They gave him life with parole in 23 years. This is why we need a death penalty.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
We don't need the death penalty as an option. Side note, I can't get past how people who distrust the government so much (not talking about you) could possibly be in support of giving big brother the power of capital punishment. On one hand, "look over your shoulders because you could be the next Weavers." On the other, "execute all these freaks, heck I'll pay for the ammo."
There has got to be a wall between the two clusters of braincells in a mind like that that bars electrochemical signaling.
There has got to be a wall between the two clusters of braincells in a mind like that that bars electrochemical signaling.
Yes but juries.
What I want is for my fate to be decided by the 12 people who are too dumb to get out of jury service.
What I want is for my fate to be decided by the 12 people who are too dumb to get out of jury service.
Fuck Israel
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
If the death penalty were on the table, Mr. Fighting Irish would have had to plead down to Life with no parole to avoid the death penalty. I don't think they will ever give him parole but currently the victims loved ones must live with the possibility that the killer can be freed someday.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
We don't need the death penalty as an option. Side note, I can't get past how people who distrust the government so much (not talking about you) could possibly be in support of giving big brother the power of capital punishment. On one hand, "look over your shoulders because you could be the next Weavers." On the other, "execute all these freaks, heck I'll pay for the ammo."
There has got to be a wall between the two clusters of braincells in a mind like that that bars electrochemical signaling.
dilbert: the police are corrupt to the very highest level. judges are corrupt and only serve their mates and vested interests.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes but juries.
What I want is for my fate to be decided by the 12 people who are too dumb to get out of jury service.
also dilbert: juries are IdIocRaCy.
you truly are a fucking idiot.
Death row is a travesty and ongoing embarrassment for the country in terms of human rights. Who the heck is going to want to extradite one of their citizens to the US for trial if they think it's possible the death penalty might be involved?SuperJail Warden wrote:
If the death penalty were on the table, Mr. Fighting Irish would have had to plead down to Life with no parole to avoid the death penalty. I don't think they will ever give him parole but currently the victims loved ones must live with the possibility that the killer can be freed someday.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
We don't need the death penalty as an option. Side note, I can't get past how people who distrust the government so much (not talking about you) could possibly be in support of giving big brother the power of capital punishment. On one hand, "look over your shoulders because you could be the next Weavers." On the other, "execute all these freaks, heck I'll pay for the ammo."
There has got to be a wall between the two clusters of braincells in a mind like that that bars electrochemical signaling.
Imagine sitting there for decades wondering whether or not your pending execution will transmute to life in prison.
Really weird stance, mac.
The abolishment of the death penalty has some moral conundrums. It's fair to state that it can lead to grave errors of judgment where people are sentenced to death who were innocent or not at all deserving of a death sentence. Hence an argument for abolition.
Yet on the other end of the extreme you can question the justice in the sentences meted out to war criminals and serial killers (venn diagram, anyone?) in societies that have abolished the sentence while there is overwhelming evidence. I'd also like to question the humanity, morality and practicality to literal life imprisonment, some recipients being so dangerous they have to be kept in max security and near solitary confinement for the entire duration.
And, if we're honest, all societies including ours do condone murder in various circumstances, also in forms executed by the state. Most obviously warfare, in which we can even accept terms like collateral damage (i.e. murder of innocents). Yet in the treatment of a state's own citizens through law the topic of execution is suddenly taboo.
Elevated to the international stage, look to the international criminal court and the sentences meted out to the people indicted there. In some cases the facts are so absolutely horrific and heinous your jaw drops knowing that there's people with 20+ counts of war crimes that we don't just hang (and who instead are given sentences of 10-20 years in prison). Moreover, they're not sentenced in the places or in the view of the people against whom they committed the crimes either. That's a travesty too imo.
Yet on the other end of the extreme you can question the justice in the sentences meted out to war criminals and serial killers (venn diagram, anyone?) in societies that have abolished the sentence while there is overwhelming evidence. I'd also like to question the humanity, morality and practicality to literal life imprisonment, some recipients being so dangerous they have to be kept in max security and near solitary confinement for the entire duration.
And, if we're honest, all societies including ours do condone murder in various circumstances, also in forms executed by the state. Most obviously warfare, in which we can even accept terms like collateral damage (i.e. murder of innocents). Yet in the treatment of a state's own citizens through law the topic of execution is suddenly taboo.
Elevated to the international stage, look to the international criminal court and the sentences meted out to the people indicted there. In some cases the facts are so absolutely horrific and heinous your jaw drops knowing that there's people with 20+ counts of war crimes that we don't just hang (and who instead are given sentences of 10-20 years in prison). Moreover, they're not sentenced in the places or in the view of the people against whom they committed the crimes either. That's a travesty too imo.
Last edited by Larssen (2021-12-22 09:54:17)
i would hardly call it a 'taboo', as if it is invested with a great amount of mystification or irrational, unexplored psychic energies. most western liberal democracies which have come to abolish the death penalty do so with a healthy amount of scepticism and a fairly clear-sighted view about the state's ability to perfectly judge on matters of life and death. the opposite of a taboo in fact: call it painfully acquired wisdom.Yet in the treatment of a state's own citizens through law the topic of execution is suddenly taboo.
i don't see this as any more of a paradox, with regards to, for example, our ability to make war, as to say that all liberal and peaceful societies were once established and enclosed at the tip of a bayonet or with the threat of brute force. that's all part of shoring up of what a society is, sure. just because we especially sanction soldiers to go and kill our enemies, though, doesn't complicate the fact that a democratic citizen should not be executable by his/her own state.
the international criminal court and people being tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity are not really in the same legal category as people who formerly faced the death penalty for any number of crimes in their own royal/state courts. you could be condemned to death by your denizens and peers for theft or treason, for example, which is of a different order to genocide.
Last edited by uziq (2021-12-22 10:07:18)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
Do you guys think the guy in the video should be released in 20 years? Do you think it is possible to rehabilitate him?
He attacked his family with a knife, killing one, and threatened to do it again to some other woman. Emotions were high while he was bemoaning white Irish victimhood and the loss of his motorcycle, but I'm not confident letting him out would be a particularly wise idea with what we know now.
I would hope the board/psychiatrist at least reviews the situation so he isn't just dumped blindly outside the walls. There are mechanisms in place to hold sex offenders past their sentence for a battery of reasons. There is a lot of innuendo to "raping" someone's life out of them with a long, rigid knife.
I would hope the board/psychiatrist at least reviews the situation so he isn't just dumped blindly outside the walls. There are mechanisms in place to hold sex offenders past their sentence for a battery of reasons. There is a lot of innuendo to "raping" someone's life out of them with a long, rigid knife.
Larssen, I'm of the mind that whatever moral conundrums might be found in removing the death penalty can hardly be worse than keeping it in place. Capital punishment is a thing for which the US has received criticism for by other western countries time and time again, and rightly so. "International court/tribunal killed some Nazi war criminals so the US should continue to formalize the euthanization of its citizens" is probably a weird connection to draw.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
If you don't think he should ever be released then why shouldn't we just kill him?
Because that's still putting an uncomfortable amount of power over citizens into the state's hands. A black and white solution, not a look that you should want for American justice.SuperJail Warden wrote:
If you don't think he should ever be released then why shouldn't we just kill him?
I've made this argument before quite recently, but I simply can't wrap my head around how someone (without eventually breaking) can both distrust the government, but still want to give them the authority to kill people for increasingly less grievous offenses. You on the other hand seem worse in that you actually are educated but keep taking these hard or borderline stances, sometimes on the same page where you acknowledged that some of societies problems have root causes that could be addressed by making sure everyone can get their basic needs met. "Why shouldn't we just kill people" says the guy who teaches high school kids, in a country where school shootings are such a plague. Big oof.
As it is, people on death row get to sit there for sometimes decades with that hanging over their heads while processes churn along. Very torturous experience, I imagine. Prisons shouldn't be in the business of torturing prisoners. And no, I don't think "get it over with" summary execution old west style was superior. Probably a lot of people died that way who shouldn't have.
because death is, erm, a little bit final don't you think? and no authority is inviolable or perfect. people have been exonerated 20-30 years into a life sentence at the emergence of new evidence, particularly with the advent of DNA and modern forensics.SuperJail Warden wrote:
If you don't think he should ever be released then why shouldn't we just kill him?
the justice system impels a lot of people to long custodial sentences based on circumstantial evidence, which is subject to change. it might need to be 'overwhelming' or 'beyond all reasonable doubt' in the argot of the sentencing authorities, but we have seen, time and time again, how our appraisals of a situation can change when new evidence, or more properly new techniques for evidencing, come to light.
beyond that, who is to say that any one person is beyond rehabilitation or the possibility of change? in this it reflects much better on the state and system if they hold open this possibility, rather than condemn someone to death and oblivion. life and the preservation of life should be preferred over death in all matters of justice. a state which freely engages in the death penalty and rules over people's right to existence is just engaging in barbarism via fine legal argument. i think the important lesson of the old testament's morality is that we moved away from it. i don't want to live in a state that operates via a principle of vengeance, metes out death, and tries to 'dissuade' people from crime (it doesn't work) by the imminent fear of death. it all sounds a little bit bronze age, don't you think?
you seem awfully sure on how to rule on someone's entire possible future, and their ability to change, as well as their mental and spiritual state, based off reading a few news articles or watching some reddit snuff videos. you are not some elevated judge of human character. nor, even really, is a high-court justice. that's part of the underpinning of the jury system: that we are all equal, all equally fallible, all suspect to our biases and (mis-)apprehensions, and that we need to balance these out collectively to achieve a 'just' result in the eyes of the general 'community' or society. you sit there talking about these people's destinies as if you have the definitive scoop. you don't, son.
Last edited by uziq (2021-12-23 00:14:20)
"ability to change" Nope don't give a shit.
Some people deserve hard labour without parole, or annihilate their ego as in 'The Demolished Man'
Some people deserve hard labour without parole, or annihilate their ego as in 'The Demolished Man'
Fuck Israel
Prisons shouldn't be in the business of slavery either.
i do think that some people are beyond the point of rehabilitation, for what it's worth. but i don't think society benefits from murdering them, any better than society benefitted from putting insane people in asylums and inserting icepicks into their brains.Dilbert_X wrote:
"ability to change" Nope don't give a shit.
Some people deserve hard labour without parole, or annihilate their ego as in 'The Demolished Man'
i don't want to pay fealty to or belong to a state that kills its own people. i don't think there should be a state apparatus for execution or systems and processes dedicated to snuffing out human lives. we can do better in the 21st century.
even if you are a fire-and-brimstone type who wants to see people suffer for their wrongs and be condemned to 'ego annihilation' (which sounds not a little creepy and sadistic, but there we are), arguments against the death penalty can be made on purely utilitarian grounds, too. for one, the major claims that it is a 'deterrent' for serious crime have been shown, time and time again, to be totally spurious. having the death penalty as a possible punishment doesn't deter any fucking crime.
if this means society taking a benevolent and benign upper-hand when dealing with incorrigible miscreants and lifetime no-hopers, so be it. it's a small price to pay for the moral integrity of that state. a state that kills even one innocent person by mistake, whilst in the process of putting 100 criminals to their death, is a state that has seriously undermined its own authority. do you really want to live in a country where you could hypothetically be thrown in jail for 15 years and then killed ... by mistake?!? try to ignore the fact that it mostly happens to blacks and the mentally ill, for one second, if you please, and do try to imagine.
Last edited by uziq (2021-12-23 01:42:14)
fwiw
Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and- … lty-states
Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and- … lty-states
(Data for each year taken from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Murder rates calculated by dividing the total number of murders by the total population in death penalty and non-death penalty states respectively and multiplying that by 100,000) […] The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990.
you can request a judge trial in aus dilderp.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes but juries.
What I want is for my fate to be decided by the 12 people who are too dumb to get out of jury service.
it actually depends on type of trial, but generally jury is better for murder/manslaughter cases than a judge. my friend's firm repped these two not guilty peeps, shes a pree good crim lawyer.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-10/ … r/12624340
Last edited by Cybargs (2021-12-23 03:58:02)
they shouldn't, but its totally constitutional hehe.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Prisons shouldn't be in the business of slavery either.
dilbert is good on vague and conspiratorial dismissals of the police, judiciary, juries, etc, but not actually good at proposing what a fair and equitable justice system would look like in a democratic society.
time and time again he has shown his takes on 'social justice' to be eccentric and whimsical at best, outright authoritarian at worst. i mean, the guy thinks juries are 'dumb' but yet wants to see people 'have their egos annihilated and made to suffer forever for their crimes'. OK. i know which country i want to live in.
time and time again he has shown his takes on 'social justice' to be eccentric and whimsical at best, outright authoritarian at worst. i mean, the guy thinks juries are 'dumb' but yet wants to see people 'have their egos annihilated and made to suffer forever for their crimes'. OK. i know which country i want to live in.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
You guys care more about the rights of the guilty than you do care about protecting the innocent. How many lifers kill somebody in prison? I am not saying we just execute people willy-nilly. But for the worst people, the option should be available.
Lol go soak your head.
An independent judiciary and competent and educated jurists properly selected.uziq wrote:
dilbert is good on vague and conspiratorial dismissals of the police, judiciary, juries, etc, but not actually good at proposing what a fair and equitable justice system would look like in a democratic society.
All of that is Lala-land fantasy though.
Fuck Israel