Should terrorists get the death penalty?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Foxsteak

Surtur
You see I find when people say certain things like in your post they show how utterly retarded they are. "This could interfere with finding an impartial jury". Lol, WHAT? You will NOT find one, not unless you send out jury duty notices only to people living in caves or beneath rocks.

There will never be an impartial jury for this terrorist piece of shit. These lawmakers are insane if they think so lol.

To answer your question: he should be executed immediately. If they won't execute him then he needs to be in solitary 24/7 for the rest of his life.

Bashar Teg
all terrorists or just muslims?

https://i.imgur.com/RodIQx7m.jpg

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Surtur
You see I find when people say certain things like in your post they show how utterly retarded they are. "This could interfere with finding an impartial jury". Lol, WHAT? You will NOT find one, not unless you send out jury duty notices only to people living in caves or beneath rocks.

There will never be an impartial jury for this terrorist piece of shit. These lawmakers are insane if they think so lol.

To answer your question: he should be executed immediately. If they won't execute him then he needs to be in solitary 24/7 for the rest of his life. I fundamentally disagree with the death penalty. It may be a lengthy process, but putting him in Guantanamo and a fair trial and jury is the right thing to do no matter how many people he's killed. Let him rot in prison for life.

Surtur
Originally posted by Foxsteak
I fundamentally disagree with the death penalty. It may be a lengthy process, but putting him in Guantanamo and a fair trial and jury is the right thing to do no matter how many people he's killed. Let him rot in prison for life.

I would agree with you if we changed the prison system for how it treats murderers. I can relate a disturbing story. A few years ago some guy murdered his family. Was found guilty, went to jail. After about a week or so in jail his lawyer was interviewed and asked how the guy was doing in prison. He responded with "he's doing okay, watching the lord of the rings trilogy".

Nope lol, just nope. Not acceptable. Kill him or put him in solitary, but no dvd's, no tv shows, no lollypops. This man murdered his wife and kids and the f*ck head was watching LOTR in prison.

I would be fine if we got rid of the death penalty as long as all murderers spend their entire stay in prison in solitary confinement. With the meals being stale bread and water. Once a year they get butter for the bread.

Bashar Teg
let's not overlook the deliberately forgotten "but antifa" victims of right wing terror attacks in 2017:

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
right-wing terror victims who were mudered this year. i'll leave out all the injured so that this post won't go on for another 8 pages.

feb. 24, 2017 - kansas shooting
murdered: srinivas kuchibhotla
https://d2g8igdw686xgo.cloudfront.net/18439906_1487880746.9625.jpg

march 20, 2017 - stabbing
murdered: timothy caughman
http://i.imgur.com/0U4R8cD.jpg

may 26, 2017 - portland train attack
murdered: ricky john best and taliesin myrddin namkai meche
http://i.imgur.com/LCTze6I.jpg

August 12, 2017 - Vehicular attack in charlottesville
murdered: heather d. heyer
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/08/14/us/14victim/14xp-heather-master315.jpg


i know they don't count as per your special rules, but they were in fact human beings who were murdered.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
let's not overlook the deliberately forgotten "but antifa" victims of right wing terror attacks in 2017:



i know they don't count as per your special rules, but they were in fact human beings who were murdered.

^^You're like 200 lbs of retard.

Execute all terrorists.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Surtur
I would agree with you if we changed the prison system for how it treats murderers. I can relate a disturbing story. A few years ago some guy murdered his family. Was found guilty, went to jail. After about a week or so in jail his lawyer was interviewed and asked how the guy was doing in prison. He responded with "he's doing okay, watching the lord of the rings trilogy".

Nope lol, just nope. Not acceptable. Kill him or put him in solitary, but no dvd's, no tv shows, no lollypops. This man murdered his wife and kids and the f*ck head was watching LOTR in prison.

I would be fine if we got rid of the death penalty as long as all murderers spend their entire stay in prison in solitary confinement. With the meals being stale bread and water. Once a year they get butter for the bread. Again, I disagree. Watching the LOTR trilogy is torture to me haermm

But seriously, my perspective is that we need to understand the mentality as to why people do these kind of things. I'm sure terrorists get worse treatment.

I would be fine with brain scans of these mental people to see why they commit such atrocities and then inform the public about it. Something like "smoking crystal meth may lead to gum disease and talking a lot of nonsense" or "abusive parents make psychopathic serial killers"

You know? For science.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
^^You're like 200 lbs of retard.

Execute all terrorists.

aww the baby's upset at the valid and routinely avoided point. kiss the booboo?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
aww the baby's upset at the valid and routinely avoided point. kiss the booboo?

The points only valid if people only want certain terrorists executed lol. But that isn't the case. I've said the Charlottesville driver should be executed as well. Stop failing.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
The points only valid if people only want certain terrorists executed lol. But that isn't the case. I've said the Charlottesville driver should be executed as well. Stop failing.

funny because you refused to allow us to talk about right wing terror attacks and dutifully derailed every such topic with "but antifa".
want some more links and quotes to call your bullshit out again? smile

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
funny because you refused to allow us to talk about right wing terror attacks and dutifully derailed every such topic with "but antifa".
want some more links and quotes to call your bullshit out again? smile

I'm not a mod, I can't not allow you from doing anything lol. Stop failing.

Please, please do go sadly hunt down more things lol.

I love how much power I have over you, I can just refuse to allow you to speak about things, awesome. Hey, stop being a little b*tch, I refuse to allow you to keep being a little b*tch.

Foxsteak
haermm Seriously guys, this was supposed to be a serious discussion.

Surtur
Originally posted by Foxsteak
haermm Seriously guys, this was supposed to be a serious discussion.

I forbid it. I have moderator powers. DO AS I SAY.

Badabing
Guys, please just stop. The stupidity is getting to be an issue.

Foxsteak
Thank you Bada.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
To answer your question: he should be executed immediately. If they won't execute him then he needs to be in solitary 24/7 for the rest of his life.

So a big "F--k you!" to the 6th Amendment? Good lord.

Surtur
So anyways: either execute the terrorists or imprison them in solitary confinement forever.

Patient_Leech
I think truly committed jihadists who show no repentance and even voice the desire to do it again, if caught alive (which they usually aren't) should get the death penalty. In that case, yes, absolutely. They love death more than infidels love life, so sure, give them what they want. Send them to see Allah.

Surtur
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think truly committed jihadists who show no repentance and even voice the desire to do it again, if caught alive (which they usually aren't) should get the death penalty. In that case, yes, absolutely.

Bingo.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think truly committed jihadists who show no repentance and even voice the desire to do it again, if caught alive (which they usually aren't) should get the death penalty. In that case, yes, absolutely. They love death more than infidels love life, so sure, give them what they want. Send them to see Allah. I'd still go for solitary confinement. I don't think you can punish and prevent killing with......killing.

Surtur
Originally posted by Foxsteak
I'd still go for solitary confinement. I don't think you can punish and prevent killing with......killing.

This depends entirely on the person. If tomorrow I murder someone and get arrested, I want the death penalty. Well wait, I guess with todays spa-like prisons it would be different, but if it was a choice of solitary confinement or death I'd choose death, being in solitary would be worse for me.

Some people would prefer solitary over death though, so not giving them solitary would be punishing them.

Though IMO you snuff out a life for no reason you forfeit your right to live. That doesn't change unless you have a phoenix down in your back pocket and bust that f*cker out.

Foxsteak
I would like to focus on the death vs confinement debate.

Imo, if we keep them alive, we can use them for research into understanding the mentality of terrorists which would be useful in preventing more terrorists.

Surtur
Originally posted by Foxsteak
I would like to focus on the death vs confinement debate.

Imo, if we keep them alive, we can use them for research into understanding the mentality of terrorists which would be useful in preventing more terrorists.

Don't we already have plenty of terrorists in jail? So we can do what you say with those folk. Lets snuff out the rest.

But how would you propose we would motivate the terrorists to help us with this?

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Surtur
Don't we already have plenty of terrorists in jail? So we can do what you say with those folk. Lets snuff out the rest.

But how would you propose we would motivate the terrorists to help us with this? How would you decide who to snuff out and who to not snuff out?

Research. Brain scans, behaviour monitoring, interviews. They do the same to serial killers, which, they are.

Surtur
Originally posted by Foxsteak
How would you decide who to snuff out and who to not snuff out?

Research. Brain scans, behaviour monitoring, interviews. They do the same to serial killers, which, they are.

Any further terrorists that come along.

But how do you motivate them to participate in the interviews? And can they just brain scan you without permission?

If they do the same to serial killers I can't see how it wouldn't have already also been done for terrorists.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Surtur
Any further terrorists that come along.

But how do you motivate them to participate in the interviews? And can they just brain scan you without permission?

If they do the same to serial killers I can't see how it wouldn't have already also been done for terrorists. Terrorism changes. Al Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo don't know shit about ISIS.

I'm not an expert, but I know they do this. It just makes more sense to keep them captive and find information from them instead of killing them for some vendetta. Their information is useful to us.

Why don't they do it to terrorists? I believe they already do. Trump's tweet is dumb, imo.

Surtur
Originally posted by Foxsteak
Terrorism changes. Al Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo don't know shit about ISIS.

I'm not an expert, but I know they do this. It just makes more sense to keep them captive and find information from them instead of killing them for some vendetta. Their information is useful to us.

Why don't they do it to terrorists? I believe they already do. Trump's tweet is dumb, imo.

Good point, so then maybe keep one terrorist a year alive to do research on. Execute the rest(because we're never only going to have just one act of terrori in a year). How do we choose which one? Maybe some diversity lottery? Those always help and never backfire.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Surtur
Good point, so then maybe keep one terrorist a year alive to do research on. Execute the rest(because we're never only going to have just one act of terrori in a year). How do we choose which one? Maybe some diversity lottery? Those always help and never backfire. Well, I'm trying to find the practicality of killing terrorists. What purpose does it serve?

Surtur
Originally posted by Foxsteak
Well, I'm trying to find the practicality of killing terrorists. What purpose does it serve?

I think you would agree it would be silly to do research on EVERY single terrorist we capture. What purpose does it serve to keep them in jail on the tax payers dime, potentially for decades?

I know some will come and shout about the costs of the death penalty , but that's only because we allow them to go through so many damn appeals, etc. before it happens. Even when the evidence is 100% clear.

Put that money towards people who deserve it. Like, say, the victims of terrorism and their families.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Surtur
I think you would agree it would be silly to do research on EVERY single terrorist we capture. What purpose does it serve to keep them in jail on the tax payers dime, potentially for decades?

I know some will come and shout about the costs of the death penalty , but that's only because we allow them to go through so many damn appeals, etc. before it happens. Even when the evidence is 100% clear.

Put that money towards people who deserve it. Like, say, the victims of terrorism and their families. If we were to discuss money, don't prisons get private funding? Do they profit on putting people in jail?

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Foxsteak
I'd still go for solitary confinement. I don't think you can punish and prevent killing with......killing.

Not worth the risk of them escaping. Plus you're using resources to keep them alive. No way. They can either piss on a Koran or die.

Surtur
Originally posted by Foxsteak
If we were to discuss money, don't prisons get private funding? Do they profit on putting people in jail?

Oh some do indeed. Inmates are also used for labor lol, Hilary used inmates.

Surtur
NYC terror suspect Sayfullo Saipov brags about attack from hospital bed

Yeah, he needs to die.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not worth the risk of them escaping. Plus you're using resources to keep them alive. No way. They can either piss on a Koran or die. Risk? haermm I believe Guantanamo is pretty secure.

I've already given a reason to keep them alive, and Surtur believes it's a good point.

I asked about money, not resources. Do you think killing terrorists is a good for the preservation of resources?

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Surtur
Oh some do indeed. Inmates are also used for labor lol, Hilary used inmates. Originally posted by Surtur
NYC terror suspect Sayfullo Saipov brags about attack from hospital bed

Yeah, he needs to die. Put him to work!

Edit: Second thought, he may just be way too dangerous to be kept alive. God, I honestly don't know.

Surtur
As for resources, it depends on if we change the process. IMO if the evidence is irrefutable a person should not be able to appeal their death sentence. It should not take a decade before they carry it out.

I want a more stringent process when it comes to handing out this penalty in order to make sure innocent people aren't executed. But I also want the process HIGHLY expedited for the people we are 100% sure are guilty.

If we took that approach, we would preserve more resources. The way we do it now really doesn't.

Foxsteak
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the term.

I'm still not convinced that the death penalty serves a purpose, but I'm open to your scenario in that if it is certain that the person in question does indeed 100% kill and is incurable, then, sure, why waste time on bad rubbish?

However, I believe keeping some alive for research, is still a valid point.

YousufKhan1212
Hardcore Jihadists should probably be killed since they're so desperate to have their 72 virgins in Jannah.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think truly committed jihadists who show no repentance and even voice the desire to do it again, if caught alive (which they usually aren't) should get the death penalty. In that case, yes, absolutely. They love death more than infidels love life, so sure, give them what they want. Send them to see Allah.

I agree, well said.

For those that have use/utility, they should be put to work and paid a nominal compensation for the work they do. But I am not sure about indefinite detention. It is a waste of money and inhumane to do that.

Normally, enemy combatants will be freed once a war ends. But the wars most of these men are captured from are not legal wars to begin with. And these wars do not have clear objectives with definitive outcomes and goals. Since no end is in sight for these military campaigns, then they can be held as long as the people in power say "military interests are not complete, it would be dangerous to release them."

Foxsteak
I mean, I'm against losing valuable sources of information, but for the protection of other people, I think there may be a case for the death penalty in extreme circumstances.

This is not a thread for bashing muslims.

cdtm
Originally posted by Surtur
You see I find when people say certain things like in your post they show how utterly retarded they are. "This could interfere with finding an impartial jury". Lol, WHAT? You will NOT find one, not unless you send out jury duty notices only to people living in caves or beneath rocks.

There will never be an impartial jury for this terrorist piece of shit. These lawmakers are insane if they think so lol.

To answer your question: he should be executed immediately. If they won't execute him then he needs to be in solitary 24/7 for the rest of his life.

I wouldn't put it like that. An impartial jury is a very real concern, otherwise why bother with a trial.

What I WOULD ask is, why bother with a trial when one's guilt is literally beyond all doubt?

I'm not asking what the law says in this case, but more whether this is a practical concern on any level.

He did it, we all know he did. So why a trial?

Foxsteak
Originally posted by cdtm
I wouldn't put it like that. An impartial jury is a very real concern, otherwise why bother with a trial.

What I WOULD ask is, why bother with a trial when one's guilt is literally beyond all doubt?

I'm not asking what the law says in this case, but more whether this is a practical concern on any level.

He did it, we all know he did. So why a trial? Formality. Gotta keep a record of these things, yaknow?

Flyattractor
The ONLY way to get a truly "Impartial Jury" in this world of the 24/7 News Cycle means that ALL Juries must now be made up entirely of HardCore Amish People. Its the only way to be "IMPARTIAL!"

Stigma
Just to chime in, but shouldn't death penalty be an option for all instances of murder?

socool8520
^ With overwhelming evidence...yes imo

Stigma
Originally posted by socool8520
^ With overwhelming evidence...yes imo
Agreed thumb up

Also, today DNA tests and other high-tech inventions can help out in cases that were too complex to solve in previous decades.

socool8520
^ Yeah that could work both ways. Nail the guilty parties and help anyone wrongly accused

Foxsteak
In extreme uncurable circumstances, I think the death penalty may be viable, yet I still think it's useful to keep these people alive for science.

socool8520
Originally posted by Foxsteak
In extreme uncurable circumstances, I think the death penalty may be viable, yet I still think it's useful to keep these people alive for science.

Pertaining to psychosis I assume? I don't think you are curing a serial killer/rapist. They are the way they are imo.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by socool8520
Pertaining to psychosis I assume? I don't think you are curing a serial killer/rapist. They are the way they are imo. but why they are is intriguing enough to research for prevention of further terrorists.

Beniboybling
He should be interrogated and imprisoned, no sense wasting money of a counterintuitive and immoral practice. Especially when death is exactly what he probably wanted in the first place.

socool8520
^ In this instance, let's give it to him. What really is there to figure out? They're psychos who abuses a religion to justify killing people they don't agree with. The end.

Beniboybling
They are extremists who have been radicalised by a very real terroist movement, finding out how that happened for this particular guy could help with terroist prevention in the future.

socool8520
Coercion, false promises, an ideology that seems more attractive then their current situations, faulty logic. Take your pick. I really don't think it's a mystery why they turn to the dark side so to speak. A lot of these low level fools know so little about what they are doing or why they are doing it, that keeping them alive for questioning seems like a waste to me.

Raisen
interrogate to get info. if no info is given then bury them in a vat of bacon grease. it's time to stop playing games with lives at stake

Darth Thor
Not bothered if they execute him tbh. But I do wanna see a trial.

Raisen
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Not bothered if they execute him tbh. But I do wanna see a trial.

he's due a trial.

Beniboybling

socool8520
^ Social media has become a big way to recruit, but from what I understand about this latest incident, he was from the middle east and was pretty much already indoctrinated. I may be mixing him up with a different terrorist though.

Foxsteak
I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea of butchering terrorists like they're lost causes or..... the enemy. Machoness may be the way forward?

Beniboybling

socool8520
Of course you give them a trial, however, the very fact that they committed an act of terrorism pretty dictates guilt no?

Darth Thor
^ Yes but his mind set is important to understand as well.

It's certainly not as simple as what Surtur makes out, that he did it "because of Islam".

socool8520
As I said, there are several different reasons why, but at the end of the day, he murdered people. Mercilessly. If you want to question the motivation or interrogate for future plots, okay. Kill them after

Foxsteak
I still don't get this idea of justified killing in a practical sense.

socool8520
It goes along with your moral stance I suppose. I don't have a problem with people being killed for certain reasons.

cdtm
Originally posted by socool8520
It goes along with your moral stance I suppose. I don't have a problem with people being killed for certain reasons.

Exactly.. Not everyone thinks all killing is wrong. Only murder. Identifying when it's murder generally comes down to intent.

Beniboybling

Foxsteak
A distinction between lawful killing and murder is a valid point, perhaps I'm too lenient with terrorists.

socool8520
This is in reference to Benni's post. It won't let me quote it for some reason.

This is assuming that we think your viewpoint is the only on or the correct one. I don't. I believe there are plenty of reasons the world would be better off without certain individuals. Whether you agree or not doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

It's only really cheaper because of how corrupt the prison system is imo.

cdtm
It's a tricky thing. If I have reservations against a death penalty, it's because of something like the fact the state can rationalize a whistleblower as an "enemy of the state" and kill him.

But as a concept, I certainly wouldn't lose much sleep if the Petit murderers, who, raped and tied down some kids and their mom so they can burn to death didn't beat the death penalty by a hair (Because of repeal, I believe)

dadudemon
.

dadudemon

Foxsteak
Doth thou agreeth withst thy killing foreth justice?

Beniboybling
Originally posted by socool8520
This is in reference to Benni's post. It won't let me quote it for some reason.

This is assuming that we think your viewpoint is the only on or the correct one. I don't. I believe there are plenty of reasons the world would be better off without certain individuals. Whether you agree or not doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

It's only really cheaper because of how corrupt the prison system is imo. Right, thats why I justified my viewpoint with reasoning. Not asking you to assume anything. On the other hand, what reasons? A person can be removed from society just as effectively with a life time of incarceration. I agree on the need to remove certain persons for the public good, but fail to see how that justifies killing them.

And the death penalty is more expensive for a number of reasons 1. the due process to establish is much more time consuming when a life is at stake 2. the the incarceration of death row inmates is more intensive 3. lethal injections are very expensive to aquire and administer.

Beniboybling

dadudemon
Originally posted by Foxsteak
Doth thou agreeth withst thy killing foreth justice?

No. Execute hopeless individuals who meet the following criteria:


1. Are murderers and refuse rehabilitation and refuse to integrate even in prison.
2. There is 100% evidence that the person committed the murders. Not 70%. 100%. Such as a video surveillance that shows the person pulling up with their car, showing their license plate, and you can clearly see a tattoo on their arm, and the commit the murder on video while their phone showed that they were near that area, at that time. And the blood is all over their clothes and their skin is under the nails of the victim. Basically, so much evidence that it is impossible to deny that the person committed the murder. Before people say that this is a rare case, it's not. Many murder cases have absurd amount of evidence that make it impossible to deny.

If those two conditions are met, don't waste time or resources on that person. Execute them. No appeals, either. Make it a quick execution and trial with execution occurring within one year of indictment (which is not a conviction).

Foxsteak
Originally posted by dadudemon
No. Execute hopeless individuals who meet the following criteria:


1. Are murderers and refuse rehabilitation and refuse to integrate even in prison.
2. There is 100% evidence that the person committed the murders. Not 70%. 100%. Such as a video surveillance that shows the person pulling up with their car, showing their license plate, and you can clearly see a tattoo on their arm, and the commit the murder on video while their phone showed that they were near that area, at that time. And the blood is all over their clothes and their skin is under the nails of the victim. Basically, so much evidence that it is impossible to deny that the person committed the murder. Before people say that this is a rare case, it's not. Many murder cases have absurd amount of evidence that make it impossible to deny.

If those two conditions are met, don't waste time or resources on that person. Execute them. No appeals, either. Make it a quick execution and trial with execution occurring within one year of indictment (which is not a conviction). I understand undeniable evidence, but some may be useful in understanding the psychology of why they do murder.

socool8520
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right, thats why I justified my viewpoint with reasoning. Not asking you to assume anything. On the other hand, what reasons? A person can be removed from society just as effectively with a life time of incarceration. I agree on the need to remove certain persons for the public good, but fail to see how that justifies killing them.


I don't see how imprisoning them is somehow better than just killing them but okay. Depending on the prison, you're basically keeping them in a shoe box and severely limiting their rights. I'm not against that, but I don't think it is better than just killing them and being done with it in the case of a terrorist/serial murder/rapist situation.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by socool8520
I don't see how imprisoning them is somehow better than just killing them but okay. Depending on the prison, you're basically keeping them in a shoe box and severely limiting their rights. I'm not against that, but I don't think it is better than just killing them and being done with it in the case of a terrorist/serial murder/rapist situation. Originally posted by socool8520
I don't see how imprisoning them is somehow better than just killing them but okay. Depending on the prison, you're basically keeping them in a shoe box and severely limiting their rights. I'm not against that, but I don't think it is better than just killing them and being done with it in the case of a terrorist/serial murder/rapist situation. Can't get info from a dead man, can get info from a live man - my opinion.

socool8520
You can question, then kill. it's not a one or the other situation. lol

Foxsteak
Originally posted by socool8520
You can question, then kill. it's not a one or the other situation. lol Well, question til useful, then kill? Okay, kill the bastard.

socool8520
^ Works for me

cdtm
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right, thats why I justified my viewpoint with reasoning. Not asking you to assume anything. On the other hand, what reasons? A person can be removed from society just as effectively with a life time of incarceration. I agree on the need to remove certain persons for the public good, but fail to see how that justifies killing them.

And the death penalty is more expensive for a number of reasons 1. the due process to establish is much more time consuming when a life is at stake 2. the the incarceration of death row inmates is more intensive 3. lethal injections are very expensive to aquire and administer.

A life is at stake in either case.

If anything, the fact it's easier to lock someone in a cage until they die is proof we don't really care what happens to the prisoner, but just don't want blood on our hands.

I mean, think about it, would you rather spend your life in a hospital bed hooked up to machines or be put down? I know my answer..

Foxsteak
Originally posted by socool8520
^ Works for me Makes sense.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by socool8520
I don't see how imprisoning them is somehow better than just killing them but okay. Depending on the prison, you're basically keeping them in a shoe box and severely limiting their rights. I'm not against that, but I don't think it is better than just killing them and being done with it in the case of a terrorist/serial murder/rapist situation. Well one of them has had their basic human rights violated, the other has had their societal rights as a lawful citizen taken away from them because they committed a crime.

One of them has a life time to reflect on what they did, the other gets a quick death.

One of them has costed the taxpayer ten of thousands of dollars, the other has not.

Life imprisonment is better, yeah. And FYI: Life imprisonment =\= a lifetime of solitary confinement.

Originally posted by cdtm
I mean, think about it, would you rather spend your life in a hospital bed hooked up to machines or be put down? I know my answer.. What the prisoner wants is hardly relevant. sad

dadudemon
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Well one of them has had their basic human rights violated, the other has had their societal rights as a lawful citizen taken away from them because they committed a crime.

One of them has a life time to reflect on what they did, the other gets a quick death.

One of them has costed the taxpayer ten of thousands of dollars, the other has not.

Life imprisonment is better, yeah. And FYI: Life imprisonment =\= a lifetime of solitary confinement.

You're conflating "natural rights" with "legal rights" I think.

Also, some people consider life in prison, for the truly unrepentant and violent murderers, to be cruel and unusual punishment which violates our 8th amendment. And that it would be a mercy and a humane act to execute instead of life in prison.

There is no "moral high ground", in my opinion.

Also, yes, save the tax payers money. Or get the equivalent value out of the prisoner by putting him/her to work. So if it costs $70k a year to imprison an unrepentant murderer, then we had better get $70k in value back. If not, execute if both my requirements are met.

Steve Zodiac
No one should get the death penalty, it's barbaric.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're conflating "natural rights" with "legal rights" I think.

Also, some people consider life in prison, for the truly unrepentant and violent murderers, to be cruel and unusual punishment which violates our 8th amendment. And that it would be a mercy and a humane act to execute instead of life in prison.

There is no "moral high ground", in my opinion.

Also, yes, save the tax payers money. Or get the equivalent value out of the prisoner by putting him/her to work. So if it costs $70k a year to imprison an unrepentant murderer, then we had better get $70k in value back. If not, execute if both my requirements are met.

Bingo to all of this. I would just add I don't care how much the murderer repents, they should still have go along with the idea you just put forth. Since it's not easy to tell if someone is being genuine when they repent for a murder or if they are just trying to avoid execution.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're conflating "natural rights" with "legal rights" I think.

Also, some people consider life in prison, for the truly unrepentant and violent murderers, to be cruel and unusual punishment which violates our 8th amendment. And that it would be a mercy and a humane act to execute instead of life in prison.

There is no "moral high ground", in my opinion.

Also, yes, save the tax payers money. Or get the equivalent value out of the prisoner by putting him/her to work. So if it costs $70k a year to imprison an unrepentant murderer, then we had better get $70k in value back. If not, execute if both my requirements are met. I'm trying to make a distinction between the two really, the government grants and protects your legal rights under the grounds that you abide by the law that enforces them, but that jurisdiction doesn't extend to your life. The government did not grant that to you, and it surely wasn't given with conditions by which it can be revoked - by them and by anyone else. Hence it's not right for them to maim, torture, rape or kill you, that's overstepping their bounds and entering into authoritarianism.

Killing them instead of imprisoning them could be considered preferable or merciful to an individual (though not to many others), but cruel? So long their living conditions are humane and they are given an opportunity to reform (which I do get, is not always the case) I don't see an argument for cruelty. And if they choose to reject opportunities to reform, that's on them. Taking someone's life against their will however is always going involve cruelty, besides being a violation of their basic rights as a human being. And that's without including the part where they wait to die in solitary confinement.

And the death penalty is pretty extortionate in comparison to standard incarceration, so I highly doubt such a situation where killing them is cheaper would ever arise.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
No one should get the death penalty, it's barbaric.


There's another opinion than yours:

No one should be forced to spend life in prison: it's barbaric.

If they cannot be rehabilitated, they should be granted mercy and executed.

Foxsteak
Are they truly doomed? If so, how would you know?

Robtard
Not sure how life in prison is more or equally barbaric than state run executions. But if a law was passed where someone with a life sentence and a sane mind with zero change of parole could opt to die via humane ways, I'd not really have a problem with it.

My main gripe with the DP is the chance of an innocent person being executed.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm trying to make a distinction between the two really, the government grants and protects your legal rights under the grounds that you abide by the law that enforces them, but that jurisdiction doesn't extend to your life. The government did not grant that to you, and it surely wasn't given with conditions by which it can be revoked - by them and by anyone else. Hence it's not right for them to maim, torture, rape or kill you, that's overstepping their bounds and entering into authoritarianism.

Killing them instead of imprisoning them could be considered preferable or merciful to an individual (though not to many others), but cruel? So long their living conditions are humane and they are given an opportunity to reform (which I do get, is not always the case) I don't see an argument for cruelty. And if they choose to reject opportunities to reform, that's on them. Taking someone's life against their will however is always going involve cruelty, besides being a violation of their basic rights as a human being. And that's without including the part where they wait to die in solitary confinement.

You agreed with me for the most part.

The cruel part is the freedom restrictions which you do get and you did mention living conditions which is an extremely critical problem in the US Prison systems.

Also, not everyone has prisons and Criminal Justice Systems as nice and amazing as Norway's. I am not the first person to call the US Prison System a "cruel and usual" punishment.

But I'd like to call special attention to something you said which is not agreed to quite obviously but you present your opinions as fact:

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Taking someone's life against their will however is always going involve cruelty.

I disagree. Unless you think it's cruel to stop murders, rapes, etc. You think it involves cruelty but your position involves forcing cruelty to others when it is very well within our power to stop that cruelty.

But I should not argue over the details because you've already seen my position and agreed to it so me continuing this is actually just masturbation and perhaps comes off as condescending towards you.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And the death penalty is pretty extortionate in comparison to standard incarceration, so I highly doubt such a situation where killing them is cheaper would ever arise.

I've already addressed this point.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure how life in prison is more or equally barbaric than state run executions. But if a law was passed where someone with a life sentence and a sane mind with zero change of parole could opt to die via humane ways, I'd not really have a problem with it.

My main gripe with the DP is the chance of an innocent person being executed. Sut up R(ob)tard.

Flyattractor
I always find it funny how it is MADE to cost more to Off these Living Piles of Shit over feeding, clothing ,and taking care of them for DECADES can cost LESS!

I smell Political and Legal BULLSHIT!!!!!

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure how life in prison is more or equally barbaric than state run executions. But if a law was passed where someone with a life sentence and a sane mind with zero change of parole could opt to die via humane ways, I'd not really have a problem with it.

My main gripe with the DP is the chance of an innocent person being executed.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Are they truly doomed? If so, how would you know?

See my requirements 1 and 2.

And if you disagree with how to determine 2, I ask you to determine how you'll determine a group of professionals deem as "non-rehabilitatable" can be rehabilitated. To make my point more clear for you: I'm not going to entertain the idea of "magic future things." If you want to keep them alive because of "magic future things", then I can go into fantasy land can pretend that your magic future things will not exist or the criminals will just get worse and people will be harmed or killed by them which makes you cruel and it makes the system cruel and usual. Except...my points would be factual and not rely on "magic future things."

Foxsteak
Well, they use special injections to kill them "humanely"


It's bullshit.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by dadudemon
See my requirements 1 and 2.

And if you disagree with how to determine 2, I ask you to determine how you'll determine a group of professionals deem as "non-rehabilitatable" can be rehabilitated. To make my point more clear for you: I'm not going to entertain the idea of "magic future things." If you want to keep them alive because of "magic future things", then I can go into fantasy land can pretend that your magic future things will not exist or the criminals will just get worse and people will be harmed or killed by them which makes you cruel and it makes the system cruel and usual. Except...my points would be factual and not rely on "magic future things." My argument is you can't get information out of them if they're dead.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Flyattractor
I always find it funny how it is MADE to cost more to Off these Living Piles of Shit over feeding, clothing ,and taking care of them for DECADES can cost LESS!

I smell Political and Legal BULLSHIT!!!!!

It's because the system is setup to allow the person to leech money, indirectly, off the state for over 10-20 years before the execution occurs: appeals.

To me, it's always funny to me that people who work in or have worked in the prison systems are much more likely to be for the death penalty for certain types of inmates and situations.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Foxsteak
My argument is you can't get information out of them if they're dead.

And why do you want information out of them, again? What information? More dead body locations or something?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Foxsteak
Well, they use special injections to kill them "humanely"


It's bullshit.


Right, I think we should send a spike through the brain stem. Much more humane and saves absurd amounts of money.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by dadudemon
And why do you want information out of them, again? What information? More dead body locations or something? To understand why these ****ers are ebul., for science.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, I think we should send a spike through the brain stem. Much more humane and saves absurd amounts of money. Cut the sarcasm, I'm asking for a civilised debate.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's because the system is setup to allow the person to leech money, indirectly, off the state for over 10-20 years before the execution occurs: appeals.

To me, it's always funny to me that people who work in or have worked in the prison systems are much more likely to be for the death penalty for certain types of inmates and situations.

Like I said....Legal and Political Bullshit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, I think we should send a spike through the brain stem. Much more humane and saves absurd amounts of money.

A few feet of rope, a little bit of lead and gunpowder...not really all that expensive..and you get the non-death row inmates to dig the holes....NOT REALLY THAT EXPENSIVE!

RHaggis
Eh, just deport 'em. If they're citizens, revoke their citizenship and then deport them.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Foxsteak
To understand why these ****ers are ebul., for science.

So how much more case studies do we need? How many more do you think the psychological community needs before they understand murders, serial killers, and sociopaths?

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Cut the sarcasm, I'm asking for a civilised debate.

I'm being serious. That wasn't sarcasm.

Spike through the brain stem. It's effective. Instantaneous. Is reusable. Is low cost. Does not maime so the family can still have an open casket. It is not even close to cruel like the chemical cocktails.

Edit - This is called a "captive bolt pistol." FYI.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by RHaggis
Eh, just deport 'em. If they're citizens, revoke their citizenship and then deport them.

You don't "Deport" Terrorists, unless you Deport them via DEATH!

RHaggis
Originally posted by Flyattractor
You don't "Deport" Terrorists, unless you Deport them via DEATH!

Simmer down, son.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by dadudemon
So how much more case studies do we need? How many more do you think the psychological community needs before they understand murders, serial killers, and sociopaths?



I'm being serious. That wasn't sarcasm.

Spike through the brain stem. It's effective. Instantaneous. Is reusable. Is low cost. Does not maime so the family can still have an open casket. It is not even close to cruel like the chemical cocktails.

Edit - This is called a "captive bolt pistol." FYI. Terrorism keeps changing so we need info from them.

Spike through brain stem is grusome dude...

Flyattractor
Originally posted by RHaggis
Simmer down, son.

.....nah.

cdtm
Man, the fact this is even a question proves how hard it is to take one alive.

Geneva conventions dictate how pow's are treated, but does this qualify as a pow? Since we're not at war?

Of course, if we did deport them, their host country brush's this aside and welcomes them in with open arms, that's a pretty good excuse for war imo. They'd basically be condoning an attack against the U.S. Not something you can just shrug your shoulders and accept.

Afro Cheese
The ironic thing about Islamic terrorists is giving them the death penalty is actually doing them a sort of favor.

Flyattractor
That is why you castrate them first.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
See my requirements 1 and 2.

And if you disagree with how to determine 2, I ask you to determine how you'll determine a group of professionals deem as "non-rehabilitatable" can be rehabilitated. To make my point more clear for you: I'm not going to entertain the idea of "magic future things." If you want to keep them alive because of "magic future things", then I can go into fantasy land can pretend that your magic future things will not exist or the criminals will just get worse and people will be harmed or killed by them which makes you cruel and it makes the system cruel and usual. Except...my points would be factual and not rely on "magic future things."

I'm not talking about "magic future things", I'm talking about realistic past things, like people who have been executed and then later it was proven that they were in fact not the culprit of the crime they were executed over.

Surtur
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
The ironic thing about Islamic terrorists is giving them the death penalty is actually doing them a sort of favor.

I remember after one of the more recent terror attacks in the UK(hard to keep track of them all) there was this story about a lot of Imams refusing proper burial rights for the terrorist.

Not receiving the proper burial or whatever...it was suggested this can have some negative impact on if the horrible terrorist goes to heaven or gets their virgins. IF true, then we execute them and we make sure they never ever receive a proper burial.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not talking about "magic future things", I'm talking about realistic past things, like people who have been executed and then later it was proven that they were in fact not the culprit of the crime they were executed over.

You're talking about something that does not fit within my 2 criteria.

Foxsteak
I think afrocheese's point was it kinda pisses them off creating more terrorism....like the iraq war, for example.

Afro Cheese
I remember hearing the same thing about the reason why they discarded Osama's body in the ocean after they killed him. It always did seem somewhat shady to me though. They could have told the truth... but we basically got no evidence that Osama was actually killed. We just have to take their word for it. That makes me sort of uncomfortable tbh.

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I remember hearing the same thing about the reason why they discarded Osama's body in the ocean after they killed him. It always did seem somewhat shady to me though. They could have told the truth... but we basically got no evidence that Osama was actually killed. We just have to take their word for it. That makes me sort of uncomfortable tbh. As soon as it happened I said to myself "well, Obama's going to get another term" like how much more can a president be so shady?

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Foxsteak
I think afrocheese's point was it kinda pisses them off creating more terrorism....like the iraq war, for example. Nah, my point was that they want to be martyrs in the first place

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Nah, my point was that they want to be martyrs in the first place

*insert Patton Quote here*

Foxsteak
So...... kill terrorists?

Flyattractor
More like...
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Foxsteak
I suppose that's fair.

Flyattractor
I prefer to play fair when I can.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Foxsteak
So...... kill terrorists? I'm saying basically that based on their ideology that would just make them a martyr which is a good thing. But yea.... basically I still think they're worth killing. I don't care cause I'm pretty sure their paradise is false.

Foxsteak
I suppose in some cases killing is justifiable.

socool8520
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
The ironic thing about Islamic terrorists is giving them the death penalty is actually doing them a sort of favor.

One I'm happy to do for them. We both win.

socool8520
Originally posted by Robtard


My main gripe with the DP is the chance of an innocent person being executed.

That's why I would only put it in on the table if there is overwhelming evidence of a crime. Also, it would be limited to the more evil (imo) acts such as rape and murder.

Surtur
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'm saying basically that based on their ideology that would just make them a martyr which is a good thing. But yea.... basically I still think they're worth killing. I don't care cause I'm pretty sure their paradise is false.

Plus just do the burial thing. If an improper burial is bad...then, well, pigs need food do they not? And pigs would not discriminate against the slop they get fed being ground up terrorist pieces of shit, correct?

Problem solved, and in a hilarious way.

Afro Cheese
I dunno about the whole no burial = no martyrdom tho

something about it just seems off

like most suicide bombers must know they're not getting any kind of burial

like the 9/11 hijackers... surely they knew their remains wouldn't be recovered

Foxsteak
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I dunno about the whole no burial = no martyrdom tho

something about it just seems off

like most suicide bombers must know they're not getting any kind of burial

like the 9/11 hijackers... surely they knew their remains wouldn't be recovered Some of them survived anyway.

Surtur
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I dunno about the whole no burial = no martyrdom tho

something about it just seems off

like most suicide bombers must know they're not getting any kind of burial

like the 9/11 hijackers... surely they knew their remains wouldn't be recovered

It's possible, but then hundreds of Imams in the UK are super confused about their own religion.

Or was it just virtue signaling?

Afro Cheese
I mean I think it's a good gesture on their part that they aren't going to condone the supposed martyrs... but I'm not so sure that's really stopping anyone from trying to become one.

Surtur
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I mean I think it's a good gesture on their part that they aren't going to condone the supposed martyrs... but I'm not so sure that's really stopping anyone from trying to become one.

I don't think it would stop them from trying to become one, but if there is some way to disrespect them with a burial that, according to the religion, would deny them whatever rewards they seek in "heaven" it should be done.

And in fact I'd argue any Imam that refuses supports radical Islam. So actually I hope this is true, because that actually gives us a way to test how much an Imam is for(or against) radical Islamic terrorism. There are zero good arguments to be made for giving terrorists respectful burials. It'd be a nice test of who is truly a moderate.

Though the CNN article I found about it did not actually list why the "not getting a proper burial" thing was bad in terms of what the religion believes the consequences are.

Surtur
Eh, unfortunate:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-a-mosque-is-refusing-to-bury-the-manchester-attacker/528648/

If I'm understanding that correctly, this is essentially just a way for the muslim community to show disapproval, but it apparently has no bearing on if their horrible god forgives or rewards these douches.

And yet, as the moderates claim, if most of the followers of Islam already disapprove of this behavior...well, "we super duper disapprove!" probably won't do much.

Beniboybling
Their God isn't real, Surt. sad

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Surtur
Eh, unfortunate:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-a-mosque-is-refusing-to-bury-the-manchester-attacker/528648/

If I'm understanding that correctly, this is essentially just a way for the muslim community to show disapproval, but it apparently has no bearing on if their horrible god forgives or rewards these douches.

And yet, as the moderates claim, if most of the followers of Islam already disapprove of this behavior...well, "we super duper disapprove!" probably won't do much. It's sort of like the KKK or nazis in America. The vast majority of white people condemn these groups. That is never going to stop someone from becoming a Nazi; they just think the vast majority of whites are deluded.

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Their God isn't real, Surt. sad

Nobody's God is real. But if they thought their actions would be met with disapproval from their God they might care. Whereas they will give two shits if other muslims disapprove, they'll just kill those people too.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody's God is real. But if they thought their actions would be met with disapproval from their God they might care. Whereas they will give two shits if other muslims disapprove, they'll just kill those people too. TIL: Surt thinks terrorists can be reasoned with. no

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
TIL: Surt thinks terrorists can be reasoned with. no

It's more like I think if anything were to give them pause it might be the notion of their horrid God not approving of them.

Beniboybling
Their entire ideology revolves around the belief that their God wants them blow themselves up. If they are deluded enough to rationalise that kind of behaviour, the idea of improper burial rites will not deter them. Did I mention that they want to blow themselves up? Yeah. They don't care about what happens to their corpses.

Personally, I think you just get kicks out of the idea of defiling the bodies of dead terrorists. Not healthy. sad

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Their entire ideology revolves around the belief that their God wants them blow themselves up. If they are deluded enough to rationalise that kind of behaviour, the idea of improper burial rites will not deter them. Did I mention that they want to blow themselves up? Yeah. They don't care about what happens to their corpses.

And I never said it was guaranteed, so what are you whining about?



That's nice, nobody cares though.

Anyways, terrorists who can't be reasoned with should be executed immediately then once guilt is established.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by cdtm
I wouldn't put it like that. An impartial jury is a very real concern, otherwise why bother with a trial.

What I WOULD ask is, why bother with a trial when one's guilt is literally beyond all doubt?

I'm not asking what the law says in this case, but more whether this is a practical concern on any level.

He did it, we all know he did. So why a trial?
Because when you ignore the constitution when it's convenient, that opens the door to ignoring the constitution in other cases.

Beniboybling
thumb up

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
And I never said it was guaranteed, so what are you whining about?Right, in other words you have no good reason to want to chop up dead bodies and feed them to animals. sick

Sick burn man, did I hit to close to the mark?

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Right, in other words you have no good reason to want to chop up dead bodies and feed them to animals. sick

Sick burn man, did I hit to close to the mark?

I said it should be done if it will, according to their awful awful religion, deny them rewards.

Any other shit you wanna whine over? I love denying you "gotchas". Gimme more to deny.

Beniboybling
I'm sorry if I've upset you. sad

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm sorry if I've upset you. sad

No more "gotchas" for me to shut down? Damn sad

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>