INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Graelwyn on February 11, 2015, 02:30:06 PM
-
Since I am currently very interested, even obsessed, with criminal profiling, serial killers, forensics and the like, and have watched quite a few documentaries about Death Row, I am curious as to views on the Death Penalty. We do not have it here in the Uk, and obviously, not all US states have it either and it is quite a controversial topic.
I, personally, do not really agree with it, mostly on the basis that men on Death Row, have been later found to have been innocent, not to mention many not on Death Row, but with life terms, having been found innocent. I tend to believe that life, without parole, is an adequate punishment for those guilty of heinous crimes, but I am sure there are many who are aggressively pro death penalty. This is a first for me, as I generally keep my thoughts to myself as I loathe debating. I just have my view, and am interested in the views of others as well.
So, what do you think ?
-
Did you follow serial?
-
Absolutely believe some people deserve to die, but don't believe it should be anyone's right to make the decision to end another's life. The death penalty is state sanctioned murder.
-
Did you follow serial?
I had not heard of that until now. I just looked it up... never listened to a podcast, but shall now have to make my first venture into doing so. It seems to have gone down well with the Hollywood crowd, judging from an article that came up in Vanity Fair.
I have recently been following a real life case that has been highly public, right down to the trial. The crime occurred in 2008, yet it is still ongoing as there were errors in proceedings and they cannot decide whether to give her the death sentence due to her mental health.
Her name is Jodi Arias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Travis_Alexander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Travis_Alexander)
Do a search on her name and links from less than a day ago come up regarding the trial.
-
Absolutely believe some people deserve to die, but don't believe it should be anyone's right to make the decision to end another's life. The death penalty is state sanctioned murder.
Yes, I would agree with this. Also, many are kept on Death Row for 20-30 years before they are even executed, appeal after appeal and all the procedures involved. I just finished reading a diary on my kindle. It was written by a guy on Death Watch, the last 35 days of his life before execution.
-
Hmm, i'm basically against the death penalty for all the very good reasons given.
However I don't think this issue has, or should have, anything to do with punishment . If somebody is believed to be a serious menace to others, then they need to be stopped somehow. Death and imprisonment are two very effective ways of doing this.
If all we really intend is to punish them, I'm sure we can all be a lot more inventive than that, and also a whole lot more rational in our use of resources
Life imprisonment is generally the worst of the two, so far as punishment goes, I think. But that depends on too many variables: conditions in the prison; individual character; chances of release. So I think there's an argument there for giving the prisoner himself some choice in the matter, if we want to be humane.
I don't think that any human being or any group of human beings is really equipped to judge some other human being. But , yeah, sometimes you just have to make an educated guess and hope to god you're not too far wrong. In which case, imprisonment gives us a chance to change our minds. That's a very big plus in favour of imprisonment.
It's worth remembering Derek Bentley in this conext.
"You can pardon Derek Bentley, who never took a life
But Derek Bentley cannot pardon you"
-Ralph McTell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvTY997oEPE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvTY997oEPE#)
-
Absolutely believe some people deserve to die, but don't believe it should be anyone's right to make the decision to end another's life. The death penalty is state sanctioned murder.
Yes, I would agree with this. Also, many are kept on Death Row for 20-30 years before they are even executed, appeal after appeal and all the procedures involved. I just finished reading a diary on my kindle. It was written by a guy on Death Watch, the last 35 days of his life before execution.
Really don't think it matters how long they wait, and don't think the possible margin of error is a good excuse not to kill people, or when people use the rationality of how much more expensive death penalty trials are. Though in re-reading my statement, am finding myself to be disagreeing with myself. As a stand alone statement, it's too broadly declarative. Should have included the word punishment; don't believe anyone should have the legal right to make decisions to end another's life as a form of punishment. People defending their own life should absolutely have the legal right to make that decision, and personally have the legal right to end the life of loved ones in certain medical situations.
-
and personally have the legal right to end the life of loved ones in certain medical situations.
Now thinking the right to die doesn't actually factor into my statement, as it's not a situation of my legal right to make that decision; they made that decision for themselves.
-
Absolutely believe some people deserve to die, but don't believe it should be anyone's right to make the decision to end another's life. The death penalty is state sanctioned murder.
Yes, I would agree with this. Also, many are kept on Death Row for 20-30 years before they are even executed, appeal after appeal and all the procedures involved. I just finished reading a diary on my kindle. It was written by a guy on Death Watch, the last 35 days of his life before execution.
Really don't think it matters how long they wait, and don't think the possible margin of error is a good excuse not to kill people, or when people use the rationality of how much more expensive death penalty trials are. Though in re-reading my statement, am finding myself to be disagreeing with myself. As a stand alone statement, it's too broadly declarative. Should have included the word punishment; don't believe anyone should have the legal right to make decisions to end another's life as a form of punishment. People defending their own life should absolutely have the legal right to make that decision, and personally have the legal right to end the life of loved ones in certain medical situations.
You don't think the possibility, a very real possibility, of innocent people being put to death, justifies not killing people?
I definitely have to differ on that one.
-
Couple of articles on those proven innocent, after being sentenced to death.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent)
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php)
-
Absolutely believe some people deserve to die, but don't believe it should be anyone's right to make the decision to end another's life. The death penalty is state sanctioned murder.
Yes, I would agree with this. Also, many are kept on Death Row for 20-30 years before they are even executed, appeal after appeal and all the procedures involved. I just finished reading a diary on my kindle. It was written by a guy on Death Watch, the last 35 days of his life before execution.
Really don't think it matters how long they wait, and don't think the possible margin of error is a good excuse not to kill people, or when people use the rationality of how much more expensive death penalty trials are. Though in re-reading my statement, am finding myself to be disagreeing with myself. As a stand alone statement, it's too broadly declarative. Should have included the word punishment; don't believe anyone should have the legal right to make decisions to end another's life as a form of punishment. People defending their own life should absolutely have the legal right to make that decision, and personally have the legal right to end the life of loved ones in certain medical situations.
You don't think the possibility, a very real possibility, of innocent people being put to death, justifies not killing people?
I definitely have to differ on that one.
It's not a justification, it's a rationality. Rationalizing reasons why the state shouldn't kill people is the same as rationalizing all the reasons why they should. The state shouldn't kill people for punishment because they might be wrong. Wrong about what? Killing people? This topic is about government killing citizens to punish them, and citizens granting them the right to do that. The state simply should not have the right to punish its citizenship with death. This is my view on the death penalty.
-
Okay, then to take this a little further, what are your reasons for believing that the state should not have the right to punish its Citizenship with death? I am not sure if you live in the states, or in a state that does have the death penalty...
-
That's just asking me to rationalize my point of view. Don't really think a reason is needed. Already stated, do in fact believe some people deserve to be killed, and could definitely come up with more reasons why they should be killed than not.
-
That's just asking me to rationalize my point of view. Don't really think a reason is needed. Already stated, do in fact believe some people deserve to be killed, and could definitely come up with more reasons why they should be killed than not.
Maybe it has something to do with Nietzsche. :laugh:
-
. The state shouldn't kill people for punishment because they might be wrong. Wrong about what? Killing people?
I think most of us have in mind that they might be wrong about the person's guilt. But yeah, sometimes a State does completely change it's view about whether it's right to kill unarmed criminals in custody (I'm picking nits here, you notice?) which would imply that it's previous stance is now considered "wrong".
I very much doubt that moral absolutism has any serious place in this argument, though. I notice that absolutists can too easily take completely opposite stances, depending on their personal socio-political background, personal experience of life, etc., none of which really matter a damn to guy facing death, the guy who's been wronged, the guy who's supposed to pass judgement, and the guy who's supposed to push the button. All these people deserve to be adressed as real human beings facing a very real , very individual, very grave situation, IMO. You can't resolve it all with a wave of god's hand, so to speak. Whatever our opinion is, that's just too dismissive.
I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement that would prove "right" in every instance, even if we all took the exact same ethical stance. There's always a lot we don't know. And if you pose a question like this generically, then that's to say: we know bugger all about the individuals concerned. Nada . Squat. And neither do we care. It's all the same if it's Jack the Ripper, or my grandma, and never mind why they did what they did, etc.
This topic is about government killing citizens to punish them, and citizens granting them the right to do that.
I'm gona pick nits again. It isn't. It asks: "What's Your View On The Death Penalty? " I don't see the word "punish" in there at all. As I said before, imprisonment/execution are practicalties that really shouldn't get mixed up with "punishment", iMO, not if you'd rather arrive at a rational solution to all the issues involved.
The state simply should not have the right to punish its citizenship with death. This is my view on the death penalty.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but that's too absolutist a stance, IMO. The state does assume the right to keep Law and order. It's not in any position to just say: OK I won't do that. It has to consider alternatives for achieving the same objective- whatever that objective is. There are people whom nobody wants to be running round loose. That's the main issue, seems to me. The only other realistic alternative to death in such cases appears to be imprisonment.
Now , depending on the State in question and other variables, imprisonment might mean being thrown into a filthy hell-hole where you're regularly gang-raped, beaten, and starved. So I wouldn't be too fast to assume that's the kinder alternative. Supposing that matters.
OK, nobody has the right to do that, either. But it happens. How much effort is Society in general willing to put into ensuring that it doesn't? never enough, most likely. Because then you start running into thorny moral issues like " Should prisoners' rights be more important than the right of poor people to have food eat?" and then you've got another bunch of emotive and absolutist arguments coming at you, and you wind up with no clear right or wrong overall, unless you take the world apart and rebuild it from scratch.
So, I think sometimes the death penalty might be better, once you've weighed everything up. Though whether it's wise to enshrine that option in Law is another question altogether. I'd have to think about that long and carefully, if it were my job to think about it. Thankfully, it isn't.
No-one has the right to weigh all those things up, but sometimes people have to anyway.
Oops. *sheepishly grins as she clambers off the podium*
-
. The state shouldn't kill people for punishment because they might be wrong. Wrong about what? Killing people?
I think most of us have in mind that they might be wrong about the person's guilt. But yeah, sometimes a State does completely change it's view about whether it's right to kill unarmed criminals in custody (I'm picking nits here, you notice?) which would imply that it's previous stance is now considered "wrong".
I very much doubt that moral absolutism has any serious place in this argument, though. I notice that absolutists can too easily take completely opposite stances, depending on their personal socio-political background, personal experience of life, etc., none of which really matter a damn to guy facing death, the guy who's been wronged, the guy who's supposed to pass judgement, and the guy who's supposed to push the button. All these people deserve to be adressed as real human beings facing a very real , very individual, very grave situation, IMO. You can't resolve it all with a wave of god's hand, so to speak. Whatever our opinion is, that's just too dismissive.
I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement that would prove "right" in every instance, even if we all took the exact same ethical stance. There's always a lot we don't know. And if you pose a question like this generically, then that's to say: we know bugger all about the individuals concerned. Nada . Squat. And neither do we care. It's all the same if it's Jack the Ripper, or my grandma, and never mind why they did what they did, etc.
This topic is about government killing citizens to punish them, and citizens granting them the right to do that.
I'm gona pick nits again. It isn't. It asks: "What's Your View On The Death Penalty? " I don't see the word "punish" in there at all. As I said before, imprisonment/execution are practicalties that really shouldn't get mixed up with "punishment", iMO, not if you'd rather arrive at a rational solution to all the issues involved.
The state simply should not have the right to punish its citizenship with death. This is my view on the death penalty.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but that's too absolutist a stance, IMO. The state does assume the right to keep Law and order. It's not in any position to just say: OK I won't do that. It has to consider alternatives for achieving the same objective- whatever that objective is. There are people whom nobody wants to be running round loose. That's the main issue, seems to me. The only other realistic alternative to death in such cases appears to be imprisonment.
Now , depending on the State in question and other variables, imprisonment might mean being thrown into a filthy hell-hole where you're regularly gang-raped, beaten, and starved. So I wouldn't be too fast to assume that's the kinder alternative. Supposing that matters.
OK, nobody has the right to do that, either. But it happens. How much effort is Society in general willing to put into ensuring that it doesn't? never enough, most likely. Because then you start running into thorny moral issues like " Should prisoners' rights be more important than the right of poor people to have food eat?" and then you've got another bunch of emotive and absolutist arguments coming at you, and you wind up with no clear right or wrong overall, unless you take the world apart and rebuild it from scratch.
So, I think sometimes the death penalty might be better, once you've weighed everything up. Though whether it's wise to enshrine that option in Law is another question altogether. I'd have to think about that long and carefully, if it were my job to think about it. Thankfully, it isn't.
No-one has the right to weigh all those things up, but sometimes people have to anyway.
Oops. *sheepishly grins as she clambers off the podium*
Interesting post. As it is like 3.43am here currently, I don't think I will press my already weak brain to come up with responses, but suffice to say, I do agree that the response seemed to absolute. I have weighed up pros and cons of the Death sentence and come to the conclusion that for me, personally, it is not the way to go. It does not deter criminals, according to research, it does not bring back the person/s murdered, it impacts another family (that of the one sentenced to death), it costs more than imprisoning for life, from my research, it seems to stem, largely, from this idea of an eye for an eye, it is barbaric and unevolved, it can create sympathy for the condemned, it hardly gives the message that killing is wrong either, does it? There is probably more, but those are some of the reasons for my being against the death penalty, rather than pro.
-
. The state shouldn't kill people for punishment because they might be wrong. Wrong about what? Killing people?
I think most of us have in mind that they might be wrong about the person's guilt. But yeah, sometimes a State does completely change it's view about whether it's right to kill unarmed criminals in custody (I'm picking nits here, you notice?) which would imply that it's previous stance is now considered "wrong".
I very much doubt that moral absolutism has any serious place in this argument, though. I notice that absolutists can too easily take completely opposite stances, depending on their personal socio-political background, personal experience of life, etc., none of which really matter a damn to guy facing death, the guy who's been wronged, the guy who's supposed to pass judgement, and the guy who's supposed to push the button. All these people deserve to be adressed as real human beings facing a very real , very individual, very grave situation, IMO. You can't resolve it all with a wave of god's hand, so to speak. Whatever our opinion is, that's just too dismissive.
I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement that would prove "right" in every instance, even if we all took the exact same ethical stance. There's always a lot we don't know. And if you pose a question like this generically, then that's to say: we know bugger all about the individuals concerned. Nada . Squat. And neither do we care. It's all the same if it's Jack the Ripper, or my grandma, and never mind why they did what they did, etc.
This topic is about government killing citizens to punish them, and citizens granting them the right to do that.
I'm gona pick nits again. It isn't. It asks: "What's Your View On The Death Penalty? " I don't see the word "punish" in there at all. As I said before, imprisonment/execution are practicalties that really shouldn't get mixed up with "punishment", iMO, not if you'd rather arrive at a rational solution to all the issues involved.
The state simply should not have the right to punish its citizenship with death. This is my view on the death penalty.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but that's too absolutist a stance, IMO. The state does assume the right to keep Law and order. It's not in any position to just say: OK I won't do that. It has to consider alternatives for achieving the same objective- whatever that objective is. There are people whom nobody wants to be running round loose. That's the main issue, seems to me. The only other realistic alternative to death in such cases appears to be imprisonment.
Now , depending on the State in question and other variables, imprisonment might mean being thrown into a filthy hell-hole where you're regularly gang-raped, beaten, and starved. So I wouldn't be too fast to assume that's the kinder alternative. Supposing that matters.
OK, nobody has the right to do that, either. But it happens. How much effort is Society in general willing to put into ensuring that it doesn't? never enough, most likely. Because then you start running into thorny moral issues like " Should prisoners' rights be more important than the right of poor people to have food eat?" and then you've got another bunch of emotive and absolutist arguments coming at you, and you wind up with no clear right or wrong overall, unless you take the world apart and rebuild it from scratch.
So, I think sometimes the death penalty might be better, once you've weighed everything up. Though whether it's wise to enshrine that option in Law is another question altogether. I'd have to think about that long and carefully, if it were my job to think about it. Thankfully, it isn't.
No-one has the right to weigh all those things up, but sometimes people have to anyway.
Oops. *sheepishly grins as she clambers off the podium*
On the point of absolutism, agreed, that's absolutely what am doing, and it's not intended as dismissive because am not actually making any argument, but rather stating a viewpoint which will never change. If in any way attempting to rationalize or argue my own point of view on this topic, will simply contradict myself and could easily make a few very good supporting arguments pro-death penalty. It's most likely a primordial instinctive response to the idea of handing my own leaders power over my own right to live; if it feels wrong then simply don't do it. That might not matter a damn in some places but here voters choose their leaders based on such viewpoints, so it does matter, and it matters to all the people listed. It's not a matter of anyone having to weigh all these things up, but if they are given the legal authority to. Seems an odd statement to say it's not your job to think about it. It's every citizen's job to think about it carefully if they plan on voting, but maybe things are different where you live. On the semantic argument of penalty vs punishment, penalty is by definition a punishment, there's no debating incarceration/execution are anything other than punishment, so not sure what that's supped to mean.
-
Interesting post. As it is like 3.43am here currently, I don't think I will press my already weak brain to come up with responses, but suffice to say, I do agree that the response seemed to absolute. I have weighed up pros and cons of the Death sentence and come to the conclusion that for me, personally, it is not the way to go. It does not deter criminals, according to research, it does not bring back the person/s murdered, it impacts another family (that of the one sentenced to death), it costs more than imprisoning for life, from my research, it seems to stem, largely, from this idea of an eye for an eye, it is barbaric and unevolved, it can create sympathy for the condemned, it hardly gives the message that killing is wrong either, does it? There is probably more, but those are some of the reasons for my being against the death penalty, rather than pro.
Similar points could be used to argue against the existence of the prison system as a whole. Though the general public does have the right to be protected from violent criminals and the state has the obligation to provide it; it's just not actually a necessity to kill anyone to achieve that. Murdering murderers is certainly a convoluted practice, agreed, but the notion of governments having the right to kill citizens is completely absurd, and it's most absurd in places where the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.
-
it's most absurd in places where the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.
People who support the death of others don't really feel in any way accountable or responsible when people die. They just read about it in the paper or hear about it on the news, if they even know about it at all. It's so detached and that's why it's easy to support. Executions should be public stoning in the streets, so the true supporters of a death sentence can actively participate. :viking:
-
Seems an odd statement to say it's not your job to think about it. It's every citizen's job to think about it carefully if they plan on voting, but maybe things are different where you live.
Having pretty much agreed on the principle that it would normally be preferable to both Society and crimininal to let the criminal live,it's not my job to go on to think about whether it would be a good or bad thing overall if the Law were formulated so as to allow exceptions, in exceptional circumstance, eg the criminal preferring to die, thanks. It's not my job, because to do that issue full justice would take so much thought and so much research, I'd have no time left for all the other important questions, nor any other job, come to that. Some thinking just has to be left to specialists, like it or not, cos the human brain can't encompass every damned thing. That's all I meant.
Besides, i've no confidence in the knd of legal and political systems that we have. I think anybody's time would be much better employed in contemplating radical alternatives than in trying to tweak them.
I don't expect to ever get to vote on this issue at all, unless there's gonna be a referendum. The chance to buy a man's opinions as a job-lot doesn't really impress me, especially not when he's likely to drop them once he gets into power.
But, leaving that aside, and supposing that my vote did make a difference, how do you make it the voter's job to think about every important issue?
Most voters think in such a shallow way, it would be a whole lot better if they didn't think at all, because they're far too easily swayed by rhetorical trickery. . And those who do think a bit more deeply are so far from forming a consensus on any political issue that i fail to see this as a realistic means of pulling the right answer out of the hat, if such a thing even exists.
We need more quality thought. Or something. We need the show to be run by people who actually care, not by people who like to be in power. We need...no I don't have any magic answer as to how we could ever get things onto some sort of sensible footing. But I really don't like what we've got. really don't believe that we couldn't do better if we only put our minds to it.
I'm sure it's everybody's job to think for themselves. But to place faith in the sham we call "democracy" seems to me to be counter to thinking for myself, at the present juncture in my life. I seem to have thought myself out of that one. :(
-
it's most absurd in places where the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.
People who support the death of others don't really feel in any way accountable or responsible when people die. They just read about it in the paper or hear about it on the news, if they even know about it at all. It's so detached and that's why it's easy to support. Executions should be public stoning in the streets, so the true supporters of a death sentence can actively participate. :viking:
Oh yeah. They are sooo much more civilised in the Middle East, hmm?
-
Though the general public does have the right to be protected from violent criminals and the state has the obligation to provide it the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.
Hang on there. when I make that point, you tell me "No, no, no, its not about protecting people from criminals, it's about punishment, silly girl. It's a semantic error to try to seperate this question out from the all-important issue of punishing people"
Or words to that effect:
On the semantic argument of penalty vs punishment, penalty is by definition a punishment, there's no debating incarceration/execution are anything other than punishment, so not sure what that's supped to mean.
*huff*
-
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
Kind of paraphrased for the modern time in which we live, but we can not support the luxury of suspending maximum penalties for those who commit "maximum" crimes.
Sorry, but I would rather shoot the bastards in the act than put the courts and the taxpayers through this trauma.
It goes along with most everything I believe in. No death penalty is ever necessary. Once everyone is properly armed and trained, then there will no longer be a reason for a death penalty.
-
Absolutely believe some people deserve to die, but don't believe it should be anyone's right to make the decision to end another's life. The death penalty is state sanctioned murder.
Agreed.
-
it's most absurd in places where the voting decision of the citizenship are the reason it even exists.
People who support the death of others don't really feel in any way accountable or responsible when people die. They just read about it in the paper or hear about it on the news, if they even know about it at all. It's so detached and that's why it's easy to support. Executions should be public stoning in the streets, so the true supporters of a death sentence can actively participate. :viking:
Oh yeah. They are sooo much more civilised in the Middle East, hmm?
Oh not at all. It's much more civilized if I can kill people and keep my hands and conscience clean at the same time. :zoinks:
-
I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.
If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible
-
Murder is murder. :M
-
Seems an odd statement to say it's not your job to think about it. It's every citizen's job to think about it carefully if they plan on voting, but maybe things are different where you live.
Having pretty much agreed on the principle that it would normally be preferable to both Society and crimininal to let the criminal live,it's not my job to go on to think about whether it would be a good or bad thing overall if the Law were formulated so as to allow exceptions, in exceptional circumstance, eg the criminal preferring to die, thanks. It's not my job, because to do that issue full justice would take so much thought and so much research, I'd have no time left for all the other important questions, nor any other job, come to that. Some thinking just has to be left to specialists, like it or not, cos the human brain can't encompass every damned thing. That's all I meant.
Besides, i've no confidence in the knd of legal and political systems that we have. I think anybody's time would be much better employed in contemplating radical alternatives than in trying to tweak them.
I don't expect to ever get to vote on this issue at all, unless there's gonna be a referendum. The chance to buy a man's opinions as a job-lot doesn't really impress me, especially not when he's likely to drop them once he gets into power.
But, leaving that aside, and supposing that my vote did make a difference, how do you make it the voter's job to think about every important issue?
Most voters think in such a shallow way, it would be a whole lot better if they didn't think at all, because they're far too easily swayed by rhetorical trickery. . And those who do think a bit more deeply are so far from forming a consensus on any political issue that i fail to see this as a realistic means of pulling the right answer out of the hat, if such a thing even exists.
We need more quality thought. Or something. We need the show to be run by people who actually care, not by people who like to be in power. We need...no I don't have any magic answer as to how we could ever get things onto some sort of sensible footing. But I really don't like what we've got. really don't believe that we couldn't do better if we only put our minds to it.
I'm sure it's everybody's job to think for themselves. But to place faith in the sham we call "democracy" seems to me to be counter to thinking for myself, at the present juncture in my life. I seem to have thought myself out of that one. :(
That's seems it might be a very wordy way of saying it's not a high priority. There's nothing wrong with saying it simply doesn't rank high in importance when considering the views of political candidates, or to not even care at all.
how do you make it the voter's job to think about every important issue?
It just is. You said no one has the right to weigh all of those things, but that's exactly what voters do. The best a voter can do is to be as informed as possible about the views of candidates, weigh that information, and vote according to the issues they personally find most important. It's unlikely a voter will encounter a political candidate who agrees with them on every issue, and it's perfectly acceptable if voters might believe the lives of murders don't take high priority in the issues the find important when voting.
-
Hang on there. when I make that point, you tell me "No, no, no, its not about protecting people from criminals, it's about punishment, silly girl. It's a semantic error to try to seperate this question out from the all-important issue of punishing people"
To say it seems to you I'm saying something is fine, don't quote words and say they came from me when they didn't, especially not gender based misquotes attacking anyone's intellect. When I attack your gender you'll know it, and it wont be a personal attack.
-
Hang on there. when I make that point, you tell me "No, no, no, its not about protecting people from criminals, it's about punishment, silly girl. It's a semantic error to try to seperate this question out from the all-important issue of punishing people"
To say it seems to you I'm saying something is fine, don't quote words and say they came from me when they didn't, especially not gender based misquotes attacking anyone's intellect. When I attack your gender you'll know it, and it wont be a personal attack.
Oh, come on. I purposely put the actual quote from you right after, for direct comparison, to make it absolutely clear that was just my interpretation of your words , not an actual word-for-word quote. The speech marks were there for the sake of readabilty/grammar, not to mislead. I thought my version was somewhat more light-hearted in tone than the actual quote (inasmuch as the "silly girl" bit was clearly my own insertion. I didn't anticipate that not being clear)
I thought our gender was the same? At least it's clear that others believe you're female and I assumed they were right. Sorry if I got that wrong. But anyway, that being so, it wouldn't occur to me to accuse you of a personal gender -based attack. well not unless it was so blatant it couldn't be taken any other way.
Anyway, sorry if I pissed you off. That wasn't my intention. A bit of a friendly dig at most was all I intended
er. Ooooooooooooooooooooops. Am i allowed to say that on Intensity? :LOL:
-Walkie
-
Oh, come on. I purposely put the actual quote from you right after, for direct comparison, to make it absolutely clear that was just my interpretation of your words , not an actual word-for-word quote. The speech marks were there for the sake of readabilty/grammar, not to mislead. I thought my version was somewhat more light-hearted in tone than the actual quote (inasmuch as the "silly girl" bit was clearly my own insertion. I didn't anticipate that not being clear)
I thought our gender was the same? At least it's clear that others believe you're female and I assumed they were right. Sorry if I got that wrong. But anyway, that being so, it wouldn't occur to me to accuse you of a personal gender -based attack. well not unless it was so blatant it couldn't be taken any other way.
Anyway, sorry if I pissed you off. That wasn't my intention. A bit of a friendly dig at most was all I intended
er. Ooooooooooooooooooooops. Am i allowed to say that on Intensity? :LOL:
-Walkie
Not really worthy of genuine anger. Just didn't care for it and wanted to make that clear.
I thought our gender was the same?
That's correct. When I attack our gender, you'll know it. :)
-
Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack :-[
-
Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack :-[
It's a reasonable assumption considering my choice of username. Though do try to make a point of letting people know whenever noticing male pronouns being referred to me.
-
Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack :-[
It's a reasonable assumption considering my choice of username. Though do try to make a point of letting people know whenever noticing male pronouns being referred to me.
Ah, well, at least I know now so I wont make that error.
I suppose my name can be a little ambiguous, though to me it sounds feminine enough.
-
That's seems it might be a very wordy way of saying it's not a high priority. There's nothing wrong with saying it simply doesn't rank high in importance when considering the views of political candidates, or to not even care at all.
nothing wrong with saying that at all, if that's what i meant.
But what I meant is that the sub- question I was currently considering was a very complex, very grey area wherein I'm not qualified to judge, nor ever likely to be qualified. Nether will I ever be invited to vote on it, cme to that, because polling issues are presented in stark black and white. Answers like "Avoid at all costs, but don't completely rule out" don't appear on any ballot paper that I've ever seen.
how do you make it the voter's job to think about every important issue?
It just is. You said no one has the right to weigh all of those things, but that's exactly what voters do. The best a voter can do is to be as informed as possible about the views of candidates, weigh that information, and vote according to the issues they personally find most important. It's unlikely a voter will encounter a political candidate who agrees with them on every issue, and it's perfectly acceptable if voters might believe the lives of murders don't take high priority in the issues the find important when voting.
No, voters are misled by a load of emotive twaddle into supposing that they've weighed the information.
Not all voters, evidently, but enough to turn politics into a pantomime.
For a long time I didn't vote at all, because I really didn't feel I was qualified to vote. I thought it was irresponsible to offer an uninformed opinion. I don't follow the media very closely. But now I've come round to thinking that's more of an advantage than a disadvantage as regards arriving at an unprejudiced view. I've come around to thinking that I'm better qualified than most, because i actually do use my brain.
So i'll be joining the usual rush of lemmings this year, what the heck. But if I don't have faith in what we're pleased to call "Democracy"; and if I don't have unbounded faith in my own judgment, it doesn't follow that I'm not interested , or don't care. Actually, it's precisely because I'm intersted and care that I lost my faith in all that.
-
Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack :-[
It's a reasonable assumption considering my choice of username. Though do try to make a point of letting people know whenever noticing male pronouns being referred to me.
Almost everybody assumes I'm male, too. I also set them straight when i see the male pronouns.
I just don't like "feminine" names. Not for myself, anyway. And I really don't think that gender is especially relevant to most things.
I can't blame people for opting for male pronouns if unsure, cos male is the closest we have in English to neutral , without resorting to "it" which is offesive, or s/he which is grotesque. But I find it interesting that most people do actually make the assumption that I'm male.
And I find it interesting that some people opine that I ought change my name to something pretty and feminine . That helps to flag up the people I'd be best off avoiding :LOL: (as being far too much like my Mum... or something. )
-
Must confess, I thought you were a guy, Jack :-[
It's a reasonable assumption considering my choice of username. Though do try to make a point of letting people know whenever noticing male pronouns being referred to me.
Almost everybody assumes I'm male, too. I also set them straight when i see the male pronouns.
I just don't like "feminine" names. Not for myself, anyway. And I really don't think that gender is especially relevant to most things.
I can't blame people for opting for male pronouns if unsure, cos male is the closest we have in English to neutral , without resorting to "it" which is offesive, or s/he which is grotesque. But I find it interesting that most people do actually make the assumption that I'm male.
And I find it interesting that some people opine that I ought change my name to something pretty and feminine . That helps to flag up the people I'd be best off avoiding :LOL: (as being far too much like my Mum... or something. )
I thought you were a male too, until you posted about having had a child in the other thread :lol1:
But, you are right... gender is not really relevant in most things, or discussions.
-
I have often said it. There are "monsters" in our world. Fred and Rosemary West for example. The pedophiles, torturers, Psychopaths, Rapists, and the like that I feel have stepped away from humanity. They are not animals nor humans , but simply monsters and NEED to be exterminated with prejudice.
My thoughts is take them into the outback. Drop them into an unsaleable pit unarmed. Have them welcomed by a couple of hungry feral pigs.
Now you may say "What about if they are innocent?" Look in a LOT of cases, it is proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt. We do not have our suspicious about Charles Manson or Fred West or that Austrian guy who read and sodomised his daughter for all those years. These people are not under a cloud of suspicion. They are guilty.
You may say "Well what if they are psychologically unwell, don't we owe it to them to try to reform them?" No.
Maybe you say "Well would would push them into the pit?" I would. Gladly. Pay me well and I will be the pig feeder, without a second's regret.
-
I have often said it. There are "monsters" in our world. Fred and Rosemary West for example. The pedophiles, torturers, Psychopaths, Rapists, and the like that I feel have stepped away from humanity. They are not animals nor humans , but simply monsters and NEED to be exterminated with prejudice.
My thoughts is take them into the outback. Drop them into an unsaleable pit unarmed. Have them welcomed by a couple of hungry feral pigs.
Now you may say "What about if they are innocent?" Look in a LOT of cases, it is proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt. We do not have our suspicious about Charles Manson or Fred West or that Austrian guy who read and sodomised his daughter for all those years. These people are not under a cloud of suspicion. They are guilty.
You may say "Well what if they are psychologically unwell, don't we owe it to them to try to reform them?" No.
Maybe you say "Well would would push them into the pit?" I would. Gladly. Pay me well and I will be the pig feeder, without a second's regret.
Then you're a dangerous fool
History shows us, very clearly, that ordinary humans are capable of committing inhuman, monstrous acts, given the right circumstances. If that makes them into monsters, then we are all monsters, at least potentially.
Society needs protecting from some deranged people. But if you have to put them down, then you have to do it with regret, not self-righteous anger.
If you dehumanise people, in your own mind, then subject them to a barbaric punishment, then you're putting yourself in the way of becoming the next "inhuman monster" who needs to be put down. Seriously. And if you want modern society to sanction that, then we're heading back into the dark ages.
It's gonna be witch-burnings next. And who will the "witches" be? Aspies, you bet. Most people already think that we're inhuman monsters.
- Walkie
-
No, voters are misled by a load of emotive twaddle into supposing that they've weighed the information.
Probably both making some level of assumption, but personally prefer to believe it's more likely for citizens who care enough to take the time to vote, to also take the time to know the political stance of the people they elect.
-
I believe there's a margin of error, but if you catch someone with the smoking gun...and it's beyond doubt...then I say, do as you will.
John Wayne Gacy had 26 bodies in the crawlspace of his house, he was accused of killing a minimum of 33 teenage boys.
Do I have any doubt he was guilty? No.
Do I believe he should have been put to death? Yes.
I just believe he was let off too easy...I think he should have died terrified and afraid, fighting for life...like all those young boys that he killed.
-
Murder is murder. :M
... and if you have never met a piece of shit human animal that just needs to be put down, then you are well blessed.
I carry a forty five auto, just in case I meet another one.
:( sad ... but true.
I will never again be a victim. I am an enforcer.
-
Murder is murder. :M
... and if you have never met a piece of shit human animal that just needs to be put down.
I see the whole human race that way. Doesn't mean I think that every single man, woman and child should be killed though. After all, being a piece of shit is part of human nature.
-
I have a certain limit, where my conviction fades into a gray zone.
It comes down to:
Keeping an individual inside a locked space, for the duration of his life. This locked space is a waste, the food he eats, every day of his life - is a waste. Medical care and other attentions are a waste.
Mathematically speaking, it's all a huge waste.
We're always talking "worst of the worst" here, serial killers, spree shooters, child rapists/killers, and so on.
The cue should be this: Will we ever be able to release this person, into society, without him commiting similar crimes right away? If the answer is "nope, never." then it should come under consideration, of course along with an evaluation of, well, the "evilness" of a person.
Someone who believes he is Napoleon all his life, and therefore needs to be held in a room, fed, cared for, his entire life, did - after all - not end peoples lives, didn't tear apart some kids butthole, didn't ravage or ruin or destroy what can never be repaired or brought back.
Pain and loss must be taken into consideration.
However, in all of this I am also taking for granted a prison system that works as intended, one where mere druggies aren't gathered up, and where rehabilitation actually has precedence over simply punishing and stowing away.
To be absolutely fair I would consider - as a perfectly legitimate alternative to death, as the utmost penalty - to be banishment. In fact, in viking society, banishment was often used instead of death penalty, and it serves mostly the same purpose - you are left to your own device - see how long you make it, out in the woods, with just your fists and your teeth.
-
Overall, I am against death penalty.
But, there are exceptions.
In WWII the resistance in my country had emergency court hearings on people. And people would be brought to death. Only option. There was no prison. Safety of people was at stake.
Those courts were organised, controlled, no matter how small they were. There was accountability.
This will be a thing in many countries at war with underground resistance happening.
If a death penalty is taken through, I think it should be as quick as possible. No need for society to be as cruel as the one put to death may have been.
As for Zegh, and the costs; if you want to keep your legal system sacred, death penalty may be more expensive than life long imprisonment, because of all the appeals. And taking the options of appeals away is undermining the safety of a legal system.
Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?
-
I have a certain limit, where my conviction fades into a gray zone.
It comes down to:
Keeping an individual inside a locked space, for the duration of his life. This locked space is a waste, the food he eats, every day of his life - is a waste. Medical care and other attentions are a waste.
Mathematically speaking, it's all a huge waste.
We're always talking "worst of the worst" here, serial killers, spree shooters, child rapists/killers, and so on.
The cue should be this: Will we ever be able to release this person, into society, without him commiting similar crimes right away? If the answer is "nope, never." then it should come under consideration, of course along with an evaluation of, well, the "evilness" of a person.
Someone who believes he is Napoleon all his life, and therefore needs to be held in a room, fed, cared for, his entire life, did - after all - not end peoples lives, didn't tear apart some kids butthole, didn't ravage or ruin or destroy what can never be repaired or brought back.
Pain and loss must be taken into consideration.
However, in all of this I am also taking for granted a prison system that works as intended, one where mere druggies aren't gathered up, and where rehabilitation actually has precedence over simply punishing and stowing away.
To be absolutely fair I would consider - as a perfectly legitimate alternative to death, as the utmost penalty - to be banishment. In fact, in viking society, banishment was often used instead of death penalty, and it serves mostly the same purpose - you are left to your own device - see how long you make it, out in the woods, with just your fists and your teeth.
Think it common for people here use the rationale of taxpayer expense to support the death penalty, but in the US the financial fact is trials that seek the death penalty are more expensive than life sentences. The trial alone is more expensive than both the trial and the expense of paying for life imprisonment combined. The only thing that puts me on the fence of the topic sometimes, is the views of the victim's family. If they would personally rather see the killers dead, then maybe that's more important than what I think, and it's general practice for judges in states with the death penalty to consider the views of survivors when sentencing. Banishment is a great idea, but just can't see it catching on.
-
Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?
Is he physically unhealthy?
-
Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?
Is he physically unhealthy?
No, he is not. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11324579/Belgian-rapist-and-murderer-to-be-put-to-death-by-lethal-injection.html)
-
I am inclined to think that appeal and other such court costs don't necesarily need to be so high. After all, they consist of mostly fees and stuff, that are set at an arbitrary rate.
Either way, those costs are reality, and they are a good point that I didn't consider.
And yes, banishment is very difficult to pull of in practice, but not impossible! Most countries have a bit of wilderness, and a banished person could be placed in the dead center of such a wilderness, or maybe left on a raft in the ocean, or taken to Antarctica :M
-
Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?
Is he physically unhealthy?
No, he is not. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11324579/Belgian-rapist-and-murderer-to-be-put-to-death-by-lethal-injection.html)
The poor murdering rapist has some mental distress? :laugh: In a country without death penalty, he should just have to kill himself then. That's a huge precedent they're setting for their society, euthanizing someone for mental illness.
-
Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?
Is he physically unhealthy?
No, he is not. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11324579/Belgian-rapist-and-murderer-to-be-put-to-death-by-lethal-injection.html)
The poor murdering rapist has some mental distress? :laugh: In a country without death penalty, he should just have to kill himself then. That's a huge precedent they're setting for their society, euthanizing someone for mental illness.
Euthanising for mental illness is already happening occasionally. But not for a life long prisoner.
-
Euthanising for mental illness is already happening occasionally. But not for a life long prisoner.
What type of mental illness?
-
Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?
Is he physically unhealthy?
No, he is not. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11324579/Belgian-rapist-and-murderer-to-be-put-to-death-by-lethal-injection.html)
The poor murdering rapist has some mental distress? :laugh: In a country without death penalty, he should just have to kill himself then. That's a huge precedent they're setting for their society, euthanizing someone for mental illness.
Prisoners are normally prevented from killing themselves.
The guy has had a miserable life, and, for whatever reason, he can't help sharing the misery around. Why the heck would people want to propagate that misery? At least this way, people can be absolutely certain that he'll never be let let out
-
Prisoners are normally prevented from killing themselves.
Do you mean in Belgium prisons, or in general?
-
Euthanising for mental illness is already happening occasionally. But not for a life long prisoner.
Am now thinking this isn't really happening. DrunkardsWalk's sympathy for his miserable life made me curious about this poor serial rapist's life, and am finding conflicting articles about the decision. This article is from the same news source as the one you posted, two days later. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11327541/Belgian-serial-rapist-will-not-be-euthanised-as-planned.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11327541/Belgian-serial-rapist-will-not-be-euthanised-as-planned.html)
Why the heck would people want to propagate that misery?
Van Den Bleeken's right to euthanasia has been strongly condemned by the family of his victim.
That's seems like a good reason.
-
Prisoners are normally prevented from killing themselves.
Do you mean in Belgium prisons, or in general?
In general. I'm assuming Belgium isn't radically different from the rest of the "civilised" world. i'm sure somebody wil correct me, if wrong.
-
Prisoners are normally prevented from killing themselves.
Do you mean in Belgium prisons, or in general?
In general. I'm assuming Belgium isn't radically different from the rest of the "civilised" world. i'm sure somebody wil correct me, if wrong.
Stats for the US it seems to differentiate largely on the level of incarceration. From a quick look, almost a full third of deaths in local jails are suicide related, while that drops dramatically to 5-6 percent in state and federal institutions. Prisons probably don't really prevent suicide much more than preventing murders. Murder stats inside of prisons are much more interesting though. While figures are very decreased in recent years for both homicide and suicide, still, homicide is one of the best arguments potentially could make pro-death penalty is wishing to truly rationalize my view against granting government that level of power of the people.
-
Am now thinking this isn't really happening. DrunkardsWalk's sympathy for his miserable life made me curious about this poor serial rapist's life,
Should have just read the whole article you posted, Hyke, in seeking that information. It was right there and just didn't take the time to read it.A child from an impoverished background, Van Den Bleeken had a troubled childhood, much of it spent in care, and was raped himself at the age of 15.
Found this more poignant though.
“Commissions, doctors and experts have spent so long considering the ups and downs of the life of the murderer of our sister,” one, Annie, told a Dutch newspaper. “ In all those years, no committee ever asked our parents or us how we felt.
“No doctor or expert ever came and asked how we were. And then we hear his lawyer on the radio saying how tough it was for him to be abandoned in prison.”
The people making this decision are probably making the right one. If one of the victims family became suicidal due to mental distress, it wouldn't be the state's responsibility to euthanize them; it would be a responsibility to provide mental healthcare, and that's what they're going to do for him.
-
Other question, related to the OP. In Belgium a man, in prison for the rest of his life, is begging for euthanasia. Any thoughts on that?
To me, this guy is just trying get an easy way out of living out the rest of his years incarcerated and trapped with the memories of what he did. I agree that he should receive, perhaps, treatment for his mental health issues if legitimate, but beyond that, let him rot. There are many who have had bad childhoods, been abused as children, been raised in poverty, and a large number do not go on to commit atrocities, so I tend to very seldom have any sympathy when that is pulled up as a defense card.
-
... let him rot. There are many who have had bad childhoods, been abused as children, been raised in poverty, and a large number do not go on to commit atrocities, so I tend to very seldom have any sympathy when that is pulled up as a defense card.
It's not so much a question of sympathy, but pragmatism. Different people have different breaking points, and nobody can really know what somebody else has endured, so comparisons are petty meaningless. However , I'm pretty sure that once somebody has been pushed past their breaking point, then pushing them further won't mend them, nor mend anything else. It serves no purpose at all, except lust for revenge. From any other point of view, it's counterproductive.
Well, it looks like the victim's family have got what they want, in a way. No execution. But, on the other hand , he will now get therapy; which means that he might just be released, in the long run, doesn't it? I can't imagine they are pleased about that.
Sadly, I doubt that the victim's family will get any therapy, unfair though that undoubtedly is. I don't know about Belgium, but where I live, the State doesn't have the resources to provide that for ordinary people; not even for ordinary dangerous nutjobs, not until they actually commit a crime.
No, I'm not saying "Don't give criminals therapy"; if prison is really meant to rehabilitate criminals, not just punish them, then it's insane to scrimp on the rehab part of the deal, having paid out all the other, considerable costs.
It's just that I can't, for the life of me, buy any "solution" that increases the sum total of misery in the world, never mind if some are judged to deserve it. Misery is contagious. And misery can always escape its box, one way or another, even if the miserable person can't. Misery pays itself forward all the time; and if you pay it back now and then, that doesn't stop the rot. That's what bugs me about this scenario.
If that guy were a savage dog, then the victim's family would want him put down, right away, no messing; they wouldn't sleep soundly til that was done. . They wouldn't want him stuck in a cage, just so they could see he was suffering. What's the big difference? For some, the difference is some kind of humanitarian idealism that regards imprisonment as the "lesser evil", and that values human life at any cost. For others, like that family, they clearly believe that imprisonment is the greater evil, and think that death would be too kind.
They can't all be right, but somehow they all pull together.
I don't see any point in asking "Who deserves sympathy" ? the criminal or the victim? Everyone in this shit world deserves a bit of sympathy, and it isn't a limited resource. I just think that whichever solution cuts down on human misery rather than increasing it, is gonna prove to be the best thing all round. And it isn't too hard to figure out which that would have been, in this case.
-
... let him rot. There are many who have had bad childhoods, been abused as children, been raised in poverty, and a large number do not go on to commit atrocities, so I tend to very seldom have any sympathy when that is pulled up as a defense card.
It's not so much a question of sympathy, but pragmatism. Different people have different breaking points, and nobody can really know what somebody else has endured, so comparisons are petty meaningless. However , I'm pretty sure that once somebody has been pushed past their breaking point, then pushing them further won't mend them, nor mend anything else. It serves no purpose at all, except lust for revenge. From any other point of view, it's counterproductive.
Well, it looks like the victim's family have got what they want, in a way. No execution. But, on the other hand , he will now get therapy; which means that he might just be released, in the long run, doesn't it? I can't imagine they are pleased about that.
Sadly, I doubt that the victim's family will get any therapy, unfair though that undoubtedly is. I don't know about Belgium, but where I live, the State doesn't have the resources to provide that for ordinary people; not even for ordinary dangerous nutjobs, not until they actually commit a crime.
No, I'm not saying "Don't give criminals therapy"; if prison is really meant to rehabilitate criminals, not just punish them, then it's insane to scrimp on the rehab part of the deal, having paid out all the other, considerable costs.
It's just that I can't, for the life of me, buy any "solution" that increases the sum total of misery in the world, never mind if some are judged to deserve it. Misery is contagious. And misery can always escape its box, one way or another, even if the miserable person can't. Misery pays itself forward all the time; and if you pay it back now and then, that doesn't stop the rot. That's what bugs me about this scenario.
If that guy were a savage dog, then the victim's family would want him put down, right away, no messing; they wouldn't sleep soundly til that was done. . They wouldn't want him stuck in a cage, just so they could see he was suffering. What's the big difference? For some, the difference is some kind of humanitarian idealism that regards imprisonment as the "lesser evil", and that values human life at any cost. For others, like that family, they clearly believe that imprisonment is the greater evil, and think that death would be too kind.
They can't all be right, but somehow they all pull together.
I don't see any point in asking "Who deserves sympathy" ? the criminal or the victim? Everyone in this shit world deserves a bit of sympathy, and it isn't a limited resource. I just think that whichever solution cuts down on human misery rather than increasing it, is gonna prove to be the best thing all round. And it isn't too hard to figure out which that would have been, in this case.
I must assume you believe he should have been allowed the right to die then?
I think I find it very difficult to show empathy with just reading the stories, the words. And certain crimes, do tend to make it that bit harder to show any form of sympathy. And damnit, I can never seem to form any sort of long response these days... either due to the time I post or a lack of confidence in my capacity to form an intelligent response :lol1:
-
I must assume you believe he should have been allowed the right to die then?
Pretty much
I believe he should have been allowed to die.
I don't think "rights" come into it. That's an ambiguous philosophical concept that just muddies the issue.
If people just go and on on piling on the misery because they hate him, then I fail to see any good ever coming of that, just all kinds of potential evil.
And piling on the misery is precisely what would happen in prison, I should think. Because prisoners and guards all tend to hate and despise that kind of criminal. They would all pay him back, any way they could, if they saw an opportunity.
It's all too dehumanising. Bring a swift, painless end to it, and maybe we can all go back to being human.
-
I must assume you believe he should have been allowed the right to die then?
Pretty much
I believe he should have been allowed to die.
I don't think "rights" come into it. That's an ambiguous philosophical concept that just muddies the issue.
If people just go and on on piling on the misery because they hate him, then I fail to see any good ever coming of that, just all kinds of potential evil.
And piling on the misery is precisely what would happen in prison, I should think. Because prisoners and guards all tend to hate and despise that kind of criminal. They would all pay him back, any way they could, if they saw an opportunity.
It's all too dehumanising. Bring a swift, painless end to it, and maybe we can all go back to being human.
I understand, and that is pretty much what I meant. I tend to sometimes use that word as a replacement for being allowed to. I did not think of it in terms of rights in the other sense. And oh dear, now I feel a bit dense and am on a hunt to check out the various meanings of having a right to, vs being allowed to. I suppose I do not always sit and think about each word usage before I post.
-
I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.
If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible
Actually you are more "correct" and influencing to the public than you might know. Your words are golden. As long as these deathly crimes are dealt with in an instant, by armed bystanders, kind of like it would be in our (let us say' "MY ...") well armed neighborhood, then there is never going to be a reason for a death penalty.
Middle America (I should actually say "conservative Middle America") pretty much takes care of these concerns as they arise. One at a time.
Sorry, but quoting Mettalica' "Sad but true!..."
Hey, I had my arm broken defending myself from three attackers from my just being curious as to why my neighbor's door was open one day. Do you think for an instant that I do not carry a forty five auto every where I go? (It is my right) Fuck sake dude!
(note to Scre'ap - yeah this is new. It is an XD M and it shoots .45 ACP and it hides better than any forty five I have ever owned. You missed my normal Colt 1911, at least, I think you did, but I did not know much better in those days.)
-
Think it common for people here use the rationale of taxpayer expense to support the death penalty, but in the US the financial fact is trials that seek the death penalty are more expensive than life sentences. The trial alone is more expensive than both the trial and the expense of paying for life imprisonment combined. The only thing that puts me on the fence of the topic sometimes, is the views of the victim's family. If they would personally rather see the killers dead, then maybe that's more important than what I think, and it's general practice for judges in states with the death penalty to consider the views of survivors when sentencing. Banishment is a great idea, but just can't see it catching on.
I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"
Banishment is indeed a good idea, but there's nowhere left to banish anyone, is there? Unless we're talking about somewhere that would mean an implied death sentence.
-
I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"
The implications are the state could potentially kill an innocent person, rather than wrongly imprisoning them. Would have to look it up, but remembering that it's simply because more people, time and effort are invested in every single aspect of the trial when the state is seeking death. Also, appeals are more likely to be allowed, and appeals too are more time intensive in death cases.
-
Think it common for people here use the rationale of taxpayer expense to support the death penalty, but in the US the financial fact is trials that seek the death penalty are more expensive than life sentences. The trial alone is more expensive than both the trial and the expense of paying for life imprisonment combined. The only thing that puts me on the fence of the topic sometimes, is the views of the victim's family. If they would personally rather see the killers dead, then maybe that's more important than what I think, and it's general practice for judges in states with the death penalty to consider the views of survivors when sentencing. Banishment is a great idea, but just can't see it catching on.
I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"
Banishment is indeed a good idea, but there's nowhere left to banish anyone, is there? Unless we're talking about somewhere that would mean an implied death sentence.
Absolute, total bullshit (what Jack said), except for the point made below (Wrongly executing an innocent). That is why instant and total, immediate retribution is so much more equivocal AND economic.
I can remember a couple of Machiavellian statements which bring this mindset of mine to home.
Something like: A wise man does at once what many fools do finally.
There is another one that rings true here. I can only remember the sentiment, so it is not actually a quote, but it goes something like: If you MUST injure a man, then do so so severely that one does not have to be concerned about the possibility of his vengeance.
Maybe a little harsh for a civilized human's way of thinking, BUT those who tend to do us harm are certainly not civilized and one can almost instantly and reasonably discount or at least question their clam to humanity.
Although, Machiavelli would probably be shot, today, his words contain a kind of vigor that demand consideration in light of today's violent times.
-
I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"
The implications are the state could potentially kill an innocent person, rather than wrongly imprisoning them. Would have to look it up, but remembering that it's simply because more people, time and effort are invested in every single aspect of the trial when the state is seeking death. Also, appeals are more likely to be allowed, and appeals too are more time intensive in death cases.
:-\
Still don't see it, but I'm not doubting your point, I'm simply wondering how it is possible.
-
Think it common for people here use the rationale of taxpayer expense to support the death penalty, but in the US the financial fact is trials that seek the death penalty are more expensive than life sentences. The trial alone is more expensive than both the trial and the expense of paying for life imprisonment combined. The only thing that puts me on the fence of the topic sometimes, is the views of the victim's family. If they would personally rather see the killers dead, then maybe that's more important than what I think, and it's general practice for judges in states with the death penalty to consider the views of survivors when sentencing. Banishment is a great idea, but just can't see it catching on.
I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"
Banishment is indeed a good idea, but there's nowhere left to banish anyone, is there? Unless we're talking about somewhere that would mean an implied death sentence.
Absolute, total bullshit (what Jack said), except for the point made below (Wrongly executing an innocent). That is why instant and total, immediate retribution is so much more equivocal AND economic.
I can remember a couple of Machiavellian statements which bring this mindset of mine to home.
Something like: A wise man does at once what many fools do finally.
There is another one that rings true here. I can only remember the sentiment, so it is not actually a quote, but it goes something like: If you MUST injure a man, then do so so severely that one does not have to be concerned about the possibility of his vengeance.
Maybe a little harsh for a civilized human's way of thinking, BUT those who tend to do us harm are certainly not civilized and one can almost instantly and reasonably discount or at least question their clam to humanity.
Although, Machiavelli would probably be shot, today, his words contain a kind of vigor that demand consideration in light of today's violent times.
I see your point but disagree with it. I don't think killing should be part of a civilised society, no matter who is doing the killing.
-
:-\
Still don't see it, but I'm not doubting your point, I'm simply wondering how it is possible.
It is indeed hard to see for me too, but simply take any trial and devote triple the people to both defense and prosecution, triple the specialists to analyze the evidence and the defendant, triple the time spend in the courtroom, triple the appeals and so on, and that's where amounts triple the cost on average. If that increase is sensible or even right is another discussion.
Absolute, total bullshit (what Jack said),
No it's not; it's an easily corroborated financial fact. If going to call bullshit, then at least offer a counterpoint.
-
I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.
If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible
Actually you are more "correct" and influencing to the public than you might know. Your words are golden. As long as these deathly crimes are dealt with in an instant, by armed bystanders, kind of like it would be in our (let us say' "MY ...") well armed neighborhood, then there is never going to be a reason for a death penalty.
Middle America (I should actually say "conservative Middle America") pretty much takes care of these concerns as they arise. One at a time.
Sorry, but quoting Mettalica' "Sad but true!..."
Hey, I had my arm broken defending myself from three attackers from my just being curious as to why my neighbor's door was open one day. Do you think for an instant that I do not carry a forty five auto every where I go? (It is my right) Fuck sake dude!
(note to Scre'ap - yeah this is new. It is an XD M and it shoots .45 ACP and it hides better than any forty five I have ever owned. You missed my normal Colt 1911, at least, I think you did, but I did not know much better in those days.)
What if those armed bystanders are actually the criminals who then say the person they killed was robbing them it wouldn't work all the time but could bring up some troubling issues. That said self defense is fine but if the person is of no further threat best let a trial settle things rather than instant justice.
I feel that life in prison is a more punishing sentence than death, with death it's all over in an instant.
-
Why did you quote that without responding? :orly:
-
I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.
If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible
Actually you are more "correct" and influencing to the public than you might know. Your words are golden. As long as these deathly crimes are dealt with in an instant, by armed bystanders, kind of like it would be in our (let us say' "MY ...") well armed neighborhood, then there is never going to be a reason for a death penalty.
Middle America (I should actually say "conservative Middle America") pretty much takes care of these concerns as they arise. One at a time.
Sorry, but quoting Mettalica' "Sad but true!..."
Hey, I had my arm broken defending myself from three attackers from my just being curious as to why my neighbor's door was open one day. Do you think for an instant that I do not carry a forty five auto every where I go? (It is my right) Fuck sake dude!
(note to Scre'ap - yeah this is new. It is an XD M and it shoots .45 ACP and it hides better than any forty five I have ever owned. You missed my normal Colt 1911, at least, I think you did, but I did not know much better in those days.)
What if those armed bystanders are actually the criminals who then say the person they killed was robbing them it wouldn't work all the time but could bring up some troubling issues. That said self defense is fine but if the person is of no further threat best let a trial settle things rather than instant justice.
I feel that life in prison is a more punishing sentence than death, with death it's all over in an instant.
That would be true if those convicted to death had the sentence carried out quickly, but it seems to usually be 10-30 years on Death Row before that point is reached.
-
Not sure if this will prove useful information to anyone, but a few articles on the costs of the Death penalty.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/)
http://www.economist.com/node/13279051 (http://www.economist.com/node/13279051)
-
I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.
If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible
Actually you are more "correct" and influencing to the public than you might know. Your words are golden. As long as these deathly crimes are dealt with in an instant, by armed bystanders, kind of like it would be in our (let us say' "MY ...") well armed neighborhood, then there is never going to be a reason for a death penalty.
Middle America (I should actually say "conservative Middle America") pretty much takes care of these concerns as they arise. One at a time.
Sorry, but quoting Mettalica' "Sad but true!..."
Hey, I had my arm broken defending myself from three attackers from my just being curious as to why my neighbor's door was open one day. Do you think for an instant that I do not carry a forty five auto every where I go? (It is my right) Fuck sake dude!
(note to Scre'ap - yeah this is new. It is an XD M and it shoots .45 ACP and it hides better than any forty five I have ever owned. You missed my normal Colt 1911, at least, I think you did, but I did not know much better in those days.)
What if those armed bystanders are actually the criminals who then say the person they killed was robbing them it wouldn't work all the time but could bring up some troubling issues. That said self defense is fine but if the person is of no further threat best let a trial settle things rather than instant justice.
I feel that life in prison is a more punishing sentence than death, with death it's all over in an instant.
What Parts said.
Also, DD, I want to know what your plans are for preventing such incidents escalating into endless feuds, with revenge killings following revenge killings until nobody knows who started it or why?
-
Why did you quote that without responding? :orly:
I hit the post button by accident :facepalm2:
-
Why did you quote that without responding? :orly:
I hit the post button by accident :facepalm2:
good god, we're getting grilled by the gopher now
how undignified
(hmm. nice alliteration though )
-
Think it common for people here use the rationale of taxpayer expense to support the death penalty, but in the US the financial fact is trials that seek the death penalty are more expensive than life sentences. The trial alone is more expensive than both the trial and the expense of paying for life imprisonment combined. The only thing that puts me on the fence of the topic sometimes, is the views of the victim's family. If they would personally rather see the killers dead, then maybe that's more important than what I think, and it's general practice for judges in states with the death penalty to consider the views of survivors when sentencing. Banishment is a great idea, but just can't see it catching on.
I find it very odd that a trial should be more expensive than the expense of a life in prison. Maybe I don't see all the implications, but my reaction is "OMG, how much do the lawyers charge?"
Banishment is indeed a good idea, but there's nowhere left to banish anyone, is there? Unless we're talking about somewhere that would mean an implied death sentence.
Absolute, total bullshit (what Jack said), except for the point made below (Wrongly executing an innocent). That is why instant and total, immediate retribution is so much more equivocal AND economic.
I can remember a couple of Machiavellian statements which bring this mindset of mine to home.
Something like: A wise man does at once what many fools do finally.
There is another one that rings true here. I can only remember the sentiment, so it is not actually a quote, but it goes something like: If you MUST injure a man, then do so so severely that one does not have to be concerned about the possibility of his vengeance.
Maybe a little harsh for a civilized human's way of thinking, BUT those who tend to do us harm are certainly not civilized and one can almost instantly and reasonably discount or at least question their clam to humanity.
Although, Machiavelli would probably be shot, today, his words contain a kind of vigor that demand consideration in light of today's violent times.
I see your point but disagree with it. I don't think killing should be part of a civilised society, no matter who is doing the killing.
Humans generally have to kill to eat meat, no matter how civilized they may pretend to be. Never heard of an animal volunteering to be eaten. Allowing for a paid group of servant type people to do that killing for us does not set us above it in any way; we are all still killers.
Humans also defend themselves incredibly violently when home and family are threatened.
It is quite likely that in ones lifetime one might encounter a violent uncivilized force. It might even come down to one of only two choices: either bow down to this totally uncivilized force and suffer what it may need or remove that horrible uncivilized force from our society.
We all know how to do so and I do not think any of us will ever forget what to do when the time comes to remove such an uncivilized force from within our midst.
A wise man does at once ...
-
I feel that life in prison is a more punishing sentence than death, with death it's all over in an instant.
When they finally get that far, which frequently takes years.
-
I must assume you believe he should have been allowed the right to die then?
Pretty much
I believe he should have been allowed to die.
I don't think "rights" come into it. That's an ambiguous philosophical concept that just muddies the issue.
If people just go and on on piling on the misery because they hate him, then I fail to see any good ever coming of that, just all kinds of potential evil.
And piling on the misery is precisely what would happen in prison, I should think. Because prisoners and guards all tend to hate and despise that kind of criminal. They would all pay him back, any way they could, if they saw an opportunity.
It's all too dehumanising. Bring a swift, painless end to it, and maybe we can all go back to being human.
Occasionally you make a tiny dab of sense to me. You do not seem as unintelligent at times as first impressions would lead me to assume.
... and ... I totally understand why you would try to defend close people from presumably harsh people like me.
I do not know you, but maybe we can start to try to do so or not; you decide. I have already kicked shit in your face. You tell me if you can just wipe off and start over, but we must do so in the full view of the public and NOT by PM.
Allow me to start by saying that I may have been a bit more harsh to you in your private contact than I could possibly have been, even though I saw no reason for you to contact me privately.
I do not care for private contacts from total strangers.
Anyway ... I do not know what else to say, other than, "I am willing to try to start over."
Are you?
-
Is this about n00dz? :zoinks:
-
if i couldn't wipe shit off my face, i'd be buried under shit by now :LOL:
sure, DD. np :)
(and nice one :plus:)
-
Is this about n00dz? :zoinks:
Perv. :P
-
Is this about n00dz? :zoinks:
Perv. :P
Well, if it's about n00dz, I just don't want Walkie to be discouraged by DirtDawg. Not everyone is apposed to private contacts from total strangers. :zoinks:
-
It's permanent
-
Since there are only two things that are permanent, couldn't we try the other?
-
Only acceptable if restricted to the most serious of crimes. Like disagreeing with me on the internet.
-
Banishment is indeed a good idea, but there's nowhere left to banish anyone, is there? Unless we're talking about somewhere that would mean an implied death sentence.
Okay, I didn't consider banishment. I suppose they could be relegated to dial-up with much the same effect.
-
Is this about n00dz? :zoinks:
Yup, yours.
One of us thinks you would best be served with a light roux of lamb (to offset, well, you know), side of the best asparagus and a delicate cilantro salsa, the other thinks that if your pelt is worth keeping, it would have already been taken.
Hence, not much reason for you to enter this conversation.
KTHXBAI
-
if i couldn't wipe shit off my face, i'd be buried under shit by now :LOL:
sure, DD. np :)
(and nice one :plus:)
You and I both, pal.
-
Is this about n00dz? :zoinks:
Yup, yours.
One of us thinks you would best be served with a light roux of lamb (to offset, well, you know), side of the best asparagus and a delicate cilantro salsa, the other thinks that if your pelt is worth keeping, it would have already been taken.
Hence, not much reason for you to enter this conversation.
KTHXBAI
Gopher with a side of aspergers. :lol1:
-
Is this about n00dz? :zoinks:
Yup, yours.
One of us thinks you would best be served with a light roux of lamb (to offset, well, you know), side of the best asparagus and a delicate cilantro salsa, the other thinks that if your pelt is worth keeping, it would have already been taken.
Hence, not much reason for you to enter this conversation.
KTHXBAI
Gopher with a side of aspergers. :lol1:
Caught a part of the joke, did you? Fine. I am impressed.
BUT ... Are you seriously trying to reach towards the heights of Dawgs and Drunkards with a few words?
You should probably be licking up after Dawgs and Drunkards, mostly, don't you think?
But, SHIT, since you have forced your way into this conversation AND attained MY attention, The main question is: WTF are you going to do with MY attention or that of Drunkardswalk's attention for that matter?
PLEASE, do not waste it!!!!!
-
Caught a part of the joke, did you? Fine. I am impressed.
BUT ... Are you seriously trying to reach towards the heights of Dawgs and Drunkards with a few words?
You should probably be licking up after Dawgs and Drunkards, mostly, don't you think?
But, SHIT, since you have forced your way into this conversation AND attained MY attention, The main question is: WTF are you going to do with MY attention or that of Drunkardswalk's attention for that matter?
PLEASE, do not waste it!!!!!
Actually, I was just trying to get Walkie's attention, but I certainly didn't mean to exclude you. I'd look at your n00dz too. :eyelash:
-
I'm against it. The justice system is flawed so it's not uncommon for someone to be wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit. Some people spend decades in prison for doing no wrong before new evidence is found.
If the justice system was flawless and every single person convicted of a crime was guilty of said crime then I'll all for it. But a flawless justice system is of course, impossible
Actually you are more "correct" and influencing to the public than you might know. Your words are golden. As long as these deathly crimes are dealt with in an instant, by armed bystanders, kind of like it would be in our (let us say' "MY ...") well armed neighborhood, then there is never going to be a reason for a death penalty.
Middle America (I should actually say "conservative Middle America") pretty much takes care of these concerns as they arise. One at a time.
Sorry, but quoting Mettalica' "Sad but true!..."
Hey, I had my arm broken defending myself from three attackers from my just being curious as to why my neighbor's door was open one day. Do you think for an instant that I do not carry a forty five auto every where I go? (It is my right) Fuck sake dude!
(note to Scre'ap - yeah this is new. It is an XD M and it shoots .45 ACP and it hides better than any forty five I have ever owned. You missed my normal Colt 1911, at least, I think you did, but I did not know much better in those days.)
What if those armed bystanders are actually the criminals who then say the person they killed was robbing them it wouldn't work all the time but could bring up some troubling issues. That said self defense is fine but if the person is of no further threat best let a trial settle things rather than instant justice.
I feel that life in prison is a more punishing sentence than death, with death it's all over in an instant.
Hey, Parts, you should know me enough by now to understand that occasionally I drop a turd in the punch bowl just to see who picks it up and runs with it. It just adds to the interplay between people, mostly.
Notice the well reasoned comments that followed.
... and, thank you for yours.
-
I think most people know where I stand on this issue. I respect others have different opinions and am not threatened or upset by them
-
Witness against Texas dad executed in 2004 says prosecutor bribed, coerced him
The key witness against a convicted killer executed in 2004 says he testified in a deal with the prosecutor, who bribed him with the promise of an early parole and threatened him with a longer prison sentence.
The State Bar of Texas could pursue misconduct charges against prosecutor John H. Jackson, who convinced a jury that Cameron Todd Willingham killed his three daughters when he set his Corsicana house on fire in 1991. A lawyer for Jackson said he will ask to have such charges heard by a jury, the Marshall Project reported.
Link (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/witness-executed-dad-prosecutors-bribed-article-1.2145222)
:zombiefuck:
-
I think most people know where I stand on this issue. I respect others have different opinions and am not threatened or upset by them
Are you well armed?
Just asking. I do not have a clue how it is in your lands.
In this state, we have the option of carrying a weapon either concealed or open. Mine is usually concealed, unless I am attending a gun show or a shooting range.
Not so in some liberal states.
-
Witness against Texas dad executed in 2004 says prosecutor bribed, coerced him
The key witness against a convicted killer executed in 2004 says he testified in a deal with the prosecutor, who bribed him with the promise of an early parole and threatened him with a longer prison sentence.
The State Bar of Texas could pursue misconduct charges against prosecutor John H. Jackson, who convinced a jury that Cameron Todd Willingham killed his three daughters when he set his Corsicana house on fire in 1991. A lawyer for Jackson said he will ask to have such charges heard by a jury, the Marshall Project reported.
Link (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/witness-executed-dad-prosecutors-bribed-article-1.2145222)
:zombiefuck:
Always creeps me out when adults make it out of house fires but none of the kids do.
-
Witness against Texas dad executed in 2004 says prosecutor bribed, coerced him
The key witness against a convicted killer executed in 2004 says he testified in a deal with the prosecutor, who bribed him with the promise of an early parole and threatened him with a longer prison sentence.
The State Bar of Texas could pursue misconduct charges against prosecutor John H. Jackson, who convinced a jury that Cameron Todd Willingham killed his three daughters when he set his Corsicana house on fire in 1991. A lawyer for Jackson said he will ask to have such charges heard by a jury, the Marshall Project reported.
Link (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/witness-executed-dad-prosecutors-bribed-article-1.2145222)
:zombiefuck:
Always creeps me out when adults make it out of house fires but none of the kids do.
... and so you think it was that the homeowners saved the guns before they thought about the kids?
You are a seriously disturbed piece of work.
One point: larger bodies can withstand a great deal more smoke inhalation than smaller bodies.
The real problem is that that family (and most) did not have a decent exit strategy when they had an emergency exit situation.
-
:lol1:
-
Why is that funny? Actually made several attempts to respond, then just realized I don't know how to respond. It's an emotional statement. What should I say? Oh, right, I feel wrong, I retract that statement; it doesn't really give me the creeps? Bullshit. It unnerves me to no end hearing about unharmed adults standing alone outside housefires with kids left inside. It creeps me out and that's not going to change. If that makes me a disturbed person, then am okay with that.
-
It's an emotional statement.
:hahaha:
-
I want to respond, but then realize I'm just the third wheel in an ongoing conversation with yourself.
I'll just leave it with saying that I wasn't laughing it your reply. :)
-
I wasn't laughing it your reply.
Didn't think you were laughing at my reply.
-
Okay, good.
-
Capital punishment is way too much of a liability for whatever jurisdiction that uses it to be kept as an option.
-
Anyone advocating capital punishment should be shot. :P
-
Anyone advocating capital punishment should be shot. :P
Yeah, shot, but not killed, just maimed real good. :zoinks:
-
I want to respond, but then realize I'm just the third wheel in an ongoing conversation with yourself.
Don't be scared. :zoinks:
-
LOL
Sorry. my post was incendiary to some, I removed it.
My point I was making; am I the only one who has had to make an instantaneous decision as to whether or NOT to take a human life in about half a second?
-
LOL
Sorry. my post was incendiary to some, I removed it.
My point I was making; am I the only one who has had to make an instantaneous decision as to whether or NOT to take a human life in about half a second?
Right now it is not part of my life, to have that happen. Have thought about it from a young age on. I am not in favour of the death penalty. Unless it is in crisis situations; war, resistance, stuff like that. Think it still needs to be well documented then, so that it can be thought through later.
In immediate cases of life and death, that is different. Even in immediate cases of rage after a horrible crime it is different for me. Self defence makes perfect sense. Anger and outrage in the heat of the moment too.
I don't get it how people can cherish a death wish for their opponent for years and years. Can't see what it does to stabilise a society to have a death row.
But the moment actions I do get. Leaves the question when things are that dangerous that self defence equals killing, and whether one should be prepared to do so 24/7.
-
LOL
Sorry. my post was incendiary to some, I removed it.
My point I was making; am I the only one who has had to make an instantaneous decision as to whether or NOT to take a human life in about half a second?
I think I know what could have put you in that situation. However, out of respect for your privacy, I will not say what I am thinking.
-
LOL
Sorry. my post was incendiary to some, I removed it.
My point I was making; am I the only one who has had to make an instantaneous decision as to whether or NOT to take a human life in about half a second?
No, I have not and I'm thankful for it.
-
LOL
Sorry. my post was incendiary to some, I removed it.
My point I was making; am I the only one who has had to make an instantaneous decision as to whether or NOT to take a human life in about half a second?
No, I have not and I'm thankful for it.
I know that I am not the only one. Stupid "question" and such.
I hope that you are continually protected by what ever grace it is that has kept you safe in the past.
:police:
-
Wow!!
I can only think that most are not willing to talk about this OR you have all led blessed, protected lives.
Continue to experience your collective removal from the harsh world in which we live. Sometimes I wish I was as protected, but I generally have to protect my own self.
My choices to explore the world have caused me a small bit of "trouble," on occasion, which I only barely regret,
-
It's a good thing, a sheltered existence, you know.
-
It's a good thing, a sheltered existence, you know.
It's even better when it's the sheltered existence of my own mind. :zoinks:
-
Post moved by poster ... (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19253.msg1080858.html#msg1080858)
-
Wow!!
I can only think that most are not willing to talk about this OR you have all led blessed, protected lives.
Continue to experience your collective removal from the harsh world in which we live. Sometimes I wish I was as protected, but I generally have to protect my own self.
My choices to explore the world have caused me a small bit of "trouble," on occasion, which I only barely regret,
What do you consider protected?
I do live in a country that works fairly well as a democracy. It does provide regulations that work most of the times.
I've lived next to prostitutes in a few places. I've never felt threatened. A guy across the street got shot down by accident by his wife (That's what the 7 yo son told, without even flinching), same guy had been in hospital a few months before that, because he jumped in in a fight to protect someone from a knife. Did not make me feel threatened. Did not feel threatened either when the wife of this guy got mad at me, for not liking her kid to throw things at me repeatedly. That she had a black belt in karate, I heard only later. Would not have made a difference.
OK, I admit, I am a bit careful towards my back-door neighbour. The list of people he got in hospital is a bit too long for my liking. And with his health-issues, I do not wish him too much aggravation either. When at ease, he is a likeable guy. His taste in music is aggravating though.
I've not been in conflict with neighbours two doors away from me yet. I've heard lots of rumours, and about a month ago I did see how they beat up some people bad enough to have police arriving with two cars and staying there for a long time. No need for me to arm myself though. And if I ever do get into a conflict with them, I don't think I will hold back.
Probably helps that I know barely anyone here will be carrying a gun. And in this village knives are not carried along a lot either. And if they are, most people will not be pulling them in a fight, they carry them with them for their job or their lunch.