Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on June 11, 2001, 08:16:00 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.01/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.01/index.html)
I pray, if there is indeed a hell, that it is a very painful hell for this man.
-
How do you know that God didn't send this guy here to start the purge?
-
Actually he was son of god sent to earth to show us evil ways of US Government. US Government shall feel wrath of god in no time, expect storms and floods in state near you...
Repent you sinners!!!
-
Another chapter of the Clinton administration has come to a close. Justice has been served.
-
The mans crime warranted the death penalty, and it has been carried out. I am glad that the system worked! I have also heard all the rejoicing in the commentaries on the news. Somehow I just cant rejoice in it. I am relieved in it but somehow somber knowing that it is a great responsibility and it must be done.
However I cant imagine wishing the guy is burning in hell! I dont wish anyone burning in hell. Have you ever heard how the bible describes hell? My prayer is for the same criminals that perpetrate these crimes to repent and come to a saving Knowledge of Jesus Christ, the same Jesus that God sent to this earth to bear the brunt of the sins of this world. I dont know how Mcviegh's soul was when he was executed but I hope he was right with God.
-
:Witnesses said McVeigh lifted his head and made eye contact with them before the drugs took effect.
Then he looked at the ceiling. He died with his eyes open.
He killed 168 people with a car bomb, they died a very bad death. And this is how he gets off? Pretty easy if you ask me.
At least he's not wasting any more of my oxygen.
-AKHog
-
I heard someone call into a radio station this morning... she said, and I quote "He took the chicken easy way out"
I stared blankly out the window and thought to myself "So, what's the hard way out? Dumb squeak."
I'd rather him dead, then to pay to keep him alive in jail.
-SW
-
Public hanging.
-AKHog
-
They should have hanged him.
Many people were hanged for crimes much less worse.
This guy deserved to be tortured.
They should have inyected him with Drano.
-
Yes, well that's barbaric.
Only people that do that still are the French!!! They just finally phased out the Guilletine(sp?)... barbarians...
You want to be like the French??? DO YOu???
:D
-SW
-
Torture? And put us on the level of those we comdemn? No thanks.
He got what he deserved, however, I wish no one more pain & suffering.
Ammo, bless you for having the courage to speak up on behalf of our Lord.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
I pray, if there is indeed a hell, that it is a very painful hell for this man.
Hmmm... i think that praying for someone to go to hell isn't what I would call a good christian sorta thing to do...
-
Try to find the last use of the guillotine SW
<spelling as usual ...>
[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: straffo ]
-
He wanted to be remembered as a hero to the "patriots." More than likely that probably will happen the next time the government kills some innocent civilians. The white seperatists will probably start putting his picture next to Hitler.
I've never heard anyone complain or argue that the Germans at Nuremburg as well as the Japs should not have been hanged for their war crimes. So why do some still think that killing McVeigh was any less needed?
fscott
-
1977 Straffo, I was exagerrating. Don't take it seriously, you can make fun of Ahmurikans all you want.
;)
-SW
-
Cling Cling !
wrong 1969 !
btw I find that the use of the Guillotine is barbaric
You want to be like the French??? DO YOu???
Well they don't give me the choice so I bring my arrogant attitude in every post :D
God send to France the people not smart enough to be Ahmurikans
NA! pffff :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
Hmmm... i think that praying for someone to go to hell isn't what I would call a good christian sorta thing to do...
I wasn't praying for him to go to hell, that's a given, I was praying for an eternal painful hell, now thats unchristen..which shows you the emotion level that this monster left on alot of.
-
1977 The last official use of the guillotine in France. On the 10th of September Hamida Djandoubi was executed.
Is this wrong then?
-SW
[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
I'm sure theres a hot-tub in hell with Timmys name on it, enjoy the sauna you piece of toejam.
-
SWulfe, death penalty isn't used in Europe any more. It's prohibited by the EC.
Russia "suspended" all executions last 5 or 7 years. I think that some Chechen murderers deserve slow and painfull death, but they still waste "our oxygen". IMNSHO a person who tortured 100+ people to death deserves the same attitude. But we want to look as europeans, and still waste time on "peace talks" with people who torture pregnant women...
-
1 down - thousands to go. too bad you have to be timothy mcveigh to actually have the death penalty carried out. there are many lesser offenders tying up the courts indefinitley with useless appeals. too bad we cant keep his seat warm and move a few more through.
-
Barbaric.
What a stupid term.
I dont like to see anyone suffer. But people who think as he does, now know they can take 100+ lives and get killed with mercy with an inyection that puts you to sleep.
These people dont fear death.
At least make them fear pain
-
In terms of the number of capital punishments, the US has some interesting bedfellows. Notably China, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
There hasn't been a capital punishment sentence carried out in Europe for over 20 years. But which continent has the higher murder and rape rates (captial crimes)?
So is it a deterrent? Hardly. A tool for the doling out of Justice? No - it HAS killed innocent people. An act based on a fallible system is equally fallible.
All that is left revenge/vengeance - hardly anything but barbaric.
-
I'm not for the death penalty, I think it is inhumane and against my beliefs. I would have given him 50 consecutive life sentences in Maximum Security prison. See I read in the paper that he would rather die then go to jail.I think that would have been the best punishment for him. In the short run the Government just gave him what he wanted by killing him.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
So is it a deterrent?
answer: who cares. who says it has to be used as a deterrent? that in itself represents an outmoded paradigm and an assumption that some people support the death penalty because they think it will stop crime - and presumes the idea that reward and threat of punishment affect behavior. it may work in psychological tests on mice and 5yr olds but it has been our prison model for years and look...it is irrelevant in that context.
imo - the death penalty should be used to clear out the deadwood of people who can't exist peacefully and play nice with others. america's pathetic sentence lenghts just recirculate them into society eventually. i am not interested in correcting their behavior, rather removing them from the herd once and for all without supporting them for the rest of their life at the others expense.
those people give up their value to society and rights when they murder and maim people - we should have NO tolerance for them
-the left acts like there is a 'happy ending' solutiuon to these problems where at the end of the day everyone is reformed and feels betterand hugs and pays taxes - there isnt a feel good solution - you just have to call it tragic, flip the switch and the rest of us can get on with our lives without dragging the bad fruit along with us -
murderers are like old national geographics, they just sit around usless for years taking up space and acting only as archives of something that was. time to take a walk to the curb i say......
-
If you could put him (and every other person up for capital punishment) in a cell (with a toilet) given nothing but bread and water for sustenance (sp?), then I'd be for an alternative to the death penalty. As it is, I don't see how spending life in prison, being able to watch TV, eat normal meals, and exercise is a punishment fit for someone who took away the right to live from 168 people.
Give me (better yet, the families of the victims) an acceptable alternative for someone like McVeigh, if you can.
As for saying it's a deterrent, it's not in most cases. I don't see it as such here. I see it as saving tax payers $30,000 to $40,000 a year for however long he would have remained alive in prison. Call me barbaric if you will, it won't bother me at all.
-
Dowding, living in Russia with it's weird judicial system makes me happy that we don't have death penalty (de facto, not de jure). But I am sure that people like Shamil' Basayev, Salman Raduyev or Tractorist must be executed and buried with the rubbish.
Their crimes are evident.
But I also remember that 3 men were executed for the crimes of Chikatilo, serial killer with ~70 victims, before he was sentenced to death...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
I wasn't praying for him to go to hell, that's a given...
Actually, it's not a given. Read the scripture. There is nothing to indicate that he can't enter heaven.
-
Being put to sleep just doesn't seem fitting to me. Going to a concentration camp in Siberia for life starving, freezing, and working till you were drug to the barracks would be a real squeak. Whatever, least I don't have to see that ugly turd anymore or hear about him giving advice to PETA and other crazy groups.
Actually, after reading that article, the only thing I thought would be rational, is stoning this stupid hag to death!
(http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.01/story.protest.candle.ap.jpg)
I'd be casting the 1st stone alright... :)
An anti-death penalty protester waits in a reserved area near the U.S. Federal Penitentiary late Sunday night at Terre Haute, Indiana.
-
good riddens
Eagler
-
Save them Jebus!
SOB
-
Well, I don't believe in the death penalty because it's pretty difficult to apologise to a dead man.
In this case I'd suggest that justice would have been far better served by putting him in a cell for life and not letting him out - at all.
-
Its hard to rejoice in the death of a person... no matter how much they deserved it.
Mr. McVey deserved the death penalty. He was executed. Justice was served.
He'll get no more emotion out of me than that.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by qts:
Well, I don't believe in the death penalty because it's pretty difficult to apologise to a dead man.
In this case I'd suggest that justice would have been far better served by putting him in a cell for life and not letting him out - at all.
That's not an option. Interestingly, my idea of putting them in a cell with just enough to live on (bread, water, working toilet, clean clothes and showers) would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Prisons are -too- soft. All prisoners should be provided with the bare essentials, i.e. food, shelter, clothing, and hygiene options (clean clothes, bathing, exercise, medical attention). If you're sentenced to life w/o possibility of parole, that's ALL you get. You're never going back to society, so you don't need news and information from the outside. You're kept isolated from the other prisoners as much as possible (no social interaction.) You've given up these rights by committing your heinous crime. The prisoners that will eventually be released get the basics, plus education to a GED (if they don't have high school education), maybe a trade skill education, and periodicals of information (such as a newspaper or news magazine) on the outside. That's it. No TV, no movies, no entertainment at all.
Cruel and unusual punishment? No more so than the crimes they have committed on society. They didn't think of the rights of the people they hurt, so they forfeited their rights; after their conviction of course, still innocent until proven guilty.
-
Originally posted by qts:
In this case I'd suggest that justice would have been far better served by putting him in a cell for life and not letting him out - at all.
Sounds great....and can we just send you the bill for keeping him alive for the next 30 or 40 years or however long he lives in prison? I think that he got what he deserved. At least now some of the survivors and families of the people he killed have some closure to the whole incident.
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
1977 The last official use of the guillotine in France. On the 10th of September Hamida Djandoubi was executed.
Is this wrong then?
-SW
No it's right and I've put my "trivial pursuit" copy in the trashcan ...
-
I am glad it is over at alst. I pray the survivors and family of the victims can rest knowing they are safe from this creature. (I won't dignify him with the term man, he was the worst of cowards)
If this acts as a deterant to others, I don't know. I do know one thing, however, he is permanently detered from EVER hurting another person (adult or chid) ever again. For that reason alone I am satisfied with the death penalty.
Mav
Oh and BTW mcveigh - AMF! Your fate now is in far more capable hands than mine.
-
Gee I thought this thread was about G.W. my mistake. :D
[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Glasses ]
-
What Dowding said.
Daniel, aka Cyrano
-
Me thinks god had no part in all of f this ..
btw.. the death penalty hasn't kept folks from killing etc.
DW6
-
I'm pretty much against the death penalty, for numerous reasons. However, all my reasoning just seems to come up weak when compared to the death of 168 people.
So as far as my own sentiment goes, I'll borrow Deja's words:
Its hard to rejoice in the death of a person... no matter how much they deserved it. Mr. McVey deserved the death penalty. He was executed. Justice was served. He'll get no more emotion out of me than that. - AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Duckwing6:
btw.. the death penalty hasn't kept folks from killing etc.
A half-assed death penalty nets half-assed results. Currently, if you kill someone in the U.S. you aren't faced with the reality that if you're caught and convicted you will die. In the absence of this reality that statement is pretty meaningless.
SOB
Why would you jump out of a perfectly good airplane?!? :D
-
compare crime rates in Europe with crime rate in the US ..
either there is a huge gap in who's been getting caught or the death penalty ain't that big of a detterrent (sp?)
i can understand why people want vangeance.. but IMO i don't want the justice system (as political as it is to be doing that.
-
There is a lot of education and cultural difference with our fellow American and the problem they have with criminality come from
a lot of factor we don't have in Europe.
- not free weapon access
- no "pioneer" folklore/mentality about guns (1)
- our educative system work mostly and is the same for all.
- less or no ghetto
- less money segregation (the poor and rich have equal access to health/education)(2)
- in general (with the exception of UK and Ireland) our political system are social based/socialist
- less drug addict ?
(1) what work in countryside don't work in suburbs/city
(2) that's perhaps a misconception (don't forget it's my own view of the USA from the other side of the Atlantique :)
-
Originally posted by Duckwing6:
compare crime rates in Europe with crime rate in the US ..
either there is a huge gap in who's been getting caught or the death penalty ain't that big of a detterrent (sp?)
i can understand why people want vangeance.. but IMO i don't want the justice system (as political as it is to be doing that.
I think you're missing my point. The odds of someone being executed for murder in the US are rediculously low. How could that possibly be a deterrent?
Anyhow, regardless of whether it's a deterrent or not, I'm in favor of a real death penalty. You shoot a guy in the face while you're robbing him, you get executed just the same as if you killed 168 people with a bomb.
SOB
-
I understand all the people wanting him dead
it's a pretty natural sentiment towards someone that acts in this manner.
But on the other hand IMO it's a simple solution to a bigger problem.No that he is dead the most important witness is dead too.
He was trained in the US army and raised among americans.From what i heard he was a time bomb ticking away.
It's easy to focus on the bright and shiny and the #1's but there should be the same focus on people that live on the fringe and are outcasts from their own society to maybe prevent even bigger tragedies.
US is awesome at analyzing data ,exploring space,awesome new technologies but have big troubles in analyzing their own society.It's a big mix of races and cultures with a permission to carry guns.Higly volatile stuff
i guess.Just the passion for guns is a vertile ground to play around with much bigger stuff in a sick mind.I understand the gun background of the US but i think it is a big drawback for the country.
A guy that shoots someone in the face might deserve to die but IMO a guys that does something like Mcveigh should be kept alive and studied thoroughly to maybe learn something to prevent people to even have such a horrible idea.Somehow the US army should maybe keep track of guys that get
refused to special programs.
I myself am against the death penalty,but i havent had any wacko blow away any of my beloved ones.So i guess it's easy to be against it right now.
cheers
-
I've come to the opinion that there's no absolute right and wrong, there's just a billion different viewpoints. Now, I don't condone what McVeigh did. He was a deluded amazinhunk. But if we take an imaginary trip into his head I think we can gain some insight.
McVeigh's occupation on his death certificate said, "soldier". In his head, he was a freedom fighter against an oppressive government. If the English occupied the government building he blew up and we were fighting for our independence he'd be hailed as a hero or if the building were in Baghdad during the Gulf War he'd be given medals and have his picture on Time magazine. So you see everything has to be taken in context.
McVeigh was waging a war of one. He made the fundamental mistake of becoming as evil as his enemy however. He was a warrior on a grand mission and for his story to pass into folklore he had to be killed by the massive juggernaut he was fighting against. Our government played right into his hands.
McVeigh came away from his execution looking pretty good. The victims came off as ignorant, vindictive sniveling whiners. The government came off as a human rights violator under a chorus of condemnation from foreign leaders.
McVeigh was a deluded amazinhunk but he had guts right to the end. I'll give him that.
-
Well I agree with what Blu say's but in fact as an EX-Gulf War Vet and a part time Army Crew Chief, I don't think that I would of blew up a building with young kids and Inoccent Civi's in it at anytime or any war, but thats just me, When you have a few screw's missing like old Timmy did anything can be precieved as a just and noble cause. I don't hate the man and I won't pass judgement on him or his soul, thats not my job (<---looks up) what I do know and feel is that he paid his debt to the people he hurt and killed, I don't know maybe I would feel diffrent if that was my little 2 year old girl being picked out of the rubble??
OHIO
-
One thing is certain, we do not know if it is indeed a deterent, how can you get metrics on the ones that would have potentially killed had there not been a death penalty in place here in the US? For all we know, we might have 10 times more violent crimes!
The death penalty here is just one part of the 'closure' sequence for the familys, in a very complicated judical system that is obviously broken...I think before we abolish a death penalty, we have to fix the system first.
-
You know, with all seriousness, I was thinking you could have tricked the martyr roadkill right out of the skinny peice O' crap with material for the Twilight Zone to boot.
Would it not have been fantastic to take him through the entire ordeal, but a few days before the real deal. He would think it was for real, and instead of killing him, inject just a sleeping drug.
Then wheel the little salamander into a super hot dark room where he would awake, thinking this must be the big deal, the afterlife.
You could them just mindf*k him with loud speakers and effects as if he was in hell, till he was a weaping, crying, begging fool.
Of course then you video tape him with crap in his pants, bawling, and give it to the family's as a gift.
Then kill him.
-
Creamo, with "Reality TV" all the craze you may be able to sell that concept to the networks. ;)
-
Originally posted by Creamo:
Being put to sleep just doesn't seem fitting to me. Going to a concentration camp in Siberia for life starving, freezing, and working till you were drug to the barracks would be a real squeak. Whatever, least I don't have to see that ugly turd anymore or hear about him giving advice to PETA and other crazy groups.
Actually, after reading that article, the only thing I thought would be rational, is stoning this stupid hag to death!
(http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.01/story.protest.candle.ap.jpg)
I'd be casting the 1st stone alright... :)
An anti-death penalty protester waits in a reserved area near the U.S. Federal Penitentiary late Sunday night at Terre Haute, Indiana.
I don't find anything funny in this.
By executing McVeigh, we may have gotten this "tumor", all right, but I fear the "cancer" has already spread, as evidenced by this post and others like it on this board.
Buhdman, out
[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: buhdman ]
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Its hard to rejoice in the death of a person... no matter how much they deserved it.
Mr. McVey deserved the death penalty. He was executed. Justice was served.
He'll get no more emotion out of me than that.
AKDejaVu
Well said, AKDejaVu, thank you.
Buhdman, out
[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: buhdman ]
-
Your poetry has inspired me Bud, I retract that tasteless humor.
I even wrote a poem myself.
You are a tard,
Not a card, a Tard!
Although it's short, the insight to the truth and simplicity is super.
It could be published you know...
[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Sad how many of the same people screaming about putting an admitted mass murderer of women and children to death, will support the abortion of an unborn child who has done nothing to warrant such a sentence...
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Sad how many of the same people screaming about putting an admitted mass murderer of women and children to death, will support the abortion of an unborn child who has done nothing to warrant such a sentence...
Eagler
You forgot to mention one little thing. This "unborn child" is inside a woman's body. Now, is the woman sovereign over her body? Or is it the property of the state?
I don't understand why the fundamentalist religious types get all upset over this issue. According to their beliefs doesn't everyone have to answer to God for their actions? If so we certainly don't need any middlemen. :p
-
I was interested in McVeigh's take on his actions.
As you probably know, he saw it as an act of war, much like the war against Iraq for instance.
I don't for a second subscribe to this view; but for the families of those civilians that WERE killed by US forces in Iraq or UK forces in Serbia - how is their loved one's fate to be viewed any differently from McVeigh's victims?
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Sad how many of the same people screaming about putting an admitted mass murderer of women and children to death, will support the abortion of an unborn child who has done nothing to warrant such a sentence...
Eagler
You're right. People who support abortion view it as a "necessary" evil. People who support the death penalty view it as a "necessary" evil. Yet the two camps almost always take the opposite stance on the other issue. Liberals pro abortion, anti-death penalty. Conservatives pro-death penalty, anti-abortion (except in cases of rape, incest and significant danger to the mother.)
Personally, I hate abortion as a form of birth control. However, it needs to be legal. Why? Because if it wasn't, the stupid women (and little girls!!!) would still try to have them in some back alley doctors office. "Coat hangar" abortions WOULD happen, which is extremely dangerous to the women. Another point is if the mother doesn't want the child, she won't care for it or love it, and that's a worse fate than abortion, IMO. We all know that not every child put up for adoption will find a loving home. I know I'm not going to take the unwanted child. Are you going to take it? Those are the reasons why it's a necessary evil in my opinion.
As for the people who say "it's the woman's body, we can't tell her what to do with it." Excuse me? We can tell her she cannot use marijuana (and other illegal drugs), we tell her she cannot sell her body for sex (in most states anyways), and we even tell her that she can't legally attempt to take her own life in some states. We tell her she can't smoke til she's 18, she can't drink til she's 21 and can't vote til she's 18. So we can and we DO tell her what she can and can't with/do to her own body.
In my opinion, picking and choosing what an adult can and can't do to themselves (you can drink, but can't shoot up heroin. you can't prostitute yourself, but you can abort an unborn fetus) is every bit as bad as people who pick and choose which scriptures and teachings from the bible to follow and which to ignore. Just some extra things to think about...
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
I was interested in McVeigh's take on his actions.
As you probably know, he saw it as an act of war, much like the war against Iraq for instance.
I don't for a second subscribe to this view; but for the families of those civilians that WERE killed by US forces in Iraq or UK forces in Serbia - how is their loved one's fate to be viewed any differently from McVeigh's victims?
It's not. Nor are the fates of the millions of civilians that died during WWII, and every other war that has been fought. The difference is there is usually an open state of war between the sides.
You can view McVeigh's bombing as a declaration of war, and the gov't's response as accepting that war. Kinda weird way to look at it, though.
-
LOL! I need to learn how to read :D
[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: SOB ]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
In terms of the number of capital punishments, the US has some interesting bedfellows. Notably China, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
There hasn't been a capital punishment sentence carried out in Europe for over 20 years. But which continent has the higher murder and rape rates (captial crimes)?
So is it a deterrent? Hardly. A tool for the doling out of Justice? No - it HAS killed innocent people. An act based on a fallible system is equally fallible.
All that is left revenge/vengeance - hardly anything but barbaric.
My feelings exactly Dowding. One interesting fact I just learned is that McVeigh wasn't executed for the deaths of 168 people. He was convicted and sentenced on 8 counts of killing Federal agents. Not 1 count for the civilians.
I'm sorry, yesterday was a sad day for me. I know he was a mass murderer and an evil person, but the fact remains that our federal government executed a life for the first time in almost 40 years and their doing another one in a couple of weeks. What are you going to do though? I'm against abortion and the death penalty, but 80% of my country want them so we got em. Life is preasious to me and I hate to see any life taken...
On another subject, I think France last used the guillatine in 1972...
U
-
Ok, hearing the NPR coverage that morning was enough to nauseate me...
Now this self-righteous, sanctimonious crap makes me want to hurl. "Justice has been served." Yeah, fine - McVeigh certainly didn't deserve much, he was a terrible person. Sure, justice has been served - at what cost? C'mon - a man is dead! That's not "vengeance," that's not "justice!" That's just upping the ante! No vengeance is worth a death. And no crime is worth vengeance beyond that which would prevent it from ever happening again. In McVeigh's case, locking him behind bars for life would have been more than sufficient.
I simply cannot accept that this is justified, and that capital punishment is the true solution. Dowding, you've already given the other half of my argument. Thank you.
Oh, AKHog? Should we have hanged him? Tell ya what... you volunteer to clean up the mess afterwards, and maybe someday you can try it out? I'm sure that you would enjoy it tremendously. You could get a free pass to watch! (C'mon, a public hanging - what a wonderful opportunity for federal fund-raising!) Alright, now please get away. I'm having trouble keeping my stomach down.
-ispar
-
Originally posted by 1776:
Another chapter of the Clinton administration has come to a close. Justice has been served.
Yes, it is all Clinton's fault!
Damn him for provoking all those peace loving right wing lunatics!
-
Originally posted by ispar:
Oh, AKHog? Should we have hanged him? Tell ya what... you volunteer to clean up the mess afterwards, and maybe someday you can try it out? I'm sure that you would enjoy it tremendously. You could get a free pass to watch! (C'mon, a public hanging - what a wonderful opportunity for federal fund-raising!) Alright, now please get away. I'm having trouble keeping my stomach down.
-ispar
That's great...in following with your line of thinking, are you offering to start picking up the tab for incarcerating scum for a lifetime?
SOB
-
It beats my how anyone can argue that the state should be allowed to murder anyone, when the individual isn't.
To me this is the ultimate hypocracy(sp?).
"Deserves to die? Sure, many men alive deserves to die, and many dead men deserved to live. If you cannot give back life to those dead men you should not be so quick to pass death sentences." - to paraphrase Tolkien.
In war murder is legitimate, hell the government even give you a medal if you are a good killer. I hate to bring it up, but in Vietnam foreign soldiers masscred thousands of innocent civilian, which are still 'unrevenged'.
Again, hypocracy.
It's my firm belief that taking of human lives should never be sanctioned, by the state or individuals, in 'war' or in peace.
Killing and murdering within the own species is an almost unique thing to us human. It's very seldom seen in the rest of the nature.
This indicates the pathologic condition that is mankinds curse; bloodthirst and the tendency to integrate in social structures and uncritically accepting any of the decretes and norms imposed on the group.
Mankind combines the worst in individual egoism and collective, blind following of causes acclaimed by the social structure.
-
"Killing and murdering within the own species is an almost unique thing to us human. It's very seldom seen in the rest of the nature."
Not at all uncommon amongst the predators. But what does that have to do with McVeigh?
I'm glad he's gone, I'm happy the State has the power to eliminate such vermin.
:p
-
Jammer:
That was some very good points you made.
I was just wondering one thing before I start replying to your post, Do you know your flying a combat sim????
I'm in no way pinging on you. I just wanted to know how someone with your point of views that are so strong towards anti war and the killing of fellow humans could handle flying a game like this? :confused:
:confused:
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: OHIO ]
-
Hehe, I AM fascinated by war, I love war history, and history in general. At the same time, war and the suffering it brings on people disgusts me, and I'm pretty convinced I'd never pick up a gun and point it on another human. But that may be a bit hypocritical of me to say, since I don't know how I'd react in any given situation. ;)
Would I silently watch someone gun down my family or friends (or anyone rellay)? Hell no, no one would.
Do I want to kill someone? Hell no, if I could I'd rather just disable anyone threatening me or my family or friends (or anyone else).
Point is, death penalty is worse than murder in some ways, since that's murder comitted by supposedly sane, calm and level people.
Murderers are generally intoxicated, mentally ill or by any sort affected mentally.
On revenge and hate - it's sweet, but at the same time bitter. Hate will eat you from inside and make you a smaller person. Revenge will maybe soothe sorrow and agony, but only forgiving can heal your soul fully.
I wish I could go deeper into this, but I don't have the time right now (spend too much time on BBS's), and also, my english isn't good enough to properly express my reasoning in the correct way.
I'm anti war, but still fascinated - wether I like it or not, war has changed the course of history more than anything else.
So I still play AH, CM:BO, WWIIOL, CS, FP, you name it. :)
For those interested in the 'human pathology of war' I can recommend a book called 'Janus', by Arthur Koestler, which is a summary of his works.
-
Toad: It's really not common for predators to kill eachother. Fight over leadership, territory and mating, yes. But generally the weaker part in such fights will yeild and expose it's abdomen or throat to show inferiority, and the winner very rarely kill the loser in this case.
There are examples of male predators killing cubs of other males (lions, bears), but that is not what we see in the human behaviour.
But the real problem is that while intelligence and itellectual capacity grew rapidly during the human evolution, emotional control or social intelligence have not followed the same evolutional growth curve.
We are in that sense still emotionally and socially neandethals holding rifles or even nukes rather than wooden clubs or spears.
We can solve differential equations of the third grade, but we cannot control our rage when some cuts in the line in 3 o'clock rush hour traffic.
In other words - the 'control layer' in our brains hasn't been touched by nature by any significance ever since we still were clinging on to some tree looking down on the mammoths below.
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]
-
That Tolkien quote is a favourite of mine :).
It's in the second book :).
-
Kewel!
That's the answer I was looking for
Jammer, thank you! You had me scared there for a sec, I thought you were my 2nd grade English teacher! :D
-
"Killing and murdering within the own species is an almost unique thing to us human."
"There are examples of male predators killing cubs of other males (lions, bears), "
By your own admission then. There's other examples as well but this one should suffice to rebut the original statement. :)
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
"But the real problem is that while intelligence and itellectual capacity grew rapidly during the human evolution, emotional control or social intelligence have not followed the same evolutional growth curve.
We are in that sense still emotionally and socially neandethals holding rifles or even nukes rather than wooden clubs or spears.
We can solve differential equations of the third grade, but we cannot control our rage when some cuts in the line in 3 o'clock rush hour traffic."
So, how do you feel about Darwin? :D Perhaps these are desirable traits for survival?
:eek:
-
Toad: If you like, yes. :)
My english really isn't good enough for discussing this in depth, and statements and such tend to be overly simplified on my side.
Sorry.
Maybe another way to express it would be: "Animals seldom kill another individual of its own species, with a few glaring exceptions. However the bloodthirst and violent behaviour of man is unpredenceted."
;p
Cheers.
-
Originally posted by SOB:
That's great...in following with your line of thinking, are you offering to start picking up the tab for incarcerating scum for a lifetime?
SOB
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.
FWIW, I'm sorry about the hanging comment to AKHog. I was angry at the time... executions as they are now are bad enough, but hanging is pretty messy. The public hanging comment really got my blood up.
S! Jammer! Very good way of putting it, you are just about directly in line with how I feel about this, even to the part about having such a fascination with war and military history.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
you mean you value a 'human' life. are you a vegitarian? otherwise that statement loses a little validity.
:mad: 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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Has this been said yet?
F!CK him,
PC
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
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...
Eh? Humans are hypocritical creatures. So am I. So are you. So are all of us.
By that reasoning, the reverse is true. I shoot your dog, so I should die, no? I took a life, and murder is a crime. Because life has such value, and one has just been taken - I must die.
Come to think of it... at least part of the twisted reasoning behind capital punishment comes from the notion of life being sacred. Human life is held to be of such high value that the best punishment for taking it is death... hypocrisy? Hell yes.
But I'm willing to admit it.
-
ispar, you've hit the nail.
Claiming that human life is so sacred that it must be revenged by taking another life is a paradox argument.
As a consequence? Well, it's the society that dictates the consquenses and the society has nothing to gain from executions. If the society should start to execute those citizens that are a 'burden to the economy' we will end up in a 'Orwellian' or 'Fascistic' kind of state, where only the healthy and strong have the right to live.
The human life vs life in general is an age old debate, and there are sevral philosophical directions to take. Arguing that a human life is worth more than a life of dog is not nessecarily hypocracy. It's merely a choice of philosophical stance.
One main argument against death penalty to me is that death can never be undone. Death is final, and as far as we know (can know) there's no 'after-life', no 'nirvana' or anything like that.
And with an imperfect justice system we're bound to deny innocent people their lives, which is utterly and outmost horrible.
I know this is streaching the point a bit hard, but to make a point and to really understand what you are discussing you sometimes have to extend arguments to its extremes.
There are ONE valid (IMO) argument for death penaly, and that is revenge, revenge on the behalf of the relatives of the victims, and I can actually appreciate this argument. I can understand the pain and agony that calls out for revenge, I know I'd crave revenge if put in that position.
It's not an easy judgement to make, but I hope I've explained my view on the matter. :)
-
Revenge? Has absolutely nothing to do with it for me (with one exception).
I look at it as a guaranteed 100% effective way to stop recidivism.
Unlike Santa's example of Lundin, where there is a high probability that he may kill again, there is a 100% certainty that McVeigh will never kill another person.
I do believe that "vengance is mine sayeth the Lord". As I said, however, the death penalty for McVeigh isn't about vengance for me. It's about guaranteeing a total end to his killing of others.
My one exception? When my family is the target. :D I'm quite willing to act in the Lord's place in that event. And quite willing to be held accountable for it to either earthly or other authorities.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Revenge? Has absolutely nothing to do with it for me (with one exception).
I look at it as a guaranteed 100% effective way to stop recidivism.
Unlike Santa's example of Lundin, where there is a high probability that he may kill again, there is a 100% certainty that McVeigh will never kill another person.
I do believe that "vengance is mine sayeth the Lord". As I said, however, the death penalty for McVeigh isn't about vengance for me. It's about guaranteeing a total end to his killing of others.
My one exception? When my family is the target. :D I'm quite willing to act in the Lord's place in that event. And quite willing to be held accountable for it to either earthly or other authorities.
Really? You know, a life sentence if just as effective at preventing repeat offenses as the death penalty.
The difference? You didn't have kill someone.
-
Originally posted by ispar:
Really? You know, a life sentence if just as effective at preventing repeat offenses as the death penalty.
.
probability that a dead person won't kill again = 1
probability that a person on death row won't kill again = some number < 1
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
probability that a dead person won't kill again = 1
probability that a person on death row won't kill again = some number < 1
Eh? Says who? You? Death row is the "waiting list." I wasn't talking about death row, I was talking about life in prison. Perhaps right now it's too easy to get out early because of "good behavior" or appeals or similar ridiculousness. The system is as much at fault as anything. Right now, keeping capital punishment is the easy way out. Revise the system, and do away with the death penalty. Actually, do away with the death penalty entirely, and revise the system while you're at it, but at the very least get rid of this capital punishment nonsense.
You still don't seem to understand my stance. Sure, not allowing the person to kill again is part of the aim - but killing them to prevent it? Paradoxal. Hypocrisy. And just plain wrong, IMO.
(BTW, how many stars has this cost me ;))
-
you are starting to catch on StSanta
I thought as you, 20 years ago
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
you are starting to catch on StSanta
I thought as you, 20 years ago
Eagler
Oh, ye gods, I hate it when people say that.
:rolleyes:
-
OK, Ispar, guarantee that no "life" prisoner will ever kill another inmate.
Go ahead, give us the 100% guarantee that some guy that kited a check or sold an ounce of coke (non-lifers) won't get knifed by a McVeigh-type lifer.
Give us the guarantee that the guy Santa used as an example will never kill again. Go ahead.1
You can't. You never will be able to do so.
McVeigh lost his seat on Spaceship Earth. BFD. He voluntarily jumped off when he threw the switch in OKC. ...and he knew it.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
OK, Ispar, guarantee that no "life" prisoner will ever kill another inmate.
Go ahead, give us the 100% guarantee that some guy that kited a check or sold an ounce of coke (non-lifers) won't get knifed by a McVeigh-type lifer.
Give us the guarantee that the guy Santa used as an example will never kill again. Go ahead.1
You can't. You never will be able to do so.
McVeigh lost his seat on Spaceship Earth. BFD. He voluntarily jumped off when he threw the switch in OKC. ...and he knew it.
*sigh*
What can I say to that? I dunno... keep him in solitary confinement? No, there is no 100% guarantee, and no I did not consider incidents inside prison walls.
Regardless of that, it is no more right for someone to be killed as punishment for a crime (or whatever you come up with instead of punishment to justify it; I don't care what you call it) than for the person you are punishing to have killed his victims.
To kill another person is wrong, under any circumstances. I don't care if the person deserved it or not, as far as I'm concerned it's murder no matter how you slice it.
This thread has become a monster all its own - shall we agree to disagree?
Shake?
-
Quit being nieve <sp?> Ispar - chances are if you handed a piece of toejam like McVeigh an olive branch he would either hit you over the head with it or sharpen it and stab you.
The only problem with the death penalty is we don't walk them out of the courtroom and execute them immediately, they get to lounge around at the taxpayers expense for up to 15 years while tying up the courts with appeal after appeal.
I live in Oklahoma...that piece of toejam lived six years too long, IMO they should have packed his rectum with C-4 explosive and lit the fuse.
-
Public Hanging.
-AKHog
-
Originally posted by jihad:
The only problem with the death penalty is we don't walk them out of the courtroom and execute them immediately, they get to lounge around at the taxpayers expense for up to 15 years while tying up the courts with appeal after appeal.
No way. Too easy. Give em atleast a week or so (in a hole) to think about whats about to happen to them. Or maybe a cell with one window facing the thing they hang em on so he can watch em test it out with dummies over and over again. But I agree this 5-10 year crap is just that, crap.
-AKHog
-
huh? i'm not sure i get your rebuttals but my response is a simple math exercise.
- if someone is dead they can't murder anymore - there is no chance.
- if someone is alive they can still murder. ex: what if a freak earthquake knocked the prison guard tower over the fence and collapsed the wall that sh*&hole mcveigh was living out his life sentence behind? what if he waltzed out and into the arms of some seperatist group somewhere and then proceeded to plot out and destroy another building? is it HIGHLY improbable? yes. but there is some probability and what toad is saying is that most of us are not comfortable with any chance when it comes to things like mcveigh. why should we be - they have some supernatural place in the inuverse because they are humans???
what is the probability that the spider walking across your kitchen floor is going to bring death to your family? extreeeeeemely minimal. he is probably just cruising around looking for a fly but you pass judgment on him and summarily execute him simply for tresspassing?! any guilt there? your life adoring sanctity only expires when a human becomes involved. your place on the food chain makes you judge and jury somehow? its arrogant.....
he (mcveigh) has forfeited his place among us - he dies because he is a risk and a much greater danger then that spider you smushed....you say i am a hypocrite but i dont get how. either=
a: become a buddhist, announce all life is sacred and live it. that means not stepping on bugs eating meat wearing leather etc........or
b: admit that in order for the whole to get by as peacefully as possible some lives have to be eliminated. namely those that threaten the peaceful cooperative people. it is harsh and unpleasant but so is having them among us.
you are taking individualism to an extreme - our rights end when they infringe on someone elses. when you murder you give up everything - you are just a useless sack of food at that point. it is a scary thing to think someone can take your life but it is the risk you take when you try to make the world a crappy place to live like mcveigh did.
will some innocents die with juries deciding people's fate? yes. will some innocents die if we invade the shores at normandy? yes but it was necessary to ensure the freedom of millions. such is the nature of war.
yes shake and agree to disagree but make sure you arent getting your opinions from some shakey jawed tearful emotion speech on some tv drama and that your opinion comes from logic and fact -
-
One thing I must comment:
will some innocents die with juries deciding people's fate? yes. will some innocents die if we invade the shores at normandy? yes but it was necessary to ensure the freedom of millions. such is the nature of war.
There are several issues I find worrying with this statement. The first is the comparison between a society in times of war and the same society in times of peace. Traditionally, the laws regarding the taking of a human life or several human lives are very different. mcVeigh is actually a good example of this, he got the Bronze Star for killing for his nation in wartime, and he got the lethal injection for *illegaly* killing members of his own country in peace times.
One could argue that this distinction then is a legal one and, if one must, take it one step further and argue that a government that also kills members of its own nation in the event of wrongful deaths should in some way be punished.
How do you apologize to a dead man? Who bears the responsibility? The judge does not determine guilt; hence the burden is not with him. The jury? Perhaps. it'd be interesting to see what'd happen with the amount of death penalties if jury members were held accountable and sentenced for murder/manslaughter in the event of an innocent being executed. Then again they do the best they can absed on available evidence at the time.
Anyhow, I'm digressing.
The second part of the comment also disturb me. "You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs". what fish is saying is we have to accept a certain percentage of innocents dying for crimes they haven't committed. This is both an opinion and an assertion; it's an opinion (or a philosophical stance) from the POV that there are sacrifices to be made everywhere, and it's an assertion from the POV that unnecessary loss of life by the hands of the government isn't preventable.
It's the latter part I disagree with. Incarceration for life works. There is a risk of him killing other prison inmates, but then again it's the job of society to make sure it doesn't happen. There is a risk of him fleeing, but again the burden is on society. Maximum security prisons should be just that, and we've seen in the past prisons that have been extremely hard to get away from.
-
StSanta,
A question for you: What sentance would McVeigh have gotten if this would have happened in Denmark?
Would it have only been 18 years?
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
huh? i'm not sure i get your rebuttals but my response is a simple math exercise.
- if someone is dead they can't murder anymore - there is no chance.
- if someone is alive they can still murder. ex: what if a freak earthquake knocked the prison guard tower over the fence and collapsed the wall that sh*&hole mcveigh was living out his life sentence behind? what if he waltzed out and into the arms of some seperatist group somewhere and then proceeded to plot out and destroy another building? is it HIGHLY improbable? yes. but there is some probability and what toad is saying is that most of us are not comfortable with any chance when it comes to things like mcveigh. why should we be - they have some supernatural place in the inuverse because they are humans???
what is the probability that the spider walking across your kitchen floor is going to bring death to your family? extreeeeeemely minimal. he is probably just cruising around looking for a fly but you pass judgment on him and summarily execute him simply for tresspassing?! any guilt there? your life adoring sanctity only expires when a human becomes involved. your place on the food chain makes you judge and jury somehow? its arrogant.....
he (mcveigh) has forfeited his place among us - he dies because he is a risk and a much greater danger then that spider you smushed....you say i am a hypocrite but i dont get how. either=
a: become a buddhist, announce all life is sacred and live it. that means not stepping on bugs eating meat wearing leather etc........or
b: admit that in order for the whole to get by as peacefully as possible some lives have to be eliminated. namely those that threaten the peaceful cooperative people. it is harsh and unpleasant but so is having them among us.
you are taking individualism to an extreme - our rights end when they infringe on someone elses. when you murder you give up everything - you are just a useless sack of food at that point. it is a scary thing to think someone can take your life but it is the risk you take when you try to make the world a crappy place to live like mcveigh did.
will some innocents die with juries deciding people's fate? yes. will some innocents die if we invade the shores at normandy? yes but it was necessary to ensure the freedom of millions. such is the nature of war.
yes shake and agree to disagree but make sure you arent getting your opinions from some shakey jawed tearful emotion speech on some tv drama and that your opinion comes from logic and fact -
First of all, Jihad, I in no way suggested handing him an olive branch. Hardly, incarceration may be worse than the death penalty if it's for life - depends upon age and individualism.
Now, mrfish... I hate to say it, but you stepped over the line. My philosophy on this does not come a shakey-jawed speech on tv. I practically never watch it. It is not because I am afraid for myself or for others. It is a matter of personal opinion that comes from both my religious and personal views, and to have those insulted is something I do not take kindly to. Don't do it again. My views are my own.
Now then... anyway, you said it yourself - such scenarios as you proposed are HIGHLY improbable. I would estimate the chances at about 1 in 1,000,000,000. Maybe a million, but no less. It could just as easily happen while he's waiting on death row as when he's in prison.
I'm sick of hearing the argument that "some must be sacrificed for the good of the many." I'm sure most of those being sacrificed don't feel that way. Some of you say that you don't mind the risk of being accused and put on death row. I call you liars.
As was said already, feeling human life is sacred while not believing that other life is so valuable is not hypocrisy, it is a philosophical standpoint. So you call me a hypocrite, but I'm not :rolleyes:. Your place as a human being makes you judge and jury on another human being? How arrogant. And how arrogant of you to assume that you know the best way for one, especially me, to live according to their beliefs.
Finally, something to think about. "No choice" is an illusion that people create for themselves when they are uncomfortable with the decision that they have made or when they do not really want to take the time to well and truly examine and implement a better way of dealing with a problem.
McVeigh thought he had "no choice." He was fooling himself. So are you.
All IMO, of course :rolleyes:.
StSanta, Jammer, etc, put it very well, I believe... they have some good things to say. Oh, and thanks Jammer :).
I'm ducking out now. Clearly you are going to stick to your guns, and I sure as hell am not leaving mine. So I'll get out before this thread deteriorates. This post was pretty strong, for me.
S!
-ispar
-
Dejavu:
Depends on whether he would be judged to be mentally stable. If so, he'd get our maximum punishment of life, which is 16 years (20 under special conditions).
He'd be eligible for parol after serving 2/3 of that sentence.
The Danish system has taken a very different approach from the American one, putting much emphasis on attempting to rehabilitate.
The number of poor people is much lower in denmark (as is the number of rich people) compared to the US, so not so many have nothing to lose and for most even a few months jail time is scary enough.
Denmark would be ill equipped to handle a case like the McWeigh one. But since his violence was directed at the state, he'd probably be tried for that, or he'd be called a whacko and locked up indefinitely, if there is evidence of a mental disturbance that'd make it likely that he'd do something similar.
I dunno. Personally I want much harsher punishments but there's a difference in philosophy here. It's viewed that jail and so forth is primarily a deterrent and the expedient removal of someone as a threat to society than a punishment.
But the Danish judicial system is flawed in a great way because it has neither the death penalty or real life time in prison - in order to deal with guys like Lundin or mcveigh, it needs one of 'um.
-
Thanks for the response StSanta.
AKDejaVu