I know many of you will disagree with me on this, but I think this is a disgusting waste of a human life. I know, I know, they've probably taken several lives already, but bleh - just sayin'.Karbin wrote:
If you get a "Dangerous Offender" designation, your in a 12X12 cell 23 hours a day under 24 hour CCTV watch. You do get a 13 inch tv, that you pay for, and 6 channels, that you pay for.
Actually I think the pro life argument is INNOCENT life is sacred, pretty sure they don't give a flying fuck about some piece of shit rapist,murderer or child molester. 'll leave it up to you to, to see if you can figure out why and if their reasons are good enough.AussieReaper wrote:
The pro-lifer argument is usually "all life is sacred". A fetus is a human!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There's an ethical divide that's vastly ignored by people who compare abortion-related deaths to the deaths of criminals who are deemed an incurable threat to society. The two are incomparable.AussieReaper wrote:
I'll bet you're pro-life too.
Yet they rarely, if at all, make that same argument in regards to the death penalty. All life is sacred, a criminal is still a human!
So, please, elaborate the ethical divide that I've clearly overlooked here.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-13 05:30:43)
Well, you could "what if" any issue to the point where there is no argument. Point is, with todays forensics and sciences and technology they are putting people away as guilty and setting people free as innocent. They are reversing justice to the right, not bumbling it. Pretty much with todays science, you ain't getting away with shit.Stubbee wrote:
Good. I happy someone else brought it up. But there are still convictions based upon faulty evidence which seemed iron clad, there are convictions based on eye witness testimony that seemed iron clad, there are convictions based on 'expert' testimony that seemed iron clad andlowing wrote:
We discussed that actually. What we were talking about is indisputable proof and guilt without a doubt, over whelming evidence etc. etc.. So if we were gunna put someone to death, there would be no doubt of their guilt. I think with todays technology and forensics all doubt is removed from such cases. I mean they are going back and solving cases 100 years old with science now. New crimes with these technologies really should cut down on the reasonable doubt factor.Stubbee wrote:
Didn't read all the pages so apologies if repeating this:
As long as it is possible to mistaken/wrongly execute an innocent person, it is WRONG to execute anybody. End of debate on capital punishment.
I understand the emotional response those stories evoke but what about the emotional response to the families of innocent executed prisoners?
"OOPS sorry we killed your mom/dad/son etc because we thought he/she was guilty of murder" or any level of monetary remuneration could never come close to repairing the damage.
What would you say to your family if you were to be executed for a murder you didn't commit?
You remove the offending parties from society for life. Make them work off their debt to society within the prison walls. Minimal contact with outside world. I am not a believer that everyone can be rehabilitated. There are a lot of broken people that no amount of therapy will ever fix (like the guy due for release in Rhode Island.). I would add the people from your stories to the list.
it turned out to be a huge mistake. Incompetent pathologists (several of these in the last few years), incompetent CSI, crooked cops (no such thing, right?) all mean that it is still possible to have a 100% iron clad capital crime conviction and the person STILL BE INNOCENT. Who ya gonna believe, the latino with the gang tattoos or the cop that says the gun was his, for example.
You can't be 100% sure.
There are times I wish I could be.
no it's not. It is representation for each victim. Yes, it is redundant to say 3 life sentences but out of respect for each victim, the guy is being punished for each crime, not just one.jaymz9350 wrote:
There is also life without the possibility of parole so the multiple life sentences is still pointless except maybe for some bragging rights in the pen.UnkleRukus wrote:
Pretty sure if you serve consecutive life sentences you would never be able to get out. You may be able to go to a parole board for one sentence but the others would hold you back.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Well after sentencing, you can take your case to appeals. First you go to the state appeals court, then to a US appeals court, and then (if it's deemed worthy of going being considered) to the Supreme Court. A fair amount of cases make it past US appeals, but very few actually end up at the supreme court. So if you appeal and the decision gets overturned, you'll get out before you die. I'm guessing that's how most life w/o parole sentences end up letting people out before their time.
They also usually allow for parole. In other words, you have a life sentence, but you can go before the parole board. If you're deemed fit to re-enter society then you're out, otherwise it's back in the clink.
What I don't understand is the concept of giving someone multiple life sentences.
not sure if you are talkin about me, but I never said a word about how I would torture criminals before I killed them, nor did I say anything about enjoying it. I have read every post here, and I don't recall anyone else talking about enjoying killing criminals.eleven bravo wrote:
never said anything about pro death penalty people, I said people who make these types of threads. the "how would you torture this rapist/child murderer/ serial killer" type threads. theyre pathetic and so are the people who post in them throwing in their own two cents on what they would do.lowing wrote:
No you are trying to demonize pro death penalty folks, by saying they would enjoy killing. I suppose in lieu of a real argument, I dunno.eleven bravo wrote:
these types of thread are always funny. people love chiming in on how theyll torture and execute criminal X. I guess they want live vicariously through the executuioner without leaving the comfort of their home or office
Fact is, pro death penalty people hold life very sacred, and view anyone that chooses to deny an innocent person of their life as someone that needs to be removed from society and not hidden away, but pay for their crime.
What makes 1 life more important than another?presidentsheep wrote:
what makes one life more important than another then?Macbeth wrote:
There is almost 7 billion people in the world, the life is precious argument doesn't really hold up.....
Just to say before you try to answer that there is no answer.
You get pretty excited about killing criminals, shooting home invaders, torturing suspected terrorists and so on.lowing wrote:
not sure if you are talkin about me, but I never said a word about how I would torture criminals before I killed them, nor did I say anything about enjoying it. I have read every post here, and I don't recall anyone else talking about enjoying killing criminals.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-13 05:47:59)
The point isn't to help anything. The point is to remove a murderer who has forfeited their right to live by taking another's life.Jenspm wrote:
A life has been taken, what does it help to take yet another one?
edit - Re: burnzz
yes burnzz, all PC aside, an innocent life is worth more than a rapists life child molesters life, murderers life etc....burnzz wrote:
are you killing someone for revenge, for monetary gain, to save the world?
who the fuck cares, you've killed someone else.
does that automatically prove that your life is worth more than the person you've killed?
If they are in prison for life, then they have been removed. The death penalty is a punishment and deterrent.lowing wrote:
The point isn't to help anything. The point is to remove a murderer who has forfeited their right to live by taking another's life.Jenspm wrote:
A life has been taken, what does it help to take yet another one?
edit - Re: burnzz
Is that really a comparison you wanna argue??? Really? a gaming forum membership to that of a murderer and his victim? Is that really where you are trying to make your argument?burnzz wrote:
so, dave's life is superior than brads.Jenspm wrote:
Huh? Dave kills Brad. Brad is now gone.
How does killing Dave help us? Brad is already gone, and chances are Dave won't repeat his offense. Is it not better to help Dave contribute to society?
RIP brad, your worthless life was terminated by the judgement of dave. we barely knew ya . . .
it's a good thing i'm not a mod then, because my membership in this forum is more important than anyones. i would permaban those members i deem less worthy than me.
in who's judgement is my forum membership more valuable than another members?
Shouldn't the objective be to prevent the innocent life being taken in the first place, instead of getting turned on dreaming up new ways to kill the criminal after the event?lowing wrote:
yes burnzz, all PC aside, an innocent life is worth more than a rapists life child molesters life, murderers life etc....burnzz wrote:
are you killing someone for revenge, for monetary gain, to save the world?
who the fuck cares, you've killed someone else.
does that automatically prove that your life is worth more than the person you've killed?
Dilbert, I don't get excited about any of that. Pointing out the fact that I am willing to defend my home and my family with deadly force, or think that a criminal should pay for their crimes, is a far cry from showing up to an execution wearing a giant foam hand and a beer dispensing hat.Dilbert_X wrote:
You get pretty excited about killing criminals, shooting home invaders, torturing suspected terrorists and so on.lowing wrote:
not sure if you are talkin about me, but I never said a word about how I would torture criminals before I killed them, nor did I say anything about enjoying it. I have read every post here, and I don't recall anyone else talking about enjoying killing criminals.
The objective is, to use someone who has already taken a life as an example to others. In taking a life they have not only taken one, but most likely broken others and it needs to be shown that the consequences for this are not worth the possible rewards.Dilbert_X wrote:
Shouldn't the objective be to prevent the innocent life being taken in the first place, instead of getting turned on dreaming up new ways to kill the criminal after the event?lowing wrote:
yes burnzz, all PC aside, an innocent life is worth more than a rapists life child molesters life, murderers life etc....burnzz wrote:
are you killing someone for revenge, for monetary gain, to save the world?
who the fuck cares, you've killed someone else.
does that automatically prove that your life is worth more than the person you've killed?
As I said already, the death penalty clearly doesn't reduce the crime rate, so on that analysis it fails.
And you're not wasting his by locking him up in jail?Jenspm wrote:
Yes, that person has wasted someone else's life already, but what does it help to waste his? You're only doubling the damage.
Its about punishment it is about justice. Again, you are inventing an argument that it is enjoyable, and turns people on to execute murderers. Try arguing against what has been posted instead.Dilbert_X wrote:
Shouldn't the objective be to prevent the innocent life being taken in the first place, instead of getting turned on dreaming up new ways to kill the criminal after the event?lowing wrote:
yes burnzz, all PC aside, an innocent life is worth more than a rapists life child molesters life, murderers life etc....burnzz wrote:
are you killing someone for revenge, for monetary gain, to save the world?
who the fuck cares, you've killed someone else.
does that automatically prove that your life is worth more than the person you've killed?
As I said already, the death penalty clearly doesn't reduce the crime rate, so on that analysis it fails.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-13 06:10:59)
In my mind, if you are willing to take an innocent life for your gains, then you are not really rational enough to think about deterrence or consequences. Those are not factors in my opinion. Punishment is.Nic wrote:
The objective is, to use someone who has already taken a life as an example to others. In taking a life they have not only taken one, but most likely broken others and it needs to be shown that the consequences for this are not worth the possible rewards.Dilbert_X wrote:
Shouldn't the objective be to prevent the innocent life being taken in the first place, instead of getting turned on dreaming up new ways to kill the criminal after the event?lowing wrote:
yes burnzz, all PC aside, an innocent life is worth more than a rapists life child molesters life, murderers life etc....
As I said already, the death penalty clearly doesn't reduce the crime rate, so on that analysis it fails.
The current system in the states seems so inefficent that it probably isn't much of a deterrent though.
So we're now killing a man for no good? If it doesn't help anything, why should we?lowing wrote:
The point isn't to help anything. The point is to remove a murderer who has forfeited their right to live by taking another's life.Jenspm wrote:
A life has been taken, what does it help to take yet another one?
edit - Re: burnzz
Who's to decide who deserves rehabilitation and who doesn't - who's to say 'you can live, but you can't'? The government? Does it get to decide who has the freedom of speech as well? I can trust my government with a lot, but I'm not about to give them a loaded gun and the right to kill.Spark wrote:
And you're not wasting his by locking him up in jail?Jenspm wrote:
Yes, that person has wasted someone else's life already, but what does it help to waste his? You're only doubling the damage.
Some people are beyond rehabilitation. Some people do not deserve rehabilitation, out of respect for the victims.
didn't I just answer that?Jenspm wrote:
So we're now killing a man for no good? If it doesn't help anything, why should we?lowing wrote:
The point isn't to help anything. The point is to remove a murderer who has forfeited their right to live by taking another's life.Jenspm wrote:
A life has been taken, what does it help to take yet another one?
edit - Re: burnzzWho's to decide who deserves rehabilitation and who doesn't - who's to say 'you can live, but you can't'? The government? Does it get to decide who has the freedom of speech as well? I can trust my government with a lot, but I'm not about to give them a loaded gun and the right to kill.Spark wrote:
And you're not wasting his by locking him up in jail?Jenspm wrote:
Yes, that person has wasted someone else's life already, but what does it help to waste his? You're only doubling the damage.
Some people are beyond rehabilitation. Some people do not deserve rehabilitation, out of respect for the victims.
And killing people 'out of respect of the victims'? Really? Are we going to end someone's life to satisfy a few people's savage craving for revenge?
