Death Penalty..........
Pages :
[1]
2
MagicRat
12-12-2005, 09:48 PM
Are you in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for convicted criminals?
If yes, for what crimes? Where do you draw the line for the use of such a sentence?
I know this has been a hot-button topic for years, but recently it's in the news again, since Gov. Arnold did not stop the death sentence of the Crips' founder Stanley Williams, as per the story below. Do you think he deserves to die? Personally, I do not think so. His crimes simly do not warrant such action. Furthermore, unlike many death row inmates, he has used his considerable intellegence and organizational skills to resurrect a productive life for himself, (as far as one can be productive and make a contribution to society while in prison).
Personally, I am not in favour of the death penalty in any form. It is far more expensive to execute someone in the US than it is to imprison them for life. I feel that death for some lets them off easy. Let them suffer in an unpleasant (but not inhumane) prison for life.
Furthermore, many prisioners, including death-row inmates have been found to be innocent or the evidence used to convict them has been flawed. IMO the risk of executing the innocent is too great.
There seems to be no definitive proof that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to the most severe criminal activities. (If I am wrong on this, please discuss). Some nations that have similar demographics to the US, but do not have the death penalty, (Canada, Australia, Western Europe) have much lower per capita rates of such serious crimes.
Finally, other nations that use the death penalty, such as China, Indonesia and Singapore execute criminals for crimes that simply do not warrent such action, such as continued criticism of the state and relatively modest drug smuggling. For these nations, execution is akin to using a hammer to swat a fly; it's become too easy for such nations to use a brutal punishment to solve a real or perceived problem with their societies. It becomes a quick and easy alternative to real action on their behalf, such as enacting and enforcing reasonable laws in society.
It also is a very effective tool for undemocratic political regimes to control their people through terror.
Although I am philosophically against execution, I do consider that some crimes may be so terrible as to justify it. Should Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin have been executed? Perhaps mass murder in the millions may warrant such a punishment.
Of course emotion can affect my reasoning on this subject.
If someone brutally murdered a loved one of mine (or me, for that matter) would I want so see the perpetrator executed?
It would be tempting. Dispite my anti-capital punishment stand, I can see that a desire for personal revenge can cloud one's judgement.
Comments?
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to block the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams, rejecting the notion that the founder of the murderous Crips gang had atoned for his crimes and found redemption on death row.
With a federal court refusing to grant a reprieve, Williams, 51, was set to die by injection at San Quentin Prison early Tuesday for murdering four people during two 1979 holdups.
Williams' case became one of the country's biggest death-row cause celebres in decades. It set off a countrywide debate over the possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.
But Schwarzenegger suggested Monday that Williams' supposed change of heart was not genuine, noting that the inmate had not owned up to his crimes or shown any real remorse for the countless killings committed by the Crips.
"Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?" Schwarzenegger wrote less than 12 hours before the execution. "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."
Williams' supporters were disappointed with the governor's refusal to commute the death sentence to life in prison without parole.
"Too often I hear the governor and many who are around him talk about his values system," said NAACP President Bruce Gordon.
"In this particular case, those values seem to be cast aside. There is absolutely no recognition given to redemption."
Williams stood to become the 12th person executed in California since legislators reinstated the death penalty in 1977.
He was condemned in 1981 for gunning down convenience store clerk Albert Owens, 26, at a 7-Eleven in Whittier and killing Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and the couple's daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43, at the Los Angeles motel they owned. Williams claimed he was innocent.
Just before the governor announced his decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals denied Williams' request for a reprieve, saying there was no "clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence." The appeals court then declined to reconsider and lawyers filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The last California governor to grant clemency was Ronald Reagan, who spared a mentally infirm killer in 1967. Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has come under fire from members of his own party as too accommodating to liberals, has rejected clemency twice during his two years in office.
In denying clemency to Williams, Schwarzenegger said that the evidence of his guilt was "strong and compelling," and he dismissed suggestions that the trial was unfair.
Schwarzenegger also pointed out the brutality of the crimes, noting that Williams allegedly said about one of the killings, "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." According to the governor's account, Williams then made a growling noise and laughed for five to six minutes.
In addition, the governor noted that Williams dedicated his 1998 book Life in Prison to a list of figures that included the black militant George Jackson, calling it "a significant indicator that Williams is not reformed and that he still sees violence and lawlessness as a legitimate means to address societal problems."
Williams and a friend founded the Crips in Los Angeles in 1971. Authorities say it is responsible for hundreds of deaths, many of them in battles with the rival Bloods for turf and control of the drug trade.
Among the celebrities who took up Williams' cause were Jamie Foxx, who played the gang leader in a cable movie about Williams; rapper Snoop Dogg, himself a former Crip; Sister Helen Prejean, the nun depicted in Dead Man Walking; Bianca Jagger; and former MASH star Mike Farrell.
During Williams' 24 years on death row, a Swiss legislator, college professors and others nominated him for the Nobel Prizes in peace and literature.
"If Stanley Williams does not merit clemency," defence lawyer Peter Fleming asked, "what meaning does clemency retain in this state?"
The impending execution resulted in feverish preparations over the weekend by those on both sides of the debate, with the California Highway Patrol planning to tighten security outside the prison.
A group of about three dozen death penalty protesters were joined by Rev. Jesse Jackson as they marched across the Golden Gate Bridge after dawn Monday en route to the gates of San Quentin, where they were expected to rally with hundreds of people.
At least publicly, the person apparently least occupied with his fate seemed to be Williams himself.
"Me fearing what I'm facing, what possible good is it going to do for me? How is that going to benefit me?" Williams said in a recent interview. "If it's my time to be executed, what's all the ranting and raving going to do?"
If yes, for what crimes? Where do you draw the line for the use of such a sentence?
I know this has been a hot-button topic for years, but recently it's in the news again, since Gov. Arnold did not stop the death sentence of the Crips' founder Stanley Williams, as per the story below. Do you think he deserves to die? Personally, I do not think so. His crimes simly do not warrant such action. Furthermore, unlike many death row inmates, he has used his considerable intellegence and organizational skills to resurrect a productive life for himself, (as far as one can be productive and make a contribution to society while in prison).
Personally, I am not in favour of the death penalty in any form. It is far more expensive to execute someone in the US than it is to imprison them for life. I feel that death for some lets them off easy. Let them suffer in an unpleasant (but not inhumane) prison for life.
Furthermore, many prisioners, including death-row inmates have been found to be innocent or the evidence used to convict them has been flawed. IMO the risk of executing the innocent is too great.
There seems to be no definitive proof that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to the most severe criminal activities. (If I am wrong on this, please discuss). Some nations that have similar demographics to the US, but do not have the death penalty, (Canada, Australia, Western Europe) have much lower per capita rates of such serious crimes.
Finally, other nations that use the death penalty, such as China, Indonesia and Singapore execute criminals for crimes that simply do not warrent such action, such as continued criticism of the state and relatively modest drug smuggling. For these nations, execution is akin to using a hammer to swat a fly; it's become too easy for such nations to use a brutal punishment to solve a real or perceived problem with their societies. It becomes a quick and easy alternative to real action on their behalf, such as enacting and enforcing reasonable laws in society.
It also is a very effective tool for undemocratic political regimes to control their people through terror.
Although I am philosophically against execution, I do consider that some crimes may be so terrible as to justify it. Should Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin have been executed? Perhaps mass murder in the millions may warrant such a punishment.
Of course emotion can affect my reasoning on this subject.
If someone brutally murdered a loved one of mine (or me, for that matter) would I want so see the perpetrator executed?
It would be tempting. Dispite my anti-capital punishment stand, I can see that a desire for personal revenge can cloud one's judgement.
Comments?
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to block the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams, rejecting the notion that the founder of the murderous Crips gang had atoned for his crimes and found redemption on death row.
With a federal court refusing to grant a reprieve, Williams, 51, was set to die by injection at San Quentin Prison early Tuesday for murdering four people during two 1979 holdups.
Williams' case became one of the country's biggest death-row cause celebres in decades. It set off a countrywide debate over the possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.
But Schwarzenegger suggested Monday that Williams' supposed change of heart was not genuine, noting that the inmate had not owned up to his crimes or shown any real remorse for the countless killings committed by the Crips.
"Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?" Schwarzenegger wrote less than 12 hours before the execution. "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."
Williams' supporters were disappointed with the governor's refusal to commute the death sentence to life in prison without parole.
"Too often I hear the governor and many who are around him talk about his values system," said NAACP President Bruce Gordon.
"In this particular case, those values seem to be cast aside. There is absolutely no recognition given to redemption."
Williams stood to become the 12th person executed in California since legislators reinstated the death penalty in 1977.
He was condemned in 1981 for gunning down convenience store clerk Albert Owens, 26, at a 7-Eleven in Whittier and killing Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and the couple's daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43, at the Los Angeles motel they owned. Williams claimed he was innocent.
Just before the governor announced his decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals denied Williams' request for a reprieve, saying there was no "clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence." The appeals court then declined to reconsider and lawyers filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The last California governor to grant clemency was Ronald Reagan, who spared a mentally infirm killer in 1967. Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has come under fire from members of his own party as too accommodating to liberals, has rejected clemency twice during his two years in office.
In denying clemency to Williams, Schwarzenegger said that the evidence of his guilt was "strong and compelling," and he dismissed suggestions that the trial was unfair.
Schwarzenegger also pointed out the brutality of the crimes, noting that Williams allegedly said about one of the killings, "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." According to the governor's account, Williams then made a growling noise and laughed for five to six minutes.
In addition, the governor noted that Williams dedicated his 1998 book Life in Prison to a list of figures that included the black militant George Jackson, calling it "a significant indicator that Williams is not reformed and that he still sees violence and lawlessness as a legitimate means to address societal problems."
Williams and a friend founded the Crips in Los Angeles in 1971. Authorities say it is responsible for hundreds of deaths, many of them in battles with the rival Bloods for turf and control of the drug trade.
Among the celebrities who took up Williams' cause were Jamie Foxx, who played the gang leader in a cable movie about Williams; rapper Snoop Dogg, himself a former Crip; Sister Helen Prejean, the nun depicted in Dead Man Walking; Bianca Jagger; and former MASH star Mike Farrell.
During Williams' 24 years on death row, a Swiss legislator, college professors and others nominated him for the Nobel Prizes in peace and literature.
"If Stanley Williams does not merit clemency," defence lawyer Peter Fleming asked, "what meaning does clemency retain in this state?"
The impending execution resulted in feverish preparations over the weekend by those on both sides of the debate, with the California Highway Patrol planning to tighten security outside the prison.
A group of about three dozen death penalty protesters were joined by Rev. Jesse Jackson as they marched across the Golden Gate Bridge after dawn Monday en route to the gates of San Quentin, where they were expected to rally with hundreds of people.
At least publicly, the person apparently least occupied with his fate seemed to be Williams himself.
"Me fearing what I'm facing, what possible good is it going to do for me? How is that going to benefit me?" Williams said in a recent interview. "If it's my time to be executed, what's all the ranting and raving going to do?"
elementskater15
12-12-2005, 10:06 PM
I am in favor of the death penalty as long as the criminal is 100% guilty. I also think corporal punishment (physical) should still be implied to sick crimes such as child molestation.
Muscletang
12-12-2005, 10:38 PM
I think the cost should be cut down. If it's more expensive to kill them than hold them, something is wrong.
How much is a rope tied around a tree?
How much is a few guys with a few guns?
How much is a sharp axe and a tree stump?
If we don't want to kill them then corporal punishment is the way to go.
How about a nice round of 20 lashes?
How about a nice round of mild electrical shock?
Prisoners have too many rights as it is. People bitch and complain about the illegal immagrents in this country. Well we have what, 2 million in our prisons right? Drag their asses out, give them enough food to survive, and work their asses off in the fields or where they need it.
As for the death penalty, there's nothing wrong with it. Ever heard, the punishment should fit the crime? If you kill somebody, you should be killed back. If you want them to suffer some, pour honey on them and throw them in a pit with fire ants, or push them into the pool at an aligator farm.
As for the innocent people on death row, 1 out of every 20 on death row is innocent, 5%. That's bad but it could be worse. I think though there should be eye witnesses, over whelming evidence, and DNA proof. If not all the things match up then you should spend the rest of your life in a salt mine instead of dying by a pack of wild wolves.
How much is a rope tied around a tree?
How much is a few guys with a few guns?
How much is a sharp axe and a tree stump?
If we don't want to kill them then corporal punishment is the way to go.
How about a nice round of 20 lashes?
How about a nice round of mild electrical shock?
Prisoners have too many rights as it is. People bitch and complain about the illegal immagrents in this country. Well we have what, 2 million in our prisons right? Drag their asses out, give them enough food to survive, and work their asses off in the fields or where they need it.
As for the death penalty, there's nothing wrong with it. Ever heard, the punishment should fit the crime? If you kill somebody, you should be killed back. If you want them to suffer some, pour honey on them and throw them in a pit with fire ants, or push them into the pool at an aligator farm.
As for the innocent people on death row, 1 out of every 20 on death row is innocent, 5%. That's bad but it could be worse. I think though there should be eye witnesses, over whelming evidence, and DNA proof. If not all the things match up then you should spend the rest of your life in a salt mine instead of dying by a pack of wild wolves.
2strokebloke
12-13-2005, 12:11 AM
Kill for killing. It doesn't make any logical sense, except as much as to get rid of somebody who will murder repeatedly and cannot be reformed, in which case there is no point in keeping them in prison, and it would obviously be unsuitable to release them back into the general population.
Otherwise I see no reason for the death penalty, in all I think it's pretty stupid. The concept of punishment in and of itself is really pretty asinine and childish in my view. "He hurt somebody, let's hurt him back!" the idea is rediculous, illogical, and totally pointless - it's a self defeating moral mechanism. "I'm against hurting people, so when people hurt other people, we hurt the people that did the hurting." - do you see how idiotic that logic is? Only idiots subscribe to that school of semi-thrigmotropic "thought". The Three Stooges loved the eye for an eye gag...
Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye? No. Because as soon as you do, you've accomplished nothing more than to make all laws, all logic, and all morals arbitrary, maleable, perverted, null and pointless. You destroy the entire system, you make it pointless to class things as good and evil when you change those definitions at will for the purpose of seeking revenge.
Otherwise I see no reason for the death penalty, in all I think it's pretty stupid. The concept of punishment in and of itself is really pretty asinine and childish in my view. "He hurt somebody, let's hurt him back!" the idea is rediculous, illogical, and totally pointless - it's a self defeating moral mechanism. "I'm against hurting people, so when people hurt other people, we hurt the people that did the hurting." - do you see how idiotic that logic is? Only idiots subscribe to that school of semi-thrigmotropic "thought". The Three Stooges loved the eye for an eye gag...
Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye? No. Because as soon as you do, you've accomplished nothing more than to make all laws, all logic, and all morals arbitrary, maleable, perverted, null and pointless. You destroy the entire system, you make it pointless to class things as good and evil when you change those definitions at will for the purpose of seeking revenge.
Muscletang
12-13-2005, 02:56 AM
Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye? No. Because as soon as you do, you've accomplished nothing more than to make all laws, all logic, and all morals arbitrary, maleable, perverted, null and pointless. You destroy the entire system, you make it pointless to class things as good and evil when you change those definitions at will for the purpose of seeking revenge.
First, what will a little kid learn more from, being told "now don't lie honey" or getting a belt across the ass? I can tell you right now that belt made me learn real quick.
Secondly, tell that to the people doing the killing if all laws and morals are lost to punishiment involving pain or death. They're the ones going out and killing productive members of our society, they're the ones doing the killing of the laws and morals.
First, what will a little kid learn more from, being told "now don't lie honey" or getting a belt across the ass? I can tell you right now that belt made me learn real quick.
Secondly, tell that to the people doing the killing if all laws and morals are lost to punishiment involving pain or death. They're the ones going out and killing productive members of our society, they're the ones doing the killing of the laws and morals.
elementskater15
12-13-2005, 07:26 AM
You speak much wisdom Tang-san. >_< I agree 100% about the belt example. Most criminals aren't goint to be "reformed" with just a slap on the wrist. I for one am in favor of the "eye for an eye" type of punishment as well (hence my support of corporal punishment). Hell, you rape somebody, you get raped back. How's that sound?
eversio11
12-13-2005, 03:06 PM
Frankly, I don't think we have enough death sentences. The other day at work, I saw a day smack a kid on the arm for fooling around. So the kid hits the dad back and yells 'don't hit me!'.
Death penalty for the kid.
Death penalty for the kid.
Steel
12-13-2005, 03:39 PM
Frankly, I don't think we have enough death sentences. The other day at work, I saw a day smack a kid on the arm for fooling around. So the kid hits the dad back and yells 'don't hit me!'.
Death penalty for the kid.
\ :rofl:
Death penalty for the kid.
\ :rofl:
NissanSkylineGTR98
12-13-2005, 03:43 PM
Coming from a country without the death penalty (Canada) I think capital punishment is a logical solution to some crimes, what about child molesters, or serial killers? I seriously believe some criminals cannot be converted back to anything useful to modern society, whats the point of making them endure a life in prison...at the expense of tax payers?
elementskater15
12-13-2005, 04:19 PM
I also think we shouldnt give criminals of crime like the ones mentioned above a chance in society. They shouldn't have the luxory(sp?) of life in prison or the freedom of death. If it is on the tax payer's dollar, you might as well make it count. Torture them everday for the rest of their hell bound life. BTW, that kid wouldn't be able to hit me back after I got through with him. He'd be lucky to still have an arm.
M3FordBoy
12-13-2005, 07:11 PM
I pretty much agree with everything Muscletangsaid. The problem is that in the case of Williams it was to little to late. If the person convicted is proven guitly by DNA or whatever the punishment of death should be soon and swift. All the appeals and stuff is just a waste of time and money. Also the way it is done is also stupid shoot them or hang them whatever but it shouldn't cost a million dollars to put someone down. It's like if a man is shooting people the cops have no problem shooting to kill right there. But once he gets in jail it's to late he'll be alive for another 20 years easy. For what effect? I dout that even gives a hole lot of closer to even the victims family members. And to how other countries handle things my dad was born in Vietnam and his brother was killed at a younger age by some crooked cops, but they have no problem shooting you right there if you are caught with cocane or something like that. I'm not saying this is how we should deal with things but it should definatly be strcter.
MagicRat
12-13-2005, 08:25 PM
First of all, thank you for all opinions; I hope the debate continues.
I think the cost should be cut down. If it's more expensive to kill them than hold them, something is wrong.
If you are going to be executing someone, it is a very GOOD thing that it's expensive. It's indicative of a more civilised society.
About 12 years ago, I heard the statistic it takes about $4 million to execute someone (probably more money now) , but only about $1.75 million to imprison them for 50 years.
The difference is all the legal appeals etc. that a condemned person is entitled to under US law. This is one of the most decent things about execution in the US; if it's going to happen, the state will provide every legal defense available to prevent it. This is extrodinarily civilised and, as far as I know, unique among nations that use capital punishment.
Other nations that execute people, such as China, do so because it's cheap, easy and is a visible instrument of terror to keep the population in line. Note they can execute people for, among other things, expressing their opinion, if its contrary to the government.
As for the death penalty, there's nothing wrong with it.
Muscletang, judging by some of your earlier posts, you appear to be a good Christian.
Do you think the commandment "Thou shall not kill" also should apply to a country's legal system?
Should it apply to a prosecuting attornety who works to convict someone so the death penalty should apply?
Should it apply to the executioner who administers the lethal injection?
(BTW I am not criticising your opinion at all. I am genuinely curious about how such a religious instruction would apply. )
I think the cost should be cut down. If it's more expensive to kill them than hold them, something is wrong.
If you are going to be executing someone, it is a very GOOD thing that it's expensive. It's indicative of a more civilised society.
About 12 years ago, I heard the statistic it takes about $4 million to execute someone (probably more money now) , but only about $1.75 million to imprison them for 50 years.
The difference is all the legal appeals etc. that a condemned person is entitled to under US law. This is one of the most decent things about execution in the US; if it's going to happen, the state will provide every legal defense available to prevent it. This is extrodinarily civilised and, as far as I know, unique among nations that use capital punishment.
Other nations that execute people, such as China, do so because it's cheap, easy and is a visible instrument of terror to keep the population in line. Note they can execute people for, among other things, expressing their opinion, if its contrary to the government.
As for the death penalty, there's nothing wrong with it.
Muscletang, judging by some of your earlier posts, you appear to be a good Christian.
Do you think the commandment "Thou shall not kill" also should apply to a country's legal system?
Should it apply to a prosecuting attornety who works to convict someone so the death penalty should apply?
Should it apply to the executioner who administers the lethal injection?
(BTW I am not criticising your opinion at all. I am genuinely curious about how such a religious instruction would apply. )
2strokebloke
12-13-2005, 08:31 PM
First, what will a little kid learn more from, being told "now don't lie honey" or getting a belt across the ass? I can tell you right now that belt made me learn real quick.
What? Time-out isn't an option? Seems to be just as effective in my experience. The willingness of people to inflict harm on others will probably never cease to amaze me. People love to hate eachother, and the only difference between the pyschopath serial killer and the general "productive member of society" is the general public is ashamed of this desire, and needs to seek a way to justify it. Thus they pervert their morality for this purpose.
It's not okay to do things to just anybody, but the loophole is that it is okay to do these things to people who are willing to do them to just anybody.
Morals for most it seems are just a thin disguise to cover the unjustifiable hate that the "general productive members of society" have for each other.
When you do these things, this eye for an eye, childish idiotic crap - nothing seperates you from the criminals you seek to punish. Well - except for the morals you don't bother to follow anyway.
What? Time-out isn't an option? Seems to be just as effective in my experience. The willingness of people to inflict harm on others will probably never cease to amaze me. People love to hate eachother, and the only difference between the pyschopath serial killer and the general "productive member of society" is the general public is ashamed of this desire, and needs to seek a way to justify it. Thus they pervert their morality for this purpose.
It's not okay to do things to just anybody, but the loophole is that it is okay to do these things to people who are willing to do them to just anybody.
Morals for most it seems are just a thin disguise to cover the unjustifiable hate that the "general productive members of society" have for each other.
When you do these things, this eye for an eye, childish idiotic crap - nothing seperates you from the criminals you seek to punish. Well - except for the morals you don't bother to follow anyway.
Muscletang
12-13-2005, 09:05 PM
Muscletang, judging by some of your earlier posts, you appear to be a good Christian.
I'm far from good...but this isn't the place or subject matter to get into that.
Do you think the commandment "Thou shall not kill" also should apply to a country's legal system?
I looked into this a little and found this passage...
...and any man who muders shall be killed; for to kill a man is to kill one made like God.
Genesis 9:6
Anyone who hits a man so hard that he dies shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:12
Also, all murderers must be executed. Leviticus 24:17
In the old testament, you killed, you were killed back. If you stole an apple, your hand was cut off. Their legal system was a little harsh but they got right to the point.
I looked in the new testament though and found nothing about murder or killing.
P.S. I look through the topical condordance because it's much easier than looking through the entire Bible. I've only checked a couple and all the references to murder and killing were in the old testament as mentioned.
Should it apply to a prosecuting attornety who works to convict someone so the death penalty should apply?
I don't think so at all. They're not the one doing the killing. That brings me to your next question.
Should it apply to the executioner who administers the lethal injection?
I've heard some big debates on this one. If you directly kill somebody, you're in trouble, but people giving injections are not directly responsible. Others say that it's in the name of justic and the rules "don't apply" but I find that one hard to swallow. That's opinions I've heard on this.
I personally don't know because I'm not God. I believe though that if a man kills somebody, I mean it's known he did it, his punishment is death. The person who carries it out is doing nothing more than carrying out the punishment.
Now I still believe the rules of murder apply to them. So I'm not contradicting what I said above. I believe though they're carrying out the sentence. The rules don't just "disappear" just for them.
(BTW I am not criticising your opinion at all. I am genuinely curious about how such a religious instruction would apply.)
No offense taken, more than happy to help you out.
What? Time-out isn't an option? Seems to be just as effective in my experience.
Time-out time is a joke. Anybody here ever had to go cut their own switch? What made you learn your lesson better, sitting in a corner for 10 minutes or going out to get something that was going to be used on you?
When you do these things, this eye for an eye, childish idiotic crap - nothing seperates you from the criminals you seek to punish. Well - except for the morals you don't bother to follow anyway.
So what you're saying is if somebody comes and kills my family, they get caught, and I push for the death penalty and get it, my morals aren't as good as his because I asked for his life to be taken for punishment in taking the lives of my family members?
I'm far from good...but this isn't the place or subject matter to get into that.
Do you think the commandment "Thou shall not kill" also should apply to a country's legal system?
I looked into this a little and found this passage...
...and any man who muders shall be killed; for to kill a man is to kill one made like God.
Genesis 9:6
Anyone who hits a man so hard that he dies shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:12
Also, all murderers must be executed. Leviticus 24:17
In the old testament, you killed, you were killed back. If you stole an apple, your hand was cut off. Their legal system was a little harsh but they got right to the point.
I looked in the new testament though and found nothing about murder or killing.
P.S. I look through the topical condordance because it's much easier than looking through the entire Bible. I've only checked a couple and all the references to murder and killing were in the old testament as mentioned.
Should it apply to a prosecuting attornety who works to convict someone so the death penalty should apply?
I don't think so at all. They're not the one doing the killing. That brings me to your next question.
Should it apply to the executioner who administers the lethal injection?
I've heard some big debates on this one. If you directly kill somebody, you're in trouble, but people giving injections are not directly responsible. Others say that it's in the name of justic and the rules "don't apply" but I find that one hard to swallow. That's opinions I've heard on this.
I personally don't know because I'm not God. I believe though that if a man kills somebody, I mean it's known he did it, his punishment is death. The person who carries it out is doing nothing more than carrying out the punishment.
Now I still believe the rules of murder apply to them. So I'm not contradicting what I said above. I believe though they're carrying out the sentence. The rules don't just "disappear" just for them.
(BTW I am not criticising your opinion at all. I am genuinely curious about how such a religious instruction would apply.)
No offense taken, more than happy to help you out.
What? Time-out isn't an option? Seems to be just as effective in my experience.
Time-out time is a joke. Anybody here ever had to go cut their own switch? What made you learn your lesson better, sitting in a corner for 10 minutes or going out to get something that was going to be used on you?
When you do these things, this eye for an eye, childish idiotic crap - nothing seperates you from the criminals you seek to punish. Well - except for the morals you don't bother to follow anyway.
So what you're saying is if somebody comes and kills my family, they get caught, and I push for the death penalty and get it, my morals aren't as good as his because I asked for his life to be taken for punishment in taking the lives of my family members?
2strokebloke
12-13-2005, 10:17 PM
Time-out time is a joke. Anybody here ever had to go cut their own switch? What made you learn your lesson better, sitting in a corner for 10 minutes or going out to get something that was going to be used on you?
I have to admit I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please clarify.
So what you're saying is if somebody comes and kills my family, they get caught, and I push for the death penalty and get it, my morals aren't as good as his because I asked for his life to be taken for punishment in taking the lives of my family members?
As good as? I don't think I infered that a murderer is any more moral in his judgement than one who seeks execution. I think i made it clear that both lack moral judgement in my opinion.
I have to admit I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please clarify.
So what you're saying is if somebody comes and kills my family, they get caught, and I push for the death penalty and get it, my morals aren't as good as his because I asked for his life to be taken for punishment in taking the lives of my family members?
As good as? I don't think I infered that a murderer is any more moral in his judgement than one who seeks execution. I think i made it clear that both lack moral judgement in my opinion.
fredjacksonsan
12-14-2005, 01:24 PM
I have to admit I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please clarify.
"Cutting your own switch" refers to the custom of getting whipped. Your parent sends you out to cut a branch (the switch) off of the tree, then you get whipped with it. If it's too thin, you're told to go get another one. Heaven help you if the second one is too small.
I'm against hypocrisy; only those that are completely ignorant and without thought are strongly and continually hypocritical. That said, I think it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone.
It's more of a punishment to be locked in a 2m x 2m concrete cell with no outside contact for the rest of your life than to be killed. Some would say it's inhumane, but that's what should be substituted for the death penalty - you go to this cell until you die. You have nothing, see nothing except your once a day meal. The light comes on at 6am and goes off at 6pm. You have a toilet and a sink. No magazines, no TV, nothing other than your meals comes into the cell. The only thing that comes out of your cell is you - when you're dead.
"Cutting your own switch" refers to the custom of getting whipped. Your parent sends you out to cut a branch (the switch) off of the tree, then you get whipped with it. If it's too thin, you're told to go get another one. Heaven help you if the second one is too small.
I'm against hypocrisy; only those that are completely ignorant and without thought are strongly and continually hypocritical. That said, I think it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone.
It's more of a punishment to be locked in a 2m x 2m concrete cell with no outside contact for the rest of your life than to be killed. Some would say it's inhumane, but that's what should be substituted for the death penalty - you go to this cell until you die. You have nothing, see nothing except your once a day meal. The light comes on at 6am and goes off at 6pm. You have a toilet and a sink. No magazines, no TV, nothing other than your meals comes into the cell. The only thing that comes out of your cell is you - when you're dead.
AlmostStock
12-14-2005, 01:57 PM
It's more of a punishment to be locked in a 2m x 2m concrete cell with no outside contact for the rest of your life than to be killed. Some would say it's inhumane, but that's what should be substituted for the death penalty - you go to this cell until you die. You have nothing, see nothing except your once a day meal. The light comes on at 6am and goes off at 6pm. You have a toilet and a sink. No magazines, no TV, nothing other than your meals comes into the cell. The only thing that comes out of your cell is you - when you're dead.
The state could save a whole lot of money like that! Good thread by all. I am especially intrigued by 2strokes thoughts. I never thought of it in that way but it makes sense. I was always for the death penalty. Now I'm not so sure.
The state could save a whole lot of money like that! Good thread by all. I am especially intrigued by 2strokes thoughts. I never thought of it in that way but it makes sense. I was always for the death penalty. Now I'm not so sure.
scuba4321
12-14-2005, 05:27 PM
I am 100% for the death penalty, for murder, child molesters, and rape. I work in public safety, spent time working in a jail, with those convicted of the same crimes. I ask this to you all, would you want to work next to a person who was lawfully convicted of murder or rape, but was released because he has been "reformend" or now says "violence is very bad". All these criminals from hard core felons to the town drunk, seem to find Jesus, and denounce criminal activities very quickly when they enter the cell walls. Just like kids say "mom I promise I will not do it again!" Punish them and punish them swiftly. One appeal, and that should be it!
YogsVR4
12-14-2005, 05:27 PM
I support the death penalty. I also think it needs to be used for only the most heinous of crimes. Lets just call it a late term societal abortion. As a society we have determined that we don't want these individuals and made the decision to abort them.
Blokes argument that "The concept of punishment in and of itself is really pretty asinine and childish" is outlandish. :screwy: Then to say "Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye?" Being in jail is punishment so that negates the first foolish statement. The idea that capitol punishment is a three stooges ideology is beyond tenuous.
I believe that an eye for an eye is the proper punishment for violent crimes. (That's not to say a rapist must be raped).
I also believe 'cruel and unusual' should be amended to say 'cruel and unusual for the offense'. A pickpocket belongs in jail to pay for a short period, drug pushers belong in for a long period, drug users belong in rehab, and murders belong in the electric chair.
Blokes argument that "The concept of punishment in and of itself is really pretty asinine and childish" is outlandish. :screwy: Then to say "Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye?" Being in jail is punishment so that negates the first foolish statement. The idea that capitol punishment is a three stooges ideology is beyond tenuous.
I believe that an eye for an eye is the proper punishment for violent crimes. (That's not to say a rapist must be raped).
I also believe 'cruel and unusual' should be amended to say 'cruel and unusual for the offense'. A pickpocket belongs in jail to pay for a short period, drug pushers belong in for a long period, drug users belong in rehab, and murders belong in the electric chair.
jcsaleen
12-14-2005, 06:29 PM
What they did to tookie williams is a complete injustice and the fact Gov. schwarzenegger did it because his base is pro death penalty is even worse. That man made a complete 180 and the justice system isn't showing what they're main goal is... "REFORM!" If a man like this isn't able to get out then whats that saying to all. He killed four people (which to this day he still maintains his innocence because no hard facts were ever produced) He goes completely again what he once stood for wrote books to try and stop gang violence and succeeded (probably saved alot more lives then he "supposedly" took) as well. He is also a winner of the noble peace PRICE! For christ sake what more must you do to redeem yourself!
fredjacksonsan
12-14-2005, 08:15 PM
Just because he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't mean he didn't commit the crimes. He was found guilty of killing 4 people. On purpose. That is why he was still executed, according to law.
jcsaleen
12-14-2005, 08:23 PM
The justice system was meant for reformation and rehabilatation so this is there example.... ?
fredjacksonsan
12-14-2005, 09:06 PM
I agree that if someone is rehabilitated, they should get a chance. But the guilty verdict was appealed numerous times, and the courts could not find the evidence to prove he didn't do it. He still did it, whether or not he's reformed or not. I'm not saying I like it that way (see my previous) but that's what the law says.
2strokebloke
12-14-2005, 09:21 PM
Blokes argument that "The concept of punishment in and of itself is really pretty asinine and childish" is outlandish. :screwy: Then to say "Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye?" Being in jail is punishment so that negates the first foolish statement.
Obviously we have different views. I see it this way: if somebody is allergic to peanuts you keep peanuts away from them. You're not "punishing" the peanuts, you're keeping them away for the safety of the people that would be harmed by them. In the same way, you're keeping people away from the people they have harmed/will harm by putting them in prison. It's not intended as a punishment, it is simply a seperation from the public for the safety of the public. Is that such an outlandish and crazy concept to believe in? :grinno:
Obviously we have different views. I see it this way: if somebody is allergic to peanuts you keep peanuts away from them. You're not "punishing" the peanuts, you're keeping them away for the safety of the people that would be harmed by them. In the same way, you're keeping people away from the people they have harmed/will harm by putting them in prison. It's not intended as a punishment, it is simply a seperation from the public for the safety of the public. Is that such an outlandish and crazy concept to believe in? :grinno:
elementskater15
12-14-2005, 09:29 PM
I can see where your coming from but,...if you kill someone, you need more than just to be separated from the general public dont ya think?
jcsaleen
12-14-2005, 10:11 PM
I can see where your coming from but,...if you kill someone, you need more than just to be separated from the general public dont ya think?
Yes it least that but he should be kept alive atleast. I'm not saying let him go but if you look at the cases. A. There was a no solid evidence to prove he did it. B. He's made a complete role reversal.
Yes it least that but he should be kept alive atleast. I'm not saying let him go but if you look at the cases. A. There was a no solid evidence to prove he did it. B. He's made a complete role reversal.
elementskater15
12-14-2005, 10:23 PM
I do agree with you that you need to be proven 100% guilty. People meed to just toughen up and realize that if you are able to take person's life, your life needs to be taken in exchange at least. I think I watch too much Fullmetal Alchemist...
Moppie
12-14-2005, 10:28 PM
......if you kill someone, you need more than just to be separated from the general public dont ya think?
Why?
Why?
elementskater15
12-14-2005, 10:45 PM
Why? I have a little difficulty wording complex stuff like this so bear with me. Think of it this way;if someone kills a member of your family, you'd want them dead, right? If you have the mental ability(or disabilty) to actually kill someone, you are really nothing more than a burden to the already failing society we live in. Think of Hitler as an extreme example. Because of him, millions of people died. Did he deserve to die? Yes. Think about Sadaam. He had many people tortured and executed. Does he deserve death? You bet. The only people that should be in prison are those that can be refermed and become funcioning memebers of society again. After you kill someone, you never forget how simple and quick is can be to take a person's life. Therefore, he/she shouldn't have the opportunity to be in society again. I still stand by my philosophy of "an eye for an eye." I dont see why people actually want to save these murderers. So if you kill someone you deserve to live for free with three meals a day in a climate controlled building? No, I dont think so.
TexasF355F1
12-14-2005, 10:45 PM
Don't think his murders warrant his death?
How about looking at the bodies of a few of his victims? (Gruesome!)
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/tookiewilliamsvictims.html
Read this from MSN on-air personality Tucker Carlson (who opposes the death penalty):
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8063569/
To me it's not about whether he should have lived of died, it's about justice. He never showed remorse, never said he was sorry, and up until about 6 months ago when Jamie Foxx starred in the movie about Tookie no one knew who the hell he was. I know I sure as hell didn't.
And I don't honestly believe he wrote any of those books. And from what I've been hearing, he never really did write them. If he was so adimate about keeping kids out of gangs, then why is his son a crips member and in jail at the current time? Why wasn't he out preaching at schools from elementary to high school to college? If he was truly the man the celebrities claim he was he would have been! And they would have let him go speak publicly if that's what he was going to do. I firmly believe that.
The guy started one of the most infamous and notorious gangs not only in California, but all over the country. Does anyone expect me or anyone else for that matter believe that he never robbed, assaulted or killed anyone? HELL FUCKING NO!!! That's what gangs do. If you don't believe that than you never went to school with gang members or personally knew any.
The guys gone, he wasn't a saint so everyone needs to stop treating him like he was.
Edit: And if you want to cut down the homicide rate in the country we have to go centuries back....Public Execution. Hanging's, Be-headings, Roman style - lions, etc. Then maybe people would think before killing others.
And just because the guy denied doesn't mean it's true. There were other facts that the media never tends to mention. That he boasted about the killings to people he knew. He was a cold blooded killer, and that's that.
How about looking at the bodies of a few of his victims? (Gruesome!)
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/tookiewilliamsvictims.html
Read this from MSN on-air personality Tucker Carlson (who opposes the death penalty):
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8063569/
To me it's not about whether he should have lived of died, it's about justice. He never showed remorse, never said he was sorry, and up until about 6 months ago when Jamie Foxx starred in the movie about Tookie no one knew who the hell he was. I know I sure as hell didn't.
And I don't honestly believe he wrote any of those books. And from what I've been hearing, he never really did write them. If he was so adimate about keeping kids out of gangs, then why is his son a crips member and in jail at the current time? Why wasn't he out preaching at schools from elementary to high school to college? If he was truly the man the celebrities claim he was he would have been! And they would have let him go speak publicly if that's what he was going to do. I firmly believe that.
The guy started one of the most infamous and notorious gangs not only in California, but all over the country. Does anyone expect me or anyone else for that matter believe that he never robbed, assaulted or killed anyone? HELL FUCKING NO!!! That's what gangs do. If you don't believe that than you never went to school with gang members or personally knew any.
The guys gone, he wasn't a saint so everyone needs to stop treating him like he was.
Edit: And if you want to cut down the homicide rate in the country we have to go centuries back....Public Execution. Hanging's, Be-headings, Roman style - lions, etc. Then maybe people would think before killing others.
And just because the guy denied doesn't mean it's true. There were other facts that the media never tends to mention. That he boasted about the killings to people he knew. He was a cold blooded killer, and that's that.
jcsaleen
12-14-2005, 11:05 PM
I did a biography a while ago on him. His statement to the accusation of not showing remorse was that he was innocent and therefore had no reason to. The guy was reformed in jail therefore no chance of going out to the public for speeches etc.
Edit: And if you want to cut down the homicide rate in the country we have to go centuries back....Public Execution. Hanging's, Be-headings, Roman style - lions, etc. Then maybe people would think before killing others.
"Criminals thrive on the leanancy of society and it's flaws"
That is all...
Edit: And if you want to cut down the homicide rate in the country we have to go centuries back....Public Execution. Hanging's, Be-headings, Roman style - lions, etc. Then maybe people would think before killing others.
"Criminals thrive on the leanancy of society and it's flaws"
That is all...
2strokebloke
12-15-2005, 01:30 AM
Think of it this way;if someone kills a member of your family, you'd want them dead, right?
No. I wouldn't wish death for anyone. There are members of my family that I never got to meet because of murderers. But I don't see any reason I'd want more people to die. What for? It wouldnt solve anything. There's no point.
Edit: And if you want to cut down the homicide rate in the country we have to go centuries back....Public Execution. Hanging's, Be-headings, Roman style - lions, etc. Then maybe people would think before killing others.
Yes because those were so effective at eliminating murder, that we stopped using them... it's like the idea that the invention of the machine gun would be so terrifying that countries would stop waging war with eachother - well niether war nor the machine gun has left the face of this earth. I guess terror just doesn't work. :2cents:
No. I wouldn't wish death for anyone. There are members of my family that I never got to meet because of murderers. But I don't see any reason I'd want more people to die. What for? It wouldnt solve anything. There's no point.
Edit: And if you want to cut down the homicide rate in the country we have to go centuries back....Public Execution. Hanging's, Be-headings, Roman style - lions, etc. Then maybe people would think before killing others.
Yes because those were so effective at eliminating murder, that we stopped using them... it's like the idea that the invention of the machine gun would be so terrifying that countries would stop waging war with eachother - well niether war nor the machine gun has left the face of this earth. I guess terror just doesn't work. :2cents:
Moppie
12-15-2005, 03:04 AM
Why? I have a little difficulty wording complex stuff like this so bear with me. Think of it this way;if someone kills a member of your family, you'd want them dead, right? If you have the mental ability(or disabilty) to actually kill someone, you are really nothing more than a burden to the already failing society we live in. Think of Hitler as an extreme example. Because of him, millions of people died. Did he deserve to die? Yes. Think about Sadaam. He had many people tortured and executed. Does he deserve death? You bet. The only people that should be in prison are those that can be refermed and become funcioning memebers of society again. After you kill someone, you never forget how simple and quick is can be to take a person's life. Therefore, he/she shouldn't have the opportunity to be in society again. I still stand by my philosophy of "an eye for an eye." I dont see why people actually want to save these murderers. So if you kill someone you deserve to live for free with three meals a day in a climate controlled building? No, I dont think so.
I see one reason as to why murders should be locked up, but it has no surporting evidence, and if true woud mean anyone who has killed an enemy solider during war should also be locked up.
Your "eye for an eye" philosophy is nothing more than an attitude you have learned living in a society dominated by out dated ideas based on flawed rational (christian morality).
Your examples of Hitler and Hussain while dramatic, offer no reason why, altough it should be noted that they used similar retorhric to justify the killing of millions of people. Hitler claimed Jews were dangerous to the "German" way of life, and so should be exterminated. No differnt to your idea that a Murder is dangerous to your way of life, and so should be killed.
Murderers kill because at the time of the killing they no longer relate to thier victim as if they were another person, they no longer have any empathy for them. The victim has been dehumanised by the murderer, despite the obvious fact they are still very much a Human being.
Think about that, and how it relates to putting someone to death, to do so you first have to dehumanise them, call them a murderer, despite the obvious fact, that regardless of what they done, they still very much human.
I see one reason as to why murders should be locked up, but it has no surporting evidence, and if true woud mean anyone who has killed an enemy solider during war should also be locked up.
Your "eye for an eye" philosophy is nothing more than an attitude you have learned living in a society dominated by out dated ideas based on flawed rational (christian morality).
Your examples of Hitler and Hussain while dramatic, offer no reason why, altough it should be noted that they used similar retorhric to justify the killing of millions of people. Hitler claimed Jews were dangerous to the "German" way of life, and so should be exterminated. No differnt to your idea that a Murder is dangerous to your way of life, and so should be killed.
Murderers kill because at the time of the killing they no longer relate to thier victim as if they were another person, they no longer have any empathy for them. The victim has been dehumanised by the murderer, despite the obvious fact they are still very much a Human being.
Think about that, and how it relates to putting someone to death, to do so you first have to dehumanise them, call them a murderer, despite the obvious fact, that regardless of what they done, they still very much human.
elementskater15
12-15-2005, 07:33 AM
No differnt to your idea that a Murder is dangerous to your way of life, and so should be killed.
If there are no murderers left, wouldnt that solve the problem? I know in reality there will always be muderers. If they dehamanize someone first...blah blah blah, you know where im going with this post. And please dont drag Christianity into this. Anyhow, I'm tired of debating over this. Both side are going keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Bottom line: I support the death penalty.
If there are no murderers left, wouldnt that solve the problem? I know in reality there will always be muderers. If they dehamanize someone first...blah blah blah, you know where im going with this post. And please dont drag Christianity into this. Anyhow, I'm tired of debating over this. Both side are going keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Bottom line: I support the death penalty.
Moppie
12-15-2005, 02:44 PM
I support the death penalty.
Thats a very strong statement to make with out being able to provide even some evidence of surportive reasoning.
This is a philosophy forum after all.
Thats a very strong statement to make with out being able to provide even some evidence of surportive reasoning.
This is a philosophy forum after all.
Muscletang
12-15-2005, 08:40 PM
I think one thing should be made clear before we go on.
There will be no justic made to murderers that we would like. The "holding in a small cell with no light" and "one basic meal a day" would never fly.
Guantanamo Bay has been attacked by several human rights groups because of "cruel acts" done there. (I know there's are reports of innocent people but they're not all innocent and some are getting what they deserve, but lets leave that out of this debate)
Now, if the U.S. started to do those same things in all of our prisons like the small cells, discomfort, pain, insanity, and one meal a day what would happen? We would get attacked by every human rights group in the world and in our own country.
So the only choices are the death penalty or the current life without parole.
With that said here's a clipping from a story I thought made a good point.
"Jeffrey Dahlmer raped, killed and ate parts of at least thirteen men. As punishment, the government was planning to feed, clothe, educate, medicate, entertain, and legally represent him for the rest of his life. Families of his victims would pay taxes, in part, to keep Dahlmer comfortable, warm in winter and cool in summer. That type of punishment should scare the dickens out of other mass murderers."
There will be no justic made to murderers that we would like. The "holding in a small cell with no light" and "one basic meal a day" would never fly.
Guantanamo Bay has been attacked by several human rights groups because of "cruel acts" done there. (I know there's are reports of innocent people but they're not all innocent and some are getting what they deserve, but lets leave that out of this debate)
Now, if the U.S. started to do those same things in all of our prisons like the small cells, discomfort, pain, insanity, and one meal a day what would happen? We would get attacked by every human rights group in the world and in our own country.
So the only choices are the death penalty or the current life without parole.
With that said here's a clipping from a story I thought made a good point.
"Jeffrey Dahlmer raped, killed and ate parts of at least thirteen men. As punishment, the government was planning to feed, clothe, educate, medicate, entertain, and legally represent him for the rest of his life. Families of his victims would pay taxes, in part, to keep Dahlmer comfortable, warm in winter and cool in summer. That type of punishment should scare the dickens out of other mass murderers."
Moppie
12-15-2005, 10:23 PM
With that said here's a clipping from a story I thought made a good point.
"Jeffrey Dahlmer raped, killed and ate parts of at least thirteen men. As punishment, the government was planning to feed, clothe, educate, medicate, entertain, and legally represent him for the rest of his life. Families of his victims would pay taxes, in part, to keep Dahlmer comfortable, warm in winter and cool in summer. That type of punishment should scare the dickens out of other mass murderers."
If Prison is so wonderful why don't more people want to go live there?
Have you ever been inside a prison? Or talked to anyone who spent a serious amount of time inside?
I can assure you its not a holiday camp.
There is no room in a proper philisophical dissucusion for emotional statements and perverted ideals.
If you can not provide well reasoned debate that is able to surport your ideas and beliefs then you are not having a philosophical discussion.
"Jeffrey Dahlmer raped, killed and ate parts of at least thirteen men. As punishment, the government was planning to feed, clothe, educate, medicate, entertain, and legally represent him for the rest of his life. Families of his victims would pay taxes, in part, to keep Dahlmer comfortable, warm in winter and cool in summer. That type of punishment should scare the dickens out of other mass murderers."
If Prison is so wonderful why don't more people want to go live there?
Have you ever been inside a prison? Or talked to anyone who spent a serious amount of time inside?
I can assure you its not a holiday camp.
There is no room in a proper philisophical dissucusion for emotional statements and perverted ideals.
If you can not provide well reasoned debate that is able to surport your ideas and beliefs then you are not having a philosophical discussion.
Muscletang
12-15-2005, 10:55 PM
If Prison is so wonderful why don't more people want to go live there?
Have you ever been inside a prison? Or talked to anyone who spent a serious amount of time inside?
I can assure you its not a holiday camp.
Ok then here's a little article you might like.
"In 1986 prisoners at the Washington State Reformatory in Monroe,
WA were allowed to purchase computers and software and keep them
in their cells. The program at its peak had some 56 prisoner
computer owners in it. During this period the only problem that
arose was one prisoner who hid a small piece of marijuana behind
his computer monitor. As a result he lost his computer. (Had the
marijuana been hidden in another appliance, either his TV or radio,
he would not have been required to mail it out.)"
SOURCE (http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact-list/1996-August/000580.html)
YEAH! Those prisons are just a bitch to live in a bet. I'm glad to know that if I kill somebody I can still possibly have a TV, radio, and computer in my cell for the rest of my life.
Prisons aren't the ideal place you want to live but for a place that houses rapist, murderers, stalkers, thieves, and drug dealers it isn't the worst place to live either.
There is no room in a proper philisophical dissucusion for emotional statements and perverted ideals.
If you can not provide well reasoned debate that is able to surport your ideas and beliefs then you are not having a philosophical discussion.
Emotional and perveted ideals and statements? I don't think so.
That guy is the type of killer that is being arrested every single year and people are wanting to put to death. I've come upon many sites where guys have done, much MUCH worse and their sitting in our prison systems as we speak. These are the guys people defending and saying "it's wrong to kill them." If you can't stomach what these people have done, then why are you defending them from the death they deserve?
Not to mention the victem's families of these killers do have to pay taxes to keep them nice and comfy for the rest of their lives. Charles Manson's victem's families are paying to keep him locked up right now. Is that justic?
Have you ever been inside a prison? Or talked to anyone who spent a serious amount of time inside?
I can assure you its not a holiday camp.
Ok then here's a little article you might like.
"In 1986 prisoners at the Washington State Reformatory in Monroe,
WA were allowed to purchase computers and software and keep them
in their cells. The program at its peak had some 56 prisoner
computer owners in it. During this period the only problem that
arose was one prisoner who hid a small piece of marijuana behind
his computer monitor. As a result he lost his computer. (Had the
marijuana been hidden in another appliance, either his TV or radio,
he would not have been required to mail it out.)"
SOURCE (http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact-list/1996-August/000580.html)
YEAH! Those prisons are just a bitch to live in a bet. I'm glad to know that if I kill somebody I can still possibly have a TV, radio, and computer in my cell for the rest of my life.
Prisons aren't the ideal place you want to live but for a place that houses rapist, murderers, stalkers, thieves, and drug dealers it isn't the worst place to live either.
There is no room in a proper philisophical dissucusion for emotional statements and perverted ideals.
If you can not provide well reasoned debate that is able to surport your ideas and beliefs then you are not having a philosophical discussion.
Emotional and perveted ideals and statements? I don't think so.
That guy is the type of killer that is being arrested every single year and people are wanting to put to death. I've come upon many sites where guys have done, much MUCH worse and their sitting in our prison systems as we speak. These are the guys people defending and saying "it's wrong to kill them." If you can't stomach what these people have done, then why are you defending them from the death they deserve?
Not to mention the victem's families of these killers do have to pay taxes to keep them nice and comfy for the rest of their lives. Charles Manson's victem's families are paying to keep him locked up right now. Is that justic?
Moppie
12-15-2005, 11:46 PM
If you can't stomach what these people have done, then why are you defending them from the death they deserve?
I have yet to see anyone in this thread give a reason as to why they deserve to die.
You can not justify it by saying "because they killed somebody" its simply not enough.
Lots of people kill other people everyday, yet no one here thinks they should be put to death.
I have yet to see anyone in this thread give a reason as to why they deserve to die.
You can not justify it by saying "because they killed somebody" its simply not enough.
Lots of people kill other people everyday, yet no one here thinks they should be put to death.
thrasher
12-16-2005, 12:00 AM
You're not going to find a formal, logical argument for capital punishment, because it is impossible to develop such reasoning. Murderers should be housed in prisons where they are isolated from society and can do no more harm. We as humans do not have the right to decide whether others will die, regardless of what they have or have not done. All I see in here are a lot of emotional arguments, this crime was so brutal blah blah blah, I hate that person for killing a family member blah blah blah...we as a society shouldn't be making decisions based on emotion, we should make them based on logic and reason.
Muscletang
12-16-2005, 01:18 AM
I have yet to see anyone in this thread give a reason as to why they deserve to die.
I have yet to see anyone in this thread give a reason as to why they shouldn't die.
You're not going to find a formal, logical argument for capital punishment, because it is impossible to develop such reasoning.
Funny because I don't see a logical argument against capital punishment.
If killing a person because they committed murder is wrong, then it's wrong for a police office to break the speed limit to chase after a person speeding.
Murderers should be housed in prisons where they are isolated from society and can do no more harm.
Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and killed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00.
In 1962, James Moore killed Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years.
Kenneth McDuff, for instance, was convicted of the 1966 killing of two boys and their 16-year-old female companion. A Fort Worth jury ruled that McDuff should die in the electric chair, a sentence commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as then imposed. In 1989, with Texas prisons overflowing and state officials under fire from the federal judiciary, McDuff was quietly turned loose on an unsuspecting citizenry. He killed maybe 9 more people before he was caught again and finally executed.
We as humans do not have the right to decide whether others will die, regardless of what they have or have not done. All I see in here are a lot of emotional arguments, this crime was so brutal blah blah blah, I hate that person for killing a family member blah blah blah...
Are you a religious person then? If humans don't have the right then who does, God? Is murder getting in the way of God's will or do you have another argument for that?
we as a society shouldn't be making decisions based on emotion, we should make them based on logic and reason.
Tell that to the killers.
Source on the murder cases stated above (http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#life)
I have yet to see anyone in this thread give a reason as to why they shouldn't die.
You're not going to find a formal, logical argument for capital punishment, because it is impossible to develop such reasoning.
Funny because I don't see a logical argument against capital punishment.
If killing a person because they committed murder is wrong, then it's wrong for a police office to break the speed limit to chase after a person speeding.
Murderers should be housed in prisons where they are isolated from society and can do no more harm.
Dawud Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab driver when he escaped a road work gang and killed a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery that netted $4.00.
In 1962, James Moore killed Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years.
Kenneth McDuff, for instance, was convicted of the 1966 killing of two boys and their 16-year-old female companion. A Fort Worth jury ruled that McDuff should die in the electric chair, a sentence commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as then imposed. In 1989, with Texas prisons overflowing and state officials under fire from the federal judiciary, McDuff was quietly turned loose on an unsuspecting citizenry. He killed maybe 9 more people before he was caught again and finally executed.
We as humans do not have the right to decide whether others will die, regardless of what they have or have not done. All I see in here are a lot of emotional arguments, this crime was so brutal blah blah blah, I hate that person for killing a family member blah blah blah...
Are you a religious person then? If humans don't have the right then who does, God? Is murder getting in the way of God's will or do you have another argument for that?
we as a society shouldn't be making decisions based on emotion, we should make them based on logic and reason.
Tell that to the killers.
Source on the murder cases stated above (http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#life)
Moppie
12-16-2005, 01:31 AM
Stop citing examples of terriable murders and other crimes, we are not denying they happened, or are terriable things.
And they certianly do not justify the murder of another human being.
Your stating irrelivent cases that are only aimed to illecit and emotional reponse in the hope it will get people to agree with you.
It does nothing to further your argument however.
Now give us a good reason as to why people should be put to death?
And "because they are murders" is NOT ONE.
And they certianly do not justify the murder of another human being.
Your stating irrelivent cases that are only aimed to illecit and emotional reponse in the hope it will get people to agree with you.
It does nothing to further your argument however.
Now give us a good reason as to why people should be put to death?
And "because they are murders" is NOT ONE.
Muscletang
12-16-2005, 01:43 AM
Stop citing examples of terriable murders and other crimes, we are not denying they happened, or are terriable things.
I edited my last post and any other posting I'll read and take out anything that might upset or offend anyone. I post them though because I feel they do make a point as I'll state below.
I will though take out any "details" that are not needed for this debate. I appologize for anybody who read that and didn't want to.
Your stating irrelivent cases that are only aimed to illecit and emotional reponse in the hope it will get people to agree with you.
It does nothing to further your argument however.
I stated them because one guy escaped from prison, the other was set free, and the other one is up for parole every two years. These guys murdered people and weren't "locked up for the rest of their days." They went on to kill others after their sentencing or after escaping from prison.
Now give us a good reason as to why people should be put to death?
And "because they are murders" is NOT ONE.
Charles Manson did some pretty bad things. He is probably going to die in prison but he has had parole hearings.
This tells you something is wrong when a man can do what he did and still get hearings to be set free. He is crazy, I'm not just saying that, he's crazy, like, out there. If he ever got free there's no telling what he might do because...he's crazy.
Lucky for us he was so crazy they didn't really consider at his hearing and he's still locked up.
Now, what good does this guy do to just sit in prison all day long. I believe this guy is a waste of space and we don't need him.
I believe he should be put to death because he can't be set free, he's doing nothing but draining the tax payer's money by sitting in prison, and no good will ever come from him.
Why wait for him to die 20 years from now when you can do it right away and know it's finished?
I edited my last post and any other posting I'll read and take out anything that might upset or offend anyone. I post them though because I feel they do make a point as I'll state below.
I will though take out any "details" that are not needed for this debate. I appologize for anybody who read that and didn't want to.
Your stating irrelivent cases that are only aimed to illecit and emotional reponse in the hope it will get people to agree with you.
It does nothing to further your argument however.
I stated them because one guy escaped from prison, the other was set free, and the other one is up for parole every two years. These guys murdered people and weren't "locked up for the rest of their days." They went on to kill others after their sentencing or after escaping from prison.
Now give us a good reason as to why people should be put to death?
And "because they are murders" is NOT ONE.
Charles Manson did some pretty bad things. He is probably going to die in prison but he has had parole hearings.
This tells you something is wrong when a man can do what he did and still get hearings to be set free. He is crazy, I'm not just saying that, he's crazy, like, out there. If he ever got free there's no telling what he might do because...he's crazy.
Lucky for us he was so crazy they didn't really consider at his hearing and he's still locked up.
Now, what good does this guy do to just sit in prison all day long. I believe this guy is a waste of space and we don't need him.
I believe he should be put to death because he can't be set free, he's doing nothing but draining the tax payer's money by sitting in prison, and no good will ever come from him.
Why wait for him to die 20 years from now when you can do it right away and know it's finished?
Rally Sport
12-16-2005, 02:13 AM
About that prison is no cakewalk thing I will say that I havent been to a prison in some time but I did go to one about 2 years ago to visit my uncle for printing money. Well you know how in Mexico the prison is suppost to be way worse right? Wrong, man. He had a nice TV, AC, pretty decent bed, but his buddy's had an Xbox with some new games and they had a hella lot of food, its basicly like a little society in there except they cant go anywhere, so its like being on an island. Not that bad though, except you can do much stuff except pass time.
2strokebloke
12-16-2005, 03:46 AM
Unfortunately Mr. Tang, your argument does not follow.
I oppose the death penalty but that does not mean (or imply) that I'm in favour of granting serial killers parole. I don't think Manson, etc. should ever be let out. Your argument is totally irrelevent to the issue being discussed and in no way proves anything either in favour of or against the use of the death penalty.
I oppose the death penalty but that does not mean (or imply) that I'm in favour of granting serial killers parole. I don't think Manson, etc. should ever be let out. Your argument is totally irrelevent to the issue being discussed and in no way proves anything either in favour of or against the use of the death penalty.
Muscletang
12-16-2005, 04:23 AM
I oppose the death penalty but that does not mean (or imply) that I'm in favour of granting serial killers parole.
Didn't mean to imply that if you're against the death penatly you're for the release of guys like Charles Manson.
What I'm saying is what good is it doing to keep him alive? The man is a cold blooded killer that is doing nothing buy staying alive.
Look at Ted Bundy as an example. Escaped right before his murder trial, ran off and killed another person. He was then caught, brought to trial, and executed.
If he would have gotten life without parole, would he have escaped again and killed somebody else? We'll never know for sure.
I could go on and on but there are some sick people out there who don't think on our level of thinking. They are almost too dangerous to be left alive and society won't be at a loss if they're removed.
Didn't mean to imply that if you're against the death penatly you're for the release of guys like Charles Manson.
What I'm saying is what good is it doing to keep him alive? The man is a cold blooded killer that is doing nothing buy staying alive.
Look at Ted Bundy as an example. Escaped right before his murder trial, ran off and killed another person. He was then caught, brought to trial, and executed.
If he would have gotten life without parole, would he have escaped again and killed somebody else? We'll never know for sure.
I could go on and on but there are some sick people out there who don't think on our level of thinking. They are almost too dangerous to be left alive and society won't be at a loss if they're removed.
Moppie
12-16-2005, 04:30 AM
I edited my last post and any other posting I'll read and take out anything that might upset or offend anyone.
No need to do that, its thier relevance to the debate that Im questioning.
And 2stroke answered it for me.
The examples you gave show flaws in your justice or prision system, they do not show that its ok to kill people.
Which is exactly what this is about, your saying its not ok to kill people, but it is ok to kill people.
Which is it? Does human life hold any value to you? Or do you think we should be free to kill who ever society thinks its ok to kill?
No need to do that, its thier relevance to the debate that Im questioning.
And 2stroke answered it for me.
The examples you gave show flaws in your justice or prision system, they do not show that its ok to kill people.
Which is exactly what this is about, your saying its not ok to kill people, but it is ok to kill people.
Which is it? Does human life hold any value to you? Or do you think we should be free to kill who ever society thinks its ok to kill?
fredjacksonsan
12-16-2005, 06:47 AM
My point exactly. Earlier on, I said it was hypocritical to kill someone because they killed someone. It is.
That is why I suggested replacing life in a 6x6 cell and no amenities for the death penalty. The killer in question would be incarcerated, ineligible for parole, and without anything to make his/her stay more comfortable. Life imprisonment should be punishment, not a coddled Xbox existence.
That is why I suggested replacing life in a 6x6 cell and no amenities for the death penalty. The killer in question would be incarcerated, ineligible for parole, and without anything to make his/her stay more comfortable. Life imprisonment should be punishment, not a coddled Xbox existence.
Tbabie98
12-16-2005, 06:56 AM
I think that it is right that Gov Arnold did not allow him to be taken off death row. What he did back in his day and they people he got involved (and still happening today) and all the people that were murdered or beat up or harmed in some way shape or form. He deserved to receieve the death penlity. I guess I am heartless. But I think IF it is proven w/out a reasonable doubt they are guity. It should be an eye for an eye.
Sorry if you don't agree or are offended by my statment. But I believe you should be punished for the crime. AS long as you are proven Guilty. WITH NO doubts.
But Tookie WIlliams confessed and yes he did much work/help to try to help others NOT become apart of the gang scene. But a little too late. That doesn't make up for all he did in his past and they way he led others to do that same things, still to this day.
Sorry if you don't agree or are offended by my statment. But I believe you should be punished for the crime. AS long as you are proven Guilty. WITH NO doubts.
But Tookie WIlliams confessed and yes he did much work/help to try to help others NOT become apart of the gang scene. But a little too late. That doesn't make up for all he did in his past and they way he led others to do that same things, still to this day.
Muscletang
12-16-2005, 11:45 AM
The examples you gave show flaws in your justice or prision system, they do not show that its ok to kill people.
Which is exactly what this is about, your saying its not ok to kill people, but it is ok to kill people.
No, I'm saying it's wrong to murder somebody. I'm not against the execution of somebody though. Murder is the illegal killing of somebody but execution is the legal killing of them for enforcing a legal judgment as said in Webster's dictionary.
ex·e·cu·tion 2 : a putting to death especially as a legal penalty
3 : the process of enforcing a legal judgment
mur·der 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person
Which is it? Does human life hold any value to you?
Of course.
Or do you think we should be free to kill who ever society thinks its ok to kill?
There has to be rules and regulations to this. There may be a good portion of Americans that want Michael Moore dead. Does this mean it's ok to kill Michael Moore? No.
My point exactly. Earlier on, I said it was hypocritical to kill someone because they killed someone. It is.
Executing somebody is done in the name of the law, murder is not.
If that's the stance then I guess it's hypocritical for a police officer to break the speed limit to catch a speeder.
I guess it's also hypocritical for a police officer to draw his gun and fire at somebody because it's assault with a deadly weapon.
I guess a whole lot of things police officers do would be hypocritical.
That is why I suggested replacing life in a 6x6 cell and no amenities for the death penalty. The killer in question would be incarcerated, ineligible for parole, and without anything to make his/her stay more comfortable. Life imprisonment should be punishment, not a coddled Xbox existence.
I agree with this and wish this were the case. I would give up the death penatly if I knew 100% that this is what these guys would get. It's not though and I don't see it happening anytime soon. If we did do something like that, how many human rights groups would be jumping all over us?
This is why I posted those crime stories. Our system is flawed with giving prisoners nice things and making them nice and comfy. Not to mention the fact that people who can do really bad things are eligible for parole.
Unless the system was majorly fixed up to do this and people were willingly to stand by and do it I'm supporting the death penatly.
Which sounds worse, a prison cell with the basics, TV, xbox, radio, computer, ect with possibly getting out in a few years, or the electric chair?
Which is exactly what this is about, your saying its not ok to kill people, but it is ok to kill people.
No, I'm saying it's wrong to murder somebody. I'm not against the execution of somebody though. Murder is the illegal killing of somebody but execution is the legal killing of them for enforcing a legal judgment as said in Webster's dictionary.
ex·e·cu·tion 2 : a putting to death especially as a legal penalty
3 : the process of enforcing a legal judgment
mur·der 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person
Which is it? Does human life hold any value to you?
Of course.
Or do you think we should be free to kill who ever society thinks its ok to kill?
There has to be rules and regulations to this. There may be a good portion of Americans that want Michael Moore dead. Does this mean it's ok to kill Michael Moore? No.
My point exactly. Earlier on, I said it was hypocritical to kill someone because they killed someone. It is.
Executing somebody is done in the name of the law, murder is not.
If that's the stance then I guess it's hypocritical for a police officer to break the speed limit to catch a speeder.
I guess it's also hypocritical for a police officer to draw his gun and fire at somebody because it's assault with a deadly weapon.
I guess a whole lot of things police officers do would be hypocritical.
That is why I suggested replacing life in a 6x6 cell and no amenities for the death penalty. The killer in question would be incarcerated, ineligible for parole, and without anything to make his/her stay more comfortable. Life imprisonment should be punishment, not a coddled Xbox existence.
I agree with this and wish this were the case. I would give up the death penatly if I knew 100% that this is what these guys would get. It's not though and I don't see it happening anytime soon. If we did do something like that, how many human rights groups would be jumping all over us?
This is why I posted those crime stories. Our system is flawed with giving prisoners nice things and making them nice and comfy. Not to mention the fact that people who can do really bad things are eligible for parole.
Unless the system was majorly fixed up to do this and people were willingly to stand by and do it I'm supporting the death penatly.
Which sounds worse, a prison cell with the basics, TV, xbox, radio, computer, ect with possibly getting out in a few years, or the electric chair?
fredjacksonsan
12-16-2005, 11:50 AM
No, I'm saying it's wrong to murder somebody. I'm not against the execution of somebody though. Murder is the illegal killing of somebody but execution is the legal killing of them for enforcing a legal judgment as said in Webster's dictionary.
ex·e·cu·tion 2 : a putting to death especially as a legal penalty
3 : the process of enforcing a legal judgment
mur·der 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person
I think the point here is that killing is killing.
There has to be rules and regulations to this. There may be a good portion of Americans that want Michael Moore dead. Does this mean it's ok to kill Michael Moore? No.
By the argument about legal or illegal killing, if the government passed a law that Michael Moore could be killed, would that be justified? With that logic we are treading on the thin ice of dictatorship, where the state can kill whoever it wants, just by saying they're an enemy of the state. Just because it's legal to kill someone doesn't necessarily make it right; it's still hypocrisy to kill someone because they've killed someone.
ex·e·cu·tion 2 : a putting to death especially as a legal penalty
3 : the process of enforcing a legal judgment
mur·der 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person
I think the point here is that killing is killing.
There has to be rules and regulations to this. There may be a good portion of Americans that want Michael Moore dead. Does this mean it's ok to kill Michael Moore? No.
By the argument about legal or illegal killing, if the government passed a law that Michael Moore could be killed, would that be justified? With that logic we are treading on the thin ice of dictatorship, where the state can kill whoever it wants, just by saying they're an enemy of the state. Just because it's legal to kill someone doesn't necessarily make it right; it's still hypocrisy to kill someone because they've killed someone.
Muscletang
12-16-2005, 12:07 PM
I think the point here is that killing is killing.
if the government passed a law that Michael Moore could be killed, would that be justified? With that logic we are treading on the thin ice of dictatorship, where the state can kill whoever it wants, just by saying they're an enemy of the state.
It wouldn't justified because for one it is unconstitutional.
Just because it's legal to kill someone doesn't necessarily make it right; it's still hypocrisy to kill someone because they've killed someone.
As I stated above, then it's hypocrisy for what a whole lot of our law enforcement agencies have done. Do they not break the laws to enforce them?
if the government passed a law that Michael Moore could be killed, would that be justified? With that logic we are treading on the thin ice of dictatorship, where the state can kill whoever it wants, just by saying they're an enemy of the state.
It wouldn't justified because for one it is unconstitutional.
Just because it's legal to kill someone doesn't necessarily make it right; it's still hypocrisy to kill someone because they've killed someone.
As I stated above, then it's hypocrisy for what a whole lot of our law enforcement agencies have done. Do they not break the laws to enforce them?
Gohan Ryu
12-16-2005, 04:22 PM
Anyone ever hear of Richard Speck? On July 14, 1966, Speck broke into a South Chicago townhouse and took 8 student nurses hostage. He held them hostage for hours, beating and raping them, before finally stabbing them to death.
Speck was not given the death penalty for his crimes - he was declared a sociopath and given a life sentence. Years later - sometime in the 80's, video footage of Speck in prison was publicized. The video showed him partying with his cellmate - snorting coke, smoking weed, at one point his cellmate gives him a blowjob. The whole time Speck is laughing and making fun of his supposed "punishment" for the murders he committed.
On the video his cellmate asks him how he feels about his murder victims. Speck laughs and says "It wasn't their night".
Imagine how the families of his victims felt after seeing that footage. Imagine your sister or girlfriend raped and murdered by this guy, then seeing him in prison, partying and laughing at your dead sister/girlfriend.
The death penalty is the only solution for some people.
Here's Speck's story...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Speck
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/speck/speckmain.htm
Speck was not given the death penalty for his crimes - he was declared a sociopath and given a life sentence. Years later - sometime in the 80's, video footage of Speck in prison was publicized. The video showed him partying with his cellmate - snorting coke, smoking weed, at one point his cellmate gives him a blowjob. The whole time Speck is laughing and making fun of his supposed "punishment" for the murders he committed.
On the video his cellmate asks him how he feels about his murder victims. Speck laughs and says "It wasn't their night".
Imagine how the families of his victims felt after seeing that footage. Imagine your sister or girlfriend raped and murdered by this guy, then seeing him in prison, partying and laughing at your dead sister/girlfriend.
The death penalty is the only solution for some people.
Here's Speck's story...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Speck
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/speck/speckmain.htm
Gohan Ryu
12-16-2005, 04:35 PM
"It's more of a punishment to be locked in a 2m x 2m concrete cell with no outside contact for the rest of your life than to be killed. Some would say it's inhumane, but that's what should be substituted for the death penalty - you go to this cell until you die. You have nothing, see nothing except your once a day meal. The light comes on at 6am and goes off at 6pm. You have a toilet and a sink. No magazines, no TV, nothing other than your meals comes into the cell. The only thing that comes out of your cell is you - when you're dead.
This is a good idea, but it would be considered inhumane (even more so than the death penalty). The ACLU would have a freakin field day.
This is a good idea, but it would be considered inhumane (even more so than the death penalty). The ACLU would have a freakin field day.
Moppie
12-16-2005, 05:08 PM
The death penalty is the only solution for some people.
The final solution prehaps? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The final solution prehaps? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Gohan Ryu
12-16-2005, 05:39 PM
The final solution prehaps? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Well, Speck is now dead. Heart attack....we'll never hear from him again in this lifetime. He won't be around to spit in the face of society, he won't hurt his victims families anymore. We won't worry about him being parolled because of some tax-cut. Yes, that solution is pretty final.
Well, Speck is now dead. Heart attack....we'll never hear from him again in this lifetime. He won't be around to spit in the face of society, he won't hurt his victims families anymore. We won't worry about him being parolled because of some tax-cut. Yes, that solution is pretty final.
Moppie
12-16-2005, 05:45 PM
Well, Speck is now dead. Heart attack....we'll never hear from him again in this lifetime. He won't be around to spit in the face of society, he won't hurt his victims families anymore. We won't worry about him being parolled because of some tax-cut. Yes, that solution is pretty final.
:banghead: :banghead: http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/fsol.htm
You think its acceptable to kill people because they don't fit into your idea of the ideal citizen?
Well guess what, I don't think you fit the idea of the perfect citizen because you think its ok to kill people, and right now I happen to agree with you. Its been nice knowing you, but you will be sentanced to death.
:banghead: :banghead: http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/fsol.htm
You think its acceptable to kill people because they don't fit into your idea of the ideal citizen?
Well guess what, I don't think you fit the idea of the perfect citizen because you think its ok to kill people, and right now I happen to agree with you. Its been nice knowing you, but you will be sentanced to death.
Muscletang
12-16-2005, 06:24 PM
:banghead: :banghead: http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/fsol.htm
How does the holocaust tie into this thing?
You think its acceptable to kill people because they don't fit into your idea of the ideal citizen?
Richard Ramirez
David Berkowitz
Ted Bundy
John Wayne Gacy
Charles Manson and the Manson Family
Richard Trenton Chase
Yeah, it's really hard to see how they don't fit the role of an ideal citizen. Why would we want to kill them? They seem like such nice people.
Well guess what, I don't think you fit the idea of the perfect citizen because you think its ok to kill people, and right now I happen to agree with you. Its been nice knowing you, but you will be sentanced to death.
Yeah, the execution of a criminal who has done crimes and the execution of people for political gain really go hand in hand.
How does the holocaust tie into this thing?
You think its acceptable to kill people because they don't fit into your idea of the ideal citizen?
Richard Ramirez
David Berkowitz
Ted Bundy
John Wayne Gacy
Charles Manson and the Manson Family
Richard Trenton Chase
Yeah, it's really hard to see how they don't fit the role of an ideal citizen. Why would we want to kill them? They seem like such nice people.
Well guess what, I don't think you fit the idea of the perfect citizen because you think its ok to kill people, and right now I happen to agree with you. Its been nice knowing you, but you will be sentanced to death.
Yeah, the execution of a criminal who has done crimes and the execution of people for political gain really go hand in hand.
Gohan Ryu
12-16-2005, 06:32 PM
:banghead: :banghead: http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/fsol.htm
Calm down, no reason for hostility. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Hitler wanted Jews killed because they spoke a different language, didn't have blonde hair and blues eyes, and they had different religious values. That is why he considered them less than human. In the eyes of any sane person those are not offenses, certainly not punishable by torture and murder in concentration camps. Hitler's "Perfect solution" was GENOCIDE.
If you're saying that by executing convicted criminals like Richard Speck we are committing genocide...well, you see that arguement makes absolutely no sense at all. I'm not saying convicted murderers should be tortured, starved, experimented on the way the Nazis did the Jews. I am not dehumanizing Richard Speck or anyone.
Well guess what, I don't think you fit the idea of the perfect citizen because you think its ok to kill people, and right now I happen to agree with you. Its been nice knowing you, but you will be sentanced to death.
It's not about what makes an ideal citizen, it's about the actions of a human being, and how they affect other (innocent) people. You want me dead because I believe a viscious and insane murderer should be dealt with and his victims families should have closure. You're comparing me to a man who kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered 8 young women. You're losing your composure dude. Up until that point you were almost making compelling arguements.
Calm down, no reason for hostility. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Hitler wanted Jews killed because they spoke a different language, didn't have blonde hair and blues eyes, and they had different religious values. That is why he considered them less than human. In the eyes of any sane person those are not offenses, certainly not punishable by torture and murder in concentration camps. Hitler's "Perfect solution" was GENOCIDE.
If you're saying that by executing convicted criminals like Richard Speck we are committing genocide...well, you see that arguement makes absolutely no sense at all. I'm not saying convicted murderers should be tortured, starved, experimented on the way the Nazis did the Jews. I am not dehumanizing Richard Speck or anyone.
Well guess what, I don't think you fit the idea of the perfect citizen because you think its ok to kill people, and right now I happen to agree with you. Its been nice knowing you, but you will be sentanced to death.
It's not about what makes an ideal citizen, it's about the actions of a human being, and how they affect other (innocent) people. You want me dead because I believe a viscious and insane murderer should be dealt with and his victims families should have closure. You're comparing me to a man who kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered 8 young women. You're losing your composure dude. Up until that point you were almost making compelling arguements.
Moppie
12-16-2005, 07:05 PM
It's not about what makes an ideal citizen, it's about the actions of a human being,
Ahhh, so finaly we are getting somewhere.
Define a human for me please?
And I want a deffinition that is totaly bullet proof. (Ill warn you now, there isn't one)
You have to reduce an argument to its most basic princables.
You claim its wrong to kill another human being. I accept that and agree.
Then you claim its right to kill another human being. I don't accept that.
So you add some conditions: Only if they have killed another human being in a way that goes against the laws of your country. I don't accept that. The laws of your country in my opinion hold less value than the value of human life. They are constantly changing, based on often unfounded fears or religeous ideals, and frequently contridict each other. They can be easily manipulated by people will ill intent, and are at thier most basic level designed to create a society where people are co-herced into doing what others think is right.
Human life however is something much more important, it is the one thing that every person in existance has in common, it is the one binding force that holds humanity together, and if you lose any respect for it then you lose that binding force.
Ahhh, so finaly we are getting somewhere.
Define a human for me please?
And I want a deffinition that is totaly bullet proof. (Ill warn you now, there isn't one)
You have to reduce an argument to its most basic princables.
You claim its wrong to kill another human being. I accept that and agree.
Then you claim its right to kill another human being. I don't accept that.
So you add some conditions: Only if they have killed another human being in a way that goes against the laws of your country. I don't accept that. The laws of your country in my opinion hold less value than the value of human life. They are constantly changing, based on often unfounded fears or religeous ideals, and frequently contridict each other. They can be easily manipulated by people will ill intent, and are at thier most basic level designed to create a society where people are co-herced into doing what others think is right.
Human life however is something much more important, it is the one thing that every person in existance has in common, it is the one binding force that holds humanity together, and if you lose any respect for it then you lose that binding force.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026