BF2S Forums Child Killer survives exeution ask to not be executed.

SEREMAKER wrote:

Hakei wrote:

He's a paedophile, that's what he does, he's wrong in the head, he should not be put to death.

There's no justice in killing someone who's killed himself, it's such hypocrisy. I also think it's too easy for all of you to say "Ahh he should be killed this way" and jump on the positive bandwagon, if the state can't organise a fucking execution properly they shouldn't be doing it.

I guess you missed the part where he KILLED her



if the state can't do it right ............... I can

Hakei wrote:

He's a paedophile, that's what he does, he's wrong in the head, he should not be put to death.

There's no justice in killing someone who's killed himself, it's such hypocrisy. I also think it's too easy for all of you to say "Ahh he should be killed this way" and jump on the positive bandwagon, if the state can't organise a fucking execution properly they shouldn't be doing it.

Hakei wrote:

There's no justice in killing someone who's killed himself, it's such hypocrisy.

Hakei wrote:

There's no justice in killing someone who's killed himself

Hakei wrote:

There's no justice inkilling someone who's killed himself

Hakei wrote:

who's killed himself

Hakei wrote:

himself

Hakei wrote:

himself

Hakei wrote:

himself

burnzz wrote:

i was told by a professor "if you can't (pull the trigger, push the needle, do the deed) then you don't really support the death penalty".
killed a 14 yr. old? i'm with SERE, i'll waive the fee.

consider this Hakei - you have a daughter, etc. etc. still feeling compassionate? it's ok, i'd still pull the trigger. some people need to be put down, if even for evolution's sake.

World's oldest chestnut. "Imagine it was your child blah blah blah"

Contrary to popular belief, people who have been affected by crime usually think a harsher punishment is deserved. A jury can't pass a judgement if any one of them has seen the defendant/prosecutor before. Know why? Because emotion and crime need to be separated to come to a conclusion.

Last edited by Hakei (2009-09-18 21:46:17)

Hakei wrote:

Know why? Because emotion and crime need to be separated to come to a conclusion.

that's where we part ways. the criminal doesn't separate emotion, and his crime always come to a conclusion.

some need to be put down, for the good of society. fuck that, for the good of the species.

I'd rather see him rot for the rest of his life in gaol then escape the torments of the prison system, his own mind, and the gaol cell he is forced to inhabit.

Death just means his suffering ends.

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd rather see him rot for the rest of his life in gaol then escape the torments of the prison system, his own mind, and the gaol cell he is forced to inhabit.

Death just means his suffering ends.

the gang thugs will kill him, they have children too

S.Lythberg wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd rather see him rot for the rest of his life in gaol then escape the torments of the prison system, his own mind, and the gaol cell he is forced to inhabit.

Death just means his suffering ends.

the gang thugs will kill him, they have children too

There's no justice like prison justice.

AussieReaper wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd rather see him rot for the rest of his life in gaol then escape the torments of the prison system, his own mind, and the gaol cell he is forced to inhabit.

Death just means his suffering ends.

the gang thugs will kill him, they have children too

There's no justice like prison justice.

http://i34.tinypic.com/10ds7ki.jpg

They even used proper grammar, interesting.

Turquoise wrote:

Hakei wrote:

World's oldest chestnut. "Imagine it was your child blah blah blah"

Contrary to popular belief, people who have been affected by crime usually think a harsher punishment is deserved. A jury can't pass a judgement if any one of them has seen the defendant/prosecutor before. Know why? Because emotion and crime need to be separated to come to a conclusion.

In principle, I agree with you.

In practicality though...  well, I don't see much use in keeping a murderous pedophile around.

There are certain people society is better off without.

Isn't this exactly the same philosophy that Hitler had? That society would be better off without certain members?

Where do you draw the line? We should suddenly start refusing to help homeless people because they don't contribute anything? What about fat people? People out of work/education? Simple petty criminals?

Hakei wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Hakei wrote:

World's oldest chestnut. "Imagine it was your child blah blah blah"

Contrary to popular belief, people who have been affected by crime usually think a harsher punishment is deserved. A jury can't pass a judgement if any one of them has seen the defendant/prosecutor before. Know why? Because emotion and crime need to be separated to come to a conclusion.

In principle, I agree with you.

In practicality though...  well, I don't see much use in keeping a murderous pedophile around.

There are certain people society is better off without.

Isn't this exactly the same philosophy that Hitler had? That society would be better off without certain members?

Where do you draw the line? We should suddenly start refusing to help homeless people because they don't contribute anything? What about fat people? People out of work/education? Simple petty criminals?

Yes.  Hitler did have similar principles in certain respects.

Eugenicists supported sterilizing the mentally ill.  If a legal framework was put together to define exactly how mentally ill a person would have to be to be sterilized, I would probably support it.  They also supported sterilizing the physically handicapped (those that were handicapped because of genes, not accidents).  Again, depending on the terms of the law put forth, I would probably support it.

Nevertheless, neither of these ideas would ever actually be implemented by our society today because they are extremely unpopular and probably unconstitutional.  The only reasons I support them myself are because they are very practical in the long run, and they minimize the number of people born into such adversities.  My feeling is that, just because you want kids, you don't have the right to subject a child to your genetic disorders.  Besides, you could still adopt kids under this scenario.

I think we should also encourage the homeless to get sterilized.  A voluntary system that would pay out something like $1,000 per sterilization could be arranged, and that would minimize the number of children born into extreme poverty.

On the other hand, I still support social programs, because we have to help those that are already here.

However, I also believe that some people are beyond help -- like the criminal in the OP.  Those people have to be disposed of, but this can only be done if they commit a crime that is already eligible for the death penalty.  I'm not advocating we kill everyone that is a burden, just those who have done heinous criminal acts.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-09-18 23:27:53)

mcgid1 wrote:

Or instead of having a backup plan we could just set up an automated minigun in a bullet proof room.  Two people in another room with two buttons solves the "who's the executioner" problem and 3000rpm solves the "we can't find a vein/we didn't use enough juice/we didn't set up the rope right" problem

I thought I was the only one who thought like this...

All my friends thought I was crazy when I suggested this method.

I bet a guillotine wouldn't have a problem finding a vein.  efficient device.

You do use arguments to debate though.

an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.

Bickering 5 year olds is not an argument.