Seeing as some people (won't say names) seem to believe that pedophiles and child molesters should just walk the streets free, or get a few measly years in prison, I want to know what YOUR opinion is (I mean you, {insert name here})

No one deserves an execution, jail however is a solution...but it is merely hiding a problem.

No one deserves an execution, jail however is a solution...but it is merely hiding a problem.

Not even if they murdered twenty people, tortured countless others, and raped innocent children?

Of course, execution alone isn't enough punishment; death is more of an escape to alot of criminals. I would say, give them what they gave to others. Not torture, but what they did to others.

Not even if they murdered twenty people, tortured countless others, and raped innocent children?

Of course, execution alone isn't enough punishment; death is more of an escape to alot of criminals. I would say, give them what they gave to others. Not torture, but what they did to others.

No...that is wrong...they must serve a part to the community. Any crime, unless it is political is to be handled without executions.

Okay........what about slavery? Criminals of course. If they murdered and raped......they deserve to be stripped of their freedom. By the Lord, you're a Genius! Let's help them contribute to society by giving them the nastiest, most labor-intensive jobs existing, and not paying them a dime! Give them the worst, I say, but let them live through it. Pure genius, Dragon! It's that Russian in you.....:)

thats not what I meant Norsefire

I meant that the ultimate goal is to change their mind in the process and live normally and peacifully as we all do

thats not what I meant Norsefire

I meant that the ultimate goal is to change their mind in the process and live normally and peacifully as we all do

And what of the familieis who have suffered? Perhaps, perhaps after punishment your idea may come into play, but firstly and foremost they cannot walk free, now can they?

anyone...families or not

anyone...families or not

"anyone.....families or not" what?

No one deserves an execution, jail however is a solution...but it is merely hiding a problem.

What the hell has jail ever solved?

What the hell has jail ever solved?

Depends on who you are. Some people have made good after getting out of jail.

From the Mark Steel Solution (#103, 23 October, 1992, "Judges")

JUDGE 1: It seems to me, if we brought back capital punishment, there wouldn't be any murders.

JUDGE 2: Oh, I quite agree ... just look at America.

J1: Yes. Or do they still have murders?

J2: Well, the odd one or two. But that's because they're too soft!

J1: Oh, that's right. They should cut off their heads in public, like they do in Saudi Arabia!

J2: Yes, yes, yes. Who do they do that to, then?

J1: Well, the murderers.

J2: They still have them, then?

J1: Well, yes, yes. But that's because they're too soft. They ought to be hung, drawn, and quartered like they were in the old days.

J2: Yes, yes. Yes. Who exactly did they hang, draw, and quarter, then?

J1: Well, the uh ... yes, the murderers, alright. But that's because they were too soft, you see? Some of those hanging, drawing, and quartering places were like bloody holiday camps! They used to have televisions, you know ....

From the New York Times, December 16, 2007:

It took 31 years, but the moral bankruptcy, social imbalance, legal impracticality and ultimate futility of the death penalty has finally penetrated the consciences of lawmakers in one of the 37 states that arrogates to itself the right to execute human beings.

This week, the New Jersey Assembly and Senate passed a law abolishing the death penalty, and Gov. Jon Corzine, a staunch opponent of execution, promised to sign the measure very soon. That will make New Jersey the first state to strike the death penalty from its books since the Supreme Court set guidelines for the nation’s system of capital punishment three decades ago.

Some lawmakers voted out of principled opposition to the death penalty. Others felt that having the law on the books without enforcing it (New Jersey has had a moratorium on executions since 2006) made a mockery of their argument that it has deterrent value. Whatever the motivation of individual legislators, by forsaking a barbaric practice that grievously hurts the global reputation of the United States without advancing public safety, New Jersey has set a worthy example for the federal government, and for other states that have yet to abandon the creaky, error-prone machinery of death.

New Jersey’s decision to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life without parole seems all the wiser coming in the middle of a month that has already seen the convictions of two people formerly on death row in other states repudiated. In one case, the defendant was found not guilty following a new trial ....

(Board Editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html))

In the end, all the death penalty is about is bloodlust and satisfaction. It is an excuse to sanction homicide and feel righteous about killing another human being. In other words, it lowers society to the level of the murderer. While some folks are happy to place themselves in such company, it is a curious quirk of humanity that, while we scramble away from nature and insulate ourselves as something separate, death—our ultimate and unconquerable fear—is the one component of nature so many human beings revel in. As murderers demonstrate, you can always find a reason to kill someone. And as they also demonstrate, the presence of the death penalty doesn't do much to stop people from killing one another. No "legal" infliction of death by a state apparatus has brought humanity an escape from its frailty or fear. We will continue to die; this is certain. Despite what advances we might make against death itself, we will still continue to seek to kill. This, too, seems certain. Let us do away with at least this celebration of our brutality. We may have little hope of e'er transcending the whole of human savagery, but there is no reason to pretend that joining in the bloody bacchanal under the auspices of a righteous state is any better, or any more civilized, than those who would kill for other illusions of propriety.
____________________

Notes:

Steel, Mark. "Judges". The Mark Steel Lectures. Ep. 103. BBC Radio. October 23, 1992.

New York Times Editorial Board. "A Long Time Coming". New York Times. December 16, 2007. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html

If an adult rapes a child under a certain age, I want them dead. (lets say birth-11) Rape more than one child aged 12-15, I want them dead.
I don't care if it makes sense, I don't care if its revenge and not justice, I don't care. If you can't be a celibate pedophile, than you can be a dead pedophile.

I'd ask the family of the person what they wanted to do with the guilty

party. I'd also let the family throw the switch if they wanted the guilty

party dead. This would have to be a case in which there wasn't any chance

any other person could have done the crime.

Tiassa: Jails are one of the worst "solutions" to stopping crime ever imagined. It rarely solves anything, as the increasing crime rate would bluntly indicate. Slashing a man's freedom of a large percentage of his life over a crime that never deliberately hurt others (stealing, drugs, etc.) is barbaric, and yet doesn't work all at the same time.

Look at this cycle of crime: a man is charged with a crime, and is sentenced to, let's say, ten years in prison. At this point, his family is without a father figure, and likely their only source of income has been halted. The family struggles with little or no money, and the kids are not appropriately raised due to lacking a second parent. The man, finally after ten years, is released, and his wife has likely divorced him. He tries to get a job, but with his criminal record and absence from the work force for a decade, he is unemployed. In order to obtain the money to function a half-decent living, the man must do what he first did - crime! And then he's caught, and thrown in jail. What's solved? Absolutely nothing. Only more serious problems are established through this backward system.

Look at today's prisons, for example: they cost hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain, they're overcrowed, demand new facilities, and they simply don't get the job done. With all the money, time, and space that prisons cost, it's really amazing that we haven't brainstormed a better option to preventing and dealing with crime.

What the hell has jail ever solved?

it allowed them to age and become wiser...slower...weaker...human life span decreasing.

Execution does not punish the criminal because he is now dead and cannot feel bad. It punishes those who love him. It leads to the kind of insanity than now prevails in the Middle East: Your daddy killed my daddy so I'm gonna kill your whole family.

If you put a father in prison, every time his children visit they are reminded of his crime and they see what it did to him. If you kill their father, all they remember is that you're the asshole who killed their daddy.

The fundamental principle of civilization is that you don't get to kill anybody, ever, for any reason, unless they lapsed into uncivilized behavior first and you have no other way to defend yourself against a direct threat.

So if somebody breaks into your house and tries to kill your wife and you don't have a taser or telepathy or a paralyzer ray-gun but you do have a pistol, then of course you can shoot him.

Even if you come home and he's already killed your wife, I can forgive you for being overcome with grief and rage and killing him in the heat of the moment. No one can be expected to be quite that civilized under the circumstances.

But if you overpower him, tie him to a chair, dial 911, talk to the cops through your tears, and endure months and months of humiliation as the legal system drags you through the mud, he's finally convicted...

And then after all that trouble the bloody damn GOVERNMENT kills him? WTF? They're supposed to enforce civilization and rationality! Why should the government be in the business of taking revenge? That's sure setting a crappy example for the citizenry.

Of course every principle has exceptions. We've learned that if you put a terrorist in prison his buddies back in Crapistan will kidnap twenty of your people and threaten to kill them if you don't send him home. And if you send him home he'll just go out and kill twenty of your people anyway. So terrorists have to be executed. But the average murderer doesn't have a cell of devoted buddies who will commit mass murder to get him out of jail. Even if a "bleeding-heart" judge lets him out some day, most murders are crimes of passion that are very unlikely to be repeated. You and I are more likely to lose our heads and murder someone we hate, than a guy who strangled his wife's lover and has been haunted by the memory of watching him die and seeing his family weep, every day of his life.

Hell, I feel terrible every time somebody dies and I see his poor little DOG grieving. I can't imagine what it would feel like to be personally RESPONSIBLE for taking the life of somebody's FATHER or SON or HUSBAND. No matter how much I might be grieving over whatever the guy did, I don't see how it's going to make me feel any better to watch his family feel the same way I do.

How absolutely sick does a person have to be to get solace out of something so downright MEAN?

As a practical matter, we've seen far too many innocent men convicted of capital crimes. There's certainly got to be a break-even point somewhere, where it's okay to take the risk of jailing ONE innocent man in order to avoid letting a THOUSAND guilty men walk the streets. But it's not okay to take the risk of KILLING that one innocent man when you can just as effectively end the careers of those thousand guilty men by putting them in prison and letting the one innocent guy out twenty years from now when a new technology exonerates him.

Execution is forever. You can never apologize to a kid for killing his innocent father. That kid will hate you forever. For that matter, so will I. There's no excuse for killing people in cold blood. Not ever. It's not civilized.

No No No, and NO! It is expensive and it kills innocent people. Oh right, did I mention? NO!!!

Jails are one of the worst "solutions" to stopping crime ever imagined. It rarely solves anything, as the increasing crime rate would bluntly indicate. Slashing a man's freedom of a large percentage of his life over a crime that never deliberately hurt others (stealing, drugs, etc.) is barbaric, and yet doesn't work all at the same time.

Nathaniel Hawthorne famously noted that there are two necessities in any human society, cemeteries and jails. People will always be dying, and people will always be committing crimes.

The problem with prisons right now is that they are designed and operated in a manner that fashions and elevates criminals. Send a person to prison for simple possession, they will come out hardened, and more willing to commit actual crimes against people.

Despite fancy words like "corrections" and "rehabilitation", people are so easily swayed by political concerns and self-righteous sentiment that American society, for instance, is unwilling to build and operate prisons with the intention of correcting behavior or rehabilitating individuals.

Let's pretend I tried to perform an emergency tracheotomy with a chainsaw. Quite obviously, I would fail. Does this mean tracheotomies are one of the worst solutions to solving critically-obstructed airflow? What if I tried heart surgery with a circular saw, a bellows, and two D-cell batteries? Would that failure mean we should not perform open-heart surgery? Quite obviously, once we figure out how to do something—well, for the most part—right, we can profit by it as a species or society.

Prisons are no different. Obviously, there are some people who cannot be corrected or rehabilitated. At present, however, we presume a broader range than reality determines simply because we think it is easier.

Yes, the prisons cost a lot, and no, they're not getting the job done. Crime and punishment is a lot more complicated than simply punishing crimes. Trying to economize the prison system for political purposes only adds to the problem. Exploiting rehabilitation as being "soft on crime" only adds to the problem. Many of the same people who are so outraged about crime and criminals are working very hard to ensure that society will face an ever-increasing crime problem.

...it kills innocent people. ....

I think with the advent of DNA as evidence, those days are hopefully behind us.

I think with the advent of DNA as evidence, those days are hopefully behind us.

Many murderers today leave no DNA behind.

Many murderers today leave no DNA behind.

??? Well, maybe if they shoot from a long distance.
But if they touch the person, they leave DNA.

Prisons are a medieval concept. Perhaps the idea of incarceration, or removal of freedom, should be consigned the the medieval dustbin.

It simply does not work as a deterrent (nor does capital punishment), except as a temporary measure (it keeps the "bad guys" out of society for a while). I think 70% or so of inmates are there on a second or third tour. If it "worked" they'd all be first-timers.

Back in the day, prisoners were often kept for ransom, a much more practical approach to the concept.

We need to overhaul what is obviously an abject failure, despite those who want an Old Testament style of justice -maybe we should bring back crucifixion, or the Inquisition?

I think with the advent of DNA as evidence, those days are hopefully behind us.

We can convict people of murder in the United States without a murder victim. We only need suspect that there is a body somewhere. Evidence that the "victim" is actually dead is not a requirement.

Don't get me wrong, in the case I'm thinking of, from Oregon in the 1990s, all other signs pointed to the guy being guilty ... if his wife was actually dead. I don't recall that, in the years since, they've ever found her body.

??? Well, maybe if they shoot from a long distance.
But if they touch the person, they leave DNA.


If they just "touch" a person they don't leave any DNA. Where do you get

from? Now if they had body fluids on their hands and touched another

person that can then leave DNA.

You can get DNA from fingerprints (http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=25197).
If the dead person is found soon enough, you can get fingerprints off their skin. If you touch a person's clothes, you can leave skin cells. And who knows where your hair falls.

You can get DNA from fingerprints (http://www.officer.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=25197).
If the dead person is found soon enough, you can get fingerprints off their skin. If you touch a person's clothes, you can leave skin cells. And who knows where your hair falls.

From your link

"While DNA typing from fingerprints is commonplace in the UK, don't rush

your evidence to the laboratory just yet. This type of analysis is not

common in the United States and standards for this analysis method have

not been set by the Scientific Working Group for DNA Analysis Methods

(SWGDAM). (Some of the organization's guidelines can be found by going to

the FBI Web site, www.fbi.gov, and doing a search for "SWGDAM.")



Also , as you have stated, they can stab someone, shoot them or just blow

them up. There's all sorts of ways to kill without touching someone.

From your link

"While DNA typing from fingerprints is commonplace in the UK, don't rush

your evidence to the laboratory just yet. This type of analysis is not

common in the United States and standards for this analysis method have

not been set by the Scientific Working Group for DNA Analysis Methods

(SWGDAM). (Some of the organization's guidelines can be found by going to

the FBI Web site, www.fbi.gov, and doing a search for "SWGDAM.")



Also , as you have stated, they can stab someone, shoot them or just blow

them up. There's all sorts of ways to kill without touching someone.

ok, so?
I'm still saying with the advent of DNA as evidence, I think fewer and fewer and fewer innocent people are executed.
And that article is several years old. I grabbed the first one I came to.

I think with the advent of DNA as evidence, those days are hopefully behind us.

Either way, it still is expensive too. All of the court orders, and time to convict a person with enough evidence for punishment, and the machine itself costs money to operate. Lethal injection is just as expensive. If they even were going to have capital punishment, they might as well just shoot the murderer.

My other opposition to the death penalty is that criminals can still be productive while they are in jail. A man who was on death row wrote a book telling people to stay out of gangs and to never be like him. It is not like those criminals don't do anything in prison.

'Tis but a machine to be maintained until it can be legally turned off.
Back in the day, they didn't stuff around for so long.

Fry 'em. The faster the better. No more waiting on death row for up to 30 years. Fry 'em within 2 weeks of their sentence. That may deter some of the scum out there. I also think they should be treated exactly like they treated their victim before they are fried.

I have no use for jail. It's an improvement for most who are there. 3 meals, medical care, dental care, housing, no work, responsibility, no mortgage, computer, phone, tv.. Jail enables losers to stay losers. The guys who fight, join gangs, and misbehave, should be severely punished. If they can't behave, throw them in the hole. I have zero tolerance for criminal behavior. :(

Oh, and fry 'em slow. V---E---R---Y slow.

If an adult rapes a child under a certain age, I want them dead. (lets say birth-11) Rape more than one child aged 12-15, I want them dead.
I don't care if it makes sense, I don't care if its revenge and not justice, I don't care. If you can't be a celibate pedophile, than you can be a dead pedophile.

I do agree with the feelings behind this. If I knew without a doubt that someone had raped a child, I think I would kill him myself.

But no one's justice system is infallible, and there is a risk of an innocent person being executed.

So no...I don't support capital punishment.

....So no...I don't support capital punishment.

if his semen is in your dead 4 yr old, then would you?

I admit yes, I would.

I am against it quite strongly, except in extreme circumstances. I hate the idea that the wrongly convicted could be executed, and also for many death may be too good. Also execution can be inhumane (I don't mind too much, as the physical pain is probably nothing compared to the mental agony) as the proportions of paralytics and anesthetic can be incorrect, leading to a horrific death, but they are unable to see as the criminal is completely paralyzed.

I am against it quite strongly, except in extreme circumstances. I hate the idea that the wrongly convicted could be executed, and also for many death may be too good. Also execution can be inhumane (I don't mind too much, as the physical pain is probably nothing compared to the mental agony) as the proportions of paralytics and anesthetic can be incorrect, leading to a horrific death, but they are unable to see as the criminal is completely paralyzed.



If your own baby was tortured and raped then cut into pieces by someone,

would you want them dead? If not then what do you think would be a good

punishment.

The OP presents a false choice. I'm not against the death penalty because criminals don't deserve it. I'm against it because our ability to determine who is a criminal will never be 100% reliable.

People have been put on death row and later exonerated.

The argument that prisoners who aren't killed can later be set free to murder again is also a false choice. If they were so dangerous, they can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

...our ability to determine who is a criminal will never be 100% reliable.

This, arguably, is the big philosophical and moral problem with "vengeance" -as defined in the Old Testament, I mean.
People who want blood are just fuelling this age-old desire to "punish" transgression, which I believe can be traced all the back to when we were hunter-gatherers (like modern chimps are), and would attack or punish other groups who transgressed by "poaching" from "our territory". Murder and so on all derive from this basic group behaviour (to protect territory and the group "dynamic" -i.e. social structure and hierarchy).
Just my ideas. I think we're basically group animals, tribalism, nationalism. political parties and "followers", gangs, societies, organisations, committees, clubs; I'd say we're incurably groupist. Groups tend to protect their worldviews, people join up to "identify" with something, and to fill the need for purpose and meaning, and so on. Groups tend to dispute what other groups have to say, too, so our groupism leads to conflict, fundamentally. But we aren't too good at individualism, either. Groups tend to have leaders, individuals who embody some group ideal.

A state appellate court overturned on Friday the convictions of a Long Island man who has been imprisoned for 17 years for the grisly 1988 murders of his parents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/nyregion/21cnd-tankleff.html?hp

No doubt when he was convicted in 1990, you supporters of the death penalty would have wanted him killed. You would have murdered an innocent man. Hmmm, if you wanted to be consistent, you would then also have to support the death penalty for yourselves.

No one deserves an execution,

Why not? Plenty of people deserve execution, we are way behind schedule...

If an adult rapes a child under a certain age, I want them dead. (lets say birth-11) Rape more than one child aged 12-15, I want them dead.

Now we are talking. Carry on...

No No No, and NO! It is expensive and it kills innocent people.

1. It is only expensive in the USA with its fucked up justice system. fair trial, fairer retrial and quick execution. It is actually pretty cheap... (surgeries are also expensive, we could save money by cutting back on them)

2. It only kills innocent people if badly applied.

Any other arguments? I think not....

Execution does not punish the criminal because he is now dead and cannot feel bad.

Depends on the type of execution. I can think of a few good ones where it takes days to die.

I think your point is that jailing the criminal is more punishment. I agree. But if we want more punishment, let's just torture the bastard for a while then execute him. Also the question of sadism comes up, if we keep him alive just to inflict more pain.

And execution does punish the criminal because it removes him from the existing ones....

Now, is there any argument I haven't dealt with?

I meant that the ultimate goal is to change their mind in the process and live normally and peacifully as we all do

That is called lobotomy and hasn't been used since the 80s I think.

But if I massacre your family then I change my mind and apologize, I hope we can all live peacefully. I might even move in with you since now you have extra rooms...

It simply does not work as a deterrent (nor does capital punishment),

Sure it does, we just don't use it often enough. Let's say speeding would be punished by execution on site. After seeing 3 drivers executed on the roadside by police, I bet you would think about speeding twice....Am I right?

I'm not against the death penalty because criminals don't deserve it. I'm against it because our ability to determine who is a criminal will never be 100% reliable.

So I guess if we have 200% evidence (let's say video, 25 eyewitnesses, confession, DNA,caught on site,etc.) you don't have a problem with it. Thanks...

Well, we have 2 posters so far who depending on circumstances turned IN FAVOUR of CP. Now let's see after reading my arguments how many more turns over to the "dark side". Don't be shy, you know it is right...

Either way, it still is expensive too.

So if I prove to you that let's say in India it is cheaper to execute the bastard than keep him in jail, you don't have a problem with CP? I think we have the 3rd turnover!!! :)

I haven't even heard the religious argument but that is OK, because it is one of the easiest to refute...

Oh yes, I missed this one:

Lethal injection is just as expensive.

I appreciate how frugal you are, but I think I can spare a bullet for each criminal from my private collection. You know what else is expensive? Unnecessery wars! Nevertheless we still do that, so I guess we can waste a couple of cianide canisters on criminals...

After seeing 3 drivers executed on the roadside by police, I bet you would think about speeding twice....Am I right?
That would depend. Say I didn't see 3 (or any) roadside "capital punishments", what would I think if a cop pulled me over, pulled out his gun and said "time's up"?

Why would my seeing roadside executions stop me from speeding if I believed I had to do it (say, to get someone having a cardiac arrest to a hospital)?
Would all transgressors be shot on sight, including "important" people, or just "ordinary" folks?

What about cops who speed, or would they be given a "necessary" exemption; what about an off-duty cop, would his workmates execute him, as required by law?

There are plenty of examples of other social animals who punish transgression, this isn't our imagination or anthropomorphism. Animal behaviourists have lots of observations of this, it seems kind of fundamental; meerkats, lemurs and other primates, especially bonobo chimps, have punishment and ostracism, and they display the same range of sexual behaviour as we do, so I guess we're still animals. Except we attach different meanings to it. They "get away" with murder, but get ostracised for theft or other misbehaviour, things we forgive,as it were.

one more state in america has just outlawed the death penalty because it is barbaric, i was watching a programme the other night and someone was being executed by the electric chair and it is barbaric and no one deserves to die like that, also what if they made a mistake, what can be done then? you cant bring that person back to life, and what about the family of your murder victim!

the death penalty is just legalised murder

..

You are LATE to the party. ALL your arguments have been already addressed. Anything new?

Murdering somebody in an incredily cruel way is also barbaric, so what's up with that? So I assume a quick bullet to the head doesn't make you oppose CP. :)

Would all transgressors be shot on sight,

Only posters whose handle starts with an F.

Your arguments are silly. Let's say these 2 teenagers who killed their little sister with Mortal Kombat moves were hang tomorrow and the clip shown in every school the next morning, I bet teenagers would be KINDER to their little sibblings following the viewing...

Let's say these 2 teenagers who killed their little sister with Mortal Kombat moves were hang tomorrow and the clip shown in every school the next morning, I bet teenagers would be KINDER to their little sibblings following the viewing

I hope you don't mind if I borrow a phrase:

Your arguments are silly.

Oh, right, I need to borrow another:

You are LATE to the party ... your arguments have been already addressed.

See post #11 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1675780&postcount=11) for prior address of homicide as a deterrent. And, since I'm aware that people generally don't actually click links and read the whole article that someone else excerpts, I'll include another excerpt of the New York Times editorial you'll find in that post:

New Jersey’s decision to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life without parole seems all the wiser coming in the middle of a month that has already seen the convictions of two people formerly on death row in other states repudiated. In one case, the defendant was found not guilty following a new trial.

The momentum to repeal capital punishment has been building in New Jersey since January, when a 13-member legislative commission recommended its abolition. The panel, which included two prosecutors, a police chief, members of the clergy and a man whose daughter was murdered in 2000, cited serious concerns about the imperfect nature of the justice system and the chance of making an irreversible mistake. The commission also concluded, quite correctly, that capital punishment is both a poor deterrent and “inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.”

By clinging to the death penalty, states keep themselves in the company of countries like Iran, North Korea and China — a disreputable pantheon of human mistreatment. Small wonder the gyrations of New Jersey’s Legislature have been watched intently by human rights activists around the world.

(New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html))

I'm going to bet that those innocent people would not have been set free if they had, as one of our posters suggested, been tortured to death "within 2 weeks of their sentence".

Fry 'em. The faster the better.

Is this what you think Jesus would have wanted?


No more waiting on death row for up to 30 years. Fry 'em within 2 weeks of their sentence. That may deter some of the scum out there. I also think they should be treated exactly like they treated their victim before they are fried.

And if evidence comes up later that they were innocent, how many people should we then fry. The judge, just the executioner, the governor for not granted a reprieve....

I have no use for jail. It's an improvement for most who are there.
This is interesting. God, I could go in so many directions. If you are right, perhaps we could reduce crime by making certain parts of society less like places that are worse than prisons.

On the other hand. I am quite sure you are wrong. But I am interested in hearing what studies led you to this conclusion.


3 meals, medical care, dental care, housing, no work, responsibility, no mortgage, computer, phone, tv.. Jail enables losers to stay losers. The guys who fight, join gangs, and misbehave, should be severely punished. If they can't behave, throw them in the hole. I have zero tolerance for criminal behavior. :(

White collar crimes also, I assume.

Oh, and fry 'em slow. V---E---R---Y slow.

Again, does this seem to you to be something Jesus would have approved of in you, this demand for torture`-

If your own baby was tortured and raped then cut into pieces by someone,

would you want them dead? If not then what do you think would be a good

punishment.

True, I would at the time, but I'd be a mess and it shouldn't be made by emotional wrecks. Of course I'd feel differently if something personal happened to me, but so would I if someone I knew was wrongly executed.

I think they should be punished by being put in solitary confinement in an empty room eating gruel for the rest of their lives. I think removing all contact with any other humans would, (including like books, etc) would be horrible. Also wiping their memory if possible could be good.

And does capital punishment and that revenge actually fully alleviate the grief of the victims relatives?

Is this what you think Jesus would have wanted?And if evidence comes up later that they were innocent, how many people should we then fry. The judge, just the executioner, the governor for not granted a reprieve....
This is interesting. God, I could go in so many directions. If you are right, perhaps we could reduce crime by making certain parts of society less like places that are worse than prisons.
On the other hand. I am quite sure you are wrong. But I am interested in hearing what studies led you to this conclusion.
White collar crimes also, I assume.
Again, does this seem to you to be something Jesus would have approved of in you, this demand for torture`-

Fry 'em all. I'm tired of criminals bs. They want to break the law, then fry 'em. I'm sick of paying for them to vacation in jail. Fry 'em all.

So if I prove to you that let's say in India it is cheaper to execute the bastard than keep him in jail, you don't have a problem with CP? I think we have the 3rd turnover!!! :)


In that circumstance, if there is overwhelming evidence, then no, execute the murderer. The problem is with more primitive countries, it is harder to find evidence with their kind of technology.

Using the execution of choice, is not the expensive part, all of the time in court, finding enough evidence to prove his/her guiltiness, and filing the criminal on death row is the expensive part.

1. It is only expensive in the USA with its fucked up justice system. fair trial, fairer retrial and quick execution. It is actually pretty cheap... (surgeries are also expensive, we could save money by cutting back on them)


I live in the US!!! If every criminal accused of 1st degree homicide was tried for execution, if would be a lot more expensive than just putting them in jail for the rest of their life.

Is money the only justification for no execution here? Does it matter what is more expensive? Ask yourself, what is more fair for a criminal who massacres and rapes a-plenty, a vacation in jail (as sandy puts it, and I would say so), or an execution?

Fry 'em all. I'm tired of criminals bs. They want to break the law, then fry 'em. I'm sick of paying for them to vacation in jail. Fry 'em all.

It's more expensive to kill someone. Jail isn't a vacation. What about the possibility of killing an innocent person? Doesn't that enter into your equation at all?

Is money the only justification for no execution here?

Depends on who you ask. If you read through the topic, you'll find plenty of other arguments.

In the meantime, Norsefire, would you be so kind as to help me understand a phenomenon that we see around Sciforums from time to time?

It happens every once in a while that a debate will be taking place with diverse arguments given for a certain viewpoint; in this case, that viewpoint is the argument against the death penalty. Some of the arguments (note the plural) include:
• Capital punishment is barbaric.
• The U.S., by executing criminals, is in the distinguished company of nations it would vilify.
• The innocent should not be mistakenly executed.
• Capital punishment is expensive; the alternative is to be less careful—see preceding point.
• Capital punishment does not deter crime.
And then one day someone makes what is, ultimately, a superficial and emotionally-driven argument, such as, "I'm sick of paying for them to vacation in jail. Fry 'em all." Someone responds with the point that it is expensive to get it right and make sure we're executing the right person. And then—and this is what puzzles me—someone pops off with a question like, "Is money the only justification for no execution here?"

It just seems that the question ignores the rest of the topic.

Help me out here, Norsefire ... while the money is mostly a concern of people who think prison is "a vacation", what in the world would suggest that money is "the only justification for no execution here"?

Does it matter what is more expensive?

Only to those who would appeal to the pocketbook with silly arguments that depend on treating prison like a "vacation" or other privilege. Consider Kadark's question (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1675595&postcount=10): " What the hell has jail ever solved?" Given that prison—allegedly a house of "correction" or rehabilitation—tends to cultivate criminals (after all, rehabilitation so that an offender can make a useful contribution to society is "soft") so that many of the people we sent to prison for mere possession of drugs emerged prepared to commit other, more serious crimes, is seems rather disingenuous to call prison a "vacation".

Ask yourself, what is more fair for a criminal who massacres and rapes a-plenty, a vacation in jail (as sandy puts it, and I would say so), or an execution?

A chance at proper correction and rehabilitation would be best, but people are willing to believe that's too complicated and too expensive to ever work as long as it means nobody can call them "soft on crime".

This is a common quirk of a group of sociopolitical assertions often associated with one another. If people keep insisting on the inappropriate "solution" until the problem gets out of hand, the inappropriate "solution" becomes more attractive. In other words, if we administrate the prisons badly enough in order to not be "soft on crime", the poor result might compel more people might take the emotional bait and support state-sanctioned homicide.

It's a sellout. A betrayal. It's a disgraceful way to go about this business called justice.

So I guess if we have 200% evidence (let's say video, 25 eyewitnesses, confession, DNA,caught on site,etc.) you don't have a problem with it. Thanks...

Well, we have 2 posters so far who depending on circumstances turned IN FAVOUR of CP. Now let's see after reading my arguments how many more turns over to the "dark side". Don't be shy, you know it is right...

I do not have a problem with death for the truly guilty, never have. If I witnessed a horrible crime, and had a weapon, I would not have a problem with killing them myself. However, as I have pointed out, our society seldom has the good fortune to be able to be competely sure of guilt. That is why I would rather err on the side of keeping a criminal in jail for life. I never turned in favor of it as a matter of public policy.

Correction and rehab don't work. Almost never have. That's why there's so much recidivism. Criminals are a whole different breed of human. They don't respect the law/authority (probably never have) and they don't care about anyone but themselves.

Some do get "saved" in prison and let God deal with them/turn them around. But these are very few and far between.

I especially support frying child molesters, terrorists, and repeat criminal aliens. They are sub-human scum.

I didn't always think like this. I was kind of a bleeding-heart liberal in college. But then I grew up, got a HUGE dose of reality, and now tolerate self-responsibiity only. No more bs. :)

Is money the only justification for no execution here? Does it matter what is more expensive? Ask yourself, what is more fair for a criminal who massacres and rapes a-plenty, a vacation in jail (as sandy puts it, and I would say so), or an execution?

Like I said before, if they just needed overwhelming evidence and a gun, then YES, I would advocate Capital Punishment.

Correction and rehab don't work. Almost never have. That's why there's so much recidivism. Criminals are a whole different breed of human. They don't respect the law/authority (probably never have) and they don't care about anyone but themselves.

Some do get "saved" in prison and let God deal with them/turn them around. But these are very few and far between.

I especially support frying child molesters, terrorists, and repeat criminal aliens. They are sub-human scum.

I didn't always think like this. I was kind of a bleeding-heart liberal in college. But then I grew up, got a HUGE dose of reality, and now tolerate self-responsibiity only. No more bs. :)

Why fry'em when you can just take them out back and shoot them in the head?

Because the bleeding hearts would NEVER allow that. It makes too much sense. I would have NO problem with it--especially with terrorists.

Then why not give them a cyanide pill and say goodbye?

The bleeding hearts would never go for that either.

Who are these "Bleeding hearts" anyway?

Correction and rehab don't work. Almost never have. That's why there's so much recidivism. Criminals are a whole different breed of human. They don't respect the law/authority (probably never have) and they don't care about anyone but themselves.

Some do get "saved" in prison and let God deal with them/turn them around. But these are very few and far between.

I especially support frying child molesters, terrorists, and repeat criminal aliens. They are sub-human scum.

I didn't always think like this. I was kind of a bleeding-heart liberal in college. But then I grew up, got a HUGE dose of reality, and now tolerate self-responsibiity only. No more bs. :)

rehab does and can work for the people who really want it, my mate went through re hab and it has worked for him

I believe that capital punishment should be allowed under special circumstances. If the murderer is a sick, twisted torture-murdering-rapist, then kill him! If it was just a murderer that killed 1 person, then 1 life sentence.

Correction and rehab don't work. Almost never have.

They are, historically, fairly new concepts. It's not like the centuries of punishment, torture, and execution that preceded modern perspectives did anything to solve the crime problem.

Criminals are a whole different breed of human. They don't respect the law/authority (probably never have) and they don't care about anyone but themselves.

And how does that "breed" arise? Is it genetic? Is it determined by God? Or is it, perhaps, a product of society? While there are, indeed, a certain number of natural psychopaths and sociopaths out there, would you pretend that number is large enough to accurately describe the American prison population?

rehab does and can work for the people who really want it, my mate went through re hab and it has worked for him

Then they are the exception. Good for them. Seriously.

I believe that capital punishment should be allowed under special circumstances. If the murderer is a sick, twisted torture-murdering-rapist, then kill him! If it was just a murderer that killed 1 person, then 1 life sentence.

What if that one person was you? And you were tortured/raped/starved/etc. You still want your killer to get life? What if it was your Mother or child?

They are, historically,,,And how does that "breed" arise? Is it genetic? Is it determined by God? Or is it, perhaps, a product of society? While there are, indeed, a certain number of natural psychopaths and sociopaths out there, would you pretend that number is large enough to accurately describe the American prison population?

Choices. Bad choices. Probably since day one. Not genetic. Not God. God doesn't make junk. Thoughts, choices, actions, put them there. That's why if we keep the thoughts positive/focused on the positive, we win. I don't go for temporary insanity either. It's bs. You're either sane or not. No grey area.

I don't believe in "natural psychopaths and sociopaths". They are created. By their parents/thoughts/etc...Give me 10 minutes with one of them. I will get to the bottom of it.

Who are these "Bleeding hearts" anyway?

People who are way too soft in their thinking. Kindness, patience, love, compassion, gentleness, forgiveness, etc are fine. The law is the law. You break it, you pay.

What if that one person was you? And you were tortured/raped/starved/etc. You still want your killer to get life? What if it was your Mother or child?


Remember the circumstances Sandy!

Remember the circumstances Sandy!

:confused:

Did the murderer just stab him/her or was it torture-murdering?

Did the murderer just stab him/her or was it torture-murdering?

It doesn't matter. He CHOSE to stab someone. If it was self-defense, that's one thing. But just out of anger/rage is different. I especially love these guys who blow criminals away after they rob stores, terrorize/hurt innocent people.
That POS criminal who smacked the kid with his gun is burning in hell now. Too bad so sad.

Do keep in mind that it is the jury that comes up with the verdict.

However, as I have pointed out, our society seldom has the good fortune to be able to be competely sure of guilt.

Why abolish CP instead of raising the standard when it is used???

Also what is more cruel: executing an innocent or keeping him in jail for the rest of his life? I say the later....

I'm going to bet that those innocent people

Your point is moot. In my example the teenagers were 100% GUILTY.

Now do you agree, if the criminal is 100% guilty CP can be justified??? Also my previous post's question : why not raising the standard for CP instead of abolishing it? Sounds like a pussy cop-out....

Your point is moot. In my example the teenagers were 100% GUILTY.

(chortle!) What, when reality is inconvenient, insist on fantasy?

Now do you agree, if the criminal is 100% guilty CP can be justified???

Nope. You know, though, if you tack on a few more question marks, maybe your argument will be more convincing.

Also my previous post's question : why not raising the standard for CP instead of abolishing it?

Because all we are accomplishing by executing criminals is satisfying our bloodlust.

Sounds like a pussy cop-out....

Now that is a convincing argument.

Seriously, Syz, investing your pro-homicide argument in moronic machismo isn't going to get you much. All you accomplish by that is to remind people that there's not much for a rational argument in favor of capital punishment.

The performance-art value of your post is remarkable. You provide a strong reminder of the lengths some folks will go to in order to feel good about homicide.

Why abolish CP instead of raising the standard when it is used???
So would you advocate the use by the courts of a sliding scale of guilt - with a corresponding spectrum of punishments? It sounds ridiculous to me. Imagine if two people are tried and found guilty of separate but comparable muders. By executing one and incarcerating the other you are effectively admitting that that latter defendant's guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

By executing one and incarcerating the other you are effectively admitting that that latter defendant's guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt

One notion that strikes me about your point is that perhaps the advocates of state-sanctioned homicide might finally come to understand the importance of competent representation. Imagine a smart, successful District Attorney losing his job to a slicked huckster because the latter got the people all frenzied about a convict who wasn't sentenced to death.

"Elect Joe, because the other guy just doesn't meet the standard ...."

Or an appointed DA sacked for similar political concerns?

D.A.: We were lucky to get the conviction after the judge ruled against the evidence seized without a warrant.

Mayor: Doesn't matter, Bob. The people want blood, so I gotta make a change.

Can you imagine the eventual argument for double-jeopardy?

"The Constitutional rule against double-jeopardy violates the People's Constitutional right to competent counsel. I ought to know, since I'm the dumb bastard who lost the case. That's right, Your Honors: the People deserve a new trial because I'm a complete moron."

Who knows? The Roberts court might actually agree.

Seeing as some people (won't say names) seem to believe that pedophiles and child molesters should just walk the streets free, or get a few measly years in prison, I want to know what YOUR opinion is (I mean you, {insert name here})

Yes, I support it for many crimes and I also think it should be greatly extended. For example, it should also include drunk and drugged drivers on their third strike. Society has NO need of them and they've proven themselves unfit to live among us.

Because all we are accomplishing by executing criminals is satisfying our bloodlust.
Now that is a convincing argument.


What's wrong with that?

It wasn't an argument but an opinion. On the other hand I think I will stop responding to you, because we are not advancing...

Just a last question: Do you agree with keeping the Green river killer alive After all he only killed 50+ women and they were mostly prostitutes and I think it would have been very harsh justice to kill him because it would have been for our bloodlust??? (3 questionmarks for you)

I apologize, but I still have one more question:

At the Nurenberg trials I assume you would have spared all the nazi criminals convicted with crimes against humanity of the death sentece??

Finally a good argument, thanks.

So would you advocate the use by the courts of a sliding scale of guilt - with a corresponding spectrum of punishments?

First of all, I wasn't the one worrying about executing the innocent. Raising the standard doesn't necessery mean what you brought up. It can mean more proper investigation, having more evidence,etc.
But since you brought up a good point, I don't see a problem with a sliding scale of guilt. After all if we worry about punishing innocents, we should only punish hard the absolute guilty, do you agree?

By the way the courts are already using this when they bring up lesser charges when a certain crime can not stand the stronger scrutiny of more serious charges...

Now if we are too worried about punishing people we shouldn't even have jails, because after all putting maybe innocents behind bars is an incredibly harsh punishment...

For the anti-CP crowd, a weekend reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_river_killer

Read it and tell me that society is better off having him in jail forever....

By the way I find the anti-CP people extremely sadist. To keep a criminal in jail for 30-50 years is way more cruel, than executing him. Now, if more punishment is the goal, let's just torture him then do the execution. But keeping a human being in jail forever....

Even Jeffrey Dahmer asked for more human contact after a few months in solitary confinement. Oh yes, we the society spared his life, after all he only killed 15+ people, but the prison population decided that he was too evil even for them....

Fry 'em all. I'm tired of criminals bs. They want to break the law, then fry 'em. I'm sick of paying for them to vacation in jail. Fry 'em all.

You said 'Fry em slow,' I believe.

I cannot see where that fits with the Jesus in the Bible, your father, I believe you referred to him as. Do you think Jesus wants us to torture people?

First of all, I wasn't the one worrying about executing the innocent. Raising the standard doesn't necessery mean what you brought up. It can mean more proper investigation, having more evidence,etc.
Sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted what you said then. I thought you were suggesting the use of different certainty thresholds for different sentences.

But since you brought up a good point, I don't see a problem with a sliding scale of guilt. After all if we worry about punishing innocents, we should only punish hard the absolute guilty, do you agree?
I do agree, of course, that only the guilty should be punished. But I'm realistic - I understand that the judicial system is trusted to balance the release of genuine offenders against the wrongful sentencing of innocents. The ratios of each that most would deem acceptable are probably arbitrary; wherever you draw the line, some innocent people will be condemned or some guilty people will be set free. I think that this is a strong argument against capital punishment, but it's not my main reason for opposing it. Even if miscarriages of justice were an impossibility, I would still be strongly against the death penalty.

By the way the courts are already using this when they bring up lesser charges when a certain crime can not stand the stronger scrutiny of more serious charges...
I think that there is a major difference between what you have described above, and fitting the sentence to the certainty of guilt. If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the (maybe too frequent!) occasions when the CPS (in the UK) will choose to pursue a safer, less serious conviction, or will bargain with the solicitor of the accused for a guilty plea to a less serious crime. This is not the same as finding the defendant guilty of the more serious charge but then not prosecuting to the full extent of the law because of lingering doubt.

You said 'Fry em slow,' I believe.

I cannot see where that fits with the Jesus in the Bible, your father, I believe you referred to him as. Do you think Jesus wants us to torture people?

An eye for an eye. I have NO sympathy for criminals. :(

The ratios of each that most would deem acceptable are probably arbitrary; wherever you draw the line, some innocent people will be condemned or some guilty people will be set free. I think that this is a strong argument against capital punishment,

I think not. Again, why not work on perfection instead of throwing away the idea?
The justice system just has to buld in more safety valves, that's it.

A counter argument against your argument is the already mentioned "why jail anyone, after all they can be innocent". So why stop at CP and let's abolish the penitentiary system!

Actually, I find the "innocent people can be killed" an incredibly stupid argument. Here it is why:

At every big construction (bridge, dam,etc.) it is pretty much a given that workers are going to die in accidents. Do we stop building big things? No! We try to avoid these accidents by applying more safety, improving things, working on perfection. And there are actually big structures built without workers dying, so the answer is working on safety and not abandoning projects.

Just for educational purposes, the Hoover Dam:

"Construction deaths

There were 112 deaths associated with the construction of the dam. The first person to die in the construction of Hoover Dam was J. G. Tierney, a surveyor who drowned while looking for an ideal spot for the dam. Coincidentally, his son, Patrick W. Tierney, was the last man to die working on the dam, 13 years to the day later. Only 96 of the deaths occurred during construction at the site."

An eye for an eye. I have NO sympathy for criminals. :(

An eye for an eye would make the world blind.

An eye for an eye would make the world blind.

Pretty stupid line, but how about half eye for en eye, so just your tiny little world wouldn't go blind? Actually I would give CP automatically to everyone who kills more than 2 people. See, there is a win-win situation. :)

Pretty stupid line, but how about half eye for en eye, so just your tiny little world wouldn't go blind? Actually I would give CP automatically to everyone who kills more than 2 people. See, there is a win-win situation. :)

Whatever you say, I'm not in total favor of CP. There will always be so many people protesting it, in addition to the fact that it involves so many transactions. If it was just finding the overwhelming evidence and then taking him out back and shooting him, I would be fine with it.

by the way, that "Stupid line" that I said was actually quoted from Gandhi. and look what he did for 900 million people.

So perhaps it boils down to agreeing with one of the two:

An eye for an eye

or

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

I'll take Hammurabi over Gandhi.

...quoted from Gandhi. and look what he did for 900 million people.

...and Muslims and buddhists have lived in peace ever since.

Sorry, wrong fairy tale. :eek:

His policy would encourage dictators to try to take over the word. Bad strategy....
I know, Jesus was all loving too, and God help us from his followers! :)

...and Muslims and buddhists have lived in peace ever since.


Um....Do your research....really. India is Hindu and Buddhist majority, a very small portion of it is muslim. Most of the muslims moved to a part of India seperated in 1947 as we know today as Pakistan.

No executions, but bring back hard labor. And take away parole for the most despicable crimes.

Just a last question: Do you agree with keeping the Green river killer alive After all he only killed 50+ women and they were mostly prostitutes and I think it would have been very harsh justice to kill him because it would have been for our bloodlust??? (3 questionmarks for you)

From a couple months ago: "What's so wrong with capital punishment? (#1570333/112) (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1570333&postcount=112)".

From 2003: "Green River ... I don't know where to start (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30241)".

From the latter, it should be enough to reiterate:

And so we come to the central question: What is justice?

Having grown up with this spectre haunting the news daily for years during my childhood, I wholeheartedly support Maleng. If you can get the criminal behind bars forever and still hold hope for future confessions so that victims' families might have some sense of peace in knowledge, you just have to make the deal.

You'd see their pictures on the news, or in the papers. They looked like people you knew. Their mothers aren't so different from mine, and I would hope that she could know for sure in similar circumstances.

The beast is broken, the rest is about those who have to pick up the pieces of their own life. Crime and punishment makes for great headlines, and great issues during an electoral year, but our county prosecutors need to be able to deal when the occasion calls for it.

Norm Maleng brought us the freaking Green River Killer, on a silver platter, no less. The HJC needs to get off his back and stop jerking people around for the benefit of the cycle. (#509856/17 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=509856&postcount=17))

We got forty-eight (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/greenriver/victims_new.html). There's a hundred more, at least. I want justice for them, too. Explicit justice. And we may not ever get it. But it's well worth it in the face of the alternative.

They matter to me. All of them. And we'll never know some of their names. To take from slim to none the chance of ever affirming the name of the man who destroyed them simply to satisfy some ignorant barbarism is a cruel proposition. To trade any chance of acknowledgment for a cheap thrill is greedy. To bury justice so that we might quench a thirst for blood is sick.

At the Nurenberg trials I assume you would have spared all the nazi criminals convicted with crimes against humanity of the death sentece??

Yes.

Read it and tell me that society is better off having him in jail forever....

By the way I find the anti-CP people extremely sadist. To keep a criminal in jail for 30-50 years is way more cruel, than executing him. Now, if more punishment is the goal, let's just torture him then do the execution. But keeping a human being in jail forever....

Should I be surprised that punishment is the only issue you're willing to consider? Your exploitative verdict of sadism has little value given the ignorance it is based on. The world is not as shallow as your either/or assignations would insist. One of the reasons you're having trouble understanding what other people are telling you is that you can only view their positions according to your own spiteful characterizations. Pay attention to what people are telling you, and might actually come up with something better than suggesting you're not paying attention.

There is far more at stake than punishment and torture. Perhaps justice has little value to you, but that's your problem, and you shouldn't make it everyone else's.

I see torture, and situations where it's application becomes "useful", coming up a lot more in certain entertainment genres.

Why is there a need to see this (an instrument of the Auto da Fe, for God's sake), as some beneficial practice, a "valid option", by some people? Some seem quite prepared to believe it has its uses, or that a terrorist will immediately cave in. It's kind of ludicrous to even suggest that it's a working option in the first place.

....

Could you just say a yes and no? In the future I won't bother reading your posts, because too much talking without meat... And you can spare your time linking and quoting, just answer briefly...

I would put you on Ignore, but I tink I can't because you are a moderaor, so unless your post is short, I will just skip it....

May Jeffrey Dahmer visit your loved ones! :)

Um....Do your research....really.

Look up irony and sarcasm while on holiday....

Could you just say a yes and no? In the future I won't bother reading your posts, because too much talking without meat... And you can spare your time linking and quoting, just answer briefly.

On the one hand, I find rather ridiculous the suggestion that I should have to answer your questions according to your desired format.

I find absolutely hilarious, however, the idea that a post that says, in its entirety (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1570333&postcount=112)—

It's worth noting that we let Gary Ridgway live. Some folks are a little sore over that one. But it's worth it.

—is too much for you.

Furthermore, I thought it worth making the point that your two-bit exploitation of Gary Ridgway's crimes had been addressed before, and if you need a reason why society is better off with the Green River Killer in prison than a death chamber, you ought to do a little more research than simply referring to Wikipedia. The late Norm Maleng made clear why he made the deal he did, but apparently the prosecutor's reasons aren't important enough to warrant consideration in your emotionally-driven argument.

I would put you on Ignore, but I tink I can't because you are a moderaor, so unless your post is short, I will just skip it.

I have a better idea. Quit whining. Nobody's forcing you to take part in any discussions; nobody's forcing you to either read or respond to me; and nobody's forcing you to muck up this board with intellect-free excuses for arguments such as,

May Jeffrey Dahmer visit your loved ones!

I don't mind the smilie suggesting you have a sense of humor. But all you're demonstrating is the paucity of your argument when the best you can come up with is to tell me how I'm supposed to respond to you and make sick jokes.

Get over yourself.

May Jeffrey Dahmer visit your loved ones! :)

i say!
not only do you want to murder people, you want a little girl butchered and eaten by cannibals?

why do you desire this
i am shocked beyond belief

who are you?

pardon
how remiss of me

happy holidays, Syzygys

Look up irony and sarcasm while on holiday....

What did my statement have anything to do with irony or sarcasm? Plus, if you are resorting to that kind of immature comeback, I think I won the debate.

Could you just say a yes and no? In the future I won't bother reading your posts, because too much talking without meat... And you can spare your time linking and quoting, just answer briefly...

I would put you on Ignore, but I tink I can't because you are a moderaor, so unless your post is short, I will just skip it....

May Jeffrey Dahmer visit your loved ones! :)

I think I just learned the definition of a "troll".

not only do you want to murder people,

Since when justice is murder and what's wrong with murder anyway??? If it is applied correctly....

I think I just learned the definition of a "troll".

Good for you, at least you learnt something. I did too, that there is no good argument against CP. There is one actually, when it is against one's moral standards, but that is not a particulary logical argument, but emotional....

Good for you, at least you learnt something. I did too, that there is no good argument against CP. There is one actually, when it is against one's moral standards, but that is not a particulary logical argument, but emotional....

Everyone here is entitled to their opinion and it is immature of you to harass them about what they support or disprove of.

There is a difference between opinion and argument:

CP is wrong. -- opinion
CP is ineffective for controlling criminals. -- argument, either true or not

What you guys obviously didn't get was an analogy. Most anti-CP people are strong in their stands UNTIL it hits home, like a Dahmer kind of visit. THEN they suddenly become in favour of CP.

That was the point I made with that comment, not harassment... So is there any argument against CP I haven't addressed already??

Oh yes, let me tell you a story. In one of the East European countries, they outlawed CP as a prerequisit to enter the EU. People were divided on the issue, but it wasn't such a big deal since there weren't many atrocious crimes lately.
Then one day a couple of guys entered a small bank in a small town and MASSACRED all people inside, 8 of them. No chances, no hostages, just bullets into anyone moving. Then they took off with the money...(the huge amount of 50K dollars)

Guess what happened as a response to this crime? Most people suddenly became in favour of CP! No matter where they stood before, most people thought the criminals deserve to put to death.

Now when you guys are so forgiving and soft on hardened criminals, just think about how would you feel if your relatives had been in this bank opening an account, and then you tell me you are against CP....

Life is a game, if you break the rules, you are out of the game, we don't want to play with you...

Your reasoning is exactly why CP should be illegal. People, especially victims and relatives of victims of crimes, are usually enraged about what happened. They are the last ones able to administer justice fairly.

And they are the victims, are they not?

You know, I think I've come up with an ingenious idea. In crimes where there are victims, it is they (by a reasonable guideline) who should get to decide what the criminal must endure, or even death should they fancy it.

Of course, it must be reasonable. Stolen candy could be punished with extra work (if you steal from a store, they make you work for them for a while), not bad, eh?

Murder (in cold blood), and anything goes. The victim should have the right to do as they please to the filthy criminal.

Why not?

Why not?

Perhaps such a system could be implemented in a place where justice is already arbitrary. Syria, perhaps? Or maybe Israel? There are plenty of third-world backwaters, too, where arbitrary justice would be a step up.

In the United States, at least, people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Similar notions exist in other first-world Western countries. I'm not about to throw that out in order to make "justice" a matter of personal satisfaction, a standard which we might consider is part of the cycles of violence wracking the Middle East, parts of Africa and Asia, and even complicating at least one labor dispute in South America.

Most anti-CP people are strong in their stands UNTIL it hits home, like a Dahmer kind of visit. THEN they suddenly become in favour of CP.

Then, I would be an exception.

What you guys obviously didn't get was an analogy. Most anti-CP people are strong in their stands UNTIL it hits home, like a Dahmer kind of visit. THEN they suddenly become in favour of CP.


I guess I am an exception too. I live in Madison, Wisconsin. Guess how far away I live where Jeffery Dahmer was being kept in prison? About 10-15 mi away. In addition to that, Dahmer did most of his killings in Milwaukee, which is also 30 mi away from where I live.

There was another incident about 6 months ago where an armed robbers stole from a gas station and shot three people, killed two. This was another 5 short miles away from my residence. I believe that executing them is letting them down easy, they aren't going anywhere in my belief (I'm atheist) and so locking them up in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives is a much more gruesome punishment than just killing them. Remember, solitary confinement is 23.5 hours a day in a 8 X 5 ft room for as long as you live.

They are the last ones able to administer justice fairly.

So criminals can be unjust, but sufferers of those acts can not be??? Where the fuck is equality? Not to mention justice is an subjective term/notion....

Oh yes, and in the story it weren't just the relatives who got outraged but pretty much the WHOLE country....

Murder (in cold blood), and anything goes. The victim should have the right to do as they please to the filthy criminal.

Why not?

Exactly. I as an atheist believe in eye for an eye. What the fuck happened to manly "what you give me I will give it to you back"?

so locking them up in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives is a much more gruesome punishment than just killing them. Remember, solitary confinement is 23.5 hours a day in a 8 X 5 ft room for as long as you live.

But I already dealt with this argument:

If an anti-CP person says letting them live is more punishment, that indicates that more punishment is the goal, so let's torture the fuckers before we kill them.
If you say killing them is too cruel, I could easily argue (and agree with your post) that letting them live is more punishment.

Either way the anti-CP person loses the argument....

P.S.: And for those 2 posters who are the exceptions, you guys are fucking morons, but that is just an opinion, not an argument, (and deserve a visit from Dahmer....) :)
I would also nominate you for the Mother Theresa award.

Life is a game, if you break the rules, you are out of the game, we don't want to play with you...
Opinion and false generalization. Not argument.

So criminals can be unjust, but sufferers of those acts can not be??? Where the fuck is equality? Not to mention justice is an subjective term/notion....

Oh yes, and in the story it weren't just the relatives who got outraged but pretty much the WHOLE country....

The whole country had an opinion. Or perhaps better put, a desire. Also, more opinions, no arguments. Going on your definitions.

Exactly. I as an atheist believe in eye for an eye. What the fuck happened to manly "what you give me I will give it to you back"?



But I already dealt with this argument:

If an anti-CP person says letting them live is more punishment, that indicates that more punishment is the goal, so let's torture the fuckers before we kill them.
If you say killing them is too cruel, I could easily argue (and agree with your post) that letting them live is more punishment.

Either way the anti-CP person loses the argument....

P.S.: And for those 2 posters who are the exceptions, you guys are fucking morons, but that is just an opinion, not an argument, (and deserve a visit from Dahmer....) :)
I would also nominate you for the Mother Theresa award.

Letting them live is the least cruel method of keeping them away from the society they harmed. It is also reversable, unlike CP or torture.

How many innocent people is it OK to kill along with the guilty? Because it's all or nothing. Either the justice system makes mistakes, or it's perfect. Either CP is legal or it isn't.

In your fantasy world of perfect knowledge of guilt, there is no possibility of error, you are theoretically killing someone who deserves killing. But in the real world, those cases are rare.

P.S.: And for those 2 posters who are the exceptions, you guys are fucking morons, but that is just an opinion, not an argument, (and deserve a visit from Dahmer....) :)
I would also nominate you for the Mother Theresa award.

What the hell is wrong with you? Like I said before, if execution didn't involve so many procedures, and we did it like the Soviets, then I would have no problem at all with it.

P.S. When you go that kind of extreme with telling them you hope Dahmer visits them, it is a sure sign that you are losing the argument and are getting desperate. If not, then I am simply mistaking you for an immature baby. :)

Perhaps such a system could be implemented in a place where justice is already arbitrary. Syria, perhaps? Or maybe Israel? There are plenty of third-world backwaters, too, where arbitrary justice would be a step up.

In the United States, at least, people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Similar notions exist in other first-world Western countries. I'm not about to throw that out in order to make "justice" a matter of personal satisfaction, a standard which we might consider is part of the cycles of violence wracking the Middle East, parts of Africa and Asia, and even complicating at least one labor dispute in South America.

That equal protection goes for good citizens. If a citizen is a criminal of the degree of murder in cold blood, why is it that they are still protected? In fact, you could even administer the logic that criminals enjoy what they do, and therefore a criminal who tortures people should be tortured since they apparantly love it so much.

That equal protection goes for good citizens.

Where? In Syria?

If a citizen is a criminal of the degree of murder in cold blood, why is it that they are still protected?

Because they are still human beings.

In fact, you could even administer the logic that criminals enjoy what they do, and therefore a criminal who tortures people should be tortured since they apparantly love it so much.

What logic is that, exactly?

Why are human beings entitled to 'protections'?

Opinion and false generalization. Not argument.

It was actually an analogy, false or correct. Still an argument though.... :)

The whole country had an opinion. Or perhaps better put, a desire. Also, more opinions, no arguments. Going on your definitions.

You are bad:

1. Since you didn't poll the people, you simply don't KNOW if they had an argument or not.
2. What's wrong with opinions, when making laws? Remember, here we are not making laws, we are debating, so we prefer arguments. That doesn't mean laws can not be made on opinions or desires.
3. You have to try much harder if you want to use my arguments against me. :)

Letting them live is the least cruel method of keeping them away from the society they harmed.

This is debatable. Do you have a dog? Buy a puppy, and keep it for the rest of its life in a cage. Report back what you found out about cruelty...

The point is that I can argue both ways which is more cruel, death or life in prison. If we think of humans as feeling and sensitive persons, being incarcerated for life is an awfully cruel way to punish someone, even death is preferable.

It is also reversable, unlike CP or torture.

OK, so we had the wrong guy for 60 years in prison. YOU tell me if any amount of money can pay for his TIME when he is already 80 years old when find out his innocence!
Which is more cruel, execute the innocent or keeping him alive in prison for decades????

How many innocent people is it OK to kill along with the guilty?

Zero. Argument has been dealt with, look up analogy of surgery or building big structures.

Because it's all or nothing. Either the justice system makes mistakes, or it's perfect. Either CP is legal or it isn't.


Bullshit and you just lost the argument. There is a middle way, making CP harder to use, raising the standard for evidence, etc.

End of story. Honestly I expected better than this from you. :eek:

That equal protection goes for good citizens.

Very good argument and I still haven't heard a good counter argument. Similar to the gunlobby's "if only criminal can have guns" argument, but still valid....

By the way, dear moderators, I wasn't using abusive language earlier, I simply used the term "fucking moron" as it is in the Wikipedia, look it up:

Fucking moron: [noun] A person who after watching his family massacred in a bankrobbery doesn't want the criminals to be put to death.

See? Correct usage! :)

Mod Note: After reconsidering the public warning issued according to current policy, I have decided to issue a one-day suspension of your posting privileges. Have a nice day.

In your fantasy world of perfect knowledge of guilt,

In your fantasy world everything is either black or white. Thus CP or not CP.
There is no room for CORRECTLY used CP....
In real life things are often grey...

Where? In Syria?

No, in a reasonable society. You tell me a single reason why a sick, evil murderer should be given the same exact rights as those good citizens, after causing them so much pain.



Because they are still human beings.
Human beings that have caused others' much pain.



What logic is that, exactly?

A very simple one. We could assume that criminals enjoy what they do, and therefore would enjoy it to be done to them. If a criminal tortures others, he must obviously enjoy being tortured. Of course he wouldn't, but it would be a good punishment.

It was actually an analogy, false or correct. Still an argument though.... :)

It did have an analogy in it but by your definition it was an opinion. Living in society is like a game. If you break the rules people won't want you to play.
A game like hockey, for example? Anyway, your opinion that life in society is a like a game offers no support for CP. Even if you are right all you are saying is that some people are of the opinion that people who break the rules shouldn't play anymore. So you've told us some people have this opinion. A little thought would also show that not playing could be like being put in the penalty box. It's a weak analogy and a reference to opinions. And it implies that these opinions are universal, which they are not.



You are bad:

1. Since you didn't poll the people, you simply don't KNOW if they had an argument or not.
2. What's wrong with opinions, when making laws? Remember, here we are not making laws, we are debating, so we prefer arguments. That doesn't mean laws can not be made on opinions or desires.
3. You have to try much harder if you want to use my arguments against me.
Nothing wrong with opinions. It was you who had a problem with them. I am just pointing out that your argument is not an argument. You are simply saying that some people want CP. Some people have that opinion.
So what.
No one here denies that some people want CP.

Am I bad?
How strange?
Was that another argument?

No, in a reasonable society. You tell me a single reason why a sick, evil murderer should be given the same exact rights as those good citizens, after causing them so much pain.
A convicted murderer loses all sorts of rights. What are you talking about?

A convicted murderer loses all sorts of rights. What are you talking about?

I am addressing Tiassa, who believes that those same kinds of sick criminals deserve to walk the streets freely.

Apparantly, they must enjoy what they do, correct? Therefore, a criminal who tortures would enjoy only the most brutal torture to be applied to him. It is, after all, his own logic.

No, in a reasonable society. You tell me a single reason why a sick, evil murderer should be given the same exact rights as those good citizens, after causing them so much pain.

As our associate has pointed out, they do lose certain rights. For instance, they're not walking around on the street like the rest of us. But part of their equal protection is that they don't stop being human just because they're convicted of a crime.

I recognize that this fact upsets you, but there's not much I can do to cushion the blow.

Human beings that have caused others' much pain.

And?

A very simple one. We could assume that criminals enjoy what they do, and therefore would enjoy it to be done to them. If a criminal tortures others, he must obviously enjoy being tortured. Of course he wouldn't, but it would be a good punishment.

In other words, it would be a punishment satisfactory to your emotional needs.

Arguing from emotion and declaring simplistic logical assertions rational in order to accommodate those emotions does not help anything.

Oh, right. It makes you happy. Torturing and killing people makes you happy. Good for you. Obviously, that sort of shite has worked so well in the past. It's how the Israelis put down the Palestinians for good, you know. It's why there's peace in the Middle East this very day.

You may not like human rights, Norsefire, or you might think them something you or I have the right to withdraw in order to accommodate our emotional needs, but if you can't tell the difference between American society, for instance, under a president who gives general respect to human rights and, say, the current regime, that would be your problem.

Bloodlust gave us an excuse to get into this mess, and bloodlust is what justifies the crap we're doing abroad right now. I would hope could see that it never leads to anything good.

Oh, right. It gives people an excuse to kill one another.

And, just to be clear, does that please you?

Does what please me? Let me clarify that the people we would "put down" are those very same people which have murdered others, disrupted the peace, and tortured others into insanity.


They may not stop being human, but they certainly are no longer human at heart, and soul. Is their punishment of jail, which includes TV's and basketball and other recreation in a sedentary, calm life truly adequate? You tell me why they don't deserve to be executed for such heinous deeds as I mentioned above.


This is no bloodlust. It is a neutral punishment. Remember the logic, the criminal must enjoy what he does so why not please him even more? After all, as you say he is Human and deserves to have a bit of....fun.

You hope the people you have killed are guilty of the crimes for which they are convicted, but that is not necessarily so. Some people are wrongly convicted.

Robbing a human being of freedom is a terrible thing, and TV doesn't make up for it.

Capital punishment costs more, it's not a deterrent, and we as human beings make mistakes in how it's applied. We aren't trying to be cruel when we lock someone up for life, we are merely separating them from society, which is all society needs. Do you really trust your government with the power to kill you? The same government that runs the DMV?

There is no net benefit to society from the death penalty, the only reason it's legal is because it wins votes. It gives the appearance of being tough on crime, regardless of it's actual effect on crime.

Since when is punishment a crime deterrent? That's police force, and a different issue. Punishment is punishment.

Robbing a Human of his freedom when he has robbed others of their sanity and lives, is not so bad right? As I said, he would enjoy it if we did the same to him.

It might cost more, but that's because of the current system. Trials aside, bullets are cheap.

Criminals also want an orgy of hookers and drugs, should we give them that?

We aren't going to change our system to summary execution, so that's unrealistic.

No, give them what they gave to others, and that which they thoroughly enjoyed.

The evidence is circumstantial, the accused gave a false confession after being intimidated by the cops... it happens.

Man, we are going in circles. Nothing in your post is new and al;ready dealt with. But I have one very nice analogy for you, educative too:

You hope the people you have killed are guilty of the crimes

Did you know that doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA? So using your logic we should stop caring for sick people, because occasionally (actually wrong word because quite often) doctors kill their patients, accidentally of course:

http://www.chattanoogahealth.com/Articles/2135/1/Doctors_May_Be_Third_Leading_Cause_of_Death.aspx

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
12,000 — unnecessary surgery
7,000 — medication errors in hospitals
20,000 — other errors in hospitals
80,000 — infections in hospitals
106,000 — non-error, negative effects of drugs
These total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!

So forget about that 3900 solders in Iraq, doctors are the real menace to society!! :eek:

If you are ready to give someone the capital punishment,
then you should be able to do the execution also. And hope he is not innocent.

You hope the people you have killed are guilty of the crimes for which they are convicted, but that is not necessarily so. Some people are wrongly convicted.
Robbing a human being of freedom is a terrible thing, and TV doesn't make up for it.
Capital punishment costs more, it's not a deterrent, and we as human beings make mistakes in how it's applied. We aren't trying to be cruel when we lock someone up for life, we are merely separating them from society, which is all society needs. Do you really trust your government with the power to kill you? The same government that runs the DMV?
There is no net benefit to society from the death penalty, the only reason it's legal is because it wins votes. It gives the appearance of being tough on crime, regardless of it's actual effect on crime.

Most of the people executed ARE guilty--of heinous crimes against humanity/society. They deserve to fry. Giving a freakin' loser a paid vacation/3 meals + snacks per day/healthcare/dental care/money for work/workout rooms/his own place with tv/internet/library/whatever he wants is NOT punishment. It's a move up for most of the scum there.:mad:
AND law-abiding taxpayers have to foot the bill!

If we actually fried more scum it WOULD be a deterrent. We're too soft. Fry 'em all!

spidergoat:

Capital punishment costs more,


Why? I still don't understand how frying them costs more than keeping them in prison for 50 years. Unless they are on death row for 50 years before getting fried. If that's the case, then I can propose a solution...


it's not a deterrent


Vlad the Impaler would disagree with you.

you should be able to do the execution also. And hope he is not innocent.

I don't have a problem with flipping the switch for Jeffrey (Dahmer that is). Hope is a four letter word in my world, by the way.

I still don't understand how frying them costs more than keeping them in prison for 50 years.

It is actually true, but only in the USA's fucked up justice system. So in most countries where it is not true, the argument doesn't stand.
I can kill it in another way too: Why should cost be a consideration when we try to do justice? After all if we can waste money on putting robots on Mars or whatever else, spending a few bucks on justice shouldn't be a problem.

By the way I am curious, what is the number or % of the innocently executed let's say in the last decade? And weren't they guilty of something else? After all, people don't just end up on deathrow....

Mod Hat — Syzygys

As I understand the policy these days, I actually have to make a public point of your transgressions, so this is it. I have warned you once privately (re: #122 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1688447&postcount=122)), and you simply chose to escalate (#132 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1689622&postcount=132)). This is, simply put, not smart.

Do not continue trolling and flaming this or any other discussion or you will be enjoying some mandatory time away from Sciforums.

Easy enough? Good.

Update: After further review, while marking post #133 in accordance with current policy, I have decided to escalate accordingly and issue a one-day suspension. Continued behavior of this sort will, naturally, result in longer mandatory vacations.

You fucking cunt, Tiassa. How dare you warn Syzygys when it was YOU who began the flaming.

Mod Note: You're out of line on this one, Mountainhare. You know better, and if for some reason you'd like to pretend you don't, see #153 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1690551&postcount=153) below.

Just incase anyone here has some sort of damage to their memory:


Originally Posted by Syzygys

Your point is moot. In my example the teenagers were 100% GUILTY. ”

Tiassa: (chortle!) What, when reality is inconvenient, insist on fantasy?

“ Now do you agree, if the criminal is 100% guilty CP can be justified??? ”

Tiassa: Nope. You know, though, if you tack on a few more question marks, maybe your argument will be more convincing.


“ Also my previous post's question : why not raising the standard for CP instead of abolishing it? ”

Tiassa: Because all we are accomplishing by executing criminals is satisfying our bloodlust.


“ Sounds like a pussy cop-out.... ”

Tiassa: Now that is a convincing argument.

Seriously, Syz, investing your pro-homicide argument in moronic machismo isn't going to get you much. All you accomplish by that is to remind people that there's not much for a rational argument in favor of capital punishment.

The performance-art value of your post is remarkable. You provide a strong reminder of the lengths some folks will go to in order to feel good about homicide.


If the above bolded statements aren't flaming, then I don't know what the fuck is.

Mod Note: Your opinion/confusion is duly noted. Additionally, you know better than to muck up a topic complaining about the moderators. See #153 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1690551&postcount=153) below.

Mod Hat — Mountainhare


You fucking cunt, Tiassa. How dare you warn Syzygys when it was YOU who began the flaming. (#151 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1690523&postcount=151))

• • •

Just incase anyone here has some sort of damage to their memory (#152 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1690532&postcount=152))

I looked up your next ban period, and it's a one-month trip. This latest outburst of yours certainly qualifies as your written request:

• In the first place, you've been around long enough to know that you're not going to accomplish anything good screaming and at the moderators.

• Additionally, you've also been around long enough to know to not muck up discussions with complaints about the moderators.

My suggestion is that you calm yourself and reconsider your approach.

Tiassa: If the above bolded statements aren't flaming, then I don't know what the fuck is.

Your opinion and confusion regarding this issue are duly noted.

Most of the people executed ARE guilty--of heinous crimes against humanity/society. They deserve to fry. Giving a freakin' loser a paid vacation/3 meals + snacks per day/healthcare/dental care/money for work/workout rooms/his own place with tv/internet/library/whatever he wants is NOT punishment. It's a move up for most of the scum there.:mad:
AND law-abiding taxpayers have to foot the bill!

If we actually fried more scum it WOULD be a deterrent. We're too soft. Fry 'em all!

You use the word "most". So, you acknowledge that some people are wrongly put to death. Shouldn't that be more important than whatever advantage is to be gained to society by killing those who are guilty?

You use the word "most". So, you acknowledge that some people are wrongly put to death. Shouldn't that be more important than whatever advantage is to be gained to society by killing those who are guilty?

No, because I think the non-guilty number is ridiculously low. I'm all for loving everyone, but not criminals. I despise them. And those who ultimately end up being found not guilty are almost always guilty of plenty of other crimes. Most criminals aren't on death row for one offense. The final big one maybe, but seldom one. Most are career criminals.

Use my fabulous new logic, that criminals do what they do because they enjoy and therefore would enjoy it being done to them! So execute