Author Topic: Mark Chapman - forgive and forget? (Read 1524 times)

Dowding · « **Reply #30 on:** October 06, 2000, 06:57:00 PM »

Depends on whether you think half a dozen cells is a human being, doesn't it?

No matter how many are caught red-handed, you can't escape the fact that there will be mistakes made and innocent people will be killed because of those mistakes.

Also, we are not barbarians - a civilised society such as the US should be able to avoid the death penalty.

I'd be the first to congratualte you if having the death penalty had eradicated murder from your society. But the truth is you have one of highest murder rates in the civilised world; capital punishment is no deterrent, especially since, if you can afford it, you can get an expensive lawyer to argue your way out of a conviction even if you were caught red-handed.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-06-2000).]

Toad · « **Reply #31 on:** October 06, 2000, 09:58:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding:
Depends on whether you think half a dozen cells is a human being, doesn't it?

So, Dowding, where will YOU draw the line? 1000 cells? 3 Months? 4 Months? When do YOU say "No, it's too late. No more "abortion", at this point it would be MURDER?"

Declare, Dowding....and then tell me how you KNOW for SURE.

Also, we are not barbarians - a civilised society such as the US should be able to avoid the death penalty.

In the eyes of some (like bleeding heart liberals (Image removed from quote.) ) it may seem barbaric. I accept that view and have no problem with others holding it.

In the eyes of still OTHERS (like me! (Image removed from quote.) ) the death penalty is simply Society's way ensuring a guaranteed 0% recidivism rate.

I don't care if it deters anyone else at all...that's totally non-germane...because I KNOW it PERMANENTLY DETERS the cruel, inhumane bastiges that, for example, would cut the arms off a little girl, rape her and pour drain cleaner in her mouth.

Bleeding heart liberals sometimes let guys like this slip through to kill again. (And he DID.) Sorry, that's unacceptable to me. Society has a responsibility to its law-abiding citizens BEFORE its law-breaking citizens.

But the truth is you have one of highest murder rates in the civilised world; capital punishment is no deterrent, especially since, if you can afford it, you can get an expensive lawyer to argue your way out of a conviction even if you were caught red-handed.

I'm not arguing the murder rate. I'll say this though...I think it IS so high because of pudding-headed ideas like putting the blame on inanimate objects instead of the persons responsible.

Deterrence? Show me any study that proves registration, purchasing restrictions, training, permit requirements, etc. alone have EVER, anywhere in the US, resulted in a lower crime rate. There are none.

In fact, quite the opposite is true. It's easy to show that the cities in the US that have the most restrictive firearms rules have the highest crime rates as well. DC and NYC are two prime examples. Despite passing law after law after law, their violent crime rates have followed the national trends. Therefore, their laws have had no "special" effect.

...and why is this? Pretty simple if you think about it. Who will comply with all the new restrictions? ONLY the law-abiding element of society, the ONE element that IS NOT driving up your violent crime rate.

Who WILL NOT comply with all the new restrictions. Take a wild-A** guess. Yep. The criminal element will ignore the laws...ONCE AGAIN. Who causes the violent crime?...time for another wild guess?

Also, there is now absolutely indisputable proof that holding the CRIMINALS responsible DOES immediately lower the violent crime rate.

The Project Exile stats I quoted above are simple fact, attested by both the local and Federal government. Project Ceasefire is working as well

A 60% drop in violent crime rates in ONE YEAR in Richmond, the Project Exile program area. 60%!

Show me a registration, licensing, training or purchasing restriction that is anywhere near that effective.

You can't, because there aren't any.

Furthermore, Project Exile type operations DO NOT infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, the true natural concern of any society.

Hold the criminals accountable and not the law abiding citizens. What a concept! It's just too deep to understand, isn't it?

What part of that philosophy do you have a problem with Dowding?

Lastly, Captial Punishment and Deterrence.

You seem to think that Captial Punishment HAS to deter someone other than the deceased criminal to achive some sort of validity?

Do you agree that it permanently deters the executed criminal?

Good. Because THAT is all I am seeking. That one guilty guy gets PERMANENTLY deterred. That is the ONLY requirement I place on it.

If it fails to deter SOME OTHER criminal, that is NOT a consideration. If some other GUY violently dispatches an innocent victim....then Society will individually, permanently "deter" him in his own time. (Image removed from quote.)

You are the one setting lofty goals of deterrence for Capital Punishment.

I merely require that it guarantee 0% recidivism from the individual concerned.

It undeniably does that.

(Image removed from quote.)

StSanta · « **Reply #32 on:** October 07, 2000, 04:59:00 AM »

Ok Toad, here goes

.

So, Dowding, where will YOU draw the line? 1000 cells? 3 Months? 4 Months? When do YOU say "No, it's too late. No more "abortion", at this point it would be MURDER?"

When someone either has personhood or is sufficiently developed. A fetus with no CNS can hardly be called a human - or can be called as much a human as a caterpillar can be called a butterfly. Failure to recognise that there are stages in human development would give you an F in biology.

Then there is the legal bit - we aren't granted personhood til we're born. So, we cannot be murdered until after we're born.

.

Declare, Dowding....and then tell me how you KNOW for SURE.

I'll talk to my sis and get you some references to some med style books about human development. It all becomes a bit more fuzzy once the CNS has been developed, but before that, it's not that fuzzy.

In the eyes of some (like bleeding heart liberals ) it may seem barbaric. I accept that view and have no problem with others holding it.

Let's cut off the hands of thieves as well. Hard to steal when ya ain't got no hands. Barbaric to some, standard to others. Why aren't we doing this?

In the eyes of still OTHERS (like me! ) the death penalty is simply Society's way ensuring a guaranteed 0% recidivism rate.

And of course it is the perfect punishment brought into place by an imperfect system.

I don't care if it deters anyone else at all...that's totally non-germane...because I KNOW it PERMANENTLY DETERS the cruel, inhumane bastiges that, for example, would cut the arms off a little girl, rape her and pour drain cleaner in her mouth.

No, it doesn't deter him. Or rather, it didn't deter him.

It might stop him from doing it again, but that is not relevant to deterrence. I.e big barriers might stop me from breaking into a caste, but it might not deter me from trying.

Bleeding heart liberals sometimes let guys like this slip through to kill again. (And he DID.) Sorry, that's unacceptable to me. Society has a responsibility to its law-abiding citizens BEFORE its law-breaking citizens.

Agreed. Lock him up for good. If a scoiety lets people like these out, somewhere, the judicial system has failed.

I won't even begin to discuss the pitiful ridiculous penalties we have here. Good thing we can lock up people in mental hospitals indefinitely.

I'm not arguing the murder rate. I'll say this though...I think it IS so high because of pudding-headed ideas like putting the blame on inanimate objects instead of the persons responsible.

You are saying that if the anti gunners shut their mouths, the murder rate would go down?

I somehow doubt it, since most murders are murders outta passion (be it good or evil passion).

Deterrence? Show me any study that proves registration, purchasing restrictions, training, permit requirements, etc. alone have EVER, anywhere in the US, resulted in a lower crime rate. There are none.

Red herring. We're discussing the death penalty, not gun control

.

<snip>

Also, there is now absolutely indisputable proof that holding the CRIMINALS responsible DOES immediately lower the violent crime rate.

Agreed. What is being discussed is the method of holding them responsible.

<snip>

Hold the criminals accountable and not the law abiding citizens. What a concept! It's just too deep to understand, isn't it?

Hell, even the yanks can figure that one out. Opportunist pigdogs.

What part of that philosophy do you have a problem with Dowding?

Thhin he has an issue not with this, but on HOW we do it.

You seem to think that Captial Punishment HAS to deter someone other than the deceased criminal to achive some sort of validity?

I sure don't. That would be a spinoff effect, desireable but not necessary.

Do you agree that it permanently deters the executed criminal?

No. It stops him. Does it deter another human from murdering? Stats suggest it ain't that effective. But, this is as tangent and not really relevant.

Good. Because THAT is all I am seeking. That one guilty guy gets PERMANENTLY deterred. That is the ONLY requirement I place on it.

I'd say "stopped" rather than deterred

.

If it fails to deter SOME OTHER criminal, that is NOT a consideration. If some other GUY violently dispatches an innocent victim....then Society will individually, permanently "deter" him in his own time.

Agreed.
<snip>

I merely require that it guarantee 0% recidivism from the individual concerned.

And, coincidentally, there is only one way of getting an absolute thing like that - by putting a person to death. I.e creating your premise in such a way that it supports the conclusion. Circular argument

.

Maximum security prisons are pretty damned hard to escape from. Maybe not in the US, I dunno.

It undeniably does that.

Aye. If the wrong person is executed, it udeniably makes it impossible to in any way compensate the innocent law abiding good hearted god fearing citizen, though.

That could be YOU Toad <scary voice, emotional argument>

I should add that I am not categorically against the death penalty. It just seems to me that neither the Danish or the American judicial system is good enough to apply it in the way it currently is applied in the US. Your mileage may vary.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 10-07-2000).]

Igloo · « **Reply #33 on:** October 07, 2000, 06:38:00 AM »

If someone commits murder, keep them in prison for the duration of their life. Simple as that. Sure, it costs the tax payers money, but I would happily pay taxes if it meant keeping dangerous people off the streets.

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

Toad · « **Reply #34 on:** October 07, 2000, 08:02:00 AM »

Santa,

Flying off to see my son play college FOOTBALL (the oblong ball

) so I'm not going to reply in detail...at this time.

But...

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta:

When someone either has personhood or is sufficiently developed

You and I both know that, at least in the US, with the Court approval (and government support) of 3rd term abortions this line has in all probability been crossed. This at a MINIMUM.

Let's cut off the hands of thieves as well. Hard to steal when ya ain't got no hands. Barbaric to some, standard to others. Why aren't we doing this?

Because the victims of theft CAN be compensated for their loss and also because that loss isn't irreplaceable in most cases. Simply put, because theft is not a crime of the same magnitude as murder.

And of course it is the perfect punishment brought into place by an imperfect system.

Are you really going to say that there are NO cases in which there is absolutely no doubt as to who did it? There are, and you know it.

No, it doesn't deter him. Or rather, it didn't deter him.

The emphasis on the word "deter" is for all those "bleeding heart liberals" (Image removed from quote.) and is used in a somewhat "toungue in cheek" manner. I believe you are familiar with that? (Image removed from quote.)

Agreed. Lock him up for good. If a scoiety lets people like these out, somewhere, the judicial system has failed.

And the poor bastige he kills AFTER the judicial system fails? What of him?

No. If you have the proof, recycle him. Maybe the Buddists are right and you are just giving him a chance to learn in another life. Expedited recall and recalibration. (Image removed from quote.)

You are saying that if the anti gunners shut their mouths, the murder rate would go down?

Not at all. I'm saying that NOTHING is going to change until you face the fact that PEOPLE, not inanimate objects, make the decision to harm other people.

The anti's just can't accept that.

Once you DO accept that, you can move on to the causes. Poverty, education, opportunity all figure into crime. Want to end crime? You have to address abject poverty. A man WILL steal to feed his family.

However, if we're just going to waste time and huge amounts of money on blaming rocks, golf clubs, guns, cars, hockey sticks, etc... Nothing will EVER change. The problem starts with the individual.

"Red herring. We're discussing the death penalty, not gun control ."

Pickled herring. These threads are all interconnected and the same people post. (Image removed from quote.)

Hold the criminals accountable and not the law abiding citizens. What a concept! It's just too deep to understand, isn't it?

Hell, even the yanks can figure that one out. Opportunist pigdogs.

Well, most Yanks on THIS board anyway. However, some of the Brits and canadians here seem to be confused by it. (Image removed from quote.)

I merely require that it guarantee 0% recidivism from the individual concerned.

And, coincidentally, there is only one way of getting an absolute thing like that - by putting a person to death. I.e creating your premise in such a way that it supports the conclusion. Circular argument .

No, not even arguing. Just stating _my_ personal requirements in judging the need for/success of the Death Penalty. That is simply that it prevents the convicted criminal from EVER being a threat to ANYONE in society again with 100% certainty. I don't need it to do anything more than that. If it can accomplish that, it's valid and acceptable to me.

OTOH, no type of incarceration can GUARANTEE that.

Aye. If the wrong person is executed...

Whenever someone is murdered, is a victim of violent crime, the wrong person is dead, IMHO. It is also impossible to compensate the victim or the victim's relatives.

In those cases where there is indisputable proof (DNA being a particularly good example), I have no problem with the Death Penalty.

That could be YOU Toad <scary voice, emotional argument>

The chances of that are so infinitessimally small that I've never lost even one wink of sleep over it Santa. Responsibility. Accountability. My life, professionally and privately, is based on those two terms.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-07-2000).]

Dowding · « **Reply #35 on:** October 07, 2000, 08:49:00 AM »

I agree with virtually everything Santa posted.

BTW - Eagler, I just read that RU846 topic and I resent the comment "I believe you Europes can stay outa this thread as you've been flushing babies for a decade now." If you can't take people putting forward an argument that opposes yours, what are you doing here? And besides, how long as abortion been legal in the States?

RU846 is called the 'morning after pill' over here I think (might be wrong). This is prescribed, as the name suggests, usually the day after sex which did not go according to (the family) plan. It is NOT given in all cases as a 'DIY murder pill', since it is entirely possible that a viable egg is not present or has not been fertilised in that time. If a fertilised egg is present, then I agree that abortion occurs, however, but at such an early stage that I have no problem with it. If you want to read my thoughts on abortion and when it should be carried out, they are given in brief below. But you probably won't Eagler, since I am a 'Europe' [sic], despite the fact we have late-term abortion, the morning after pill and I've had experience of the latter.

Quote

So, Dowding, where will YOU draw the line? 1000 cells? 3 Months? 4 Months?

First of all, you simplify the whole development of a human being, as if each part is developed at the same rate, at the same time. It's not as simple as that; you know its not simple uniform cell division. Here's my take on it:

In this country abortion is offered as late as 20 weeks (I think). I'm ambivalent with this and feel uncomfortable with it. However, the distribution of abortions over time is not uniform - very few are carried out at this late stage, with most being in the 4-6 week stage.

At four weeks the embryo (which was disc shaped) starts to take on some of the features of a foetus. At this point there is no CNS, but there are buds for the limbs and a bulge where the heart is (which is the first organ to be developed). I have no qualms with abortion at this stage.

As time goes on however, and the CNS starts to develop along with the other vital organs, I have to say I agree less with abortion. The end of the foetal stage (8 weeks), would be the limit on abortion if I had the power to change legislation.

Capital Punishment:

Toad, the fact that a perpetrator has been killed for a crime as heinous as the one you describe, will not make the family feel their loss any less. Surely the key is to deter people from committing the crime in the first place, and prevent the anguish of the family/victim?

Quote

Hold the criminals accountable and not the law abiding citizens. What a concept! It's just too deep to understand, isn't it?

What part of that philosophy do you have a problem with Dowding?

Santa is right - I have no problem with it. I have a problem with how they are made to be accountable. Bang them up for life, I have no problem with that.

Quote

Do you agree that it permanently deters the executed criminal?

Good. Because THAT is all I am seeking.

So you'd be happy with murder and mayhem, as long as the criminals were killed as a punishment? How does that improve society, except increasing the income of the undertaker? Making society safe (within a free state), is what any judicial system should strive to, IMO.

Surely, there is a deterrence aspect to the law that should not be overlooked?

Like Santa points out, if you want to have zero recidivism, why don't we cut the hands off of thieves, castrate rapists, take the tongue of people who perpetuate racist propaganda, take the eyes of voyeurs, take the limbs of speeding motorists... where do YOU draw the line.

Quote

I'm not arguing the murder rate. I'll say this though...I think it IS so high because of pudding-headed ideas like putting the blame on inanimate objects instead of the persons responsible.

What are you saying here, Toad? That murder is so prevalent in your society BECAUSE of the anti-gun lobby? I'd like to see you justify that that.

One of the reasons I'm so against capital punishment is the release of people like the 'Birmingham 6' and the 'Guilford 4', who were found to be innocent of crimes they would have been hung for if the 'old' laws were still in force. I'm sure there are others, as there are in the States. Capital punishment cannot have 100% accuracy in any of our legal systems, simply because of the fallibility of us humans. There are no absolutes in this world - I thought that's why some people believe in God...

Rickenbacker · « **Reply #36 on:** October 15, 2000, 04:31:00 PM »

Funny thing:

It's illegal for an ordinary person to take anothers money and do with it as he sees fit, even if he has the best of intentions. This is perfectly OK for governments, though, they can even use force.

It's illegal for your average bloke to kill someone, yet in some countries there's no problem with the government killing someone.

Wierd, innit?

------------------
Rickenbacker (Ricken)

-ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force

Toad · « **Reply #37 on:** October 15, 2000, 09:32:00 PM »

Yah, and what's even WEIRDER is some folks think the government needs MORE power over everyday affairs.

Snoopi · « **Reply #38 on:** October 16, 2000, 01:29:00 AM »

Person caught "redhanded"... (like 20 cops outside a MacDonalds watching a looney shoot people)
Person should be put to death.
There is NO question the person did it.

hehehe... a quote:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."
Spock
(It may come from a movie but it is true)

On a side note:
In regards to punishment being a deterent.
Just ask if any U.S. kid would like to go spray paint cars in Singapore....

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** October 18, 2000, 01:33:00 AM »

Just saw the final debate...

Seems Big Al is in FAVOR of the death penalty.

....Gawd...now me and AL agree on something!

It truly is the End of Days!

Eagler · « **Reply #40 on:** October 18, 2000, 08:21:00 AM »

Yep, And he's also against gun control LOL. Talk about talkin outa both sides of your mouth. This guy will say anything to get elected..

I thought he came off way too strong, exceeding his time limit on every answer, rude,arrogant, a know it all. Looked like he had too much coffee or something. Just want I want, an aggressive ahole for pres

Eagler

Quote

Originally posted by Toad:
Just saw the final debate...

Seems Big Al is in FAVOR of the death penalty.

....Gawd...now me and AL agree on something!

It truly is the End of Days!