Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link.

why again...?

there are bad people so we should do bad things to them?

I don't see how this counters any of the arguments against the death penalty. It's not as though even the most ardent pacifcits deny that there are sick, horrible people in the world.

Originally posted by inimalist
why again...?

there are bad people so we should do bad things to them?
Because some men deserve death.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because some men deserve death.

even if you could convince me of that (which is unlikely), you'd still have to convince me that there is a man who deserves the power to take a life from another

i believe that the law should be just but it isnt...

saying that how can you be sure who dies and who doesnt... how do you know who is innocent and who is guilty or being wrongly accused.

now, i believe some ppl deserve to die but it shouldnt be decided by random ppl in a court of law that is suppose to represent justice.

one man's justice is another man's tyranny...are you willing to kill that man yourself and let yourself be judged? if so have at it.

Ultimately the goal of society/government/whatever should be to try and bring about the best possible result from an already horrible situation.

Will killing this man accomplish that?

Originally posted by Lucius
Ultimately the goal of society/government/whatever should be to try and bring about the best possible result from an already horrible situation.

Will killing this man accomplish that? nope. also like the society reference.. very ala star trek...

Originally posted by King Castle
nope. also like the society reference.. very ala star trek...

The difference, is that in practice society is rarely interested in trying to bring about the best result as opposed to simply getting revenge.

EDIT - Of course you have to ask what lenses you are looking through when you try to bring about the best possible result.

Are we trying to bring the best possible result through the victim's eyes or through society's and do either even know what would be the best result?

Utilitarianism is difficult.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but if this guy got it I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep.

Originally posted by inimalist
why again...?

there are bad people so we should do bad things to them? Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because some men deserve death.
Funny... I've just been watching Dexter...hmm

This doesn't demonstrate the need for the death penalty. Nothing has convinced me that the death penalty stops things like this from happening, so in this case what's done is done.

Some people. Personally, he should be tortured in kind, I'm certain there's some sick **** out there would would love to torture him as he did that girl, probably for free too.

What will this accomplish you ask? It will teach the prick a lesson that torturing others doesn't feel good and that he shouldn't ever do it again; isn't that the point of the penal system?

Originally posted by Robtard
Some people. Personally, he should be tortured in kind, I'm certain there's some sick **** out there would would love to torture him as he did that girl, probably for free too.

What will this accomplish you ask? It will teach the prick a lesson that torturing others doesn't feel good and that he shouldn't ever do it again; isn't that the point of the penal system? no.. it is suppose to rehabilitate ppl and remove them from society till the rehabilitation is done and he is a functional member of society after finishing his mandatory incarceration.

the punishment is removal of society not the torture that may and probably will occur as ppl in charge in prison are there to make sure those things dont happen... which they will be ignore which is also illegal even in prison.

I feel the point of incarceration is to prevent crime from happening, not to punish. Rehabilitating someone, or keeping them for life if they can't, will stop them from doing the same thing again. Punishment also serves as an aversion to people committing the crimes in the first place. I don't see the death penalty as serving any of these purposes.

Originally posted by King Castle
no.. it is suppose to rehabilitate ppl and remove them from society till the rehabilitation is done and he is a functional member of society after finishing his mandatory incarceration.

the punishment is removal of society not the torture that may and probably will occur as ppl in charge in prison are there to make sure those things dont happen... which they will be ignore which is also illegal even in prison.

Considering jailing someone for 'X' amount of time doesn't do much to rehabilitate a criminal, my way makes more sense.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I feel the point of incarceration is to prevent crime from happening, not to punish. Rehabilitating someone, or keeping them for life if they can't, will stop them from doing the same thing again. Punishment also serves as an aversion to people committing the crimes in the first place. I don't see the death penalty as serving any of these purposes.

Except of course it will accomplish the same thing as keeping them in for life. A dead criminal can't commit more crimes, same as a lifer. Though a lifer can (and do) commit more crimes while in jail.

So logically, the death penalty makes more sense than giving someone life in prison.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course it will accomplish the same thing as keeping them in for life. A dead criminal can't commit more crimes, same as a lifer. Though a lifer can (and do) commit more crimes while in jail.

So logically, the death penalty makes more sense than giving someone life in prison.
Yeah, from an economic perspective it definitely does make sense compared to life sentences. Personally, I feel in the US we hand out life long sentences too freely as well. In Norway, even murder won't get you life.

ppl should just get an option A you wanna go to prison?
http://www.prisonersabroad.org.uk/images/sce/PA24%20Cell%20ceiling%20Mexico.JPG do your time and rejoin society or

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Popo_Agie_Wilderness_Wind_River_Range.jpg

be removed from society permanently with no hope of returning?

Originally posted by King Castle
no.. it is suppose to rehabilitate ppl and remove them from society till the rehabilitation is done and he is a functional member of society after finishing his mandatory incarceration.


It's original purpose is was to rehabilitate (that's why its called "corrections", but we now know it doesn't work. So today, prison still exists due to tradition, monetary reasons, lack of willingness to change, and the philosophy of "Out of sight, out of mind".

Originally posted by Robtard

So logically, the death penalty makes more sense than giving someone life in prison.

And from an econimc standpoint too. Why should we tax-payers house and feed some lowlife for 30-odd years, when it would be a lot cheaper to kill the fool once and for all.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's original purpose is was to rehabilitate (that's why its called "corrections", but we now know it doesn't work. So today, prison still exists due to tradition, monetary reasons, lack of willingness to change, and the philosophy of "Out of sight, out of mind".
We know this doesn't work how? It works fine in other countries so I feel it's more likely the method of rehabilitation we use, than some kind of failure of the very idea of rehabilitation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
We know this doesn't work how? It works fine in other countries so I feel it's more likely the method of rehabilitation we use, than some kind of failure of the very idea of rehabilitation.

High recidivism, repeat offenders, the lengthy wrap-sheets of most felons etc. All these indicate that it doesn't work. Just ask any CJ professor, and they'll tell you that its a failed experiment.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
High recidivism, repeat offenders, the lengthy wrap-sheets of most felons etc. All these indicate that it doesn't work. Just ask any CJ professor, and they'll tell you that its a failed experiment.
But all of those statistics you bring up are from the US. Like I said in some countries, the recidivism is barely anything. In Norway the max time for any offense is 21 years and they get by completely fine and have a lower recidivism rate by far than the US.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, from an economic perspective it definitely does make sense compared to life sentences. Personally, I feel in the US we hand out life long sentences too freely as well. In Norway, even murder won't get you life.

What are you, some faggy liberal? Most murders don't net you life in the US.

Derp derp, in Norway NO murders net you life... So no, what I said was correct.

Originally posted by inimalist
why again...?

there are bad people so we should do bad things to them? Sounds good.

Originally posted by Robtard
What are you, some faggy liberal? Most murders don't net you life in the US. Originally posted by King Kandy
Derp derp, in Norway NO murders net you life... So no, what I said was correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr26BIoOFnw

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sounds good.

thereby making society the same type of thing we kill

Originally posted by King Kandy
Derp derp, in Norway NO murders net you life... So no, what I said was correct.

Except I was responding to your comments on life sentences in the US. The **** cares about Norway.

Originally posted by inimalist
thereby making society the same type of thing we kill

Not really. Killing someone because they murdered some old lady to get to the $2.84 in her pursue is not the same as the act of the murderer.

Sure both net you a dead body, but intent and reasons matter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not really. Killing someone because they murdered some old lady to get to the $2.84 in her pursue is not the same as the act of the murderer.

Sure both net you a dead body, but intent and reasons matter.

I would consider that an arbitrary distrinction

and it really doesn't address why some people are given the power to take the lives of others, regardless of the reason.

It's just that keeping killers in prison costs ALOT of money.
First you have the rooms, power, food. ect shouldn't be a problem.

But then you have Mental care. Nurses. Two security for every guy while in contact with.

These guys tend to also have solitary cells. Alot of money gets invested into these people and there are heaps of em.

I'm undecided on the return of a death penalty soley because the Law can be taken advantage of too easily.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sure both net you a dead body, but intent and reasons matter.

But what are the intentions in killing a murderer and more importantly, above anything else, how and what does it change? Its like a sunk cost in Economics. The deed is done and nothing can change it. Ideally the goal would be to take action to ensure it doesn't happen again. If killing people was a true deterrent against violent crime, I think it would have greater effect, especially since most murders are spur of the moment actions.

Good intentions are useless if they don't produce a good consequences so even though the justice system may have good intentions, does it make good on them?

Originally posted by inimalist
I would consider that an arbitrary distrinction

and it really doesn't address why some people are given the power to take the lives of others, regardless of the reason.

No more arbitary than the varying degrees a person can be charged with murder, eg intent and reason can lower a murder charge to manslaughter, yet a person died either way.

Some people? It would be society. Just as, why can a society make and impose laws, but you and I individually can't?

It comes down to what a person sees as just punishment, I guess. The death of some murderers to me isn't something I'm bothered by; reason why I don't hang outside San Quentin with protest signs when a convict is scheduled to be gased.

Originally posted by Lucius
But what are the intentions in killing a murderer and more importantly, above anything else, how and what does it change? Its like a sunk cost in Economics. The deed is done and nothing can change it. Ideally the goal would be to take action to ensure it doesn't happen again. If killing people was a true deterrent against violent crime, I think it would have greater effect, especially since most murders are spur of the moment actions.

Good intentions are useless if they don't produce a good consequences so even though the justice system may have good intentions, does it make good on them?

That can be said about most punishments then, so why bother with it at all. Locking someone away for a certain amount of time can also be argued isn't a very good deterrent either, considering the amount of repeat offenders who go in, out and back in jail time and again.

Don't follow you there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But all of those statistics you bring up are from the US. Like I said in some countries, the recidivism is barely anything. In Norway the max time for any offense is 21 years and they get by completely fine and have a lower recidivism rate by far than the US.

Well, that's where the crime that this thread's about took place. And so what about Norway? I already knew that; Japan and the Scandanavian countries have the lowest crime rates in the world (Fun fact: White Nationalists cite their homogeneity as the reason why), but what about it? Unless you think the US can learn a lesson or two. But how would you suggest that America go about adopting and implementing Norway's secret of curing badguys who don't recidivate?

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course it will accomplish the same thing as keeping them in for life. A dead criminal can't commit more crimes, same as a lifer. Though a lifer can (and do) commit more crimes while in jail.

So logically, the death penalty makes more sense than giving someone life in prison. It is also cheaper, (but neither are cheap).

I think people are missing something important. Prisoners are very expensive to keep up, and they provide nothing behind bars to the economy. I don't necessarily advocate the death penalty, but I'm not sure I completely reject it either. It is a bigger question than "this man is sick".

Also people don't generally get executed the next day. They stay on death row for like, 20 years.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except I was responding to your comments on life sentences in the US. The **** cares about Norway.

I can tell you that there are lots of IT jobs in Norway, they are better in almost every single category compared to the US, and everyone is much happier there.



Norway is definitely one of the places I will be looking for a job in, in about 5 years (finish the Ph.D. and complete my internship/s.) Norway is an awesome place: the bane of just about every conservatards arguments.


This particular case, for me, warrants the death penalty. Robtard, remember our convesation over 2 years ago about "100%" surety on a convincion? This is one of those. Have the trial just to preserve his constitutional rights, of course, but quickly execute him when the jury decides he's guilty...like, one day after the verdict is handed out. (Not Cook, but the Master fellow.)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, that's where the crime that this thread's about took place. And so what about Norway? I already knew that; Japan and the Scandanavian countries have the lowest crime rates in the world (Fun fact: White Nationalists cite their homogeneity as the reason why), but what about it? Unless you think the US can learn a lesson or two. But how would you suggest that America go about adopting and implementing Norway's secret of curing badguys who don't recidivate?
I would definitely suggest the US learn a lesson from Norway. I'm not sure how it works, exactly; you should be talking to those CJ professors you think so much of.

Originally posted by Robtard
Some people. Personally, he should be tortured in kind, I'm certain there's some sick **** out there would would love to torture him as he did that girl, probably for free too.

What will this accomplish you ask? It will teach the prick a lesson that torturing others doesn't feel good and that he shouldn't ever do it again; isn't that the point of the penal system?

The penal system is supposed to bring justice, not revenge or thuggish conduct - that's what mobsters do.
It was also supposed to work for the society, not for individual's feelings of retribution and revenge. The raise of victimhood has significantly shifted the way justice is perceived and in some cases, conducted.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And from an econimc standpoint too. Why should we tax-payers house and feed some lowlife for 30-odd years, when it would be a lot cheaper to kill the fool once and for all.

You would have to streamline the execution process first, as it stands keeping a person on death row is extremely expensive.

It costs Maryland $3 million for every execution. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf (page 4)

California spends just over $63 million a year on death row (p72), $120,000 per inmate compared to $30,000 (p84). Cases like this take 12 years or so to finish (p85). In order for the death penalty to be more economically sound inmates not going to be executed would have to spend an average of 48 years in prison.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/downloads/ FINAL%20REPORT%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20ccfaj%20June%20
30.2008.pdf

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The penal system is supposed to bring justice, not revenge or thuggish conduct - that's what mobsters do.
It was also supposed to work for the society, not for individual's feelings of retribution and revenge. The raise of victimhood has significantly shifted the way justice is perceived and in some cases, conducted.

So locking him away for a certain amount of years = justice?

Why would torturing him in kind not be justice, considering he'd also learn a valuable life lesson?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You would have to streamline the execution process first, as it stands keeping a person on death row is extremely expensive.

It costs Maryland $3 million for every execution. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf (page 4)

California spends just over $63 million a year on death row (p72), $120,000 per inmate compared to $30,000 (p84). Cases like this take 12 years or so to finish (p85). In order for the death penalty to be more economically sound inmates not going to be executed would have to spend an average of 48 years in prison.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/downloads/ FINAL%20REPORT%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20ccfaj%20June%20
30.2008.pdf

This is correct; China's got it right, they do same day service.

Dont kill him yet, they should tortured him first and lets see how this piece of shit likes it. The old fashion way of the death penalty is much cheaper.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is correct; China's got it right, they do same day service.

lol


But I don't like China's data policies. They are like the Gestapo over there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would definitely suggest the US learn a lesson from Norway. I'm not sure how it works, exactly; you should be talking to those CJ professors you think so much of.

Hey, you're the one who said we can learn from Norway. So you should already have an idea.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You would have to streamline the execution process first, as it stands keeping a person on death row is extremely expensive.

It costs Maryland $3 million for every execution. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf (page 4)

California spends just over $63 million a year on death row (p72), $120,000 per inmate compared to $30,000 (p84). Cases like this take 12 years or so to finish (p85). In order for the death penalty to be more economically sound inmates not going to be executed would have to spend an average of 48 years in prison.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/downloads/ FINAL%20REPORT%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20ccfaj%20June%20
30.2008.pdf

Thats why I think all executions should be one week from the conviction. Give them a week to say their goodbyes to everyone, and then just put them against a wall and shoot them. No fancy ceremonies with stadium seating where a doctor administers 3 shots, and all happening up to 15 years after the trial...such a waste.

One of my former employees' dad was a witness to an execution at the AZ State Penn in Florence. He said that an hour before they were allowed in the amphitheater (it was a lethal injection with seats arranged in a semi-circle on one side of glass), they were sitting in a greenroom and literally offered hors d'oeuvres and refreshments. That's just weird...and kind of funny in way

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Hey, you're the one who said we can learn from Norway. So you should already have an idea.
I'm not an expert on the Norwegian system. I do know, they have a max sentence of 21 years, allow people regular lives with curfew in the last section, and focus more on rehabilitation. So clearly the system would probably not be improved by adding death/life sentences, which you were advocating more of. It stands to reason that we should learn from systems that get better results, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be analysis of what actually causes those better results though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So clearly the system would probably not be improved by adding death/life sentences, which you were advocating more of.

Correction: death only.

Send this guy to a Mexican jail.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Correction: death only.
OK. Remove the "life" part. My point is still the same.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Thats why I think all executions should be one week from the conviction. Give them a week to say their goodbyes to everyone, and then just put them against a wall and shoot them. No fancy ceremonies with stadium seating where a doctor administers 3 shots, and all happening up to 15 years after the trial...such a waste.

You don't think that people in a position to get executed should have the same opportunities for appeal as everyone else?

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK. Remove the "life" part. My point is still the same.

So as it stands, you have no proposition of how we should adopt Norwegian Justice?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You don't think that people in a position to get executed should have the same opportunities for appeal as everyone else?

They actually have it better when it comes to appeals. People sentenced to death get one free appeal, but lifers don't get the same luxury. They have to foot the bill for an appeal. And I think people on death row should be stripped of that appeal (which is usually denied anyways, so its really just a formality). All too often, legal formalities fly in the face of common sense. We know the SOB did it, so let's just get it over with and kill him. I don't wanna feed him twice a day (because it is our money) for 17 years while he pathetically tries to get his conviction overturned. Just kill that fool already.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So as it stands, you have no proposition of how we should adopt Norwegian Justice?

this is such a red herring

whatever the US could learn from the norwegian system is moot. Criminal behaviour is NOT a product of government policy toward the death sentence.

Recidivism rates in Norway do not represent an argument against the death penalty.

Originally posted by Robtard
No more arbitary than the varying degrees a person can be charged with murder, eg intent and reason can lower a murder charge to manslaughter, yet a person died either way.

Some people? It would be society. Just as, why can a society make and impose laws, but you and I individually can't?

It comes down to what a person sees as just punishment, I guess. The death of some murderers to me isn't something I'm bothered by; reason why I don't hang outside San Quentin with protest signs when a convict is scheduled to be gased.

Don't get me wrong, while I would never agree with the lethal injection of Tookie Williams, I didn't lose sleep over it.

However, I'm probably not the person to get into this with. To me it is such a clear moral line that we, as civilization, cannot cross.

Its like slavery. Tell me all the great shit that will come of it, it is wrong, and no man has the right to own another man, the same as no man has the right to take the life of another.

That they have a little badge given to them by the "state" is meaningless to me.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is such a red herring

whatever the US could learn from the norwegian system is moot. Criminal behaviour is NOT a product of government policy toward the death sentence.

Recidivism rates in Norway do not represent an argument against the death penalty.

So what explains Norway's low recidivism? Where do you think the answer lies?

Originally posted by inimalist

Its like slavery. Tell me all the great shit that will come of it, it is wrong, and no man has the right to own another man, the same as no man has the right to take the life of another.


Well, you have to admit; the Great Wall of China's pretty cool.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is such a red herring

whatever the US could learn from the norwegian system is moot. Criminal behaviour is NOT a product of government policy toward the death sentence.

Recidivism rates in Norway do not represent an argument against the death penalty.
That was not really my point. It should be manifestly obvious that the death penalty does not reduce the crime rate. So I don't see a benefit in having it aside from a sense of vindication that imo should really have no place in the government.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So what explains Norway's low recidivism? Where do you think the answer lies?

probably more in cultural things that are impossible to replicate, same way as how the swiss have as many guns as in America, but no gun crime.

Though, the one word answer would be "economics". It seems people don't have to resort to crime to get by. Though, these people are not the ones who would be given the death penalty I'd hope...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, you have to admit; the Great Wall of China's pretty cool.

I don't know, it kinda just sits there

Originally posted by King Kandy
That was not really my point. It should be manifestly obvious that the death penalty does not reduce the crime rate. So I don't see a benefit in having it aside from a sense of vindication that imo should really have no place in the government.

we totally agree

I'm just pointing out that recidivism and punishing people who would otherwise spend the rest of their lives in jail are talking about what to do about two different populations of people

Originally posted by inimalist
probably more in cultural things that are impossible to replicate, same way as how the swiss have as many guns as in America, but no gun crime.

Though, the one word answer would be "economics". It seems people don't have to resort to crime to get by. Though, these people are not the ones who would be given the death penalty I'd hope...


Why would they be "impossible" to replicate?

I think Switzerland has guns for different reasons. Like Afghanistan, they're a mountain pass country that lies between all the top-dogs, and so they need to be on gaurd all the time. But here guns were necessary for killing the Injuns and keeping other undesirables in line.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why would they be "impossible" to replicate?

I think Switzerland has guns for different reasons. Like Afghanistan, they're a mountain pass country that lies between all the top-dogs, and so they need to be on gaurd all the time. But here guns were necessary for killing the Injuns and keeping other undesirables in line.

You hit on it perfectly though

the reason it would be difficult is because of the cultural histories.

Norway has a much better developed social net and a VERY homogenous society. The difference in America, where there is little assistance for racially segregated economic stratas, would require an overhaul of things totally unassociated with "prisons" to correct.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Hey, you're the one who said we can learn from Norway. So you should already have an idea.



Thats why I think all executions should be one week from the conviction. Give them a week to say their goodbyes to everyone, and then just put them against a wall and shoot them. No fancy ceremonies with stadium seating where a doctor administers 3 shots, and all happening up to 15 years after the trial...such a waste.

One of my former employees' dad was a witness to an execution at the AZ State Penn in Florence. He said that an hour before they were allowed in the amphitheater (it was a lethal injection with seats arranged in a semi-circle on one side of glass), they were sitting in a greenroom and literally offered hors d'oeuvres and refreshments. That's just weird...and kind of funny in way

Execution delay exists so convicts can exhaust the appeal possibilities and many have been acquited while on death row.


Legal systems are failable and convict innocent people, that's undeniable. As long as a wrongfully convicted man is alive there is a chance the injustice will be proven and he'll be released, death sentence cannot be repaired afterwards.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because some men deserve death. I agree, but I am against the death penalty because I don't think anyone has the ability to objectively determine who those people are.

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
I agree, but I am against the death penalty because I don't think anyone has the ability to objectively determine who those people are. Is there anyone who can objectively determine who gets to spend the rest of their lives in prison?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Is there anyone who can objectively determine who gets to spend the rest of their lives in prison?

Of course not, but if a mistake is made you can let a person out a prison.

Retarded strippers?...My life is complete.

I say.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Link.

No. I do not think the man (or men) should be put to death. That would be way too kind. They should be place in a small cell, 24 hours a day, for the rest of their lives.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. I do not think the man (or men) should be put to death. That would be way too kind. They should be place in a small cell, 24 hours a day, for the rest of their lives. The victim was a torturer from a previous life. The torturers will be victims in the next.

It alll works out. cool

Originally posted by Mindship
The victim was a torturer from a previous life. The torturers will be victims in the next.

It alll works out. cool

If you kill then now, they will simply continue the pattern, but if we give them time to change, the pattern maybe broken. However, change will never come if they are catered too, so a very hard long life to them all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you kill then now, they will simply continue the pattern, but if we give them time to change, the pattern maybe broken. However, change will never come if they are catered too, so a very hard long life to them all. I can be patient.

I don't see how anybody could be against the death penalty in a case like this but I fail to grasp how people feel the way they do about a lot of things.

Originally posted by Mindship
The victim was a torturer from a previous life. The torturers will be victims in the next.

It alll works out. cool

I think that works for killers - as in you'll have to re-live the trauma of your victims, having hopes and dreams, just like the victim, and have someone take them away.

But every time we come back, we forget why we came, and the learning pattern starts all over again. That is supposed to give you clean slate to start again, however, for some people evidently it isn't helping.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think that works for killers - as in you'll have to re-live the trauma of your victims, having hopes and dreams, just like the victim, and have someone take them away.

But every time we come back, we forget why we came, and the learning pattern starts all over again. That is supposed to give you clean slate to start again, however, for some people evidently it isn't helping. When I hear about cases like this--especially when the victims are children--imagining this type of "balance" helps me to ward off grief and rage.

Originally posted by Mindship
When I hear about cases like this--especially when the victims are children--imagining this type of "balance" helps me to ward off grief and rage.

Cant really say I relate to feeling grief and rage about people i've never or will never meet. I can understand feeling that way if you actually knew the victims but if you're going to get enraged over every sick act that one person inflicts on another then you're going to live a pretty miserable life.

This is why I limit my grief and rage to only white children between the ages of birth-12 from Blue states. East Coast excluded.

ya, if it doesn't happen in canada, I don't care

EDIT: profile that, *****!

Originally posted by jaden101
Cant really say I relate to feeling grief and rage about people i've never or will never meet. I can understand feeling that way if you actually knew the victims but if you're going to get enraged over every sick act that one person inflicts on another then you're going to live a pretty miserable life. Not every sick act, just the exceptional ones.

I also pay attention to the compassion and wonder of human being, moreso actually. And maybe if more people empathized with the horror we inflict on one another, there would be less of it. One of the first things perps do is dehumanize their victims.

Originally posted by Mindship
One of the first things perps do is dehumanize their victims.

By dressing them up as furries?

I keed I keed.

These people obviously need serious mental help if their enjoyment is this sort of torture in others. Simply killing them solves nothing and does nothing for any future cases.

Originally posted by jaden101
Cant really say I relate to feeling grief and rage about people i've never or will never meet. I can understand feeling that way if you actually knew the victims but if you're going to get enraged over every sick act that one person inflicts on another then you're going to live a pretty miserable life. This.

Man, how come no one ever gives you crap for saying this? If I do, I get "omg you're being fallacious."

Gaaaay.

Originally posted by Liberator
These people obviously need serious mental help if their enjoyment is this sort of torture in others. Simply killing them solves nothing and does nothing for any future cases. Sure it does.

Originally posted by kgkg
Sure it does.

Care to elaborate as to what it exactly achieves for the future cases?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Care to elaborate as to what it exactly achieves for the future cases? I was talking about "Simply killing them solves nothing" part.

Originally posted by kgkg
I was talking about "Simply killing them solves nothing" part.

Alright, care to elaborate on that? As in, why, how...etc.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Alright, care to elaborate on that? As in, why, how...etc.
A dead man can't torture anyone is what he's likely saying.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
A dead man can't torture anyone is what he's likely saying. Exar Kun did.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Exar Kun did.

I don't do it often...But I did LOL at that reply.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Exar Kun did.

lol

Pwned.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Alright, care to elaborate on that? As in, why, how...etc.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
A dead man can't torture anyone is what he's likely saying.

Originally posted by jaden101
I don't do it often...But I did LOL at that reply. One of my fave EU characters.

With a name like Zeal ex etc, you'd think he's be against the death penalty in case people got it wrong....Like HITLER did!

Originally posted by Bigwanger
With a name like Zeal ex etc, you'd think he's be against the death penalty in case people got it wrong....Like HITLER did!

What?

Originally posted by Bigwanger
With a name like Zeal ex etc, you'd think he's be against the death penalty in case people got it wrong....Like HITLER did!

That's deep.

Thing is they do technically torture criminals to death already. I think there are cases when criminals have faced lethal injection but its been drawn out over a long time. What they will tell you is something went wrong....

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course not, but if a mistake is made you can let a person out a prison.

In some cases you have a person who videotapes themself in high definition raping and killing women. The fingerprints match the dna matches and the person has a history of violent sexual misconduct.

I believe cases like these (and only cases like these)where there is NO mistake should be treated specially and the most brutal tortures imaginable should be the reward for being 100% guilty in a senseless murder of another person.

If criminals are petrified of the punishment it can deter crime better than if punishment is simply room and board with free meals and even a few luxuries.

Inmates can do anything that free people can do if they can get away with it including move/escape. What's scary about that to a cold blooded killer?

Originally posted by The MISTER
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course not, but if a mistake is made you can let a person out a prison.

In some cases you have a person who videotapes themself in high definition raping and killing women. The fingerprints match the dna matches and the person has a history of violent sexual misconduct.

I believe cases like these (and only cases like these)where there is NO mistake should be treated specially and the most brutal tortures imaginable should be the reward for being 100% guilty in a senseless murder of another person.

If criminals are petrified of the punishment it can deter crime better than if punishment is simply room and board with free meals and even a few luxuries.

Inmates can do anything that free people can do if they can get away with it including move/escape. What's scary about that to a cold blooded killer? I doubt it will have the deterring effect you imagine. Criminals like you described - serial killers and such - act out of compulsions not rational calculations. Besides, criminals in general believe they won't get caught and they are right about it most of the time. An increase in police investigation efficiency would have a much broader impact than scare tactics and harsher punishment. Even incarceration penalties could be lighter than they are now in most countries and they would be enough to thwart crime in general if they were applied to all criminals.

Originally posted by The MISTER
In some cases you have a person who videotapes themself in high definition raping and killing women. The fingerprints match the dna matches and the person has a history of violent sexual misconduct.

I believe cases like these (and only cases like these)where there is NO mistake should be treated specially and the most brutal tortures imaginable should be the reward for being 100% guilty in a senseless murder of another person.

I agree that such people deserve to be executed. However, I'm inclined to question who has the right to carry out the sentence.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If criminals are petrified of the punishment it can deter crime better than if punishment is simply room and board with free meals and even a few luxuries.

It is known, empirically, that the death penalty does not measurably reduce crime.

But if we're going to just speculate I would point out that a person who knows he's going to get the death penalty no longer has anything to lose and might well become more violent as time goes on. But of course there's not much evidence for that, either.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Inmates can do anything that free people can do if they can get away with it including move/escape. What's scary about that to a cold blooded killer?

Do you seriously think inmates in the real world have the ability to just walk straight out of prison when they feel like it?

I'm actually really sympathetic for where some of you people must have lived if you think 1 hours of sunshine, a TV and 8 hours of lockdown is equivalent to "free room and board"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you seriously think inmates in the real world have the ability to just walk straight out of prison when they feel like it?

Not when they feel like it, it's when they eventually figure out a way how. Most prisoners will never escape just like some humans will never be astronauts...but I'd wager that more murderers escape from prison per year than the total number of new people that enter space.

I'm not saying that it's common, just that it happens, and if we locked proven murderers in a room and did'nt open the door until they had died the cause would be that they were dangerous and thus quarantined like the viruses they were.

Not every living thing should be allowed to live. There's a reason that diseases and pestilence should be fought and killed. When people become dangerous and do things that get them locked in a room and permantly cut off from all human contact until they die of thirst then they executed themselves if they are sane and they were exerminated like zombies if they're insane. Nobody murdered them, they murdered somebody and dealt with the consequences of that action.

^ Viruses aren't generally considered alive by scientists today. Murderers are. Leaving someone to die isn't really different from executing and carries the same moral weight.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Not when they feel like it, it's when they eventually figure out a way how. Most prisoners will never escape just like some humans will never be astronauts...but I'd wager that more murderers escape from prison per year than the total number of new people that enter space.

Well .5% of inmates escape each year in the US. http://www.slate.com/id/1007001/

There are ~150000 murder a year in the US. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

That would be ~75 escaped murderers a year if they all were caught, except that the vast majority of that .5% is apparently people that walk out of minimum security facilities for minor crimes.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm not saying that it's common, just that it happens, and if we locked proven murderers in a room and did'nt open the door until they had died the cause would be that they were dangerous and thus quarantined like the viruses they were.

Not every living thing should be allowed to live. There's a reason that diseases and pestilence should be fought and killed. When people become dangerous and do things that get them locked in a room and permantly cut off from all human contact until they die of thirst then they executed themselves if they are sane and they were exerminated like zombies if they're insane. Nobody murdered them, they murdered somebody and dealt with the consequences of that action.

You still haven't dealt with the right of the government to decide who lives and who dies. There are a lot of people that say "no one deserves to die" but you aren't talking to one of them right now. I'm arguing that giving any group the right to decide life and death, even for horrible people, is a bad idea.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You still haven't dealt with the right of the government to decide who lives and who dies. There are a lot of people that say "no one deserves to die" but you aren't talking to one of them right now. I'm arguing that giving any group the right to decide life and death, even for horrible people, is a bad idea.

Why does the government have the right to say when a fetus is aged enough to be killable(yes, I made ti up) or not?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why does the government have the right to say when a fetus is aged enough to be killable(yes, I made ti up) or not?

because, given that the power to enforce individual rights is monopolized by the government, it needs to decide at what point those rights begin to apply to people.

Though, not to throw this topic off or anything, I'm much more appaled at the lack of mobility and association rights given to fetuses.