Tangential, sure. But since the discussion has largely turned to the state of using the death penalty vs its benefit(s) to society, I thought I'd drop in this little gem from Central New York.
The tl;dr version is this: a 21 year-old father tells the police that if they come for him, he will shoot his 3 month-old child. When the police do show up he turns the shotgun on his own son whom he is carrying in his other hand and shotguns the infant before pointing the weapon at the state troopers. After multiple warnings, the police then shoot him. A lot. As of right now, it looks like he'll survive.
The question here is less one of deterrence, vengeance, or how the state plays a role in rehabilitation, but of justice. It's not a question of utility this man could bring to society eventually, maybe, and not a place for logic. It is an illogical, heinous thing that I can barely wrap my mind around still.
And I'm glad it looks like he's going to make it. Not so the state can kill him, but far worse. It's in hopes that he does one day realize that he took a shotgun to his own child, and what special feeling that might bring him every night until he dies naturally.
See, I don't have a problem with the guy with the gun being shot, because he just consented to being blasted in this situation.
Trooper: Drop your weapon or I'll shoot you.
Crazed Guy With Shotgun: *Points weapon at armed trooper*
Now, to be fair, crazed guy is obviously crazed - but he just said (without opening his mouth), "Fine, shoot me, before I shoot you,"
I'm hardly going to fault the troopers for obliging him. :P
That being said, yeah, I'm glad he survived the fusillade of bullets and that the troopers gave him an opportunity to wave the white flag even after he killed his own child. Lock his ass away, and give him lots of time to think about the most atrocious decision he ever made.
The question here is less one of deterrence, vengeance, or how the state plays a role in rehabilitation, but of justice. It's not a question of utility this man could bring to society eventually, maybe, and not a place for logic. It is an illogical, heinous thing that I can barely wrap my mind around still.
this, this is kind of a bad way to think about things
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm referring to what the guy did as a heinous thing, not graspable by my normal human mind. Allowing, I think, for some folks to argue that the guy is clearly a vile inhuman that maybe just needs to be put down, which is an argument I think goes more towards personal belief rather than an up or down death penalty/no death penalty mode.
Basically, the guy took a shotgun to his own infant and I'm having trouble with that, but could see the field open for debate on both sides.
Also, the word you were looking for is "sociopath."
Yes, I was kidding. But in seriousness, there is a range of responses to justifiably taking the life of another human being that fall within the normal range. Crying about it later isn't necessary to be normal.
Tangential, sure. But since the discussion has largely turned to the state of using the death penalty vs its benefit(s) to society, I thought I'd drop in this little gem from Central New York.
The tl;dr version is this: a 21 year-old father tells the police that if they come for him, he will shoot his 3 month-old child. When the police do show up he turns the shotgun on his own son whom he is carrying in his other hand and shotguns the infant before pointing the weapon at the state troopers. After multiple warnings, the police then shoot him. A lot. As of right now, it looks like he'll survive.
The question here is less one of deterrence, vengeance, or how the state plays a role in rehabilitation, but of justice. It's not a question of utility this man could bring to society eventually, maybe, and not a place for logic. It is an illogical, heinous thing that I can barely wrap my mind around still.
And I'm glad it looks like he's going to make it. Not so the state can kill him, but far worse. It's in hopes that he does one day realize that he took a shotgun to his own child, and what special feeling that might bring him every night until he dies naturally.
He is obviously mentally deranged. If the state kills him instead of institutionalizing him, there is only bloodlust to blame.
Something that still pisses me off to this day is how much money it fucking costs to execute and/or keep people in jail for life. I guess there's no getting around the lifetime jail part, but when someone is sentenced to death, and especially when it's someone extremely fucked up, they should just be shot in the head or hanged a day later. Make it cheap and get it done with, and even publicize it all over the place. People would be scared shitless to murder anyone, or do equivalent crime, ever again. And even if they don't, we save a metric ton of money.
Sure, it's un-P.C., inhumane, barbaric, but it would theoretically work. The saving, at least. I don't know about scaring people into being good.
Something that still pisses me off to this day is how much money it fucking costs to execute and/or keep people in jail for life. I guess there's no getting around the lifetime jail part, but when someone is sentenced to death, and especially when it's someone extremely fucked up, they should just be shot in the head or hanged a day later. Make it cheap and get it done with, and even publicize it all over the place. People would be scared shitless to murder anyone, or do equivalent crime, ever again. And even if they don't, we save a metric ton of money.
Sure, it's un-P.C., inhumane, barbaric, but it would theoretically work. The saving, at least. I don't know about scaring people into being good.
But what about the large number of people that have been found guilty of a crime and then they have been declared innocent after a lengthy appeals process? Should they be killed for a crime that did not commit just because you feel that it costs too much money. Is an innocent life worth that little?
except that very often these executions DON'T leave the families of the victims with emotional satisfaction.
The utility of revenge is actually very little. Don't get me wrong, there is a desire, but it is generally just unfullfilling in the end.
Whereas, with life imprisonment, there is still some potential utility to be offered by the prisoner (be it through labor, or through personal creative endeavors.)
I think you misunderstand the point. I have not put forth an argument that it gives closure (or any utility at all in particular) to families of victims. I have, however, argued that in a society the knowledge that the death penalty is being applied to the worst of the worst DOES provide value. To many, many members of that society. The feeling that our society "gives people what's coming to them" in the worst possible way is what I am describing. Confidence in our justice system. It's not about revenge in any particular instance.
And I'd be interested to know why you think the utility of revenge is small.
Something that still pisses me off to this day is how much money it fucking costs to execute and/or keep people in jail for life. I guess there's no getting around the lifetime jail part, but when someone is sentenced to death, and especially when it's someone extremely fucked up, they should just be shot in the head or hanged a day later. Make it cheap and get it done with, and even publicize it all over the place. People would be scared shitless to murder anyone, or do equivalent crime, ever again. And even if they don't, we save a metric ton of money.
Sure, it's un-P.C., inhumane, barbaric, but it would theoretically work. The saving, at least. I don't know about scaring people into being good.
But what about the large number of people that have been found guilty of a crime and then they have been declared innocent after a lengthy appeals process? Should they be killed for a crime that did not commit just because you feel that it costs too much money. Is an innocent life worth that little?
That's different. I was only talking about the people who are without a doubt guilty as shit, either through confession and tremendous evidence, or just tremendous evidence. I'm not sure what precentage would fit this bill.
So you're cool with an action you yourself admit is "inhumane and barbaric", as long as it saves some money?
It's not really that inhumane if the person in question did something like kill his family, or is a serial killer, and shows no regret. Especially when you think about how much can be done for a regular hard working family with the money saved.
Something that still pisses me off to this day is how much money it fucking costs to execute and/or keep people in jail for life. I guess there's no getting around the lifetime jail part, but when someone is sentenced to death, and especially when it's someone extremely fucked up, they should just be shot in the head or hanged a day later. Make it cheap and get it done with, and even publicize it all over the place. People would be scared shitless to murder anyone, or do equivalent crime, ever again. And even if they don't, we save a metric ton of money.
Sure, it's un-P.C., inhumane, barbaric, but it would theoretically work. The saving, at least. I don't know about scaring people into being good.
But what about the large number of people that have been found guilty of a crime and then they have been declared innocent after a lengthy appeals process? Should they be killed for a crime that did not commit just because you feel that it costs too much money. Is an innocent life worth that little?
That's different. I was only talking about the people who are without a doubt guilty as shit, either through confession and tremendous evidence, or just tremendous evidence. I'm not sure what precentage would fit this bill.
Confessions are surprisingly unreliable. A lot of people who get pulled off death row by DNA testing confessed or pled guilty (IIRC it was around 1/4 or so).
I agree with the principal that executions are permitted by overwhelming evidence, but I don't think it's possible to make a non-exploitable definition of overwhelming evidence for normal crimes.
So you're cool with an action you yourself admit is "inhumane and barbaric", as long as it saves some money?
It's not really that inhumane if the person in question did something like kill his family, or is a serial killer, and shows no regret. Especially when you think about how much can be done for a regular hard working family with the money saved.
An action does not become any less inhumane based on its application to any specific person or group.
So you're cool with an action you yourself admit is "inhumane and barbaric", as long as it saves some money?
It's not really that inhumane if the person in question did something like kill his family, or is a serial killer, and shows no regret. Especially when you think about how much can be done for a regular hard working family with the money saved.
An action does not become any less inhumane based on its application to any specific person or group.
Something that still pisses me off to this day is how much money it fucking costs to execute and/or keep people in jail for life. I guess there's no getting around the lifetime jail part, but when someone is sentenced to death, and especially when it's someone extremely fucked up, they should just be shot in the head or hanged a day later. Make it cheap and get it done with, and even publicize it all over the place. People would be scared shitless to murder anyone, or do equivalent crime, ever again. And even if they don't, we save a metric ton of money.
Sure, it's un-P.C., inhumane, barbaric, but it would theoretically work. The saving, at least. I don't know about scaring people into being good.
But what about the large number of people that have been found guilty of a crime and then they have been declared innocent after a lengthy appeals process? Should they be killed for a crime that did not commit just because you feel that it costs too much money. Is an innocent life worth that little?
That's different. I was only talking about the people who are without a doubt guilty as shit, either through confession and tremendous evidence, or just tremendous evidence. I'm not sure what precentage would fit this bill.
Confessions are surprisingly unreliable. A lot of people who get pulled off death row by DNA testing confessed or pled guilty (IIRC it was around 1/4 or so).
I agree with the principal that executions are permitted by overwhelming evidence, but I don't think it's possible to make a non-exploitable definition of overwhelming evidence for normal crimes.
Right, and that's where it becomes pretty difficult to actually fully realize what I'm talking about. I mostly just threw it out there for hypothetical.
Something that still pisses me off to this day is how much money it fucking costs to execute and/or keep people in jail for life. I guess there's no getting around the lifetime jail part, but when someone is sentenced to death, and especially when it's someone extremely fucked up, they should just be shot in the head or hanged a day later. Make it cheap and get it done with, and even publicize it all over the place. People would be scared shitless to murder anyone, or do equivalent crime, ever again. And even if they don't, we save a metric ton of money.
Sure, it's un-P.C., inhumane, barbaric, but it would theoretically work. The saving, at least. I don't know about scaring people into being good.
But what about the large number of people that have been found guilty of a crime and then they have been declared innocent after a lengthy appeals process? Should they be killed for a crime that did not commit just because you feel that it costs too much money. Is an innocent life worth that little?
That's different. I was only talking about the people who are without a doubt guilty as shit, either through confession and tremendous evidence, or just tremendous evidence. I'm not sure what precentage would fit this bill.
Who would have the ability to decide whether someone is allowed to appeal or not? Why do some people get this right and others don't? Isn't the whole point of the justice system that everyone is treated equally and fairly? There are just so many possibilities that eventually something would go wrong and I would prefer that any number of guilty people are imprisoned for life instead of killed to save the 1 innocent person who after 20 years is found innocent.
So you're cool with an action you yourself admit is "inhumane and barbaric", as long as it saves some money?
It's not really that inhumane if the person in question did something like kill his family, or is a serial killer, and shows no regret. Especially when you think about how much can be done for a regular hard working family with the money saved.
An action does not become any less inhumane based on its application to any specific person or group.
Not to you, sure.
Human rights are human rights, not "people we like" rights. The worthless sack of shit that murders all his family has exactly the same human rights as the president. This is a cornerstone of modern Western democracy and justice.
The question here is less one of deterrence, vengeance, or how the state plays a role in rehabilitation, but of justice. It's not a question of utility this man could bring to society eventually, maybe, and not a place for logic. It is an illogical, heinous thing that I can barely wrap my mind around still.
this, this is kind of a bad way to think about things
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm referring to what the guy did as a heinous thing, not graspable by my normal human mind. Allowing, I think, for some folks to argue that the guy is clearly a vile inhuman that maybe just needs to be put down, which is an argument I think goes more towards personal belief rather than an up or down death penalty/no death penalty mode.
Basically, the guy took a shotgun to his own infant and I'm having trouble with that, but could see the field open for debate on both sides.
When something terrible or unconscionable happens we should not just throw up our hands and say "oh well, just 'put him down'" or whatever other thing. I highly doubt that his actions and state of mind and so on actually defy understanding; that is just a very convenient excuse.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
So you're cool with an action you yourself admit is "inhumane and barbaric", as long as it saves some money?
It's not really that inhumane if the person in question did something like kill his family, or is a serial killer, and shows no regret. Especially when you think about how much can be done for a regular hard working family with the money saved.
An action does not become any less inhumane based on its application to any specific person or group.
Not to you, sure.
Human rights are human rights, not "people we like" rights. The worthless sack of shit that murders all his family has exactly the same human rights as the president. This is a cornerstone of modern Western democracy and justice.
That's true. I would say that there should be exceptions but then there's the slippery slope, and it becomes impossible to have exceptions because of how thorough and inclusive the justice system has to be. It's just too bad that the really horrible people get it so much better than they truly deserve because of the system. You, me, and every sane person knows what said person deserves, but the justice system doesn't allow it, because we have to maintain the system. It's for the better cause, but it's just kind of a shame sometimes when people like Bernie Madoff will most likely get a nice little cell with books and all kinds of fine things paid by the U.S. taxpayer when in reality he should be fucking lynched. But that's emotion, not logic, I guess.
The question here is less one of deterrence, vengeance, or how the state plays a role in rehabilitation, but of justice. It's not a question of utility this man could bring to society eventually, maybe, and not a place for logic. It is an illogical, heinous thing that I can barely wrap my mind around still.
this, this is kind of a bad way to think about things
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm referring to what the guy did as a heinous thing, not graspable by my normal human mind. Allowing, I think, for some folks to argue that the guy is clearly a vile inhuman that maybe just needs to be put down, which is an argument I think goes more towards personal belief rather than an up or down death penalty/no death penalty mode.
Basically, the guy took a shotgun to his own infant and I'm having trouble with that, but could see the field open for debate on both sides.
When something terrible or unconscionable happens we should not just throw up our hands and say "oh well, just 'put him down'" or whatever other thing. I highly doubt that his actions and state of mind and so on actually defy understanding; that is just a very convenient excuse.
Okay, I get what you mean. But I wasn't arguing that my inability to figure this guy out was a good reason to execute him. I was just expressing my own incapability to understand his action here. Sorry I didn't make that part clearer.
You, me, and every sane person knows what said person deserves,
Yeah, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. There are a substantial number of people who wouldn't wish the death penalty even on people who murdered their own children, because their ethics aren't bent towards primitive reactions. Some of us are civilized.
You, me, and every sane person knows what said person deserves,
Yeah, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. There are a substantial number of people who wouldn't wish the death penalty even on people who murdered their own children, because their ethics aren't bent towards primitive reactions. Some of us are civilized.
AH HAH!
Well, mostly.
This, I think, is the most common variation of what I was talking about earlier with the morality stance, followed closely by the sanctity of life argument. Read: my ethics are better than yours.
I say mostly because Incenjucar might later bring up the financial and social issues, but the point is that this is the lead off, and for many people their basis for denying the death penalty as a plausible punishment.
And I'm glad it looks like he's going to make it. Not so the state can kill him, but far worse. It's in hopes that he does one day realize that he took a shotgun to his own child, and what special feeling that might bring him every night until he dies naturally.
That being said, yeah, I'm glad he survived the fusillade of bullets and that the troopers gave him an opportunity to wave the white flag even after he killed his own child. Lock his ass away, and give him lots of time to think about the most atrocious decision he ever made.
What makes you think he'll feel guilt for what he's done? Moreoever, in what way is this sentiment any less vengeful than wanting to kill him for his crime?
Edit: Why are you both "glad" that he's going to live?
So to summarize the basic pro death penalty argument:
In a pristine perfect world where we knew everything at all times, the death penalty makes sense.
Is that about it? I mean, we're fairy tale worlding this enough that we should just get into a precrime debate and ask why we're not arresting people before the atrocity happens.
The reality of the situation is that there are rarely (say, more than once every five years or so) cases where someone is caught on camera with 10 witnesses and no mental disabilities/conditions doing something absolutely atrocious. And even in those cases, studies don't seem to point to any net benefit for either party (victims or perpetrator) to killing them.
So what, exactly, is the purpose of keeping the death penalty in the US?
I think you misunderstand the point. I have not put forth an argument that it gives closure (or any utility at all in particular) to families of victims. I have, however, argued that in a society the knowledge that the death penalty is being applied to the worst of the worst DOES provide value. To many, many members of that society. The feeling that our society "gives people what's coming to them" in the worst possible way is what I am describing. Confidence in our justice system. It's not about revenge in any particular instance.
There isn't really much significant value in what you're saying though. There's certainly plenty of countries without the death penalty, and I don't believe that any significant amount of people are always ruminating about how their society would be so much better if criminals got killed.
What you're talking about is the kind of ignorant thinking that politicians take advantage of.
So what, exactly, is the purpose of keeping the death penalty in the US?
Something akin to bloodlust and considering the opposition as morality snobs. Humanism hasn't quite caught on in the US as much as some other western nations.
That's different. I was only talking about the people who are without a doubt guilty as shit, either through confession and tremendous evidence, or just tremendous evidence. I'm not sure what precentage would fit this bill.
This, I think, is the most common variation of what I was talking about earlier with the morality stance, followed closely by the sanctity of life argument. Read: my ethics are better than yours.
I say mostly because Incenjucar might later bring up the financial and social issues, but the point is that this is the lead off, and for many people their basis for denying the death penalty as a plausible punishment.
Revenge is harmful to society, and getting past revenge is one of the hallmarks of civilized progress. Some ethics are beneficial to society, others are harmful. If you believe that harming society is good, and not bad, then there's a conflict that cannot be resolved.
You, me, and every sane person knows what said person deserves,
Yeah, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. There are a substantial number of people who wouldn't wish the death penalty even on people who murdered their own children, because their ethics aren't bent towards primitive reactions. Some of us are civilized.
Now you're insulting me. You're probably the kind of guy who wears a beret and types this kind of shit on a macbook in a coffee shop, go fuck yourself.
You, me, and every sane person knows what said person deserves,
Yeah, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. There are a substantial number of people who wouldn't wish the death penalty even on people who murdered their own children, because their ethics aren't bent towards primitive reactions. Some of us are civilized.
Now you're insulting me. You're probably the kind of guy who wears a beret and types this kind of shit on a macbook in a coffee shop, go fuck yourself.
And you are probably the guy who bitches about those guys and compares people to them as if those guys are Hitler.
You, me, and every sane person knows what said person deserves,
Yeah, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. There are a substantial number of people who wouldn't wish the death penalty even on people who murdered their own children, because their ethics aren't bent towards primitive reactions. Some of us are civilized.
Now you're insulting me. You're probably the kind of guy who wears a beret and types this kind of shit on a macbook in a coffee shop, go fuck yourself.
well, you insulted every sane person who disagrees with you, so yeah...
You, me, and every sane person knows what said person deserves,
Yeah, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. There are a substantial number of people who wouldn't wish the death penalty even on people who murdered their own children, because their ethics aren't bent towards primitive reactions. Some of us are civilized.
Now you're insulting me. You're probably the kind of guy who wears a beret and types this kind of shit on a macbook in a coffee shop, go fuck yourself.
Well, lets not pretend like you're an innocent little angel, sweetheart.
If you don't think the hypothetical said person, being someone truly horrible ranging anywhere from a serial killer, school shooter, to anything worse, deserves to die (and not in a peaceful way), then sure yes I'm insulting you because that's a completely stupid thing to think. And I'm talking about this outside of the justice system, just on a purely moral level. For society to pay for flat out evil people to live for no other reason than to be "civilized" and be able to go to bed at night with some delusional happiness in mind is wrong. And if someone is going to insult me in exchange for thinking that, then fine, I'll fire back. The flat out truth is that people who murder, rape, kill, and enjoy it do not deserve to live. Especially not when it's on even a dollar of taxpayers money.
And to whoever said I'd call that guy hitler, what the fuck? I might think he's a pretentious fool but throwing around words like hitler is just silly. Why is it that everybody these days uses words like nazi and hitler like they don't actually mean anything? It's not doing justice to what actually happened in that time.
I mean, a lot of those school shooters and such are people with actual mental problems. You want to violently kill people because of a chemical imbalance that isn't their fault?
Right, a chemical imbalance, I'm sure that would be hard to fake. What kind of an example does that set, that we kindly help and treat someone who kills any number of people at a school (because I assume that's what you're getting at, they need to be treated in a mental institute)? Every school shooter after that wouldn't think there's any consequence to killing people. Just do it, and the government will make sure you get all better after. Don't even worry about getting raped in prison. Even beyond that, what does that say about the people who died? Oh hey kids, the guy who killed you is going to be just fine, don't you worry. Sorry you died though!
Even beyond that, what does that say about the people who died? Oh hey kids, the guy who killed you is going to be just fine, don't you worry. Sorry you died though!
Why are you talking to dead people? They can't hear you, and believe me, they don't fucking care anymore. (Mostly because they're not conscious, you see, and will never be again.)
So all the people who died in the holocaust, they don't fucking matter? Anyone who was ever killed by someone? They're already dead, who cares. That's what you're saying. I'm not even going to bother explaining why their life and subsequent death matters in every single way. You're a pile.
Posts
yeah, there is a term for people who can kill without difficulty and without negative emotional response
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
See, I don't have a problem with the guy with the gun being shot, because he just consented to being blasted in this situation.
Trooper: Drop your weapon or I'll shoot you.
Crazed Guy With Shotgun: *Points weapon at armed trooper*
Now, to be fair, crazed guy is obviously crazed - but he just said (without opening his mouth), "Fine, shoot me, before I shoot you,"
I'm hardly going to fault the troopers for obliging him. :P
That being said, yeah, I'm glad he survived the fusillade of bullets and that the troopers gave him an opportunity to wave the white flag even after he killed his own child. Lock his ass away, and give him lots of time to think about the most atrocious decision he ever made.
"Awesome?"
There's nothing wrong with feeling guilt at harming people wrongfully and feeling little to no guilt with harming people justifiably.
I certainly hope you're kidding.
Also, the word you were looking for is "sociopath."
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm referring to what the guy did as a heinous thing, not graspable by my normal human mind. Allowing, I think, for some folks to argue that the guy is clearly a vile inhuman that maybe just needs to be put down, which is an argument I think goes more towards personal belief rather than an up or down death penalty/no death penalty mode.
Basically, the guy took a shotgun to his own infant and I'm having trouble with that, but could see the field open for debate on both sides.
Yes, I was kidding. But in seriousness, there is a range of responses to justifiably taking the life of another human being that fall within the normal range. Crying about it later isn't necessary to be normal.
He is obviously mentally deranged. If the state kills him instead of institutionalizing him, there is only bloodlust to blame.
Sure, it's un-P.C., inhumane, barbaric, but it would theoretically work. The saving, at least. I don't know about scaring people into being good.
But what about the large number of people that have been found guilty of a crime and then they have been declared innocent after a lengthy appeals process? Should they be killed for a crime that did not commit just because you feel that it costs too much money. Is an innocent life worth that little?
I think you misunderstand the point. I have not put forth an argument that it gives closure (or any utility at all in particular) to families of victims. I have, however, argued that in a society the knowledge that the death penalty is being applied to the worst of the worst DOES provide value. To many, many members of that society. The feeling that our society "gives people what's coming to them" in the worst possible way is what I am describing. Confidence in our justice system. It's not about revenge in any particular instance.
And I'd be interested to know why you think the utility of revenge is small.
That's different. I was only talking about the people who are without a doubt guilty as shit, either through confession and tremendous evidence, or just tremendous evidence. I'm not sure what precentage would fit this bill.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
It's not really that inhumane if the person in question did something like kill his family, or is a serial killer, and shows no regret. Especially when you think about how much can be done for a regular hard working family with the money saved.
Confessions are surprisingly unreliable. A lot of people who get pulled off death row by DNA testing confessed or pled guilty (IIRC it was around 1/4 or so).
I agree with the principal that executions are permitted by overwhelming evidence, but I don't think it's possible to make a non-exploitable definition of overwhelming evidence for normal crimes.
An action does not become any less inhumane based on its application to any specific person or group.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Not to you, sure.
Right, and that's where it becomes pretty difficult to actually fully realize what I'm talking about. I mostly just threw it out there for hypothetical.
Who would have the ability to decide whether someone is allowed to appeal or not? Why do some people get this right and others don't? Isn't the whole point of the justice system that everyone is treated equally and fairly? There are just so many possibilities that eventually something would go wrong and I would prefer that any number of guilty people are imprisoned for life instead of killed to save the 1 innocent person who after 20 years is found innocent.
Human rights are human rights, not "people we like" rights. The worthless sack of shit that murders all his family has exactly the same human rights as the president. This is a cornerstone of modern Western democracy and justice.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
When something terrible or unconscionable happens we should not just throw up our hands and say "oh well, just 'put him down'" or whatever other thing. I highly doubt that his actions and state of mind and so on actually defy understanding; that is just a very convenient excuse.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
That's true. I would say that there should be exceptions but then there's the slippery slope, and it becomes impossible to have exceptions because of how thorough and inclusive the justice system has to be. It's just too bad that the really horrible people get it so much better than they truly deserve because of the system. You, me, and every sane person knows what said person deserves, but the justice system doesn't allow it, because we have to maintain the system. It's for the better cause, but it's just kind of a shame sometimes when people like Bernie Madoff will most likely get a nice little cell with books and all kinds of fine things paid by the U.S. taxpayer when in reality he should be fucking lynched. But that's emotion, not logic, I guess.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Being locked in a 7'x5' cell sure is the glamourous, taxpayer-leechin' lifestyle.
Even though the guy that shot his own son is a heinous, deranged person, killing him solves nothing
Okay, I get what you mean. But I wasn't arguing that my inability to figure this guy out was a good reason to execute him. I was just expressing my own incapability to understand his action here. Sorry I didn't make that part clearer.
Yeah, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. There are a substantial number of people who wouldn't wish the death penalty even on people who murdered their own children, because their ethics aren't bent towards primitive reactions. Some of us are civilized.
AH HAH!
Well, mostly.
This, I think, is the most common variation of what I was talking about earlier with the morality stance, followed closely by the sanctity of life argument. Read: my ethics are better than yours.
I say mostly because Incenjucar might later bring up the financial and social issues, but the point is that this is the lead off, and for many people their basis for denying the death penalty as a plausible punishment.
What makes you think he'll feel guilt for what he's done? Moreoever, in what way is this sentiment any less vengeful than wanting to kill him for his crime?
Edit: Why are you both "glad" that he's going to live?
In a pristine perfect world where we knew everything at all times, the death penalty makes sense.
Is that about it? I mean, we're fairy tale worlding this enough that we should just get into a precrime debate and ask why we're not arresting people before the atrocity happens.
The reality of the situation is that there are rarely (say, more than once every five years or so) cases where someone is caught on camera with 10 witnesses and no mental disabilities/conditions doing something absolutely atrocious. And even in those cases, studies don't seem to point to any net benefit for either party (victims or perpetrator) to killing them.
So what, exactly, is the purpose of keeping the death penalty in the US?
What you're talking about is the kind of ignorant thinking that politicians take advantage of.
Something akin to bloodlust and considering the opposition as morality snobs. Humanism hasn't quite caught on in the US as much as some other western nations.
We have a process for determining that.
It costs more than the death penalty.
Revenge is harmful to society, and getting past revenge is one of the hallmarks of civilized progress. Some ethics are beneficial to society, others are harmful. If you believe that harming society is good, and not bad, then there's a conflict that cannot be resolved.
Now you're insulting me. You're probably the kind of guy who wears a beret and types this kind of shit on a macbook in a coffee shop, go fuck yourself.
And you are probably the guy who bitches about those guys and compares people to them as if those guys are Hitler.
well, you insulted every sane person who disagrees with you, so yeah...
And to whoever said I'd call that guy hitler, what the fuck? I might think he's a pretentious fool but throwing around words like hitler is just silly. Why is it that everybody these days uses words like nazi and hitler like they don't actually mean anything? It's not doing justice to what actually happened in that time.
I mean, a lot of those school shooters and such are people with actual mental problems. You want to violently kill people because of a chemical imbalance that isn't their fault?
If I'm crazy, you're a pussy.
Really? Really, really? You're that much of a silly goose? You think people should be subjected to rape in prison?
Why are you talking to dead people? They can't hear you, and believe me, they don't fucking care anymore. (Mostly because they're not conscious, you see, and will never be again.)