One disturbing trend I see in supporters of capital punishment is that they seem to have a desire to kill. They give the impression that they want to murder someone, and they wish to use the death penalty as a means. As if it were a method of "letting off steam." I think this because so many of them demand that murders die in gruesome manners.

The government has the responsibility to protect all of its citizens, even those who are not law abiding (I'm definitely not saying that we should let them off easy. They should be in prison for the rest of their lives, and punished serverly, but not by violating the "cruel and unusual punishment" amendment. It is there for a reason, you know).


Supporters of capital punishment tend to have a desire to kill, and wish to use capital punishment as a means. I say this because of comments made by these supporters suggesting that extremely cruel means be used for execution. "I wanna kill someone caus' I'm mad at the world, let's go after the murders," is not a justification for this barbaric practice.

Let those who were effected decide the outcome of a criminal.

Let those who were effected decide the outcome of a criminal.Isn't that essentially what 9/11 was about?

The United States has been called to account for its foreign policy, including but not limited to its historical support of Israeli policies. The US is guilty, in the eyes of many Palestinians and their supporters, of aiding and abetting atrocities.

The point being that those affected are not particularly known for objectivity. Objectivity is vital to the presentation of true and proper justice, else "justice" becomes a catch-phrase for status quo.

While it seems that it should be most convenient and expedient to murder transgressors of the law, it does not always turn out to be so. Furthermore, the allowance of murder under special circumstances opens all manner of routes for exploiting the logical devices of that permission. When you get down to it, stereotypical mafioso bullying and justification sounds much like the rhetoric of nations about to do war. In the U.S., we still sometime refer to the Hatfields and McCoys (http://www.matewan.com/History/timeline.htm), a famous feud which lasted officially twenty-eight years, but which still festered to the point that I can remember watching descendants of the families shaking hands at a funeral on a rainy morning; it was, apparently, a momentous event. John Brown (http://www.iath.virginia.edu/jbrown/master.html), while not a slave himself, undertook justice; as a citizen of the country, the crime of slavery did affect him. It's an extended argument, I admit, but it does serve to show what happens when retribution ("justice") is left to the common man.

When I was in high school, a man named Wesley Alan Dodd confessed to the rape and murder of two young boys, and asked specifically to receive the death penalty. How can I possibly oppose? Yet many of my anti-death penalty colleagues did, and it was a lesson in temperance when lawsuits were filed on Dodd's behalf against his wishes.

But as long as there exists a legitimized form of killing, be it penal or in warfare, human beings will always have a delicate ethical structure to plunder in order to legitimize other forms of murder.

American politicians have a long tradition of making principled stands in the final hours of their office. From Adams (http://www.free-essays.us/dbase/a2/lpf201.shtml) to Clinton (http://www.probe.org/docs/c-execorders.html) have stirred up political sands with "midnight" orders. Thus I applaud former Illinois Governor George Ryan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2649125.stm) for his outgoing swipe at capital punishment; perhaps we'll find hope at midnight.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

One disturbing trend I see in supporters of capital punishment is that they seem to have a desire to kill. They give the impression that they want to murder someone, and they wish to use the death penalty as a means. As if it were a method of "letting off steam." I think this because so many of them demand that murders die in gruesome manners.

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about here. I am a die-hard supporter of the death penalty and I have never had the urge to kill someone. I really dont think us supporters want someone to die in a gruesome manner but come on, look at the current method - lethal injection? Wow I'd be real scared.

The government has the responsibility to protect all of its citizens, even those who are not law abiding (I'm definitely not saying that we should let them off easy. They should be in prison for the rest of their lives, and punished serverly, but not by violating the "cruel and unusual punishment" amendment. It is there for a reason, you know).

You'd be singing a different tune if someone kidnapped, raped and blugeoned to death your 5 year old daughter.

"You'd be singing a different tune if someone kidnapped, raped and blugeoned to death your 5 year old daughter."

Definetly. I would too. Of course, I'm also above the mentality of said five year old and capable of realizing that my "tune" would be one sung to the melody of emotion and pure instinctual hatred instead of logic.

I do not think the desire to kill has anything to do with support for capital punishment. It is the desire for justice. Some people feel that 'an eye for an eye' is proper justice. Then again, some people would like to take an eye for an eye until nobody can see.

I haven't run into too many great arguments for capital punishment. One of the benefits to capital punishment might be the sense of closure and justice given to the victims families.

However, I haven't heard much from the other side. Right now, the only good argument I see against capital punishment is the cost of execution. I am not sure why it costs so much.

Most against capital punishment give some ideal ideology about how killing a murderer only repeats the crime or some such crap. Killing somebody that has murdered several innocent people is not the same.

Just some thoughts from a fence straddler :)

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
You'd be singing a different tune if someone kidnapped, raped and blugeoned to death your 5 year old daughter.

time is a great healer. after the initial bloodlust has passed, it is quite possible for understanding on the part of the victim.
it has been know to happen!

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
You'd be singing a different tune if someone kidnapped, raped and blugeoned to death your 5 year old daughter.
In a way, aren't you providing the criminal with an easy way out - quick death? That way, they won't have to live with their conscience for very long (interesting how you assume they felt/will feel no remorse). Whereas prison will keep them alive, so to speak, to allow them to be studied, maybe trends found with other rapists. You don't allow for the possibility of rehabilitiation? Maybe they are just inflicting what has been inflicted upon them.

Right now, the only good argument I see against capital punishment is the cost of execution. I am not sure why it costs so much.

Whether pro or against, the idea that money should be a consideration in a decision of this importance is really sickening.

Originally posted by Circe
Whether pro or against, the idea that money should be a consideration in a decision of this importance is really sickening.

Finances certainly should be considered. In some areas there is not enough money for police forces because the death penalty costs so much. I'd rather throw them in jail and give the money to the victim's family.

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about here. I am a die-hard supporter of the death penalty and I have never had the urge to kill someone. Like I said, it's a trend.

However, if you live in a state where your tax dollars have executed someone, you have participated in their murder. Call it justice if you want, but there is nothing different about having the state do it than hiring a hit man.I really dont think us supporters want someone to die in a gruesome manner but come on, look at the current method - lethal injection? Wow I'd be real scared If you say so. But given your next comment, about child-killing, I wonder if you're really thinking these things through. I've heard some pretty creative suggestions for punishing the guilty from the victims' side of the aisle. And if the relative "humanity" of lethal injection becomes the standard execution method around the country, it would still be unnecessary. I know that making it more aesthetic by not leaving the dead's eyes bugging out with a plume of smoke coming off the charred flesh frozen into a horrible expression makes it easier for some people to stomach. I know people who watched the execution of the Romanian dictators and laughed while the bodies flopped around in a ditch in their last nervous twitches. But no, they, like you, never had the urge to kill someone.You'd be singing a different tune if someone kidnapped, raped and blugeoned to death your 5 year old daughter. This is one of the lowest, sickest plays by the pro-murder crowd. The honest truth is that you're full of shit, because despite such horrid crimes, I happen to believe that society, even with all its faults, is still morally superior to a child-killer. It would only be compounding the damage to forsake that civility and scream for murder. Besides, as a liberal, I know that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when conservatives come around to an issue only because their stance affects a loved one. Whether it's Nancy Reagan appealing to the right to allow embryonic stem-cell testing (the facts haven't changed, only Ronnie's condition has deteriorated), or Newt Gingrich backing off his anti-gay stance because his half-sister is a lesbian, it's still the same foul stench of hypocrisy. Why would I dishonor my daughter's memory by selling out every principle I taught her as precious to life just in order to satisfy an inner bloodlust?

Understand, I'm a creature of civilization. Without a certain amount of societal trapping, I would not necessarily survive. Civilization is a fundamental part of my life, and those who would rather live in the wilderness ought to, and stop pretending that civilized people can invent justifications for what they already proclaim as wrong. In other words, don't drag the rest of us down to your gutter.

But to imply that a person would, for personal loss, revoke civility is a horrible accusation. Perhaps principles are so flexible and worthless to you, but there are people to whom integrity means a great deal. And some of us will go down with that ship. Lick the wounds of your own conscience in private; don't try to spread the festering infections.

An eye for an eye, as the good Doctor said, leaves everybody blind.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I said it, but I appriciate your help, tiassa :D

Andrew,

If you're saying that money should be a factor when trying to determine whether a person should be killed or spared, then - If I understand you correctly - you're saying that we should do whatever is cheeper. For example, if to execute someone will cost us less money than to give him life-sentence, we should go with the execution. Is that what you're saying?

It should be considered, but should not be the only factor. There are better things we can do with our money than kill people. Despite popular myth, capital punishment costs more than life in prison.

andrew

do elaborate more.
you know, show your true colors......dig yourself into a hole......shit like that!

In a way, aren't you providing the criminal with an easy way out - quick death?

No. I believe (and I could be wrong here) that these pieces of shits actually get to relive killing their victims everynight in their fantasies. I dont think they should be able to do that.

You don't allow for the possibility of rehabilitiation?

Rehabilitation is a joke. Enough said.

This is one of the lowest, sickest plays by the pro-murder crowd.

Are you trying to tell me that if someone sickenly killed your new daughter, you would be okay with that person sitting in a cell and getting educated and getting 3 meals a day. Unlike me, I think your the one full of shit.

Besides, as a liberal, I know that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when conservatives come around to an issue only because their stance affects a loved one.

It sure leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone comments on something they have no personal experience with. My advise, go talk to a parent that has lost their child to the hands of another.

I bet your goal in life Tiassa is to for the ACLU. Come on, admit it:D

They're just looking for the gratification of murder in a scenario where their morals don't object...

star justice is surpose to be impartial

thats why the victom has no say

now if we take ADAMS aproch and the victom\clostest person has to carry out the DP IF they want to AND we could be sure 100% (NOT reasonable doubt) then go for it

the only problem i see is if the person gets a taste for blood

I hate to repost, but....

"You'd be singing a different tune if someone kidnapped, raped and blugeoned to death your 5 year old daughter."

Definetly. I would too. Of course, I'm also above the mentality of said five year old and capable of realizing that my "tune" would be one sung to the melody of emotion and pure instinctual hatred instead of logic.

You'd be singing a different tune if someone kidnapped, raped and blugeoned to death your 5 year old daughter
Yes I would, my mind would be clouded by hatred and anger.

Are you trying to tell me that if someone sickenly killed your new daughter, you would be okay with that person sitting in a cell and getting educated and getting 3 meals a day. Unlike me, I think your the one full of shit. I would rather that person figure out what the hell the problem is and fix it, so they can be a productive member of society.It sure leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone comments on something they have no personal experience with. My advise, go talk to a parent that has lost their child to the hands of another. Oh, please--you're asking me to choose between outright hypocrisy and greed. I'm quite sure you have plenty of experience with both, so I won't bother turning your snide point back at you.

By your standard, though, imagine what limitations you've put on yourself. Ever been to war? Neither have I. I hope you have no opinions about Bush sending our troops to Iraq. Ever met God? Neither have I. I hope you have no opinions about God.

Because I would hate to think of you as just another hypocritical, greedy freak whose only use for society is to demand that others serve the needs of the self.I bet your goal in life Tiassa is to for the ACLU. Come on, admit it Is to what?

Should I point out that your myriad dishonesty and hypocrisy indicates that your life ambition is to fellatiate Satan?

Come on, admit it ;)

I realize that it's easier to simply justify one's own murderous desires by trying to exclude those with other perspectives, stRgrl, but give me a fucking break. If you're going to throw that kind of horsepucky around, I must insist that you bring your own damn shovel.

Life sucks, but I don't think I would be outside the range of appropriate presumption to note that the goat-boy has probably taught you that already.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Not exactly horsepucky, tiassa. Have you had real experience with violence or crime, as in have you been a victim of it? If not, perhaps it would be possible to think that there might be some strange weird experiences that you don't have.

Now bring your own shovel and shovel your own horsepucky! :D

Reality: When I was in high school, a local druglord died under suspicious circumstances. The death was ruled a suicide, but ballistics and other evidence pointed to the possibility that his companion/girlfriend/hooker may have done it. The case was closed; what's one shitty gun-running, pimping druglord, more or less?

Apparently, quite a bit. Over 5,000 people turned out for his funeral, extolling his value as an individual.

Think about that for a moment.

Hypothetical: Joe is a loner. He has a decent job, maintains a house, takes care of a couple of cats, and does have some friends, though he spends little time with them, work demanding what it does. One night as he is walking home from the grocery store, Jose the Gangster pulls a knife on Joe and demands his money. Joe is not about to take this kind of crap after the day he's had, and defends himself vigorously. Now, consider that in Oregon, where I first thought of this Hypothetical, there is a law that says that while you have the right to defend yourself, if your combat carries on for a certain amount of time (undetermined and dependent on circumstance as I understand it), both combatants are charged with a crime. So for our story we might say that Joe struggles mightily and wins his defense, but the final blow strikes high, on the temple instead of the jaw, and Jose the Gangster dies of a brain injury. When the police come out, everything seems at first like an unfortunate result of self-defense. But the statute describes "mutual combat", and it is found that Joe engaged in "mutual combat", and has no witnesses to assist him in his plea that his defense required so protracted a dispute. So Joe is brought before the court, and because he is found to have engaged in mutual combat, he must be held accountable for the circumstances of that combat (e.g. the death of Jose). Joe is then found guilty of Manslaughter.

Now, by most circumstances, it would seem that this is an unfortunate quirk of the law. We might consider the innocuous--courts ruled in favor of the now-defunct American Football League in its anti-trust suit against TV dominance by the NFL; the court levied fines against the NFL for each of the counts (e.g. TV networks): $1.00 per offense. Likewise, judges in drug cases have often apologized to convicted defendants, admitting that they would rather not issue a mandatory minimum sentence of X years in prison for mere possession, but their hands are tied by the voters and the legislature until a higher court cuts the bonds. It is not unreasonable to presume a similar sentiment in a judge who looks at Joe, a quiet but productive member of society who was visited by bad circumstance and did the best he could. But in Oregon--at least for a period while I lived there--the families of the victims of crimes could testify during the sentencing phase, and lobby for a harder sentence.

There are two side notes to consider in this hypothetical:

(1) Upon the death of a friend of mine at age 15, I was stunned when the family presented her as a completely different person at the funeral. I did not recognize the person they were describing, and thought for a moment that I was at the wrong funeral. Sure, she was troubled. Sure, she did drugs, stole cars, fucked for money, &c. But she didn't deserve to die. Nonetheless, at her funeral, we were presented with the image of a virginal (ha!), virtuous (by what standard?), hard-working student (with a GPA that barely passed). Her family, because of grief or some abstract social standard, would not recognize their daughter in death any more than they did in life.

(2) I have chosen "Jose the Gangster" for a specific reason tied to my experience. It is obviously an Hispanic name. Thus, the background: For a period in the mid-90s, I dated the daughter of a local meth dealer who happened to be Hispanic and of a pseudo-Catholic orientation. It turned out that whenever one of the immediate or extended family was hauled into court, the entire family would turn out in support.

And so I see Joe, my hypothetical victim, with nobody to speak on his behalf, and a plethora of mourning relatives--all in denial--calling for a sentence more harsh than he deserves. They extol Jose's virtues, tell how he was a loving father to his three children by two different women, how he worked hard (at selling drugs to kids, but nobody needs mention that), how he loved everyone he met (no need to mention the people to whom he showed his love with brass knuckles, a knife, or a gun), and how he didn't deserve to die and how the courts shouldn't let another white man walk just because his "victim" was Hispanic. Joe is sentenced, in consideration of the moving testimonies of the "victimized" family, to the maximum sentence.

Justice should not revolve around the number of relatives you have who are in denial about who you are.

You know, I have a friend whose wife went insane. She would randomly call the police and report him for domestic violence that never occurred. Knowing that he doesn't have a lawyer, she denies him contact with his children. (She threw him out so she could have a more convenient extramarital affair.) Now, regardless of who kills her, I would be very disappointed in the justice system if they paid attention to her relatives who support her through all of it and empower her psychosis. Certainly, we can talk about the senselessness of a random crime, or we can talk about the idiocy of crimes of passion, but why should her family be allowed to come into court and lie in order to exact further vengeance on someone they simply choose to not like?

And don't tell me it won't happen. Don't tell me it doesn't happen.

One victim of injustice is too many.

I was noticing that in the press coverage of the Illinois suspension of the death penalty the press was happy to quote angry families of victims who felt denied justice, but nobody really talked to the families of the wrongly imprisoned, of the wrongly executed, or otherwise. Their perspectives count, too. And the poor bastards who wrongly spent time on death row get minimal coverage.

Two cents on "Victims' Rights".

I feel badly for the victims and their families, and even moreso considering the political exploitation they're subject to by politicians who figured out that you can't possibly punish enough people to satisfy a bloodthirsty constituency.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

The trouble with killing somebody is that it's too easy on THEM! You don't punish somebody by killing him. He's dead! He doesn't feel any pain, remorse, despondency, humiliation, nothing. He doesn't exist any more.

Why give somebody who killed a member of your family such an easy way out? Don't you want them to suffer--the way you suffered? Locked in a little room. Beaten up by thugs. Gang raped. No windows, no pets. Nothing to do except ponder his own bad self. And if he really was a child-killer, believe me, life in prison will be worse than Hell even if you believe in Hell. There's a hierarchy in prisons and child-killers and molesters are at the very bottom of it.

So if you can give him that kind of suffering to pay for his crime, why give him an easy way out so he feels no more suffering?

But it gets worse. What have you learned by having your child killed? (I'm going with the original hypothesis here. If any of you have lived through this kind of horror, I have no idea how this discussion will make you feel.) Your child is not suffering. Who is suffering? YOU ARE!

When you kill somebody, you are not punishing them. They are dead. You are punishing the people who love them. So if the murderer is killed, the people who suffer are his family, maybe a few close friends, maybe a social worker or scout leader or AA counselor or shrink who honestly tried to help and failed. What do you have against them that you want them to suffer through the death of a loved one? Especially since you know from personal experience what it feels like?

Yeah, I'm familiar with all the Freudian theories that lay the blame for everything we do on our parents. Simplistic crap like that is the reason that Freud is out of vogue (everywhere except in medical schools, figure that out) and the Jungian paradigm has replaced it. Only the most retro, unrepentant Freudian would suggest with a straight face that the parents of Timothy McVeigh bear so much responsibility for the evil perpetrated by their son that they should be made to bear the ultimate punishment. How about his brothers and sisters? (I don't know if he had any but we're talking in general here.) His wife? His children?

It's one thing for a person to know that his big brother or his father is stuck off in a prison somewhere. Every now and then he can go in there and talk to the old fart and be reminded of the fact that he did something evil. But at least he can hang onto that tenuous link. That's a whole lot different from being told that the U.S. government killed your big brother or your father.

You know what you get then? Irrationality. A person who has a big hole in his heart because something was taken from him, and he didn't do a damn thing to deserve it. A damaged person. The kind of person who spends the rest of his life stewing about it. Maybe he passes it on to his children. Not directly, but they feel it and it infects their thoughts and feelings.

This is how the kind of crap that's going on in the Mideast gets started. You killed my daddy so I'm gonna kill your entire family.

Hey, you killed my family. I'm going to blow up your whole town.

Well, I'm going to bomb your capital city.

Okay, I'm going to saturation-nuke your entire damn country.

Governments exist to keep people from doing things that are irrational and destructive. Like giving their enemies eternal peace but making their enemies' families live through Hell.

I'm real sorry if you honestly believe it will make you feel better to see the guy that caused you so much pain killed. But you have no right to parlay that irrational feeling into an ever-widening circle of pain imparted to family members who did nothing to deserve it and may end up believing that it's OK to kill killers after all.

And then one day one of them crashes my wife's or your wife's airliner into a building over something a damn stupid irrational bloodthirsty Crusader did a thousand years ago.

Have you had real experience with violence or crime, as in have you been a victim of it? If not, perhaps it would be possible to think that there might be some strange weird experiences that you don't have. I didn't realize I had to be shot in the head or some-such in order to have an opinion. However as a daily felon, I think I've got plenty of experience with crime. :m: :rolleyes:

Murderers get better respect than potheads.

But, like I said, Zero--warfare and God.

I suppose that I should also not have an opinion on either one of these things? After all, I've never killed an A-rab for oil, a godless slant-eye for glory, or anyone else for any reason, now that I think about it.

And while we're on it, who here has actually murdered anyone?

Perhaps the lot of you should stop speaking of what to do about murderers, since none of you are murderers. Who here ever talks about how sick child molesters are? (It's not like we've never had a topic on that subject.) Have any of us raped children?

"Zero" is an ambition, it seems. But you'll never produce that little pucky of your own, sir. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try. After all, you've got a long way to go.

I would suggest that people get out of the habit of asking people who disagree with them to simply not have an opinion. I know it makes life and self-aggrandization easier, but it really is a horrid spectacle.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I would rather that person figure out what the hell the problem is and fix it, so they can be a productive member of society.

Thats your response? Wow, that sucks...


Because I would hate to think of you as just another hypocritical, greedy freak whose only use for society is to demand that others serve the needs of the self.

I honestly dont see where greed fits in here. And by the way, fuck society.

Should I point out that your myriad dishonesty and hypocrisy indicates that your life ambition is to fellatiate Satan?

Shhh... dont tell noone:D


I realize that it's easier to simply justify one's own murderous desires by trying to exclude those with other perspectives, stRgrl, but give me a fucking break. If you're going to throw that kind of horsepucky around, I must insist that you bring your own damn shovel.

Shut up, Im right and your wrong so go away now. :p You have no experience with severe abuse (im guessing) so therefor your opinion is invalid. I'd probably agree with you if I was a pampered affirmative action lovin' liberal/pothead:D Love life and love everyone, right? Were all created equal in the eyes of the lord, right? An eye for an eye will make everyone blind, right? What about paying for your friggin crimes Tiassa? What about taking the blame away from people like me and putting on the criminals where it belongs? I yearn to murder since I support people paying for their crimes? Well, call it what you want when you want - you and I both know who the real ones are that yearn to murder...

Now hit me with your best shot sucka:D

Thats your response? Wow, that sucks..See? You don't give a damn about anything but your own bloodlust. Some of us were raised to recognize that we are part of a society. That society is not here to pander exclusively to your needs. Period. The objective fact is that in prison, humanity is wasted. Come now, try to deny that. License plates? Oooh, there's a contribution. Cleaning up highways? That's what Boy Scouts are for. Job training? Suddenly people go nuts because we're treating convicts too well.

Think about it: you're paying for people to be in prison. You might as well get something for your investment, such as a productive human being. However, I understand that, being blinded by your own experiences, you're happy to invest in bloodlust. You're part of a society. Every once in a while you have to stop and think about what's good or bad for that society. Doing what's best for society is often a bitter pill to swallow. But you seem to have an affinity for bitterness, so figure it out.I honestly dont see where greed fits in here.Why am I not surprised?

Look at your appeal to me: I'm not qualified to speak because I haven't been murdered. If I was murdered, I would feel differently. Yes, I would. As has been noted earlier, victims of crimes and their families are often clouded by hate. You'd be amazed at what some people will tell me. Seriously--people kill each other over shoes and cars in this society. Do you really think they're going to think about anything but their own inner bloodlust?Shut up, Im right and your wrong so go away now. You have no experience with severe abuse (im guessing) so therefor your opinion is invalid. I'd probably agree with you if I was a pampered affirmative action lovin' liberal/potheadLike I noted, you seem to have an affinity for bitterness. I understand if you don't ever want to grow up, but you shouldn't pretend to be an adult if you are going to continue to treat the world with childish disregard.Were all created equal in the eyes of the lord, right?Lord's got nothing to do with it. Just like there are no atheists in foxholes, there is no objectivity in the most part of crime survivors.An eye for an eye will make everyone blind, right?I think that's demonstrable. Look at you: you can't see humanity in front of your face. Take off those bloody glasses.What about paying for your friggin crimes Tiassa?I live in a country where smoking pot costs you more prison time than cutting off a man's penis. I live in a country where police officers can murder with impunity. I live in a country where life has a cash value just under $1150. Paying for crimes? We all pay for crime. And we make a horrible investment of it. Punishment is a personal satisfaction. While a body politic bears the necessity of protecting itself from the dangerous, this addiction to "punishment" seems to have the result of creating more and greater dangers. Figure it out. Send a kid to prison for possession and he comes out knowing how to pimp, how to kill, and how to fence. Yeah, he paid for his horrible crime.

The molesters and murderers probably will remain dangerous to society. For that reason they should be kept separate. But to crave, require, or otherwise feel compelled to "punishment" is a wasted effort. The rest of the world, of course, will kindly put itself on hold for you, and wait for you to get on with life. Why not? We've got a few billion years before the sun explodes, right?What about taking the blame away from people like me and putting on the criminals where it belongs?And you wonder where I get the greed aspect of it?

First off, who the fuck is blaming you, and for what? I can only blame you for being a hateful, murderous idiot. I stop blaming you for that when you choose to stop being a hateful, murderous idiot.I yearn to murder since I support people paying for their crimes?Well, you do seem to demand human blood as your currency. Seems pretty fucking clear to me. :rolleyes:

I remind you that you pay for people's crimes. You invest in prisons. And your only return is knowing that someone will be executed or will die in prison. Human life is a tempting currency, isn't it?

In the meantime, if you don't like my opinion, you shouldn't ask for it. Why are you so shocked that someone doesn't share your disregard for the value of human life?Well, call it what you want when you want - you and I both know who the real ones are that yearn to murder... I call it a self-sustaining cycle of violence that cannot be broken as long as the righteous (e.g. proper society, crime victims, &c.) continue to muck around on the same level as the murderers.

I saw four kids on some news show last night. A pot deal gone awry. A guy who wasn't even in the room when the murder took place sentenced to 24 years in prison. Who had no idea what the crime was, who thought his buddies were buying a bag of dope. And you know what, the family of the drug-dealing thief who was the victim of this killing still aren't satisfied. However, they now get to support five juveniles for betweeen 9 and 24 years with tax money to the prisons, and when those 5 are out of prison, they will most likely be useless to society until they do something to get sent back to prison.

Watch people scream for the deaths of the accused. Watch them scream that life in prison isn't enough. Watch the convicted be set free 13 years later when it is proven that they are innocent. And then pause and wonder if Donald Trump will publicly apologize for buying newspaper space to declare that death wasn't good enough for these children.

It happens too often in society. But I understand, stRgrl that it makes you feel better if people are punished anyway, so why should we ever protect the innocent?

A friend of mine's little brother is now serving 10+ for murder. It really is a shame. Apparently operating under the influence of a head wound was not enough to convince judge and jury that it wasn't supposed to go that way. Of course, insofar as I can tell, stRgrl, what he should have done according to law was turn around and leave the two women he was defending to be sexually assaulted. Now, that's well and fine; the law in Oregon is absolutely screwed up on such points. However, what cracks me up about the whole morbid case is that the victim's parents sat there, shocked, hearing the testimony of witness after witness describing their son as a drug dealer, a guy who beat his women, a car thief, a rapist, ad nauseam. It was a hard pill to swallow. And then they got up during the sentencing phase and proceeded to appeal to the court for a harsh sentence, because their son was an innocent, who never did anything wrong to anyone. The judge apparently nearly laughed at them, advised the convict that you just can't take justice into your own hands, and sentenced him to 10 years or so.

I'll tell you, stRgrl, if I have to be shot in the head in order for my opinion to count to you, I'm not sure what respect I owe you. After all, insofar as I can tell, you're just another crime survivor who isn't finished calling attention to herself. Sorry about the past, woman, but stop taking it out on the present and the future. You'd think actual justice would be important to someone like you, but all I can see in your words is that creeping bloodlust. You want people executed, you'll pay for it, but no, you have no bloodlust. Is that about right? You want people dead, you'll help bring it about, but yet, as you noted: I am a die-hard supporter of the death penalty and I have never had the urge to kill someone.

Keep lying to yourself, stRgrl, and maybe you can rejoice in a few more homicides before all is said and done.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

- corporation: 1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members. 2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate. 3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body. 4. Informal A protruding abdominal region; a potbelly. (American Heritage)

- invest: 1. To commit (money or capital) in order to gain a financial return: invested their savings in stocks and bonds. 2 a. To spend or devote for future advantage or benefit: invested much time and energy in getting a good education. b. To devote morally or psychologically, as to a purpose; commit: ?Men of our generation are invested in what they do, women in what we are? (Shana Alexander). 3. To endow with authority or power. 4. To install in office with ceremony: invest a new emperor. 5. To endow with an enveloping or pervasive quality: ?A charm invests a face/Imperfectly beheld? (Emily Dickinson). 6. To clothe; adorn. 7. To cover completely; envelop. 8. To surround with troops or ships; besiege. (American Heritage)

Think of society like a corporation for a moment. It seems easy enough to do, especially given the dictionary definitions of the word. But just think about it for a moment.

In the 1990s, several American corporations, including Eddie Bauer and whoever it was producing Kathy Lee's line of clothing, took heat for exploiting child labor in Nepal and other countries. The defense of such a condition was chilling: there existed the simple assertion, At least these kids have a chance to support their families.

I always rejected that because the only reason the kids had to work is because the parents weren't paid enough to support their families.

Now, if you asked any of the investors in these companies directly, how many of them would say, "Yes, I wish to support the exploitation of children abroad"? Somewhere between few and none. Yet this is exactly what they are doing. Their investment in such a corporation directly helps perpetuate the exploitation of children. But none of them "want" to.

I find this strikingly similar to the assertion that: I am a die-hard supporter of the death penalty and I have never had the urge to kill someone.

People invested in the corporation called society rarely admit to their murderous impulses, despite the fact that their invetsment in society works toward achieving the deaths of other human beings. No, of course you're not responsible because you didn't pull the trigger; now, can we please let all of these Muslims out of detention because, whether or not they gave money or other assistance to Bin Laden and the Gory Gaggle, they didn't fly the damn jets into the damn towers?

Most people think their investment in society demands "justice"; or, at least, that is what they prefer to tell us. But it is only a pretended righteousness, a conventional agreement, that when a state files enough paperwork, they are allowed to kill other human beings.

Much like a private corporation: It is only a conventional agreement that it is acceptable to go abroad in order to profit by the exploitation we have declared illegal within our own borders. Does it make any difference what country a child is being exploited in? I guess so: "As long as I can pretend it's not my country."

Does it make any difference who is killed or why? Only to those who would protect their investment by inventing all manner of rhetoric to establish how they are morally superior to anyone else.

Whoops, what am I talking about? After all, my own child-labor experience wasn't so harsh. I did, after all, eat well and have a secure home to live in. So I probably shouldn't have an opinion on what Eddie Bauer does to children in Nepal. And, of course, the investors, having some experience with Eddie Bauer (having given over their money), obviously have a right to an opinion. :rolleyes:

What is it about any one person's investment that makes it any more valuable than any other person's?

When you license violence under certain circumstances, you cannot avoid the fact that you license violence. When you license exploitation under certain circumstances (e.g. when it's your money invested), there is no denying the fact that you license exploitation.

Corporations invent all manner of justification for their exploitative behavior, and so do societies. But at the social level, the implications are much bigger than a simple preference between vanilla and chocolate, handmade or automated. But all of that is artificial, because we frequently retreat to limited an arrogant standards to justify such behavior. For the corporations, the argument is "standard of living"--e.g. Do you know what will happen to our standard of living if we pay fair wages abroad? For society, This person has violated the sanctity of life, let us therefore violate that sanctity again in order to make things right.

Of course murder is wrong, but nobody can tell me why. And one of the reasons nobody can tell me why is because we license murder under special circumstances in society. In other words, no matter how horrible the killing of another person is, we're always willing to find an excuse to kill. It sets a terribly paradoxical standard that relies on artificial inflation of circular rhetoric to maintain itself.

I know the common investor with money in Archer Daniels Midland would not proudly say, "Yeah, we fixed prices in the third world. Fixed and plundered 'em good!" Yet many people chose to maintain their investments in ADM after that scandal broke in the 1990s because, hey, let's face it, it's a good investment that provides a reasonable return. And hell, "my" investment in ADM is apparently more important than the thousands of people who suffered by the company's greedy policies, to which "I" contribute with "my" investments.

Likewise, is my investment in society that much more important than anyone else's? Sure, this guy may have murdered, and by our savage ethics in this country deserves to die. As we bemoan former Governor Ryan's mass-commutation of death sentences, though, why are the only investors in society being given public voice the grieving families of crime victims? I've seen about two seconds' coverage of a man wrongfully convicted who has been released from a sentence that should not have been his, and I've seen no discussion of families victimized when their innocent son was put to death for a crime he didn't commit. But hey--we got to kill someone. It's justice.

And think about it: the grieving families of crime victims lament that justice has not been served. In the face of vital errors in the judicial system, however, none of them seem to be considering the fact that justice will not be served if an innocent person is punished.

And that's the problem: It doesn't seem to matter who we punish, just as long as we get to punish someone.

Think about those who invest in Boeing, Lockheed-Martin (world's largest weapons manufacturer), and others: Do they really want a war? Well, their stock will go up when the defense contractors get a big hunk of money. Are they proud to support and profit by the creation of killing machines? None will ever say it so directly. They'll try to sell you on the rhetorical necessity of warfare.

Or think about our investment in American society: I am sick about the fact that my contributions to society lend to the usurpation of our constitution and the blaming of large numbers of innocent people for the actions of a few. But most of my neighbors have no problem blaming innocents and punishing them; after all, we must punish someone.

Why do we execute anybody? Is it really just a matter of personal bloodlust and demanding satisfaction? Or do we really pretend that legalizing murder will help make a society better?

What is your investment? What is the return?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Ummm... I stopped reading your post when you called me an idiot:rolleyes:

This arguement is over - and I won:D I will not result to name calling, so shove it ya turd!:D:D

P.S - I see you havent had a hit today:cool: :m:

Again, you are only backing up Tiassa's point. :rolleyes:

How so? By not responding to his insults? Well, let it be then...

Lets just agree to disagree, eh?

I stopped reading your post when you called me an idiotI notice, though, that you didn't object to being called "hateful" or "murderous".

Fair enough. You're not an idiot. However, I would hope you have some better reason to support cyclical violence in the culture than, "Me, me, me!" which is, when you get down to it, an idiotic reason for just about anything.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Firefly
In a way, aren't you providing the criminal with an easy way out - quick death? That way, they won't have to live with their conscience for very long (interesting how you assume they felt/will feel no remorse). Whereas prison will keep them alive, so to speak, to allow them to be studied, maybe trends found with other rapists. You don't allow for the possibility of rehabilitiation? Maybe they are just inflicting what has been inflicted upon them.

I believe that from time to time it is society's perogative to determine that an instance of consciousness (like Jeffrey Dahmer, crazy murderous bastards, sociopaths, etc. (I know maybe Dahmer was a bad example, I don't want to debate about him in particular)) cannot co-exist with the other instances. It is the duty of the members of society to ensure that the instance in question is indeed so dangerous as to be permanently squelched. Once this determination has been made beyond reversal, it is in society's best interest to terminate the instance. To torture or sustain that instance would indicate masochism or lack of conviction.

I think that some people do not deserve the opportunity to be rehabilitated. (for instance, the hypothesized daughter killer. i can say firmly that for that crime (to me and my family) there can be no forgiveness (maybe understanding, but never forgiveness), not in a gatrizillion years)

Tiassa's first post was pretty much on the money, but society has deemed the death penalty as acceptable. To maintain responsibility, it should be limited to cases where proof is irrifutable and the crime deemed haenous by law. I have no bloodlust, but society should regarding those murderous brutes (per the stipulations in the previous sentence) whom threaten its members.

It's sad to think that I might kill that hypothesized daughter killer and thus suffer his fate, but so it could be, and so it should be... hypothetically anyway.

Originally posted by notme2000
They're just looking for the gratification of murder in a scenario where their morals don't object...

That's an interesting thought, but I'm pretty sure it's partially full of shit. Maybe that happens, but I don't want to kill anyone bro. Don't want that gratification at all. As a matter of fact the idea of doing so kind of makes me sick. If you want to kill me though and attempt to do so, I'll fuck you up, if that kills you in the process what then?

Eh, I'll shutup. I'm already at great risk of Tiassa pouncing right on top of me and damnit, he's wirey. :)

That's an interesting thought, but I'm pretty sure it's partially full of shit. Maybe that happens, but I don't want to kill anyone bro.
It wouldn't be a conscious want, but a deep-seeded instinctual one.

Originally posted by notme2000
It wouldn't be a conscious want, but a deep-seeded instinctual one.

Okay, uh.. dude? You are making an very naive assertion. Did you not read my prior post? It is QUITE presumptuous to attempt to freaking say that someone who believes in the selective application of the death penalty has a deep-seeded instinctual desire to murder. That's pretty damned lame.

The reason: One's stance on a political issue is NOT neccessarily indicitive of deep rooted psychosis or an intrisic murderous streak, though from your statement I must ponder this further.

Okay, uh.. dude? You are making an very naive assertion. Did you not read my prior post? It is QUITE presumptuous to attempt to freaking say that someone who believes in the selective application of the death penalty has a deep-seeded instinctual desire to murder. That's pretty damned lame.
Whoa whoa :eek: Slow down! Everyone has this deep-seeded instinctual want, myself included. It's wether or not you let this control your actions that determines your values...

What really bums me out whenever this matter comes up is that the
anti-death people act as though if the criminal isn't executed, he/she
would live forever.

Get real! Everyone dies, some sooner than others. Big deal that some-
one who has no respect for another's life doesn't live as long as they
might were they not to be executed.

And don't give me the crap that it's not our place to take a life! This is
the good old US of A ... And we, collectively, have killed millions over
the years. So what's the big thing about killing, call it what it is, a use-
less piece of sh*t?

:cool:

If one believes strongly in honor it can be to regain the honor of defeating the individual in combat. It is important to some people. Is that vengence or honoring the dead? It all depends on your perception. I personaly do no support the death penalty. Just remove the danger from society.

Originally posted by notme2000
Whoa whoa :eek: Slow down! Everyone has this deep-seeded instinctual want, myself included. It's wether or not you let this control your actions that determines your values...

So you're Freud now? hehe.. dude, I don't know about all that there. I don't think people have a deep seeded instinctual want to kill. I'm almost sure I don't. You do?

If you're sure about this, where did you learn this? Can you point me somewhere that supports your point?

Wes,
Look up survival mechanics, instincts, fight-or-flight and some others.

I honestly don't see what bothers people about capitol punishment. If a person commits a crime serious enough to get the death penalty, he/she is a danger to society and needs to be eliminated. Why should we pay to house these wastes of human space in prison for life? What, so they can watch cable, do drugs, *censored* with the inmates, get some dopey chick to send love letters to them???

It's not about vengence(well, maybe a little...), it's about protection. These sick individuals need to be purged from this Earth. Let's take this scumbag David for example David Westerfield (http://www.nbc4.tv/news/1867136/detail.html). He kidnapped, raped and then murdered a 7 year old girl. What value does this asshole have for society, NONE. Why should our money go to give this piece of trash a home, kill him.


Tiassa:
Of course murder is wrong, but nobody can tell me why. And one of the reasons nobody can tell me why is because we license murder under special circumstances in society. In other words, no matter how horrible the killing of another person is, we're always willing to find an excuse to kill. It sets a terribly paradoxical standard that relies on artificial inflation of circular rhetoric to maintain itself.
Murder is wrong because your taking away the right to live of an innocent.

People who recieve the death penalty, must have special circumstances to recieve it(most murders don't recieve the DP). We reserve the DP for the especially gruesome crimes.
Likewise, is my investment in society that much more important than anyone else's? Sure, this guy may have murdered, and by our savage ethics in this country deserves to die. As we bemoan former Governor Ryan's mass-commutation of death sentences, though, why are the only investors in society being given public voice the grieving families of crime victims? I've seen about two seconds' coverage of a man wrongfully convicted who has been released from a sentence that should not have been his, and I've seen no discussion of families victimized when their innocent son was put to death for a crime he didn't commit. But hey--we got to kill someone. It's justice.
Those are two seperate issues. I agree that we need to clean the court systems up before we continue to administer the DP. However, under a fair justice system, I see nothing wrong with a DP ethically.

Originally posted by notme2000
Wes,
Look up survival mechanics, instincts, fight-or-flight and some others.

Dude, I understand all that, but the way you present it, there's a murderer lurking under the surface of everyone. In a sense you're correct.. but the way you applied it before was quite loose in my opinion. You say:

Originally posted by notme2000
They're just looking for the gratification of murder in a scenario where their morals don't object...

Survival, instinct and fight or flight does not require murderous underpinnings. It's not that a person has this urge to kill, it's that a person WILL kill if threatened to the point of having to do so. That's very very different. You say that:

Originally posted by notme2000
Everyone has this deep-seeded instinctual want, myself included. It's wether or not you let this control your actions that determines your values...

The idea that murderous intent is lying deep under the surface is ridiculous. I don't have this instinctual want. I want to survive, THAT is the instinctual want - though primal, NOT murderous. If I have to kill to do so, I will, but it would haunt me because I am empathetic to life. I really really hope I'm never in that position as I'm sure do you. But as a pacifist, you'd just die eh? You don't think you have the moral responsibility to defend yourself? Don't you? You're an innocent, why should you be killed because of someone elses malfunctioning brain? Die if you must, but I'll go down fighting.

Saying that your values can be influenced by your underlying need to murder is either false due to your lack of understanding of what I was just telling you, or you're calling people sociopaths who are barely in control of themselves, on the fringe of a murderous orgy at any time.

The idea that murderous intent is lying deep under the surface is ridiculous. I don't have this instinctual want. I want to survive
What you are and what you think you are is completely different. Either one of us could be right, but it's at least debatable...

if i was fortunate enough to catch a perp in the act of butchering my loved ones, it is possible that i just might take the law into my own hands. i might even work on his ass for while. it seems unlikely but i will not rule this scenario out.

ps: since i am really more cerebral than instinctual, i'll probably be pondering how much jail time i'd serve for playing judge and juror while extracting eyeballs. actually tho, star like individuals are so common that it is very unlikely that i would be punished! it could even be that i'd be hailed as a hero! maybe even a posterboy for the nra if i finished the fucker off with a gun


edit: ah, i believe temp insanity is a common defense in cases like this

Spookz

The courts in the US account for this. If injury has clouded your judgment, or if a legitimately upsetting condition occurs and one has not had reasonable time to cool off, a temporary insanity defense can be carried out successfully.

If you found someone trying to kill your kids and put a cap in his skull, the courts would most likely understand; elect for a jury trial in that case.

However, if the years that pass before someone is executed aren't enough time for someone to reasonably cool off ... well, they might not be any better than the criminal.

If, years later, murder is the only thing that will make you feel better, that's your own problem.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

i have had the desire to kill, i was a soldier, and in northern irelans, i was on patrol one day and had about thirty to fourty people with all kinds of weapons, stones where raining down on us, i and a mate got to a corner to cover the others, i was looking down the scope and got a rioter right in front spitting in my face among other things, i just wanted to slip my finger on the trigger and she would have gone away, but my training taught me not to.

Originally posted by tiassa
Spookz

The courts in the US account for this. If injury has clouded your judgment, or if a legitimately upsetting condition occurs and one has not had reasonable time to cool off, a temporary insanity defense can be carried out successfully.

If you found someone trying to kill your kids and put a cap in his skull, the courts would most likely understand; elect for a jury trial in that case.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

the real question is the judgement i would pass on me. now i have truly become an animal. all my investment in reasoned and rational behaviour has come down to this. an act of pure animal rage! fuck that! homie dont play that shit! i'll just rationally cap his ass


:D

by gad! blastoff!
well thank heavens for your training then eh? was she cute?

ps: great meditation thread!

Tiassa,

Isn't that essentially what 9/11 was about?

Good call. I guess you are right. This system wouldn't work because people are too vengeful. Its all America, though. I wish America was never founded and the industrial revolution had never occured.

spookz/ no just bloody ugly, and thanks for saying about the meditaion guide hope it helps in anyway.

Its all America, though. I wish America was never founded and the industrial revolution had never occured.There's no need to go that far. After all, humanity has made some progress, to the point where we are capable of choosing to not be neanderthals with big toys, but what's the fun in that?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I wish America was never founded and the industrial revolution had never occured.
You could always move to a cave in the mountains and take up residency. But I doubt you really mean that as you typed it on an internet forum.