i stongly support the death penalty, these ppl not only rob of others' lives and others' right to pursue happiness and destroy the happiness of ppl who love the victims. these killers or injurers for evil reasons should pay for what they did with equality, that is their lives to atone for their crime and they should be cast aside by the whole society.
This relates to a fundamental difference I often have with several members of the forums.
I can't put a cash value of an innocent man. If you have a method with 0 error, then I would be all for it. But if 1 in 100,000 people who die are innocent I find that unacceptable. I don't believe it is a drain on society to save a life. The standard of life is higher than ever, and its been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that past enough money to pay your rent eat your food and cloth yourself, their is no correlation between income and happyness. Thats not a dream ideal, thats a solid, statistical fact. So even if you are a person who would put a cash price on an innocent life, looking at the happiness gains from having the death penalty, you would have to create a cost difference that would effect the taxes of somebody below the poverty level. To accomplish this, wehave to save such a ludicrous amount of money we'd have to be selling the corpses.
You sound like one of those silly people who say you can't judge Hitler. Seriously, do you even think about what you are saying or do you just feel a certain way and post your feelings.
This is a rational idea here, let us take Hitler as an example: If you had killed him before the Holocaust, millions of lives would have been saved.
So let us apply this to murderers and the like: If we apply the death penalty and kill 1 innocent of 100k guilty people, we are still saving a possible of thousands of lives. Are you attempting to tell us here that 1 innocent is worth more than thousands of them?
Of course you can respond with "well we don't know about all the people who would or would not be killed by these criminals, blah blah". But then, that is pretty much equal to your uncertainty of innocents being executed, and I am 100% sure the chance of saving many lives is higher than accidentally executing a couple innocent people.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
Im against it, mainly because innocent people can and have been put to death, and then later it turns out they were innocent all along. Can't say sorry to something irreverisble like that. Also alot of people don't know, but the death penalty is alot more expensive than life in prison. We're talking double, or even triple what it costs in some cases, due to the number of trials that are held over these cases, the number of appeals, and then 20++ years held in prison before they can execute. Most likely a person will die of natural causes long before they are executed. Also I can't recall where I read about this one, but apparently states that uphold the DP happen to have a higher criminal/murder rate than compared to those that dont. Texas, which supports the DP, happens to have twice the murder rate than compared to I believe it was Wisconsin, which does not have the DP. Theirs more to those statistics which I cannot recall, but basically the DP is not anymore effective at ending crime than alternative sentences. Then theirs the issue of having a fair trial, many people are given crap court appointed lawyers that aren't even getting paid enough to defend you, and thus people aren't exactly getting a fair defense in the face of death. This leads to problem of innocent people getting sentenced to death. The DP also violates the the UN's Humans rights Laws, which states that every individual has protection from deprivation of life, and that no one is to be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. Supposedly over two thirds of the world has abolished the death penalty, I don't understand why some of us, especially the US, are still holding onto old and obviously uneffective practices like the death penalty. edit: I kind of wish they would make executions required viewing for Americans, so people could really see the effects of Lethal injection and electrocution. Its alot more inhumane than it sounds, including lethal injection if you've ever seen what it does to the body.
You have stated a bunch of silly facts that could easily be changed by laws, so what exactly are you saying that is relevant here?
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
This relates to a fundamental difference I often have with several members of the forums.
I can't put a cash value of an innocent man. If you have a method with 0 error, then I would be all for it. But if 1 in 100,000 people who die are innocent I find that unacceptable. I don't believe it is a drain on society to save a life. The standard of life is higher than ever, and its been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that past enough money to pay your rent eat your food and cloth yourself, their is no correlation between income and happyness. Thats not a dream ideal, thats a solid, statistical fact. So even if you are a person who would put a cash price on an innocent life, looking at the happiness gains from having the death penalty, you would have to create a cost difference that would effect the taxes of somebody below the poverty level. To accomplish this, wehave to save such a ludicrous amount of money we'd have to be selling the corpses.
You sound like one of those silly people who say you can't judge Hitler. Seriously, do you even think about what you are saying or do you just feel a certain way and post your feelings.
This is a rational idea here, let us take Hitler as an example: If you had killed him before the Holocaust, millions of lives would have been saved.
So let us apply this to murderers and the like: If we apply the death penalty and kill 1 innocent of 100k guilty people, we are still saving a possible of thousands of lives. Are you attempting to tell us here that 1 innocent is worth more than thousands of them?
Of course you can respond with "well we don't know about all the people who would or would not be killed by these criminals, blah blah". But then, that is pretty much equal to your uncertainty of innocents being executed, and I am 100% sure the chance of saving many lives is higher than accidentally executing a couple innocent people.
Also there is the other thing that whoever mentions Hitler or Nazis in an internet discussion, automatically loses.
WE won't apply anything. The goverment will apply it. So until you decide to take the career option of being their executioner, don't insult another person's ideas. Your argument is also irrational because people back then in Germany also believed that the Jews were criminals of the highest degree, hence your argument fails.
Seriously you could just go with the "I support the death penalty because...."
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Also there is the other thing that whoever mentions Hitler or Nazis in an internet discussion, automatically loses. WE won't apply anything. The goverment will apply it. So until you decide to take the career option of being their executioner, don't insult another person's ideas. Your argument is also irrational because people back then in Germany also believed that the Jews were criminals of the highest degree, hence your argument fails. Seriously you could just go with the "I support the death penalty because...."
A bunch of fools who follow a man who is skilled at manipulating hardly calls for me being irrational.
And isn't the point of this thread about supporting because of an opinion? A human being's life is always a matter of contention, but underneath the title, you have a slew of arguments, and some people throw out facts that are just silly or wrong.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
Also there is the other thing that whoever mentions Hitler or Nazis in an internet discussion, automatically loses.
WHat are you talking about? I strongly believe that we should more closely examine the past, especially the horrors of it so that we can better learn from it. If we do not learn from History it is doomed to repeat itself. I often feel that people are afraid to openly discuss hitler or the National socialists due to backlash from doing so. I do not think that anyone should be afraid to discuss matters openly because someone deems it socially unacceptable to do so. I am strongly against the social grooming that is taking place of our societies.
I do see the aspect of Hitler applying to this, a man who's mere name invokes pain and terror into so many. IF he had been caught alive, should he have been kept alive? Just the thought that that man would have existed anywhere on this planet would have brought much fear and pain to so many. I do not agree that the Death penalty is an act of revenge, no it is closeure to the victims and the families that they have made live in fear and pain. His death brought closure to so many. Though the nightmares continue long after they are dead, at least when they wake they know that person can never harm them, or their families, or anyone else again. Not only that with their tax dollars, they are paying to keep these people alive. How is that okay?
Keeping these vile human beings alive at the cost of the families who they terrified is cruel and unusual punishment, forcing it upon these families to live in fear and pain is cruel and unusual punishment. Victims rights should always be considered before the criminals rights, because they were not the ones who committed these atrocities, no but yet they are the ones being punished for them. They are being punished with the fear that that one day they may have to deal with that person again. You must realize that every day that these criminals live is a day that these victims live in fear. Until these families know 100% that that person can never come after them again they will not be able to rest. Sure other people can harm them, this is not giving them a fasle sense of security, this is making sure without a doubt, that no matter what happens, government collapse or otherwise that that person can never harm them or anyone else again. There will be alot less people that would carry out such dispicable acts if they put to death all of those that do so. Each time one of these horrors are put to death that is one less we have to worry about ever commiting these crimes again.
I am all for the final penalty, in fact, I would extend it a lot further then just for murder, but that is another topic alltogether.
However, the burden of evience in such cases must weigh very heavily.
As in footage, DNA or other technical evidence, human witnesses should NOT count in determining capital punishment, we are all to feeble minded to be allowed such power.
And to be perfectly clear, I am all against te execution of humans, however, I am all for excluding certain creatures from the human race.
Being human comes with its pros and cons, the cons being that if you can not follow the few, and very easy rules, you should be kicked out.
And the rules of religion, law or whatever no longer apply to you.
You are then a case for the animal rights people.
And I kind of doubt they would make a case for you.
There is a squirrel somewere eating plastic that is much more important.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by baff I'm not Jewish mate, I'm Christian.
It's not logical to kill what is contained. The need is gone. Once imprisoned they are no longer molesting children and raping and killing. The benefit letting them live has on humanity, is allowing you to keep yours.
I didn't assume you were Jewish - the Christian Bible contains Leviticus within the Old Testament. You cannot simply disregard it. It is canonized within Christianity.
It is superceded by Christianity.
The teachings of the Old Testament are overridden by the teachings of Christ.
This relates to a fundamental difference I often have with several members of the forums.
I can't put a cash value of an innocent man. If you have a method with 0 error, then I would be all for it. But if 1 in 100,000 people who die are innocent I find that unacceptable. I don't believe it is a drain on society to save a life. The standard of life is higher than ever, and its been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that past enough money to pay your rent eat your food and cloth yourself, their is no correlation between income and happyness. Thats not a dream ideal, thats a solid, statistical fact. So even if you are a person who would put a cash price on an innocent life, looking at the happiness gains from having the death penalty, you would have to create a cost difference that would effect the taxes of somebody below the poverty level. To accomplish this, wehave to save such a ludicrous amount of money we'd have to be selling the corpses.
I can. In some places it is as little as 50p a day.
In more developed countries it cost a lot more.
Instead of buying one £3.50 happy hour cocktail a week, I could save someone's life instead.
If I put a million pounds cash in a room full of people, innocent or not they will all start killing each other.
You can't put a price on innocent life? I can.
There are some sums of money that take longer than one lifetime to acquire. These kinds of amounts are worth dying to protect.
And for me, anything worth dying for is usually worth killing for for also.
Also, money can buy you happiness. It often does. More often than it doesn't, even.
Im against it, mainly because innocent people can and have been put to death, and then later it turns out they were innocent all along. Can't say sorry to something irreverisble like that. Also alot of people don't know, but the death penalty is alot more expensive than life in prison. We're talking double, or even triple what it costs in some cases, due to the number of trials that are held over these cases, the number of appeals, and then 20++ years held in prison before they can execute. Most likely a person will die of natural causes long before they are executed. Also I can't recall where I read about this one, but apparently states that uphold the DP happen to have a higher criminal/murder rate than compared to those that dont. Texas, which supports the DP, happens to have twice the murder rate than compared to I believe it was Wisconsin, which does not have the DP. Theirs more to those statistics which I cannot recall, but basically the DP is not anymore effective at ending crime than alternative sentences. Then theirs the issue of having a fair trial, many people are given crap court appointed lawyers that aren't even getting paid enough to defend you, and thus people aren't exactly getting a fair defense in the face of death. This leads to problem of innocent people getting sentenced to death. The DP also violates the the UN's Humans rights Laws, which states that every individual has protection from deprivation of life, and that no one is to be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. Supposedly over two thirds of the world has abolished the death penalty, I don't understand why some of us, especially the US, are still holding onto old and obviously uneffective practices like the death penalty. edit: I kind of wish they would make executions required viewing for Americans, so people could really see the effects of Lethal injection and electrocution. Its alot more inhumane than it sounds, including lethal injection if you've ever seen what it does to the body.
You have stated a bunch of silly facts that could easily be changed by laws, so what exactly are you saying that is relevant here?
They haven't been changed though, nor is their any known plan to change them in the future, this is the way it works right now, regardless of what you think can potentially "be changed."
So what exactly are you saying that is relevant here?
Also there is the other thing that whoever mentions Hitler or Nazis in an internet discussion, automatically loses.
WHat are you talking about? I strongly believe that we should more closely examine the past, especially the horrors of it so that we can better learn from it. If we do not learn from History it is doomed to repeat itself. I often feel that people are afraid to openly discuss hitler or the National socialists due to backlash from doing so. I do not think that anyone should be afraid to discuss matters openly because someone deems it socially unacceptable to do so. I am strongly against the social grooming that is taking place of our societies.
I do see the aspect of Hitler applying to this, a man who's mere name invokes pain and terror into so many. IF he had been caught alive, should he have been kept alive? Just the thought that that man would have existed anywhere on this planet would have brought much fear and pain to so many. I do not agree that the Death penalty is an act of revenge, no it is closeure to the victims and the families that they have made live in fear and pain. His death brought closure to so many. Though the nightmares continue long after they are dead, at least when they wake they know that person can never harm them, or their families, or anyone else again. Not only that with their tax dollars, they are paying to keep these people alive. How is that okay?
Keeping these vile human beings alive at the cost of the families who they terrified is cruel and unusual punishment, forcing it upon these families to live in fear and pain is cruel and unusual punishment. Victims rights should always be considered before the criminals rights, because they were not the ones who committed these atrocities, no but yet they are the ones being punished for them. They are being punished with the fear that that one day they may have to deal with that person again. You must realize that every day that these criminals live is a day that these victims live in fear. Until these families know 100% that that person can never come after them again they will not be able to rest. Sure other people can harm them, this is not giving them a fasle sense of security, this is making sure without a doubt, that no matter what happens, government collapse or otherwise that that person can never harm them or anyone else again. There will be alot less people that would carry out such dispicable acts if they put to death all of those that do so. Each time one of these horrors are put to death that is one less we have to worry about ever commiting these crimes again.
Until you are one of these victims, I doubt you should be speaking so adamantly about what they think/feel. The execution of the criminal rarely brings the closure you think. The person is still gone, the act has still be committed.
Since people are intent on bringing poor Adolf into every argument; do you honestly think the families felt any closure after Hitler killed himself? He died on his terms, not theirs; which is the opposite of execution - he decided the moment he would end his life, not the state and not the people he wronged. Don't bring it into an argument that it doesn't belong in.
If the criminal is imprisoned for the rest of his/her natural life without the possibility of parole, how would executing them save lives? Remember, real life isn't like the movie jailbreak. You aren't killing one criminal to save thousands of children from being molested or people from being killed.
Also there is the other thing that whoever mentions Hitler or Nazis in an internet discussion, automatically loses.
WHat are you talking about? I strongly believe that we should more closely examine the past, especially the horrors of it so that we can better learn from it. If we do not learn from History it is doomed to repeat itself. I often feel that people are afraid to openly discuss hitler or the National socialists due to backlash from doing so. I do not think that anyone should be afraid to discuss matters openly because someone deems it socially unacceptable to do so. I am strongly against the social grooming that is taking place of our societies.
I do see the aspect of Hitler applying to this, a man who's mere name invokes pain and terror into so many. IF he had been caught alive, should he have been kept alive? Just the thought that that man would have existed anywhere on this planet would have brought much fear and pain to so many. I do not agree that the Death penalty is an act of revenge, no it is closeure to the victims and the families that they have made live in fear and pain. His death brought closure to so many. Though the nightmares continue long after they are dead, at least when they wake they know that person can never harm them, or their families, or anyone else again. Not only that with their tax dollars, they are paying to keep these people alive. How is that okay?
Keeping these vile human beings alive at the cost of the families who they terrified is cruel and unusual punishment, forcing it upon these families to live in fear and pain is cruel and unusual punishment. Victims rights should always be considered before the criminals rights, because they were not the ones who committed these atrocities, no but yet they are the ones being punished for them. They are being punished with the fear that that one day they may have to deal with that person again. You must realize that every day that these criminals live is a day that these victims live in fear. Until these families know 100% that that person can never come after them again they will not be able to rest. Sure other people can harm them, this is not giving them a fasle sense of security, this is making sure without a doubt, that no matter what happens, government collapse or otherwise that that person can never harm them or anyone else again. There will be alot less people that would carry out such dispicable acts if they put to death all of those that do so. Each time one of these horrors are put to death that is one less we have to worry about ever commiting these crimes again.
First of all Devil that line was a geek joke. If you google it around you will see it yourself.
In US it may be socially unacceptable but in Greece it isn't since our grandfathers fought directly against the both German and Italian regiments. Just pointing it out that I am one of the last people that would mind such a topic. Still though evoking Hitler in a "casual" discussion is like using an atomic bomb to destroy a hut. That's my point here.
To the other stuff. The capital penalty as I see it has multiple reasons. One side is of course as you say to bring a sense of relative peace to the victims by removing directly the source. I may argue that it is an illusionary one but I can't deny that in many cases it brings a positive effect to their psyche. But another reason why capital penalty is so "popular" is because revenge and retaliation is a natural part of humanity. Capital penalty therefor appeases the general public also and in many cases the public are more interested in the execution rather than the victim. Hence the "revenge" issue.
Both victim and perperator in my opinion have equal rights but the victim takes priority when some of hese rights clash.
Realistically speaking capital punishment in itself means very little as far as crimes are considered. A rotten social structure will produce many more criminals every day. Capital punishment is not a preventing method for crimes. It is applied after the deed has been done. Hence to have any serious effect it must be combined with at least a good social structure, better police and education are primary, and not putting into jail people for small crimes like smoking pot.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
This relates to a fundamental difference I often have with several members of the forums.
I can't put a cash value of an innocent man. If you have a method with 0 error, then I would be all for it. But if 1 in 100,000 people who die are innocent I find that unacceptable. I don't believe it is a drain on society to save a life. The standard of life is higher than ever, and its been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that past enough money to pay your rent eat your food and cloth yourself, their is no correlation between income and happyness. Thats not a dream ideal, thats a solid, statistical fact. So even if you are a person who would put a cash price on an innocent life, looking at the happiness gains from having the death penalty, you would have to create a cost difference that would effect the taxes of somebody below the poverty level. To accomplish this, wehave to save such a ludicrous amount of money we'd have to be selling the corpses.
I can. In some places it is as little as 50p a day.
In more developed countries it cost a lot more.
If I put a million pounds cash ina room full of people, innocent or nt they will all start killing each other.
There are some sums of money that take longer than one lifetime to acquire. These kinds of amounts are worth dying to protect.
And for me, anything worth dying for is usually worth killing for for also.
Also, money can buy you happiness. It often does.
You speak of some people, but by no means the majority.
Money can buy "happiness" for a time, but at night when that person looks themself in the mirror they feel a hole in their heart. There is still something missing.
Also there is the other thing that whoever mentions Hitler or Nazis in an internet discussion, automatically loses.
WHat are you talking about? I strongly believe that we should more closely examine the past, especially the horrors of it so that we can better learn from it. If we do not learn from History it is doomed to repeat itself. I often feel that people are afraid to openly discuss hitler or the National socialists due to backlash from doing so. I do not think that anyone should be afraid to discuss matters openly because someone deems it socially unacceptable to do so. I am strongly against the social grooming that is taking place of our societies.
I do see the aspect of Hitler applying to this, a man who's mere name invokes pain and terror into so many. IF he had been caught alive, should he have been kept alive? Just the thought that that man would have existed anywhere on this planet would have brought much fear and pain to so many. I do not agree that the Death penalty is an act of revenge, no it is closeure to the victims and the families that they have made live in fear and pain. His death brought closure to so many. Though the nightmares continue long after they are dead, at least when they wake they know that person can never harm them, or their families, or anyone else again. Not only that with their tax dollars, they are paying to keep these people alive. How is that okay?
Keeping these vile human beings alive at the cost of the families who they terrified is cruel and unusual punishment, forcing it upon these families to live in fear and pain is cruel and unusual punishment. Victims rights should always be considered before the criminals rights, because they were not the ones who committed these atrocities, no but yet they are the ones being punished for them. They are being punished with the fear that that one day they may have to deal with that person again. You must realize that every day that these criminals live is a day that these victims live in fear. Until these families know 100% that that person can never come after them again they will not be able to rest. Sure other people can harm them, this is not giving them a fasle sense of security, this is making sure without a doubt, that no matter what happens, government collapse or otherwise that that person can never harm them or anyone else again. There will be alot less people that would carry out such dispicable acts if they put to death all of those that do so. Each time one of these horrors are put to death that is one less we have to worry about ever commiting these crimes again.
Until you are one of these victims, I doubt you should be speaking so adamantly about what they think/feel. The execution of the criminal rarely brings the closure you think. The person is still gone, the act has still be committed.
Since people are intent on bringing poor Adolf into every argument; do you honestly think the families felt any closure after Hitler killed himself? He died on his terms, not theirs; which is the opposite of execution - he decided the moment he would end his life, not the state and not the people he wronged. Don't bring it into an argument that it doesn't belong in.
If the criminal is imprisoned for the rest of his/her natural life without the possibility of parole, how would executing them save lives? Remember, real life isn't like the movie jailbreak. You aren't killing one criminal to save thousands of children from being molested or people from being killed.
Many gangs originated from prison and are able to operate from inside the prisons themselves. They are fully capable of being a threat insie and outside the prison while incarcerated.
This goes on and on .... Case after case, No, people are "not" safe when these guys just go to jail. There needs to be final resolution. Oh yea FYI My friends daughter was molested and assaulted but survived, and yes she has very much expressed that she thinks all these people should be put to death, so she can know that these people will not return. Why don;t you start asking them, there are support forums for these people, you go ask them how they feel and I am sure you will get the same sentiment. These people ARE being punished by having to support these creeps with their tax dollars, the victims are being terrorized by there mere existance after commiting such atrocities.
I disagree with it, but for the monetary reasons. Costs a lot more to execute someone than to let them rot in prison until they die. If by chance, they are innocent then they have the rest of their lives to try and prove it. On an unrelated note, I am extremely sick of seeing the Combat Arms ad - I DON'T CARE ABOUT NUT SHOTS!!!!!!!!
I disagree , a bullet is less expensive than all other alternatives, and no they should not be supported for the rest of their lives period. I completely disagree with taxpayers being forced to support criminals , no they should have to work for what they have even in prison.
I love these ignorant answers. There is a process set in place to avoid backwoods folk-style executions and give the innocent a chance to prove their case. Go on and simplify it down for your argument though. "Give 'em a bullit in thar head! Buy in boxes fer under twentee!"
Oh I am fully aware of lethal injection and am opposed to the expenisve process itself. We should go with the least expensive method with the least amount of burden on the tax payer instead of the current " expensive system. I am not giving you an ignorant answer sir, I am fully aware of all the ways our governments wastes money, and this is the first place we should start to fix that. If they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.. enough said get it over with.
So what happens 5 years down the road if the real criminal admits to the crime and we find out that the person who was executed was completely innocent?
Just send a card to the family of the executed man and go on? Fuck that.
Improving our court system to work for the people rather than against them is another issue as well, In todays society, unlike the past it is easier to determine than ever innocence or guilt with the use on DNA, and the sheer number of witnesses due to the population. I mean back in the day when lynch mobs handled everything we have greatly improved. Of course the penalty has to fit the crime, I mean you have a childs body found with that guys sperm all over the body .. why waste time ? If there is No doubt whatsoever that they are guilty, get it over with .. as soon as the trial is over? No waiting. I can understand if there is room for doubt, and maybe we should have it set up that way they are given a bit more time if there was not enough "proof" to carry out the sentence. Maybe that should be the change we make instead. Immediate execution if they were completely proven without a doubt, and more time given if there is even a possibility of an overturn of the decision. that would save more than we are currently spending on the whole thing.
That's the same argument that our socialist friends make: with the right people in the right jobs, or improvements to the "system," government CAN get this right. I disagree.
Just as I do not trust government to make the economic caluculations necessary to run an economy, I certainly do not trust government with the power to kill people that have been arrested for a crime.
I disagree with it, but for the monetary reasons. Costs a lot more to execute someone than to let them rot in prison until they die. If by chance, they are innocent then they have the rest of their lives to try and prove it. On an unrelated note, I am extremely sick of seeing the Combat Arms ad - I DON'T CARE ABOUT NUT SHOTS!!!!!!!!
I disagree , a bullet is less expensive than all other alternatives, and no they should not be supported for the rest of their lives period. I completely disagree with taxpayers being forced to support criminals , no they should have to work for what they have even in prison.
I love these ignorant answers. There is a process set in place to avoid backwoods folk-style executions and give the innocent a chance to prove their case. Go on and simplify it down for your argument though. "Give 'em a bullit in thar head! Buy in boxes fer under twentee!"
Oh I am fully aware of lethal injection and am opposed to the expenisve process itself. We should go with the least expensive method with the least amount of burden on the tax payer instead of the current " expensive system. I am not giving you an ignorant answer sir, I am fully aware of all the ways our governments wastes money, and this is the first place we should start to fix that. If they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.. enough said get it over with.
So what happens 5 years down the road if the real criminal admits to the crime and we find out that the person who was executed was completely innocent?
Just send a card to the family of the executed man and go on? Fuck that.
Improving our court system to work for the people rather than against them is another issue as well, In todays society, unlike the past it is easier to determine than ever innocence or guilt with the use on DNA, and the sheer number of witnesses due to the population. I mean back in the day when lynch mobs handled everything we have greatly improved. Of course the penalty has to fit the crime, I mean you have a childs body found with that guys sperm all over the body .. why waste time ? If there is No doubt whatsoever that they are guilty, get it over with .. as soon as the trial is over? No waiting. I can understand if there is room for doubt, and maybe we should have it set up that way they are given a bit more time if there was not enough "proof" to carry out the sentence. Maybe that should be the change we make instead. Immediate execution if they were completely proven without a doubt, and more time given if there is even a possibility of an overturn of the decision. that would save more than we are currently spending on the whole thing.
That's the same argument that our socialist friends make: with the right people in the right jobs, or improvements to the "system," government CAN get this right. I disagree.
Just as I do not trust government to make the economic caluculations necessary to run an economy, I certainly do not trust government with the power to kill people that have been arrested for a crime.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
I disagree with it, but for the monetary reasons. Costs a lot more to execute someone than to let them rot in prison until they die. If by chance, they are innocent then they have the rest of their lives to try and prove it. On an unrelated note, I am extremely sick of seeing the Combat Arms ad - I DON'T CARE ABOUT NUT SHOTS!!!!!!!!
I disagree , a bullet is less expensive than all other alternatives, and no they should not be supported for the rest of their lives period. I completely disagree with taxpayers being forced to support criminals , no they should have to work for what they have even in prison.
I love these ignorant answers. There is a process set in place to avoid backwoods folk-style executions and give the innocent a chance to prove their case. Go on and simplify it down for your argument though. "Give 'em a bullit in thar head! Buy in boxes fer under twentee!"
Oh I am fully aware of lethal injection and am opposed to the expenisve process itself. We should go with the least expensive method with the least amount of burden on the tax payer instead of the current " expensive system. I am not giving you an ignorant answer sir, I am fully aware of all the ways our governments wastes money, and this is the first place we should start to fix that. If they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.. enough said get it over with.
So what happens 5 years down the road if the real criminal admits to the crime and we find out that the person who was executed was completely innocent?
Just send a card to the family of the executed man and go on? Fuck that.
Improving our court system to work for the people rather than against them is another issue as well, In todays society, unlike the past it is easier to determine than ever innocence or guilt with the use on DNA, and the sheer number of witnesses due to the population. I mean back in the day when lynch mobs handled everything we have greatly improved. Of course the penalty has to fit the crime, I mean you have a childs body found with that guys sperm all over the body .. why waste time ? If there is No doubt whatsoever that they are guilty, get it over with .. as soon as the trial is over? No waiting. I can understand if there is room for doubt, and maybe we should have it set up that way they are given a bit more time if there was not enough "proof" to carry out the sentence. Maybe that should be the change we make instead. Immediate execution if they were completely proven without a doubt, and more time given if there is even a possibility of an overturn of the decision. that would save more than we are currently spending on the whole thing.
That's the same argument that our socialist friends make: with the right people in the right jobs, or improvements to the "system," government CAN get this right. I disagree.
Just as I do not trust government to make the economic caluculations necessary to run an economy, I certainly do not trust government with the power to kill people that have been arrested for a crime.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throwing thier body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throughing her body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
None of this justifies or warrants state sponsored murder. Emotional arguments carry no weight in discussions about the proper role of government in a free society; in fact, one on;y uses them when one has run out of reasonable arguments. Just like the left cries racist when someone opposes affirmative action, or says that someone who is opposed to welfare doesn't care about the poor.
I never said we shouldn't have a criminal justice system, just that murdering citizens is not a good idea within that justice system.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throughing her body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
None of this justifies or warrants state sponsored murder. Emotional arguments carry no weight in discussions about the proper role of government in a free society; in fact, one on;y uses them when one has run out of reasonable arguments. Just like the left cries racist when someone opposes affirmative action, or says that someone who is opposed to welfare doesn't care about the poor.
I never said we shouldn't have a criminal justice system, just that murdering citizens is not a good idea within that justice system.
Actually I wasn't arguing for the death penalty.. I agree that we disagree on the death penalty. I respect your opinion and was honestly curious to how you would respond in such a situation. The situation I presented the death penalty would not have been an issue at all because he was set free. What I think it would apply to however would be whether or not someone should go to jail for killing the murderer of their own child. I do not think so, that would not be justice, and yes, I would think it should be considered defense, I do not believe that you have to be defending yourself or your property or your child, you can be defending other children as well to be considered defense.
You speak of some people, but by no means the majority. Money can buy "happiness" for a time, but at night when that person looks themself in the mirror they feel a hole in their heart. There is still something missing.
And then there is all the other nights, when that person does not look themselves in the mirror, but kicks back on the sofa with their Playstation. Or has a good night out on the town with their friends. Or drinks Champagne with strippers in the Jacuzzi. Or looks at their Porsche in the drive and thinks "yay"!
Or looks at their well fed wife and children in their stable marriage. All living together with the rest of their well fed stable families in their great big house with all their pets and love and security and beauty and contentment.
Sure you can still get depressed rich people with sad empty lives, but that isn't exactly the default emotional state associated with wealth.
I don't know a single rich person who is miserable. Who spends long lonely hours staring into mirrors and wondering why their lives are so empty. Your majority, is the imaginary majority.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throughing her body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
None of this justifies or warrants state sponsored murder. Emotional arguments carry no weight in discussions about the proper role of government in a free society; in fact, one on;y uses them when one has run out of reasonable arguments. Just like the left cries racist when someone opposes affirmative action, or says that someone who is opposed to welfare doesn't care about the poor.
I never said we shouldn't have a criminal justice system, just that murdering citizens is not a good idea within that justice system.
Actually I wasn't arguing for the death penalty.. I agree that we disagree on the death penalty. I respect your opinion and was honestly curious to how you would respond in such a situation. The situation I presented the death penalty would not have been an issue at all because he was set free. What I think it would apply to however would be whether or not someone should go to jail for killing the murderer of their own child. I do not think so, that would not be justice, and yes, I would think it should be considered defense, I do not believe that you have to be defending yourself or your property or your child, you can be defending other children as well to be considered defense.
Completely disagree, revenge is not defense. One can not kill in self defense "in advance" or in retaliation. Again that is the same argument I see the socialists make in economics. People can't be trusted, therefore we need to regulate them (as opposed to people can't be trusted, therefore we can't give this power tp government, which is a much more reasonable response in both cases).
In your case murderers need to be murdered, since they have murdered before and will murder again.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throughing her body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
None of this justifies or warrants state sponsored murder. Emotional arguments carry no weight in discussions about the proper role of government in a free society; in fact, one on;y uses them when one has run out of reasonable arguments. Just like the left cries racist when someone opposes affirmative action, or says that someone who is opposed to welfare doesn't care about the poor.
I never said we shouldn't have a criminal justice system, just that murdering citizens is not a good idea within that justice system.
Actually I wasn't arguing for the death penalty.. I agree that we disagree on the death penalty. I respect your opinion and was honestly curious to how you would respond in such a situation. The situation I presented the death penalty would not have been an issue at all because he was set free. What I think it would apply to however would be whether or not someone should go to jail for killing the murderer of their own child. I do not think so, that would not be justice, and yes, I would think it should be considered defense, I do not believe that you have to be defending yourself or your property or your child, you can be defending other children as well to be considered defense.
Completely disagree, revenge is not defense. One can not kill in self defense "in advance" or in retaliation. Again that is the same argument I see the socialists make in economics. People can't be trusted, therefore we need to regulate them (as opposed to people can't be trusted, therefore we can't give this power tp government, which is a much more reasonable response in both cases).
In your case murderers need to be murdered, since they have murdered before and will murder again.
Sorry, I see no merits to this line of reasoning.
I see what you are saying, but I also see murderers saying things like this:
When Frisco police asked Ji about other possible victims, he indicated that his arrest thwarted his plans.
"I haven't even gotten off the ground yet," he said. "I mean, if you caught me 10 years later, I bet I'd have a whole list for you."
Comments
i stongly support the death penalty, these ppl not only rob of others' lives and others' right to pursue happiness and destroy the happiness of ppl who love the victims. these killers or injurers for evil reasons should pay for what they did with equality, that is their lives to atone for their crime and they should be cast aside by the whole society.
You sound like one of those silly people who say you can't judge Hitler. Seriously, do you even think about what you are saying or do you just feel a certain way and post your feelings.
This is a rational idea here, let us take Hitler as an example: If you had killed him before the Holocaust, millions of lives would have been saved.
So let us apply this to murderers and the like: If we apply the death penalty and kill 1 innocent of 100k guilty people, we are still saving a possible of thousands of lives. Are you attempting to tell us here that 1 innocent is worth more than thousands of them?
Of course you can respond with "well we don't know about all the people who would or would not be killed by these criminals, blah blah". But then, that is pretty much equal to your uncertainty of innocents being executed, and I am 100% sure the chance of saving many lives is higher than accidentally executing a couple innocent people.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
You have stated a bunch of silly facts that could easily be changed by laws, so what exactly are you saying that is relevant here?
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
You sound like one of those silly people who say you can't judge Hitler. Seriously, do you even think about what you are saying or do you just feel a certain way and post your feelings.
This is a rational idea here, let us take Hitler as an example: If you had killed him before the Holocaust, millions of lives would have been saved.
So let us apply this to murderers and the like: If we apply the death penalty and kill 1 innocent of 100k guilty people, we are still saving a possible of thousands of lives. Are you attempting to tell us here that 1 innocent is worth more than thousands of them?
Of course you can respond with "well we don't know about all the people who would or would not be killed by these criminals, blah blah". But then, that is pretty much equal to your uncertainty of innocents being executed, and I am 100% sure the chance of saving many lives is higher than accidentally executing a couple innocent people.
Also there is the other thing that whoever mentions Hitler or Nazis in an internet discussion, automatically loses.
WE won't apply anything. The goverment will apply it. So until you decide to take the career option of being their executioner, don't insult another person's ideas. Your argument is also irrational because people back then in Germany also believed that the Jews were criminals of the highest degree, hence your argument fails.
Seriously you could just go with the "I support the death penalty because...."
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
A bunch of fools who follow a man who is skilled at manipulating hardly calls for me being irrational.
And isn't the point of this thread about supporting because of an opinion? A human being's life is always a matter of contention, but underneath the title, you have a slew of arguments, and some people throw out facts that are just silly or wrong.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
WHat are you talking about? I strongly believe that we should more closely examine the past, especially the horrors of it so that we can better learn from it. If we do not learn from History it is doomed to repeat itself. I often feel that people are afraid to openly discuss hitler or the National socialists due to backlash from doing so. I do not think that anyone should be afraid to discuss matters openly because someone deems it socially unacceptable to do so. I am strongly against the social grooming that is taking place of our societies.
I do see the aspect of Hitler applying to this, a man who's mere name invokes pain and terror into so many. IF he had been caught alive, should he have been kept alive? Just the thought that that man would have existed anywhere on this planet would have brought much fear and pain to so many. I do not agree that the Death penalty is an act of revenge, no it is closeure to the victims and the families that they have made live in fear and pain. His death brought closure to so many. Though the nightmares continue long after they are dead, at least when they wake they know that person can never harm them, or their families, or anyone else again. Not only that with their tax dollars, they are paying to keep these people alive. How is that okay?
Keeping these vile human beings alive at the cost of the families who they terrified is cruel and unusual punishment, forcing it upon these families to live in fear and pain is cruel and unusual punishment. Victims rights should always be considered before the criminals rights, because they were not the ones who committed these atrocities, no but yet they are the ones being punished for them. They are being punished with the fear that that one day they may have to deal with that person again. You must realize that every day that these criminals live is a day that these victims live in fear. Until these families know 100% that that person can never come after them again they will not be able to rest. Sure other people can harm them, this is not giving them a fasle sense of security, this is making sure without a doubt, that no matter what happens, government collapse or otherwise that that person can never harm them or anyone else again. There will be alot less people that would carry out such dispicable acts if they put to death all of those that do so. Each time one of these horrors are put to death that is one less we have to worry about ever commiting these crimes again.
I am all for the final penalty, in fact, I would extend it a lot further then just for murder, but that is another topic alltogether.
However, the burden of evience in such cases must weigh very heavily.
As in footage, DNA or other technical evidence, human witnesses should NOT count in determining capital punishment, we are all to feeble minded to be allowed such power.
And to be perfectly clear, I am all against te execution of humans, however, I am all for excluding certain creatures from the human race.
Being human comes with its pros and cons, the cons being that if you can not follow the few, and very easy rules, you should be kicked out.
And the rules of religion, law or whatever no longer apply to you.
You are then a case for the animal rights people.
And I kind of doubt they would make a case for you.
There is a squirrel somewere eating plastic that is much more important.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't assume you were Jewish - the Christian Bible contains Leviticus within the Old Testament. You cannot simply disregard it. It is canonized within Christianity.
It is superceded by Christianity.
The teachings of the Old Testament are overridden by the teachings of Christ.
Unless you are a Jew, in which case they aren't.
I can. In some places it is as little as 50p a day.
In more developed countries it cost a lot more.
Instead of buying one £3.50 happy hour cocktail a week, I could save someone's life instead.
If I put a million pounds cash in a room full of people, innocent or not they will all start killing each other.
You can't put a price on innocent life? I can.
There are some sums of money that take longer than one lifetime to acquire. These kinds of amounts are worth dying to protect.
And for me, anything worth dying for is usually worth killing for for also.
Also, money can buy you happiness. It often does. More often than it doesn't, even.
You have stated a bunch of silly facts that could easily be changed by laws, so what exactly are you saying that is relevant here?
They haven't been changed though, nor is their any known plan to change them in the future, this is the way it works right now, regardless of what you think can potentially "be changed."
So what exactly are you saying that is relevant here?
WHat are you talking about? I strongly believe that we should more closely examine the past, especially the horrors of it so that we can better learn from it. If we do not learn from History it is doomed to repeat itself. I often feel that people are afraid to openly discuss hitler or the National socialists due to backlash from doing so. I do not think that anyone should be afraid to discuss matters openly because someone deems it socially unacceptable to do so. I am strongly against the social grooming that is taking place of our societies.
I do see the aspect of Hitler applying to this, a man who's mere name invokes pain and terror into so many. IF he had been caught alive, should he have been kept alive? Just the thought that that man would have existed anywhere on this planet would have brought much fear and pain to so many. I do not agree that the Death penalty is an act of revenge, no it is closeure to the victims and the families that they have made live in fear and pain. His death brought closure to so many. Though the nightmares continue long after they are dead, at least when they wake they know that person can never harm them, or their families, or anyone else again. Not only that with their tax dollars, they are paying to keep these people alive. How is that okay?
Keeping these vile human beings alive at the cost of the families who they terrified is cruel and unusual punishment, forcing it upon these families to live in fear and pain is cruel and unusual punishment. Victims rights should always be considered before the criminals rights, because they were not the ones who committed these atrocities, no but yet they are the ones being punished for them. They are being punished with the fear that that one day they may have to deal with that person again. You must realize that every day that these criminals live is a day that these victims live in fear. Until these families know 100% that that person can never come after them again they will not be able to rest. Sure other people can harm them, this is not giving them a fasle sense of security, this is making sure without a doubt, that no matter what happens, government collapse or otherwise that that person can never harm them or anyone else again. There will be alot less people that would carry out such dispicable acts if they put to death all of those that do so. Each time one of these horrors are put to death that is one less we have to worry about ever commiting these crimes again.
Until you are one of these victims, I doubt you should be speaking so adamantly about what they think/feel. The execution of the criminal rarely brings the closure you think. The person is still gone, the act has still be committed.
Since people are intent on bringing poor Adolf into every argument; do you honestly think the families felt any closure after Hitler killed himself? He died on his terms, not theirs; which is the opposite of execution - he decided the moment he would end his life, not the state and not the people he wronged. Don't bring it into an argument that it doesn't belong in.
If the criminal is imprisoned for the rest of his/her natural life without the possibility of parole, how would executing them save lives? Remember, real life isn't like the movie jailbreak. You aren't killing one criminal to save thousands of children from being molested or people from being killed.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
WHat are you talking about? I strongly believe that we should more closely examine the past, especially the horrors of it so that we can better learn from it. If we do not learn from History it is doomed to repeat itself. I often feel that people are afraid to openly discuss hitler or the National socialists due to backlash from doing so. I do not think that anyone should be afraid to discuss matters openly because someone deems it socially unacceptable to do so. I am strongly against the social grooming that is taking place of our societies.
I do see the aspect of Hitler applying to this, a man who's mere name invokes pain and terror into so many. IF he had been caught alive, should he have been kept alive? Just the thought that that man would have existed anywhere on this planet would have brought much fear and pain to so many. I do not agree that the Death penalty is an act of revenge, no it is closeure to the victims and the families that they have made live in fear and pain. His death brought closure to so many. Though the nightmares continue long after they are dead, at least when they wake they know that person can never harm them, or their families, or anyone else again. Not only that with their tax dollars, they are paying to keep these people alive. How is that okay?
Keeping these vile human beings alive at the cost of the families who they terrified is cruel and unusual punishment, forcing it upon these families to live in fear and pain is cruel and unusual punishment. Victims rights should always be considered before the criminals rights, because they were not the ones who committed these atrocities, no but yet they are the ones being punished for them. They are being punished with the fear that that one day they may have to deal with that person again. You must realize that every day that these criminals live is a day that these victims live in fear. Until these families know 100% that that person can never come after them again they will not be able to rest. Sure other people can harm them, this is not giving them a fasle sense of security, this is making sure without a doubt, that no matter what happens, government collapse or otherwise that that person can never harm them or anyone else again. There will be alot less people that would carry out such dispicable acts if they put to death all of those that do so. Each time one of these horrors are put to death that is one less we have to worry about ever commiting these crimes again.
First of all Devil that line was a geek joke. If you google it around you will see it yourself.
In US it may be socially unacceptable but in Greece it isn't since our grandfathers fought directly against the both German and Italian regiments. Just pointing it out that I am one of the last people that would mind such a topic. Still though evoking Hitler in a "casual" discussion is like using an atomic bomb to destroy a hut. That's my point here.
To the other stuff. The capital penalty as I see it has multiple reasons. One side is of course as you say to bring a sense of relative peace to the victims by removing directly the source. I may argue that it is an illusionary one but I can't deny that in many cases it brings a positive effect to their psyche. But another reason why capital penalty is so "popular" is because revenge and retaliation is a natural part of humanity. Capital penalty therefor appeases the general public also and in many cases the public are more interested in the execution rather than the victim. Hence the "revenge" issue.
Both victim and perperator in my opinion have equal rights but the victim takes priority when some of hese rights clash.
Realistically speaking capital punishment in itself means very little as far as crimes are considered. A rotten social structure will produce many more criminals every day. Capital punishment is not a preventing method for crimes. It is applied after the deed has been done. Hence to have any serious effect it must be combined with at least a good social structure, better police and education are primary, and not putting into jail people for small crimes like smoking pot.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I can. In some places it is as little as 50p a day.
In more developed countries it cost a lot more.
If I put a million pounds cash ina room full of people, innocent or nt they will all start killing each other.
There are some sums of money that take longer than one lifetime to acquire. These kinds of amounts are worth dying to protect.
And for me, anything worth dying for is usually worth killing for for also.
Also, money can buy you happiness. It often does.
You speak of some people, but by no means the majority.
Money can buy "happiness" for a time, but at night when that person looks themself in the mirror they feel a hole in their heart. There is still something missing.
Originally posted by Hazmal
Originally posted by deviliscious
Originally posted by sniperg
Also there is the other thing that whoever mentions Hitler or Nazis in an internet discussion, automatically loses.
WHat are you talking about? I strongly believe that we should more closely examine the past, especially the horrors of it so that we can better learn from it. If we do not learn from History it is doomed to repeat itself. I often feel that people are afraid to openly discuss hitler or the National socialists due to backlash from doing so. I do not think that anyone should be afraid to discuss matters openly because someone deems it socially unacceptable to do so. I am strongly against the social grooming that is taking place of our societies.
I do see the aspect of Hitler applying to this, a man who's mere name invokes pain and terror into so many. IF he had been caught alive, should he have been kept alive? Just the thought that that man would have existed anywhere on this planet would have brought much fear and pain to so many. I do not agree that the Death penalty is an act of revenge, no it is closeure to the victims and the families that they have made live in fear and pain. His death brought closure to so many. Though the nightmares continue long after they are dead, at least when they wake they know that person can never harm them, or their families, or anyone else again. Not only that with their tax dollars, they are paying to keep these people alive. How is that okay?
Keeping these vile human beings alive at the cost of the families who they terrified is cruel and unusual punishment, forcing it upon these families to live in fear and pain is cruel and unusual punishment. Victims rights should always be considered before the criminals rights, because they were not the ones who committed these atrocities, no but yet they are the ones being punished for them. They are being punished with the fear that that one day they may have to deal with that person again. You must realize that every day that these criminals live is a day that these victims live in fear. Until these families know 100% that that person can never come after them again they will not be able to rest. Sure other people can harm them, this is not giving them a fasle sense of security, this is making sure without a doubt, that no matter what happens, government collapse or otherwise that that person can never harm them or anyone else again. There will be alot less people that would carry out such dispicable acts if they put to death all of those that do so. Each time one of these horrors are put to death that is one less we have to worry about ever commiting these crimes again.
Until you are one of these victims, I doubt you should be speaking so adamantly about what they think/feel. The execution of the criminal rarely brings the closure you think. The person is still gone, the act has still be committed.
Since people are intent on bringing poor Adolf into every argument; do you honestly think the families felt any closure after Hitler killed himself? He died on his terms, not theirs; which is the opposite of execution - he decided the moment he would end his life, not the state and not the people he wronged. Don't bring it into an argument that it doesn't belong in.
If the criminal is imprisoned for the rest of his/her natural life without the possibility of parole, how would executing them save lives? Remember, real life isn't like the movie jailbreak. You aren't killing one criminal to save thousands of children from being molested or people from being killed.
Many gangs originated from prison and are able to operate from inside the prisons themselves. They are fully capable of being a threat insie and outside the prison while incarcerated.
Gangs Thrive In Maximum Security
www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php
www.gangsorus.com/aryan_brotherhood_prison_gang.htm
www.poligazette.com/2008/11/22/the-barrio-azteca-trial-and-the-prison-gang-cartel-interface/
www.insideprison.com/nuestra-familia-prison-gang.asp
Even police have been correupted to carry out hits for these people abd assist them to escape:
rawstory.com/news/2008/Two_NYPD_mafia_cops_sentenced_to_0307.html
www.thelocal.se/article.php
Murder ordered by mobile from prison
cms.met.police.uk/news/convictions/murder_ordered_by_mobile_from_prison
Killer ordered 'hit' from prison
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7300911.stm
Woman avoids prison in murder-for-hire case
www.pe.com/localnews/sbcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_D_mafia06.2cce5db.html
Inmate charged in murder of prison nurse
allnurses.com/nursing-news/inmate-charged-murder-73487.html
From prison to Nantucket, house painters at the center of a murder
www.wickedlocal.com/capecod/homepage/x1593366114/From-prison-to-Nantucket-house-painters-at-the-center-of-a-murder
This goes on and on .... Case after case, No, people are "not" safe when these guys just go to jail. There needs to be final resolution. Oh yea FYI My friends daughter was molested and assaulted but survived, and yes she has very much expressed that she thinks all these people should be put to death, so she can know that these people will not return. Why don;t you start asking them, there are support forums for these people, you go ask them how they feel and I am sure you will get the same sentiment. These people ARE being punished by having to support these creeps with their tax dollars, the victims are being terrorized by there mere existance after commiting such atrocities.
www.insideprison.com/nuestra-familia-prison-gang.asp
I disagree , a bullet is less expensive than all other alternatives, and no they should not be supported for the rest of their lives period. I completely disagree with taxpayers being forced to support criminals , no they should have to work for what they have even in prison.
I love these ignorant answers. There is a process set in place to avoid backwoods folk-style executions and give the innocent a chance to prove their case. Go on and simplify it down for your argument though. "Give 'em a bullit in thar head! Buy in boxes fer under twentee!"
Oh I am fully aware of lethal injection and am opposed to the expenisve process itself. We should go with the least expensive method with the least amount of burden on the tax payer instead of the current " expensive system. I am not giving you an ignorant answer sir, I am fully aware of all the ways our governments wastes money, and this is the first place we should start to fix that. If they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.. enough said get it over with.
So what happens 5 years down the road if the real criminal admits to the crime and we find out that the person who was executed was completely innocent?
Just send a card to the family of the executed man and go on? Fuck that.
Improving our court system to work for the people rather than against them is another issue as well, In todays society, unlike the past it is easier to determine than ever innocence or guilt with the use on DNA, and the sheer number of witnesses due to the population. I mean back in the day when lynch mobs handled everything we have greatly improved. Of course the penalty has to fit the crime, I mean you have a childs body found with that guys sperm all over the body .. why waste time ? If there is No doubt whatsoever that they are guilty, get it over with .. as soon as the trial is over? No waiting. I can understand if there is room for doubt, and maybe we should have it set up that way they are given a bit more time if there was not enough "proof" to carry out the sentence. Maybe that should be the change we make instead. Immediate execution if they were completely proven without a doubt, and more time given if there is even a possibility of an overturn of the decision. that would save more than we are currently spending on the whole thing.
That's the same argument that our socialist friends make: with the right people in the right jobs, or improvements to the "system," government CAN get this right. I disagree.
Just as I do not trust government to make the economic caluculations necessary to run an economy, I certainly do not trust government with the power to kill people that have been arrested for a crime.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I disagree , a bullet is less expensive than all other alternatives, and no they should not be supported for the rest of their lives period. I completely disagree with taxpayers being forced to support criminals , no they should have to work for what they have even in prison.
I love these ignorant answers. There is a process set in place to avoid backwoods folk-style executions and give the innocent a chance to prove their case. Go on and simplify it down for your argument though. "Give 'em a bullit in thar head! Buy in boxes fer under twentee!"
Oh I am fully aware of lethal injection and am opposed to the expenisve process itself. We should go with the least expensive method with the least amount of burden on the tax payer instead of the current " expensive system. I am not giving you an ignorant answer sir, I am fully aware of all the ways our governments wastes money, and this is the first place we should start to fix that. If they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.. enough said get it over with.
So what happens 5 years down the road if the real criminal admits to the crime and we find out that the person who was executed was completely innocent?
Just send a card to the family of the executed man and go on? Fuck that.
Improving our court system to work for the people rather than against them is another issue as well, In todays society, unlike the past it is easier to determine than ever innocence or guilt with the use on DNA, and the sheer number of witnesses due to the population. I mean back in the day when lynch mobs handled everything we have greatly improved. Of course the penalty has to fit the crime, I mean you have a childs body found with that guys sperm all over the body .. why waste time ? If there is No doubt whatsoever that they are guilty, get it over with .. as soon as the trial is over? No waiting. I can understand if there is room for doubt, and maybe we should have it set up that way they are given a bit more time if there was not enough "proof" to carry out the sentence. Maybe that should be the change we make instead. Immediate execution if they were completely proven without a doubt, and more time given if there is even a possibility of an overturn of the decision. that would save more than we are currently spending on the whole thing.
That's the same argument that our socialist friends make: with the right people in the right jobs, or improvements to the "system," government CAN get this right. I disagree.
Just as I do not trust government to make the economic caluculations necessary to run an economy, I certainly do not trust government with the power to kill people that have been arrested for a crime.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
I disagree , a bullet is less expensive than all other alternatives, and no they should not be supported for the rest of their lives period. I completely disagree with taxpayers being forced to support criminals , no they should have to work for what they have even in prison.
I love these ignorant answers. There is a process set in place to avoid backwoods folk-style executions and give the innocent a chance to prove their case. Go on and simplify it down for your argument though. "Give 'em a bullit in thar head! Buy in boxes fer under twentee!"
Oh I am fully aware of lethal injection and am opposed to the expenisve process itself. We should go with the least expensive method with the least amount of burden on the tax payer instead of the current " expensive system. I am not giving you an ignorant answer sir, I am fully aware of all the ways our governments wastes money, and this is the first place we should start to fix that. If they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.. enough said get it over with.
So what happens 5 years down the road if the real criminal admits to the crime and we find out that the person who was executed was completely innocent?
Just send a card to the family of the executed man and go on? Fuck that.
Improving our court system to work for the people rather than against them is another issue as well, In todays society, unlike the past it is easier to determine than ever innocence or guilt with the use on DNA, and the sheer number of witnesses due to the population. I mean back in the day when lynch mobs handled everything we have greatly improved. Of course the penalty has to fit the crime, I mean you have a childs body found with that guys sperm all over the body .. why waste time ? If there is No doubt whatsoever that they are guilty, get it over with .. as soon as the trial is over? No waiting. I can understand if there is room for doubt, and maybe we should have it set up that way they are given a bit more time if there was not enough "proof" to carry out the sentence. Maybe that should be the change we make instead. Immediate execution if they were completely proven without a doubt, and more time given if there is even a possibility of an overturn of the decision. that would save more than we are currently spending on the whole thing.
That's the same argument that our socialist friends make: with the right people in the right jobs, or improvements to the "system," government CAN get this right. I disagree.
Just as I do not trust government to make the economic caluculations necessary to run an economy, I certainly do not trust government with the power to kill people that have been arrested for a crime.
I can certainly understand your disappointment with the corruption with our government, I too would very much like to see this improved. Though I do think that we cannot let these people that commit atrocties live.. though it is sad to say I would have more trust in the "lynch mobs" these days than the officials.. If people would just defend themselves, shoot these people at the time of the crime we wouldn't have to sort them out later. Though it is not like a child can really defend themselves in these situations. Our criminal system is a mess, just like our government.. we have police carrying out mob hits, we have judges jailing people to take their property, and gangs running prisons. I can understand and share the frustration. We have a lot to fix in this country. Just yesterday I was reading an article on this murderers detailed confession of how when he looks at people he wonders what they taste like and thinks about taking their skin and making tapestry from it... and yea I can honestly say if he were in my house I would not hesitate in ridding him from this earth. I do think that sometimes we have to remove these people from this life, for our own safety, so that the rest of us can sleep at night, we just need to make sure that we have the right person before we do.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throwing thier body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throughing her body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
None of this justifies or warrants state sponsored murder. Emotional arguments carry no weight in discussions about the proper role of government in a free society; in fact, one on;y uses them when one has run out of reasonable arguments. Just like the left cries racist when someone opposes affirmative action, or says that someone who is opposed to welfare doesn't care about the poor.
I never said we shouldn't have a criminal justice system, just that murdering citizens is not a good idea within that justice system.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throughing her body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
None of this justifies or warrants state sponsored murder. Emotional arguments carry no weight in discussions about the proper role of government in a free society; in fact, one on;y uses them when one has run out of reasonable arguments. Just like the left cries racist when someone opposes affirmative action, or says that someone who is opposed to welfare doesn't care about the poor.
I never said we shouldn't have a criminal justice system, just that murdering citizens is not a good idea within that justice system.
Actually I wasn't arguing for the death penalty.. I agree that we disagree on the death penalty. I respect your opinion and was honestly curious to how you would respond in such a situation. The situation I presented the death penalty would not have been an issue at all because he was set free. What I think it would apply to however would be whether or not someone should go to jail for killing the murderer of their own child. I do not think so, that would not be justice, and yes, I would think it should be considered defense, I do not believe that you have to be defending yourself or your property or your child, you can be defending other children as well to be considered defense.
And then there is all the other nights, when that person does not look themselves in the mirror, but kicks back on the sofa with their Playstation. Or has a good night out on the town with their friends. Or drinks Champagne with strippers in the Jacuzzi. Or looks at their Porsche in the drive and thinks "yay"!
Or looks at their well fed wife and children in their stable marriage. All living together with the rest of their well fed stable families in their great big house with all their pets and love and security and beauty and contentment.
Sure you can still get depressed rich people with sad empty lives, but that isn't exactly the default emotional state associated with wealth.
I don't know a single rich person who is miserable. Who spends long lonely hours staring into mirrors and wondering why their lives are so empty. Your majority, is the imaginary majority.
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throughing her body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
None of this justifies or warrants state sponsored murder. Emotional arguments carry no weight in discussions about the proper role of government in a free society; in fact, one on;y uses them when one has run out of reasonable arguments. Just like the left cries racist when someone opposes affirmative action, or says that someone who is opposed to welfare doesn't care about the poor.
I never said we shouldn't have a criminal justice system, just that murdering citizens is not a good idea within that justice system.
Actually I wasn't arguing for the death penalty.. I agree that we disagree on the death penalty. I respect your opinion and was honestly curious to how you would respond in such a situation. The situation I presented the death penalty would not have been an issue at all because he was set free. What I think it would apply to however would be whether or not someone should go to jail for killing the murderer of their own child. I do not think so, that would not be justice, and yes, I would think it should be considered defense, I do not believe that you have to be defending yourself or your property or your child, you can be defending other children as well to be considered defense.
Completely disagree, revenge is not defense. One can not kill in self defense "in advance" or in retaliation. Again that is the same argument I see the socialists make in economics. People can't be trusted, therefore we need to regulate them (as opposed to people can't be trusted, therefore we can't give this power tp government, which is a much more reasonable response in both cases).
In your case murderers need to be murdered, since they have murdered before and will murder again.
Sorry, I see no merits to this line of reasoning.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The fact is, government can not determine who has commited atrocities, much less kill them for it. Government doesn't work like that.
Again i see you using the same reasoning our socialist friends use. Sorry, Government fails. therefore it can't be trusted with life and death issues.
Government should always be treated as a necessary evil -- everything it does is at the root evil, so we should save that evil only for that which is necessary. Killers do not need to be killed. That is simply a choice we make.
How do you propose we stop these killers from ordering hits from the inside, it seems that verything they have tried has not worked, they have organizations on the inside and out that help them? Is it constitutional to force the families of victims to support these people in prison through their taxes?
Libertarianism is not the answer to everything. As a principle, it understands that some problems simply can't be solved by government, and killing its guilty citizens is one of them. Death penalties obviously don't stop what you are talking about, if "everything" they have tried has not worked. That proves the death penalty does not work, therefore, it needs to be scrapped, because it gives gpvernment a power it can't be trusted with.
Yes, it is obviously constitutional the force the families of victims to support people in prisons in that they want to live in the society that puts those people in prison for them. Just as it is constitutional to force Christians to pay for murder of murderers when Jesus calls for forgiveness. Constitutionality is not the question here.
None of this speaks to whether the state can be trusted with such power. History has shown that it can't be.
Without something in place of course, you will have families , neighbors , and normally law abiding citizens seeking out these people and taking care of it themselves just as they did in the wild west ... I mean of course say it was your child, and witnessed him throughing her body behind a bush but by the time you got your gun.. he was gone.. then later he was " let off".. would you be able to just let it go, knowing that he will be able to do that to someone elses kid? If so you are in the minority, I don't know any community that would be okay with that guy living there.
None of this justifies or warrants state sponsored murder. Emotional arguments carry no weight in discussions about the proper role of government in a free society; in fact, one on;y uses them when one has run out of reasonable arguments. Just like the left cries racist when someone opposes affirmative action, or says that someone who is opposed to welfare doesn't care about the poor.
I never said we shouldn't have a criminal justice system, just that murdering citizens is not a good idea within that justice system.
Actually I wasn't arguing for the death penalty.. I agree that we disagree on the death penalty. I respect your opinion and was honestly curious to how you would respond in such a situation. The situation I presented the death penalty would not have been an issue at all because he was set free. What I think it would apply to however would be whether or not someone should go to jail for killing the murderer of their own child. I do not think so, that would not be justice, and yes, I would think it should be considered defense, I do not believe that you have to be defending yourself or your property or your child, you can be defending other children as well to be considered defense.
Completely disagree, revenge is not defense. One can not kill in self defense "in advance" or in retaliation. Again that is the same argument I see the socialists make in economics. People can't be trusted, therefore we need to regulate them (as opposed to people can't be trusted, therefore we can't give this power tp government, which is a much more reasonable response in both cases).
In your case murderers need to be murdered, since they have murdered before and will murder again.
Sorry, I see no merits to this line of reasoning.
I see what you are saying, but I also see murderers saying things like this:
When Frisco police asked Ji about other possible victims, he indicated that his arrest thwarted his plans.
"I haven't even gotten off the ground yet," he said. "I mean, if you caught me 10 years later, I bet I'd have a whole list for you."