What's your view on capitol punishment?

"I still don't see why murdering murderers is wrong"

Because you are committing the act you are punishing them for. No matter how much you bureaucratize and sterilise it you are still committing murder. A government can not prophess a certain act to be the worst act one can commit, and then punish that act with the same act. It is hypocritical and, well, just plain stupid.

If government and society wants it's citizens to believe that murder is wrong then fair enough, you won't get any objections here. But executing somebody for murder is as ridiculous as a parent who spanks their children for fighting, and tells them that violence is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ermitonto

I think he should have been subjected to a long, painful, torturous death for his crimes.

---

Well there you go, my friend. This is where our difference of opinion lies. I would never and will never wish death upon anybody or anything, no matter what their crime. To punish somebody for murder or something equally disgusting by means of murder or something equally as disgusting is disgusting. Those are the simplest terms I can put it in.

Certainly the ability to kill should not be entrusted to governments. I agree with you there. Power corrupts, and when people in power are given the means to kill they abuse it.

But the way I see it, a community killing a killer is a collective act of self-defense. If I had to kill somebody to keep them from killing me, I would do it.

Obviously something has to be done about the murderers. No matter what you decide to do to them, be it killing them or confining them in a small and unpleasant place, it would be a "crime" to commit that act upon an innocent person. But murderers are different and need to be held up to different standards.

england is a flop

shame on us

Let me put it this way:

Say you are in a room with four other people. One person takes out a knife and stabs another one to death, then starts approaching you and the other two. Now say you have a gun, and the three of you have to decide before he gets there whether you're going to shoot him or let him stab you all. Is it wrong to shoot him to protect the three of you?

If governments were to grow the fuck up and stop punishing and inprisoning people for consensual crimes, then it we could free up something like %80 of all jails in the world. Then we could afford to jail every rapist and murderer in the world. The way we're going though, we're releasing rapists and murderers early so that we can through a few extra stoners in jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

"I still don't see why murdering murderers is wrong"

Because you are committing the act you are punishing them for. .

---

No, no,no, no. Execution is the punishment for commiting a horrific crime against an innocent person. The killers are not innocent and that is the fundemantal difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

If governments were to grow the fuck up and stop punishing and inprisoning people for consensual crimes, then it we could free up something like %80 of all jails in the world. Then we could afford to jail every rapist and murderer in the world. The way we're going though, we're releasing rapists and murderers early so that we can through a few extra stoners in jail.

---

Gotta agree with you on this one Ghost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ermitonto

Let me put it this way:

Say you are in a room with four other people. One person takes out a knife and stabs another one to death, then starts approaching you and the other two. Now say you have a gun, and the three of you have to decide before he gets there whether you're going to shoot him or let him stab you all. Is it wrong to shoot him to protect the three of you?

---

well thatd be perfect self defence..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ermitonto

Let me put it this way:

Say you are in a room with four other people. One person takes out a knife and stabs another one to death, then starts approaching you and the other two. Now say you have a gun, and the three of you have to decide before he gets there whether you're going to shoot him or let him stab you all. Is it wrong to shoot him to protect the three of you?

---

No, it's not. In fact it would be the logical course of action to take, and I would take it myself. As much as I would never wish to kill anybody, in that situation, yes, I would do it.

However, if we take that same situation with a different conclusion;

In a room with three other people. One murders another. You have a gun but the murderer does not attempt to harm anybody else, is restrained and no longer poses a threat to any of you. Would you still shoot him?

If your answer is yes than you'll see why execution in todays society is wrong. We have the means to punish these people without resorting to murder ourselves. Execution these days is NOT for our protection. Executions are solely for vindication of the victims.. in other words, to satisfy the victims or relatives thirst for this person's blood. How is society and humanity ever going to improve in any positive way when we are still quenching this thirst for blood that seems to lie dormant within so many of us?

Surely we should be teaching children that killing another human is wrong and then setting a good example. It sends mixed messages when a government murders a murderer and even more mixed messages when normal, every day kinda people are cheering and jeering for somebody to be executed.

Yes, murderers should be removed from society so that they can no longer harm anybody else, but to murder them would serve absolutely no purpose other than to satisfy some sick, barbaric desire. THAT is what we need to kill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

Surely we should be teaching children that killing another human is wrong and then setting a good example. It sends mixed messages when a government murders a murderer and even more mixed messages when normal, every day kinda people are cheering and jeering for somebody to be executed.

Yes, murderers should be removed from society so that they can no longer harm anybody else, but to murder them would serve absolutely no purpose other than to satisfy some sick, barbaric desire. THAT is what we need to kill.

---

The message I want to be sending to the children is that if they kill an innocent person they'll have a shitload of electricity pumped throught their body.

My whole argument for execution is not so much vindication as it is deterence. If it were vindication I could come up with a lot better ways to deal with these criminals. Execution is really the easy way out but the the fear of death is much more powerful psychologically. If we could come up with an alternative punishment that would be as psychologically deterring as execution I'd be all for it. I'm sure all those prisoner rights groups out there would have issue with that as well though.

Hey, i'm not part of those 'prisoner rights groups' if that's what you're suggesting. I'm just a guy who doesn't like the thought of anybody killing anybody. Yes, some people are fucking scumbags who kill people, but that doesn't excuse normal, sane people from allowing other normal, sane people to kill. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

Hey, i'm not part of those 'prisoner rights groups' if that's what you're suggesting. I'm just a guy who doesn't like the thought of anybody killing anybody. Yes, some people are fucking scumbags who kill people, but that doesn't excuse normal, sane people from allowing other normal, sane people to kill. :(

---

No Ghost, I'm not trying to imply that at all. I also totally understand your position. Ideally no one would have to be killed. I just feel that if even one little child's life could be saved, because the sick twisted fuck who was thinking of killing them thought twice about it because they knew they'd face a certain and quick execution if caught, it would be worthwhile.

put them on the north pole. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ermitonto

I don't eat meat either, but I still don't see why murdering murderers is wrong. If somebody stole something from you, you'd steal it back wouldn't you? But that second act of stealing isn't a "second wrong", it is a corrective measure. Murderers need to be treated differently from non-murderers, and frankly I think instant death is more humane (not to mention much less of a burden on society) than sticking them inside a dingy prison for the rest of their lives.

Some people just plain don't deserve to live. For instance, if Hitler had been captured alive, would you suggest life imprisonment or some similar punishment? Me, I think he should have been subjected to a long, painful, torturous death for his crimes.

---

You just contradicted yourself. You think instant death is more humane than sticking someone in prison for the rest of their lives, but you think Hitler should have been put to death instead of being put in prison, or are you saying a long, tortuous death is more humane than a life long prison sentence? Why make a exception in case of Hitler? When does a killer become special enough to be subjected to torture? And if you think the death penalty is more humane than a prison sentence, why not advocate a less harsh prison system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Az.

yeah thats what i would waNt done....or to be put it to little cells on their own for the rest of their lives.....like that big prison thing that was out at sea.....begins with A....but yeah all alone with no outside contact so they can reflect on what they have done.

---

Alcatraz babe, Alcatraz (sorry if you happen to be a man)

i think that capital punishment is a somewhat-decent record by megadeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

No Ghost, I'm not trying to imply that at all. I also totally understand your position. Ideally no one would have to be killed. I just feel that if even one little child's life could be saved, because the sick twisted fuck who was thinking of killing them thought twice about it because they knew they'd face a certain and quick execution if caught, it would be worthwhile.

---

Theres no evidence that the death penalty in the US is a deterrent. If we changed the death penalty system so a convicted criminal would be instantly put to death, instead of waiting twenty something years and exhausting all his appeals, more innocent people would be put to death because sometimes a crucial piece of evidence to vindicate a prisoner isnt discovered until years later.

hey NextGen, you live in mandan??? ive been there the last couple of years for Grind Your Face Off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue

Yea, coz lie detecters aren't like 99% accurate are they :rolleyes: Ooh look at me i'm a psychopath, i can EASILY 'Fool' them. It's a machine >_<

---

well gee jiminy wilickers, you sure put me in my place :rolleyes:

yep, 99% accurate, did you get that off the talkshow murray, or perhapse in a crime t.v. show? I mean after all, you can't fool a machine!

now if you actually knew anything about them you'd know that their accuracy is constantly debated by professionsals, the claimed accuracy ranges from 60-90%, and YES, believe it or not you can fool them, especially psychopaths. A "Lie detector" measures physiological responses, which are persperation and heart rate, which are most consistent with deceptive behavior. These responses are the result of a person feeling guilty, or fear of being caught in a lie. Psychopaths are notoriously good at fooling them because they lack the emotional response from lying, and the prisons are full of people who convince themselves of their own bullshit, convincing themselves and others of their innocence. if lie detectors were indeed 99% accurate, we'd be swearing on the holy polygraph, rather than the bible, and lie detectors wouldn't be non-admissable in court as they are today.

perhapse you should do some research before talking to me like a jackass.



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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojavpa

Theres no evidence that the death penalty in the US is a deterrent. If we changed the death penalty system so a convicted criminal would be instantly put to death, instead of waiting twenty something years and exhausting all his appeals, more innocent people would be put to death because sometimes a crucial piece of evidence to vindicate a prisoner isnt discovered until years later.

---

I agree that the death penalty in the U.S is not a deterrent. My whole point is that the punishments for any crimes are no longer a deterrent because they are not harsh enough and there are too many loopholes to getting out of them. As I mentioned before, I lived in a country that is always on the shit list of human rights groups becasue of its treatment of convicted criminals but at the same time has incredibly little crime. I'm sure part of it is cultural but I can't believe that knowing what faces you if caught isn't a big factor as well.

I do see your point about innocent people being put to death. But there are a lot of cases where there simply is no doubt about who did it. So maybe the instant death penalty is restricted to those "smoking gun" cases. Also, with some of the advances in DNA testing I would think cases would be a bit more concrete.

There's an old Chinese saying "Kill the snake to startle the monkey" . Well, we've got a lot of naughty monkeys in this country so it's time to kill some snakes.

This is a hard one.
While in my heart I feel we should eliminate certain elements from the earth, like murderers, rapists and pedophiles, many systems of 'justice' are too flawed to guarentee we have the right person. Too many people are punished for crimes they did not commit. Its one thing to toss someoen in jail by mistake but to kill them is irreversable.
If we had a perfect system for administering justice I would be all for immediate execution of violent and sexual offences against children for sure.
Murder is a thing that is tricky since so much can happen that could lead up to a death that is not quantifiable in court but I say mass murderers/ serial killers should go for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flamingskullballs

hey NextGen, you live in mandan??? ive been there the last couple of years for Grind Your Face Off

---

:rolleyes: maybe :cool:

I'm guessing grind your face off is a skateboarding event. :)