stated you can't breed out of humanity, what is a part of humanity. Here, look, I'll even copy/paste it so you can read it again.

You can't stop humanity from being humanity. Humanity, as I've said, has fools, saints, and deviants, of all variants. It always has, and it always will. You've got your Ghandis, and you've got your Hitlers. There is no stopping it, it's humanity.

Unless you have something to add that would be the answer, or lead to a possible answer as to how one can "make" there be less killers in the world?


I saw it already and what I said was a response to it.

Since it obviously wasn't enough for you, I'll elaborate. You could show extra love and kindess to others, even if you don't know them. You'd be surprised at how much a little bit of love can help someone. If everyone loved and showeed kindess to each other more, there would not be as many killers running around.

Hate only generates more hate. In order to truly eliminate hate, you must use love.

[ABDUR101]

On 2005-06-13 19:11, Ness wrote:
I saw it already and what I said was a response to it.

Since it obviously wasn't enough for you, I'll elaborate.

Good decision, this is a discussion not being held by mind-readers.



You could show extra love and kindess to others, even if you don't know them. You'd be surprised at how much a little bit of love can help someone. If everyone loved and showeed kindess to each other more, there would not be as many killers running around.

Hate only generates more hate. In order to truly eliminate hate, you must use love.


No, actually I would'nt be surprised by how much alittle kindness goes a long way Ness. How? Because no matter where I am, or who I'm in contact with, they get nothing but kindness and a smile. They treat me with respect and they get the same.

But again, this isn't an ideal world. So lets discuss as if the world did'nt run on ideal principles?

[HUnewearl_Meira]

Numbers 35:16
If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.



Numbers 35:18
Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.



Numbers 35:31
Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.



Proverbs 21:19
A man tormented by the guilt of murder will be a fugitive till death; let no one support him.



You people are all far too black or white on this topic. It's disgusting.

There are no moral issues involved here. This is an issue of Justice. Does the execution of a murderer constitute bringing us down to the same level as the murderer? I submit that it does not. How can you begin to claim that a murderer's life can equal the life of the innocent whose life he took? How can you begin to make that claim? He took a life, and by his own actions, so shall his life be taken.

Clearly, his considerations omit the thought that killing another is an immoral practice to be avoided. He didn't stop to think that it shouldn't be done.

So why should we spare him the rod?




There is no remorse to be felt for someone like this.

[Solstis]

On 2005-06-13 20:12, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
You people are all far too black or white on this topic. It's disgusting.


Are you sure that you meant to say that?

I don't particularly favor any "side" in this discussion. I tend to view the world as an infinite expanse of grey. So, I find fault with the "spare the murderer" camp and the "kill the murderer" camp.

Just as someone (Jin?) pointed out that many murderers were products of their upbringing, as is the opinion of every poster in this discussion. I personally find it "disgusting" that any one person could claim to know what's best, whether it be in favor of life or death. If Abdur's Uncle had not suffered such a tragic fate, perhaps his outlook on the situation would be different.

Just some things to consider in this fight between two different moral soapboxes.

There is one Universal truth... that there isn't one.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2005-06-13 20:40 ]</font>

[Jive18]

On 2005-06-13 20:38, Solstis wrote:

Just some things to consider in this fight between two different moral soapboxes.

There is one Universal truth... that there isn't one.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2005-06-13 20:40 ]</font>


Exactly. I'm not sure if anyone really read my first post; it was written too hastily. Soltis summed up ths whole issue by stating that there is no universal truth. It seems that no right can be done in whatever way that death penalty is dealt with. This topic could easily go on forever and ever with the same cycle of repeating cons presented in different wordings. It's practically impossible to justify your defense of putting someone to death, because because the opposition is merely going to re-state the same obvious arguements. It is equally impossible to justify life in person.

I think the whole ordeal will never truly be resolved or answered because people kill each other day, and will continue to do so until the end of mankind or some miraculous global revelation occurs by chance. It will stay as it is now: some will stay in a cell forever and some will die within minutes of injection (or whatever means used). The only way the death penalty and it's justifications will ever be officialy confirmed is through a mass-bias from an entire government towards either side, or a revolt from an entire society against on side of the issue.

[space_butler]

Most of the civilised world abolished the death penalty decades ago. its useless as a deterent and far too many innocent people get caught up in it. im almost expecting people to post something about a hanging in the village square from some of the posts in this thread. This is not the middle ages and no-one should be acting like it is by sentancing people to death.

[geewj]

It's a means to an end.

Find a better a better way that doesn't cost a ton and then everyone can be happy.

Do you want to pay an extra %2 of your income so the guy who raped and murdured your mom sister and wife can have cable tv and three balanced meals a day? I don't.

Death penalty isn't about punishment. That's not the point. That's not the point of the government.

The governement needs to protect society. That's its job. And if they know someone is a danger to society, they need to resolve that danger. It's nothing personal, and it's not to punish the criminal. Just they need to protect society, and they can't do that with someone who kills people walking around.

[Arislan]

I could go on and write a couple massive paragraphs about my beliefs, but after reading the thread, I've come to a conclusion. I think Adbur stole my brain and is using it for his own ends. We have far too similar ideas far too often.

Without an uncle dying situation in my life, I've come to the exact same conclusions stated by Abdur in this thread. It's not about revenge, hate, or background. The man did what he did, and should have no right to his own life. I, like Abdur, will not feel a single shred of emotion if this man were to be dealt the death sentence.

[Ness]

On 2005-06-13 19:33, ABDUR101 wrote:

No, actually I would'nt be surprised by how much alittle kindness goes a long way Ness. How? Because no matter where I am, or who I'm in contact with, they get nothing but kindness and a smile. They treat me with respect and they get the same.

But again, this isn't an ideal world. So lets discuss as if the world did'nt run on ideal principles?



Okay let's discuss some real world priniclpes.

Yes, he killed someone. What is crime heinious? Yes. Should he be punishex severely for it? Definitely. Is the death penalty the right way to go no. Why? Because death is never a solution. Killing someone won't solve anything. So for you it's not about vengance but peace of mind. Yet you feel that someone who takes a life has not right to maintain his own; a life for a life. That sounds more vengeful than peaceful.

We don't rape rapists, rob robber, or beat assaulters so do we kill killers? Not only that, but what about all the innocent lives the death penalty has taken? Where is peace of mind then? All you did was cause suffering to a person who didn't deserve it. And not just to him, but his family as well.

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-14 08:15, Ness wrote:


On 2005-06-13 19:33, ABDUR101 wrote:

No, actually I would'nt be surprised by how much alittle kindness goes a long way Ness. How? Because no matter where I am, or who I'm in contact with, they get nothing but kindness and a smile. They treat me with respect and they get the same.

But again, this isn't an ideal world. So lets discuss as if the world did'nt run on ideal principles?



Okay let's discuss some real world priniclpes.

Yes, he killed someone. What is crime heinious? Yes. Should he be punishex severely for it? Definitely. Is the death penalty the right way to go no. Why? Because death is never a solution. Killing someone won't solve anything. So for you it's not about vengance but peace of mind. Yet you feel that someone who takes a life has not right to maintain his own; a life for a life. That sounds more vengeful than peaceful.

We don't rape rapists, rob robber, or beat assaulters so do we kill killers? Not only that, but what about all the innocent lives the death penalty has taken? Where is peace of mind then? All you did was cause suffering to a person who didn't deserve it. And not just to him, but his family as well.


So in other words why use chemotherapy on a cancer patient? It is not the cancer's fault. We should hug the cancer, talk to it, and ask for it to leave on its own.
Heck why ask "so and so" single mother to dump her new boyfriend who has admitted been a pedophile? Im sure he really "loves" her kids, lets give him a break no?
You know Ness, I really do not ever wish harm on anyone, but if something ever happens to one dearest to you... I hope you live up to your ideals.
As to me, Ill take my vengeance served cold, I will become that same demon that harmed those dear to me. I will not be the "better" man, because frankly the better man is a wuss. Rehabilatation? Oh please. Like theere is no chance they will lie just for a chance to avoid death and be free? Anyone with half-mind can outwitt those bleeding heart psychiatrists. Ever taken those psych tests, they are a joke. Even I can pretend to be a lunatic, if it gets me where I want to be.
Choices Ness, it boils down to choices and consequences. Why should we harbor those that willingly forfeit their prosperity by the choices they have taken?
I had a great dog once. Awesome mix of German Sherpard and Boxer. I loved that dog. Somehow he got loose and bit a kids finger off. My dad found out about it. He then had the dog put to sleep. I asked him why? "Once they taste blood, it is never the same"
Never the same Ness. Never. No amount of therapy will take that impulse away. It is that denial of the impulse that seperates us from killers. But once you have crossed over... it becomes easier and easier and easier. If you want to have that living, so be it. I dont.
Too early in the morning for me to sound coherent. Bah.

[ABDUR101]

On 2005-06-14 08:15, Ness wrote:
Because death is never a solution.

Thats an ideal principle, but the world is not utopian and there are people who murder without justification or need.



Killing someone won't solve anything.

It will end their cycle of killing. It will cease their existance so they don't get the joy of living a long life, when they snuffed out someone elses. I've stated this many times, why are you going back to basics and not giving more than just "Killing someone won't solve anything". Yes, it does. It stops me from having to pay for this person to live a life in prison, the mere fact that they still exist and are allowed to live is the issue. What right do they have to live after they've killed someone in cold blood? That is what I'm trying to pound into your head after five pages, but you're not even answering.



So for you it's not about vengance but peace of mind. Yet you feel that someone who takes a life has not right to maintain his own; a life for a life. That sounds more vengeful than peaceful.

It was never intended to be peaceful for the person being put to death. And "peace of mind" has nothing to do with "peace" itself. Lets say this guy gets out on parole for "good behavior" in the prison system after 30-40 years, and by then you have kids, maybe even grandkids. What would you say if by some odd chance, he killed one of them? Repeat offenders are not uncommon, so what will you say then Ness? "Oh, well, he doesn't deserve to die, but he should be given the max life imprisonment." And then, guess what, you're paying for that guy to be taken care of in prison until he dies, and those you held dear are long gone while he's enjoying aircondioning and joking with his comrades in prison.



We don't rape rapists, rob robber, or beat assaulters so do we kill killers?

Do I even have to reply to this? Ness, "rob a robber"? Who are you going to get to rape a rapist? Killing a murderer is quite different, and if you don't realise that, I doubt you should even be taking part in this thread.



Not only that, but what about all the innocent lives the death penalty has taken? Where is peace of mind then? All you did was cause suffering to a person who didn't deserve it. And not just to him, but his family as well.

By "person who did'nt deserve it" are you referring to the murderer?

If so, here, I already rebuttled this damn bit two pages ago.



On 2005-06-13 16:20, ABDUR101 wrote:
Guy walks in, kills two people, maybe ten people, maybe a thousand people. Each death causes a ripple that not a single one of them deserved to die, not a single one of their friends or family deserved to lose them merely because someone felt the urge to kill for whatever reason.

"Oh, then what about the murderer? What about his family and friends?"

It's moot, he forfeit his life when he killed. It's because of him that his family and friends will no longer have him in the world, no one decided it for him.

Let me spell it out for you. It's the issue of control. If someone is murdered, someone took control, and ended their life without care.

The person did'nt ask to be killed, to have their life ended, someone took it upon themselves to do it. Upon the murderers decision to take control of someone else's life and end it, they lost control of whether they, themselves, should live or die. Their life then rests in the hands of those who handle the matters in a law-based system.

Thus.

[Daikarin]

On 2005-06-13 16:55, Scejntjynahl wrote:

Religious end: Judgement Day


Pfft. That's not an end, but a beggining.


Human end: Nuclear War.


Wrong. It's not that simple. We can't just decide to blow ourselves up, even if we are on the verge of another world wide war.



Earth end: Sun goes Nova, water supply ends, etc etc.


That's so sad, Scen. To only see destruction as our fate?



Cycle of killing? It is a cycle of killing, but not all cycles are perfect circles. As it stands the only "natural" enemy man has... is man. Theres your cycle for you.

The cycle truly ends when we all die Even_Jin. That is the only way. That, or become void of all feelings and desires, become animals once again and forego rational thought.



The purpose of life is not to die. The purpose of life is to be born, learn and then pass away to some other form of existance. That's what I believe in, and found it logical to be. When you kill someone, you don't help a guy solving his issues.

But this is necessary for evolution. Struggle, because if it all were roses we would never evolve. Ying and Yang need each other, and good needs evil to tell the difference from it.

I don't want to go deeper into this, since the point is the people who do those horrible crimes.

What good are we if we give him the same treatment which we arrested him for, and call it justice?

And Abdur, I'm not speaking for the streets. A criminal kills, the government kills, anyone kills, and there will be side effects, resulting in more killing, and less learning. I don't blame you for letting rage blind you of what I'm showing you, or simply for choosing it so.

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

I don't think this has been brought up here yet. Everything else that needs to be brought up has been, but I seemed to miss this important part.

The victim(s)' family.
You always see reports, television, newspapers, reporting on the victim's family "needing closure". That's it.

They can't have peace of mind when the murderer of their family member(s) is still existing in the world.
Some would want a death penalty, some are more forgiving to allow life in prison, etc. They put their feelings aside for the most part and let the jury/judicial system do its job, to the best of its ability. Hopefully they get a fair and speedy trial, which is a pro to both sides-not a con, and the sooner they get their cliche' "closure" the better it is.

I'm sure we have seen enough of family members even going as far as jumping over the line and attacking the murderer's of their family members during a court hearing. I don't honestly agree 100% with what the person is doing, but I'm not sure how I will feel if this happened to me and my immediate family either. Try to think it over, both sides. Different circumstances, different views-arising from different dramatic events.

The laws and punishment for breaking those laws have been around for quite some time. Criminals can't be soo naive to say they didn't know about the punishment for said crimes, or always plead insanity or not thinking rationally.

The horror stories of murderers "getting out" only to murder again scare all of us, I'm sure of it.

I have no problem with those who believe a murderer deserves the death penalty, why? Its become commonplace, as it is the maximum penalty allowed by law for a crime.

I also have no problem with those who believe that a life sentence to prison is the best option, why? they could think that even murderers are human too, and thus give them much more remorse. The only difference I can see is if this has happened to a family member, also the stipulation-or "ifs"- that this happened to a family member, then what would you think?

I want to add more about murderers and such getting the right to reproduce and create children to pass their lineage down upon, within the confines of prison(trailer visits-I have forgotten the true name to it at the moment), but that is a completely different topic entirely. With much more debating to be had as well.

[ABDUR101]

On 2005-06-14 15:13, Even_Jin wrote:
I don't blame you for letting rage blind you of what I'm showing you, or simply for choosing it so.


Please, blind rage. My arguements are much more than driven by mere blind rage. The only difference between us, is I'm not trying to save or enlighten everyone. Not everyone wants saved or enlightened.

If it were that easy, in an ideal world, murders would'nt happen anyway.

I'm done here unless opposing arguements are expanded or added to.

Jin, very nice discussing with you, you have a good head on your shoulders. We just see it entirely differently, and thats fine.

[Daikarin]

Yeah, I guess I exaggerated with blind rage.

[Ness]

@Scen

The whole cancer argument didn't even make sense. Nice try.

Following your logic, why are soliders allowed to be with the general public? You know, once they kill it gets easier and easier.




On 2005-06-14 08:39, ABDUR101 wrote:
Thats an ideal principle, but the world is not utopian and there are people who murder without justification or need.


How is it utopian? Yes, people kill each other, but that doesn't mean it solves anything. To me it seems like you label anything that disagrees with you philosophy as "utopian."



It will end their cycle of killing. It will cease their existance so they don't get the joy of living a long life, when they snuffed out someone elses. I've stated this many times, why are you going back to basics and not giving more than just "Killing someone won't solve anything". Yes, it does. It stops me from having to pay for this person to live a life in prison, the mere fact that they still exist and are allowed to live is the issue. What right do they have to live after they've killed someone in cold blood? That is what I'm trying to pound into your head after five pages, but you're not even answering.
[quote]

I do answer, you just don't like my answer so you ignore it. There are more ways to end the cycle of killing than to kill the killer. Yes, he killed some people out of cold blood. Does that mean that we have to take away his right to live? Like I said earlier, put him to work somewhere. Make him give back to the community. Sure it won't make up for the people he killed, but atleast he will be doing some good. I see prisoners all the time doing roadwork and drain cleaning. Everyone has the right to live.


[quote]It was never intended to be peaceful for the person being put to death. And "peace of mind" has nothing to do with "peace" itself. Lets say this guy gets out on parole for "good behavior" in the prison system after 30-40 years, and by then you have kids, maybe even grandkids. What would you say if by some odd chance, he killed one of them? Repeat offenders are not uncommon, so what will you say then Ness? "Oh, well, he doesn't deserve to die, but he should be given the max life imprisonment." And then, guess what, you're paying for that guy to be taken care of in prison until he dies, and those you held dear are long gone while he's enjoying aircondioning and joking with his comrades in prison.

I don't plan on ever having children. If he did kill my child, I would be sad and angry, but killing him won't bring my child back. Either way, I will have nothing.

Prison isn't just fun and games. Prison conditions are actually quite nasty and abuse among prisoners is actually common place.


Do I even have to reply to this? Ness, "rob a robber"? Who are you going to get to rape a rapist? Killing a murderer is quite different, and if you don't realise that, I doubt you should even be taking part in this thread.

It's all based on the "eye for an eye" principle. Sure murder is extremely different, but they are all the same as far as punishment. You can find plenty of people availiable to rape a rapist. Heck, it will probably happen to him anyway while he is in prison.


By "person who did'nt deserve it" are you referring to the murderer?


I was referring to the innocents sent to the chair.

[KodiaX987]

Killing doesn't solve problems? HA! Let me tell you something you little punks: When we kill a murderer, we solve the problem... of him murdering, at cheap cost and with guarantee that we'll never see him kill again!

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-14 17:26, Ness wrote:
@Scen

The whole cancer argument didn't even make sense. Nice try.

Following your logic, why are soliders allowed to be with the general public? You know, once they kill it gets easier and easier.




The cancer argument not making sense is just what it is supposed to do. To demonstrate in an analogy format that what you have been saying thus far as well doest not make sense.

And soldiers have become killers as well, or even abusive spouses. But therein lies the core of making choices. It does get easier. Specially if they are trained.

[space_butler]

On 2005-06-14 18:34, KodiaX987 wrote:
Killing doesn't solve problems? HA! Let me tell you something you little punks: When we kill a murderer, we solve the problem... of him murdering, at cheap cost and with guarantee that we'll never see him kill again!



you mean that in all the countries that abolished the death penalty all the murderers re-offend? if thats the case then why have so many abolished it? if death was an effective sentance then there wouldnt BE any murders. America is on the same level as those beacons of good human rights Zimbabwe, Iran and Sudan.

[KodiaX987]

On 2005-06-15 02:04, space_butler wrote:

you mean that in all the countries that abolished the death penalty all the murderers re-offend? if thats the case then why have so many abolished it? if death was an effective sentance then there wouldnt BE any murders.


You'd think the world would've understood but Earth is a place full of knuckleheaded stupid people. As a quick analogy, I have perm-banned someone from my channel several weeks ago. He attempts to come in everyday. It's obvious he doesn't get it. Even though he's been an ass ever since the first time he came here.

And the stuff about if death was an effective sentence doesn't work - if I'm going to be pissed at someone, chances are I'll shoot first and ask questions later. Same if I am totally bonkers. Because don't get mistaken: my view of DP is simply as a tool to stop someone from causing harm again. I don't care about the punishment, I don't care about the revenge, I just want to see the guy dead because I know that if he's ever on the loose again, I know that he'll kill again, because he's either a knuckleheaded idiot, or totally bonkers, or both. Naturally, I'm talking about the extreme case here but I think you get the idea. As far as the different shades of gray go, that'll be a different subject.

And your statement not only doesn't work for murder, it doesn't work for every single crime that exists. We've been punishing people through various methods for several thousand years and we've still got a shitload of morons who think they can play smart-ass and get away with it. There's some guy I know, he constantly speeds on the freeway and never pays his tickets. So what do the cops do? They put him in prison. But the jails are all overflowing with inmates, so what happens? Dude gets released the next morning. And I'm just waiting for him to take a beer too many and completely fuck himself up that time...

[Ness]

On 2005-06-14 22:07, Scejntjynahl wrote:

The cancer argument not making sense is just what it is supposed to do. To demonstrate in an analogy format that what you have been saying thus far as well doest not make sense.


Actually, what I have said makes perfvect sense. You just say it doesn't because it conflicts with your own views. Also fighting "nonsense" with nonsense is a terrible ground to base an analogy on.



And soldiers have become killers as well, or even abusive spouses. But therein lies the core of making choices. It does get easier. Specially if they are trained.



I like how you didn't answer my question about removing them from the public.

[Jett_Kakashi]

On 2005-06-14 17:26, Ness wrote:
@Scen

The whole cancer argument didn't even make sense. Nice try.

Following your logic, why are soliders allowed to be with the general public? You know, once they kill it gets easier and easier.


Dont even drag our soldiers into this. Yeah, some do loose their minds, and even beat their spouses maybe even children. But why dont you put yourself in THEIR shoes when THEY were on the frontlines? Ive never been there, but Ive talked to plenty of war veterans. Many are still HAUNTED by nightmares of what they have seen. But, then you have those few who sit at desks, doing paperwork, but they still hear the stories.
Also, two perfect examples to back my statement up:
My father is in the army, just got back from Iraq. To this day, he still has nightmares about Iraq. Because he came too close to death. Why? Enemy kept firing mortar rounds at the base he was at. When we went to Florida, we were at Epcot, (Disnye World for those of you who dont know.) They were doing the laser light show. My father heard the loud noise of a mortar being shot, then the bang. He nearly broke down crying, and nearly almost started running for his life.

Another example: My geometry teacher was an veteran of the Vietnam war. He was a helicopter pilot. One day, he was telling us a war story. He was bringing men to a certain frontline, and a friend of his in another chopter next him was doing the same route. What happened? The helicopter with his friend was shot down. Just disapeared from the air. When he told us this, he was trying to hold back his tears.


They kill because they are trying to defend their country.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jett_Kakashi on 2005-06-15 20:45 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2005-06-13 14:48, Ness wrote:
Kill that guy is not going to bring those two girls back, also the death penalty only causes more pain. Why add more suffering to an already bad situation.




Anyone crying over the murderers death is crying over what he did, and certaintly not trying to say he should be allowed to live.

And if they are, then screw them because they are wrong.


I think the world is a little too touchy. Anyone should who does something like that should be done away with if they are proven to have done it. It is simple, do it fast, and let everyone live their lives as best as possible.

Also, the death penalty is a waste. I have no moral problem with creeps being killed but they could be used. Think about it, test AIDS vaccinces on them, use them for science as long as it isnt painful or too wrong. It would benefit everyone and I bet some criminals would willingly do it.

Make them join the military and serve in prison battalions, like the Soviets did.


Bring back Gladatorial combat!




How does our our society accept the killing of soldiers but not the killing of criminals. Both do it willingly, and for the most part the soldier is the better human being. Killing is sometimes needed.

Murderers, rapists, traitors and some other criminals should be killed.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2005-06-15 21:20 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dangerous55 on 2005-06-15 21:23 ]</font>

[Jett_Kakashi]

That gladitorial combat is something I would love to see. Allready have funny mental images. XD

[Blitzkommando]

On 2005-06-15 02:04, space_butler wrote:


On 2005-06-14 18:34, KodiaX987 wrote:
Killing doesn't solve problems? HA! Let me tell you something you little punks: When we kill a murderer, we solve the problem... of him murdering, at cheap cost and with guarantee that we'll never see him kill again!



you mean that in all the countries that abolished the death penalty all the murderers re-offend? if thats the case then why have so many abolished it? if death was an effective sentance then there wouldnt BE any murders. America is on the same level as those beacons of good human rights Zimbabwe, Iran and Sudan.



Because the world is full of bleeding heart idiots. Ohnoes, we cannot kill that Charles Manson guy. He is human too. Even though he killed so many people, he still deserves to live. Yeah, so, the families and friends of the victims have to mourn their losses while good ole Charlie sits in prison with warm food, air condtioning, cable tv and an excellent rec center. Gee... that REALLY is justice!

And I have had it with this anti-American bullshit. Fine, you don't like us then don't deal with us. Human rights eh? Sorry, but when a guy kills he forfits his rights as a human. He is not even animal anymore. Animals kill at least for food. There is no logic behind the raping and murdering of innocent girls. And he sure as hell doesn't deserve to sit in a prison pampered for the rest of his life by my money. He raped, he killed, he should pay the price. Fuck him. I don't care if he was having hallucinagenic images of the Mother Mary telling him to kill them, the fact remains he took the lives, he shouldn't be around to take anymore. He also doesn't deserve to be pampered in prison for the rest of his life. Take him off of the taxpayer's burdon and get rid of him as quickly as possible. Yeah, if you want to spend YOUR money to pay for the rest of HIS life, fine. I don't. I can very well spend that money on better things than on his cable tv.

[InfinityXXX]

Well for inmates to get stuff like cable tv and safe food they usually have to sell drugs in prison to fellow inmates and security guards or sleep with security guards or do other shady things. Prison is an awful place but for the truely shady, they can make it not a fun place but a decent place to live in.

Reading everyones stuff did make me open my mind to the death penalty a little bit. And in a conclusion of whther to use the death penalty or not I have come to the decision.......................................... .........................................undecided .

Maybe they should just put the murderers faith in the victims family/friends hands. The family/friends can tell whether to kill him or not. Or like what dangerous55(I think it was him, might be wrong) said, test on them or make em do gladiator stuff. (J/k on the gladiator stuff)

[ABDUR101]

For some clarification, and then I'm done here.

I'm talking directly about murderers who are convicted and have more than enough evidence(DNA evidence, admittance, witnesses, etc) that puts them at fault for the crime.

In no way, shape or form did I ever say that fair trials should be taken out of the system. Everyone deserves a fair trial.

On the thought that those with true mental disabilities(mental retardation, etc) murder someone, on a case by case basis they need to be dealt with. In this thread, we've been talking basically in reference to the guy who repeatedly stabbed two little girls, killing one and putting another in a coma. It's people like that, that don't deserve prison time, they deserve the death sentence. Unless it comes out that that he had a true mental disability, and not merely a bad child-hood or upbringing(don't give me that fucking cop out either, you don't need a good upbringing to know that stabbing someone to death is wrong. If anything, society slams it into your head on a daily basis that such things are quite unappreciated.)

As for gladiatorial combat, no. I don't need to be entertained by something as that. The world has plenty of things to entertain itself with, and if I ever do need to be entertained by bloodshed, I have plenty of videogames and movies.

As for the thought of comparing soldiers and murderers. Whatever, thats a retarded comparison to make.

Soldiers kill, it tends to be a job requirement when someone is, you know, shooting at you. It's a god damn battlefield, everyone taking part knows whats at stake.

Shit, my cousin just got back from Iraq a month ago. On his last leave of absence, him and three of his soldier friends stayed at my house. The last time he called home, he left us know him and all his friends were still alive. Know what happened two days after his call?

They were going to head into a building to clear it, all non-married guys were to gear up and walk in first. My cousin isn't married, and was going to go in first. He was finishing up putting his gear on, when one of his friends walked in first. Just as my cousin went inside to follow, gunshots rang out and the brain of his friend spattered all over him.

The friend? One of the guys he had stay the night here.

Really, it's a war, everyone knew the risks, he went into that building and he knew it could have been any of them. Don't lower the death of someone dieing for other people, don't lower it to the ignorant actions of someone out for a thrill, or out to merely kill because they can.

For that reason, for not seeing the total reality of the situation, is why people hold a utopian view on the world.

You appearently value the life of everyone, even those who don't value the life of anyone. By letting that murderer live a long life, you deface the value of the lives of those he killed, and those who die for far greater causes every day. For that reason, your view is utopian.

[Jett_Kakashi]

You do realize, he meant the gladitorial thing as a joke. I think. o.o Sorry for getting off topic here. <_<

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2005-06-16 09:53, Jett_Kakashi wrote:
You do realize, he meant the gladitorial thing as a joke. I think. o.o Sorry for getting off topic here. <_<



Yes it was meant as a joke. But if we ever do go that far back, we are in trouble.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

On 2005-06-14 15:13, Even_Jin wrote:
The purpose of life is not to die. The purpose of life is to be born, learn and then pass away to some other form of existance.


I have a problem with this statement. I submit that the purpose of any given person's life is to do what they will do, and therefore make their contribution to the universe, as this is the only function by which a proper balance may be maintained.



But this is necessary for evolution. Struggle, because if it all were roses we would never evolve.


What gives you the impression that Humans will ever evolve again? Evolution requires that the fittest specimens reproduce more often, and thereby have more specimens that have the qualities that made their parents the fittest.

I would be quick to point out that we're obviously not getting smarter as a race, because our least intelligent reproduce the most frequently. We're also not improving physically as with the increase of technology, being physically superior is yielding fewer and fewer advantages. We furthermore have developed a habit of prolonging the life of those of us with defects, giving them plenty of opportunity to breed and pass their inferiorities along to another generation.

The irony of it all, is that by preserving human lives indescriminately, we only advance our own extinction. We're quick to cite pollution, overpopulation and nuclear weapons as our own doings that may very well lead to our final hours, but apparently things done in compassion are immune to being seen in this light.

The point is this: While killing indescriminately may very well be a bad thing, preserving life indescriminately can be just as bad.

[ABDUR101]

While this is leading entirely far and wide from the topic, I do agree.

The sad thing is, it's appaling to even think of living in such a way that "survival of the fittest" would take back control over mankind.(Yes, take back control, as in, how humanity used to live.)

I'll point everyone to two books by Daniel Quinn, which go into this with such intricacy, detail and in such a manner that it comes together fluidly in ones mind. Ishmael and My Ishmael. The first leads into the next, and I'm sure there are other works by Daniel Quinn which go hand in hand with these as well.

The thing is though, humanity can't "go back" to living like we used to. I'm not going to bother explaining any of it, as those books put it in such a mind-blowing way, I could never do them justice with a summary.

Anyway, I'm going to lock this thread, feel free to start a new thread in off-topic with the new discussion.