Here in The Netherlands, keeping a convict in prison hase a pricetag of 300 bucks a day. That is more than half I spend on monthly costs like rent, electricity and such. If some ass commits a crime that will send him to jail for more then 10 years, he will cost the country atleast 1.092.000 bucks.
Fry the motherf*cker!!!
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
If a society creates a problem, then it is the responsibility of that society to solve it. Murdering a murderer is not a solution; it is another problem.
you are very right. However...at what point do you stop drawing the line? At what point do you stop being subjective?
There has to be an end result in mind.
Edit: I just heard the theme song to "Who's the boss?"
nevermind...
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
If a society creates a problem, then it is the responsibility of that society to solve it. Murdering a murderer is not a solution; it is another problem.
No matter how close to perfect a society is, it still has to suffer the flaws of human nature. There will allways be jealousy, envy and hate. And indeed, those emotions can be restricted and contained by most people.
But some people are to twisted and out of control that they (in my book) don't belong in society, or even mankind itself.
These sad individuals deserve the right to treatment, medical care and guidance, but there is only so much society can do for them.
As soon as anybody decides to rape and kill a 6 year old, no matter what circumstances, I don't want to hear about 'troubled childhoods, abusive parents' and what else. When the shit hits the fan in that manner, the bastard has to be eradicated.
That person has no right what so ever to live, and keeping it alive will only be a burden of those that do do their best to make this world worthwhile.
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
As soon as anybody decides to rape and kill a 6 year old, no matter what circumstances, I don't want to hear about 'troubled childhoods, abusive parents' and what else. When the shit hits the fan in that manner, the bastard has to be eradicated.
That person has no right what so ever to live, and keeping it alive will only be a burden of those that do do their best to make this world worthwhile.
First and foremost, your little "That person has no right whatsoever to live" is exactly the same mentality of someone who commits murder. Funny how things work out isn't it? You have no right to decide that.
You know, people like you should comment on issues like this. Why? Because as soon as you begin to reveal just how you feel, you also reveal in turn just WHY you feel that way. Most of the time it's because a kid is involved, which is pointless.
If you're gonna become Mr. Moral Highground then I suggest you be that for people of all ages. Oh and don't give me that bullcrap about "A child has their life ahead of them." You don't know that. Death can come for anyone, of any age, at any time. Old or young. If you're against killing, you're against it for all ages or your opinion is flawed, biased and as a result, void. Because in actual fact, it's people with your kind of point of view that the world needs less of. It's people like you who talk the talk but think you're free of being judged because you don't walk the walk. I'm not saying go murder someone to back it up, I'm saying don't have a murderers mentality if you're claiming they should be, ironically, murdered.
-AC
Originally posted by PandemoniacThink of it this way.
No matter how close to perfect a society is, it still has to suffer the flaws of human nature. There will allways be jealousy, envy and hate. And indeed, those emotions can be restricted and contained by most people.
But some people are to twisted and out of control that they (in my book) don't belong in society, or even mankind itself.
These sad individuals deserve the right to treatment, medical care and guidance, but there is only so much society can do for them.
As soon as anybody decides to rape and kill a 6 year old, no matter what circumstances, I don't want to hear about 'troubled childhoods, abusive parents' and what else. When the shit hits the fan in that manner, the bastard has to be eradicated.
That person has no right what so ever to live, and keeping it alive will only be a burden of those that do do their best to make this world worthwhile.
My child killed your child.
You are grief stricken and whatnot, but you want revenge, I mean your heart is broken apart.
So you kill my child. Though my child did something horrible, I still love him the same, so now I am in the same boat you are.
Nothing is accomplished, and FURTHERMORE one of us will have to stop, what if I decided to get back at you?
This is going to result in the conclusion of "Anyone should be able to kill who they want." Which is also the wrong way to go.
The fact is, on the death penalty, it's pointless. As said by many people, any margin of error is too much. If America's prison systems were good enough and life meant life (which isn't actually that hard to achieve), then it'd be abolished.
It's like people who view marijuana as a bad drug purely because it's illegal, yet go out drinking every night. Despite them partaking in the use of a drug more dangerous than perhaps any other. Legal murder is still murder.
-AC
I'll add to that, that the death penalty isn't a solution to violent crime. Building a whole lot of prisons isn't a real solution either. They're basically just quickfixes for symptoms rather than trying to address the basis of the problem.
People commit violent crimes. Yes. But ever stopped and asked: Why do people commit violent crimes?
And the Jeffery Dalmers of the world..
Somehow the officers failed to notice any of the corpses and dismembered body parts stashed around the place, not even the one which had been decomposing for three days in the next room. Or, for that matter, the hole in the boy's skull Dahmer had made with an electric drill. The police chalked it up to "a homosexual lovers spat" and left. As soon as they were gone, Dahmer strangled the boy, raped his corpse, and ate some flesh from the carcass. It was his twelfth victim.
So, some people should be put to death right?
The apartment reeked of decomposing meat. They found chloroform and formaldehyde. And dozens of Polaroids Jeffrey had taken of the victims while they were tied up and butchered. Plus the 55-gallon drums of muriatic acid and dissolving body parts. Plus the freezer full of heads, neatly packaged in plastic bags (to prevent freezer burn?).
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriDeath penalty is also very expensive.
This is going to result in the conclusion of "Anyone should be able to kill who they want." Which is also the wrong way to go.The fact is, on the death penalty, it's pointless. As said by many people, any margin of error is too much. If America's prison systems were good enough and life meant life (which isn't actually that hard to achieve), then it'd be abolished.
It's like people who view marijuana as a bad drug purely because it's illegal, yet go out drinking every night. Despite them partaking in the use of a drug more dangerous than perhaps any other. Legal murder is still murder.
-AC
And furthermore, obeying the law should truly be a choice. With ideology however, they try to make it as less of a choice than it needs to be, so they don't have to resort to force. However, marijuana is one of those things that fall out of idealogical principles.
Originally posted by debbiejo
So, some people should be put to death right?The apartment reeked of decomposing meat. They found chloroform and formaldehyde. And dozens of Polaroids Jeffrey had taken of the victims while they were tied up and butchered. Plus the 55-gallon drums of muriatic acid and dissolving body parts. Plus the freezer full of heads, neatly packaged in plastic bags (to prevent freezer burn?).
Why should some people be put to death because their method of killing is way more gruesome than others? Jeffrey Dahmer was a head-drilling, cannibalistic necropheliac, sure. What was the result? Dead people. What was the result of Ted Bundy's killing spree? Dead people. What is the result of any murderous act? Death. The end result is death, the main problem we have is people getting riled because they PERSONALLY find certain methods of killing more horrid than others. When the fact that it's killing (regardless of how) you should be concerned about, if at all.
I'll go you one further. The fact that Jeffrey Dahmer did all that only suggests that there indeed WAS some kind of mental issues there, so instead of killing the man, maybe you know...detain him forever and at the same time, learn from the guy. It's perfectly sane people who decide to murder (which is very possible) who you should be worried about. People need to realise that lust isn't purely sexual, it IS possible to develop a lust to kill and just randomly want to do it without any kind of trauma or mental history. It's said that the reason people do that is because they don't see any distinction between the simple acts like going to the store, and significant acts like murder. That's not a mental disease, that's just a very extreme view. Someone has a serious lack of value for human life that they believe it wouldn't hurt to wipe someone out. This is classically and realistically portrayed in the character of Hannibal Lecter.
So with regards to your comment Debbie, no. Jeffrey Dahmer drilling some boy's skull in and then raping the corpse doesn't deserve death anymore than a burglar who shoots a man defending his house. Any reason for you believing so would be personal. If committing murder is, to you, an offense punishable by eternal death, then it shouldn't matter how it's done.
-AC