Author Topic: A monster is dead (Read 5888 times)

Yoj · « **Reply #75 on:** June 13, 2001, 05:26:00 PM »

Lots of interesting stuff in this thread. As far as the death penalty is concerned, I can't see there is any "right" or "wrong" to it. Its a social decision whether you have one or not. However, if a death penalty exists the two important things are that it be clear why society is killing these people, and that the penalty be evenhandedly applied. The only reason for executions is retribution (not necessarily revenge), so just do it honestly and not enter into false sociological (deterrent) or religious arguments. And make sure that no segment of the population (e.g. African-Americans or Latinos) be more likely to face it.

The reason we have these endless years of appeals is primarily because as a society we have not decided whether we really want a death penalty or not, so loopholes are written into the system. I say either have it and step forward and do it and not wring hands about it, or say we don't need executions to make us feel that we have meted out punishment and get rid of it. This hem and haw mentality we have now is the worst of all possible worlds.

- Yoj

SOB · « **Reply #76 on:** June 14, 2001, 01:55:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ispar:
Eh? This is about money? Because it's cheaper to kill someone than to keep them locked up? I was sickened before... that reasoning is below contempt. I have nothing against you SOB, but that argument is frankly one of worst out there.

Actually, I think it's a very sound argument. If you murder innocent people, you lose your right to live with the rest of society, and the society should bear no responsibility for your upkeep.

What are the options?
A. Society pays to cloth, feed, shelter, entertain, & educate you for the rest of your life.
B. Send you to another country.
C. Execute you.

Option A? If you choose to pay for his upkeep great...maybe you can get a group of citizens together that will support him and those like him forever. Remember, HE chose his actions, not me or anyone else.

Option B? Who would take him, and even if they would, he might come back and do it again.

Option C? Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with eliminating someone who's proven his unworthiness to live with the rest of society. Uncivilized, vengefull, cold? Maybe, but some actions have consequences.

SOB

Jammer · « **Reply #77 on:** June 14, 2001, 03:31:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB:

If you murder innocent people, you lose your right to live with the rest of society, and the society should bear no responsibility for your upkeep.

SOB

What puzzles me is that people that argues for death penalty always bring up the example where 'the evil degenerate brutally slaughters the perfectly innocent virgin lamb', as if the world is always that black and white. As if you can always determine without a doubt who's the perpetrator(sp?).

Again I have to refer to Tolkien and the passage he wrote in 'The return of the king', which I paraphrased in my earlier post.

Let me put it this way: hate and revenge is the emotional and conceptual analogy to the drug addicts 5 o'clock fix. Hate and revenge is the easy way out of a painful situation.
Normally I hesitate to bring up the words of the Jesus Christ, but in essence he said 'forgive those who wronged you', 'love you enemy', 'turn the other cheek' and so on. Now theres a twist to this, as this message is the core of christianity to me, to choose the hard difficult path of forgiveness and love, rather than the easy, quick, fast-food way of hate and revenge.

I'm not out to defend murderers or criminals in general, there's no doubt that they should be held responsible for their deeds, and also suffer the consequences.

But the economical argument for death penalty is ridiculos in my opinion, those few executed doesn't make more then a microscopic dent in any countrys budget, so please...don't use that one. If money is worth more to you than life..well...

It's a matter of principle, if you will.

Well it's a debatable issue, with no easy answers, so I guess it's much a matter of personal bias, since it's so emotional on both sides that logic arguments hardly gets through.

"Ars longa, vita brevis"

Cheers

SOB · « **Reply #78 on:** June 14, 2001, 08:08:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jammer:
What puzzles me is that people that argues for death penalty always bring up the example where 'the evil degenerate brutally slaughters the perfectly innocent virgin lamb', as if the world is always that black and white. As if you can always determine without a doubt who's the perpetrator(sp?).

You're trying to put words in my mouth. What I gave there was an example of a type of murder that deserves the death penalty.

Quote

Originally posted by Jammer:
But the economical argument for death penalty is ridiculos in my opinion, those few executed doesn't make more then a microscopic dent in any countrys budget, so please...don't use that one. If money is worth more to you than life..well...
It's a matter of principle, if you will.

"those few executed..."

And therein lies the economic problem.

SOB

mrfish · « **Reply #79 on:** June 14, 2001, 02:21:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jammer:

Normally I hesitate to bring up the words of the Jesus Christ, but in essence he said 'forgive those who wronged you', 'love you enemy', 'turn the other cheek' and so on

depends on which gospel you quote. you are quoting the 'peace love happiness' jesus from the gospel of john. someone wishing to make a counterpoint could easily quote the vengeful 'i am a sword' fire and brimstone preachin jesus of the gospel of mark.

anyway why are so many of you stuck on the idea of the death penalty as vengeful or as a deterrent? can't it simply rest as a consequence? not everyone is trying to make a point or prevent crime. why attach much emotion to it? it is like throwin out a bad alternator to me. it is broken. no more emotion - no less.

some see life like a little girl at a pretend tea party handing out instructions to stuffed animals who then flips out when they fall over in their chair or something -

you can't get emotional when your hopes of utopia dont go right - you can only fix the problem. there are duds in the world it is better to get rid of them than hold on to them forever and pretend they will get better or selfishly assure yourself of your piety for not giving them the death penalty. as long as you are looking for the best 'feeling' answer it will elude you.

ispar · « **Reply #80 on:** June 14, 2001, 08:49:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB:

Actually, I think it's a very sound argument. If you murder innocent people, you lose your right to live with the rest of society, and the society should bear no responsibility for your upkeep.

What are the options?
A. Society pays to cloth, feed, shelter, entertain, & educate you for the rest of your life.
B. Send you to another country.
C. Execute you.

Option A? If you choose to pay for his upkeep great...maybe you can get a group of citizens together that will support him and those like him forever. Remember, HE chose his actions, not me or anyone else.

Option B? Who would take him, and even if they would, he might come back and do it again.

Option C? Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with eliminating someone who's proven his unworthiness to live with the rest of society. Uncivilized, vengefull, cold? Maybe, but some actions have consequences.

SOB

Sorry. No beef. Sure. You sacrifice your right to live freely in society, a penalty terrible in itself.

But your right to live? No. No one has the right to take any person's life, IMO. Period. I can only think of one authority that might have the right to pass THAT judgement: God, the creator, whatever it is that you may believe. And in any case, I do not believe that he/she/it steps in in these situations to pass judgement either, because we can stand on our own right?

Jammer is correct, the economy argument is weak. As well as repulsive. I don't care who's life it is, it's a life. Period.

SOB · « **Reply #81 on:** June 14, 2001, 10:10:00 PM »

Well, I don't agree with you in the least bit, but I do respect your right to your own opinion.

Even if it is wrong

SOB

mrfish · « **Reply #82 on:** June 14, 2001, 11:33:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ispar:

I don't care who's life it is, it's a life. Period.

you mean you value a 'human' life. are you a vegitarian? otherwise that statement loses a little validity.

ispar · « **Reply #83 on:** June 15, 2001, 05:09:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrfish:

you mean you value a 'human' life. are you a vegitarian? otherwise that statement loses a little validity.

Dammit. Stop searching desperately for loopholes in my opinion. I stated quite clearly earlier in the same post that I thought it was wrong to take another human life. I am not so opposed to the killing of animals for food. I disapprove of the methods and conditions thereof, but not so much that I do not eat meat. Perhaps someday, but for now do not put words into my mouth.

mrfish · « **Reply #84 on:** June 15, 2001, 05:25:00 PM »

what about a vicious dog that attacks 2 yr olds every time he sees one? what if that dog killed 5 young children at a party by mauling their limbs off.

i suppose we should build them a little dog house with bars on it and feed and water him and pay his vet bill for the rest of his life? perhaps have a doggy psychologist come out and try to make him better. or does your life sanctifying morality only apply to mammals with a certain amout of neurons?

i think it is hypocritical that you apply your morality only to certain animals and not others, namely your own species. why make the distinction if it is life itself that is so sacred to you...

mason22 · « **Reply #85 on:** June 15, 2001, 05:41:00 PM »

what gets me is, do you really think justice was served?

those dead are still dead...what justice is there? maybe my definition of justice is off. but, if someone killed one of my dogs, and i killed that person, there is no justice....there is consequence. eye for an eye. justice is meant for laws, not life.

just becuase the killer is silent, doesn't hush the screams and loss and pain.

skernsk · « **Reply #86 on:** June 15, 2001, 06:12:00 PM »

Just think of the tax payer money you saved by killing the evil bastard!

I live in the "utopia" to the north...no death penalties....life sentence = 3 years with good behavior etc etc.

I don't think this is justice. I am all for the death penalty..as a deterent and a consequence. If somebody blew my family up the way that clown did I would expect the death penalty.

PC · « **Reply #87 on:** June 15, 2001, 11:46:00 PM »

Has this been said yet?
F!CK him,

PC

Lance · « **Reply #88 on:** June 16, 2001, 12:57:00 AM »

Personally, I am against the death penalty as long as we have a legal system where the overriding factor in whether someone is convicted of a crime or not has more to do with their economic status than it does with their guilt or innocence.

That said, I am glad this particular amazinhunk is taking a dirtnap.

Gordo

StSanta · « **Reply #89 on:** June 16, 2001, 04:37:00 AM »

Well, there are cases when I almost wish we had the death penalty, even though I'm opposed to it.

Take this guy Lundin we have here. Apparently, he moved to the US (he's Danish) and once there he killed his own mother. got a few years in prison for it, nothing much. he's also being investigated by the FBI in relation to three other murders.

So he gets home to Denmark again after serving his short time. Hooks up with a prostitute that's working from her home, who has two small kids.

He gets jealous, kills the mother, kills her two little children, chops the body up into little pieces and then starts craving for media attention. This guy thinks he's gods gift to women and that he should have special priviledges.

Every month, I hear more about his diddlying little ideas and what he's done and whatnot. Every month, he pulls some publicity stunt to keep the attention of the media on him.

He'll be out in 12-18 years, provided he survives the prison time which he probably does, since jails here are relatively safe.

12-18 years. The guy has killed at least 3 people and hacked them up into small pieces. Killed his own mother.

We don't have "life sentence" in Denmark. longest you get is 18 years, or alternatively being locked up on a psych ward indefinitely, which unfortunately might also mean "short time". And once this guy gets out, he'll kill again.

If we could lock him up for good, I'd have no problem with it. We can't, and then it's better to terminate him. With a little luck, someone in jail might just do that. i hear inmates aren't too fond of him.