# BEST Argument for Death Penalty I've Seen!



## MA-Caver (May 11, 2005)

This bastard definitely deserves it if anyone else does. Article here  shows that the man was unstable and violent. They let him out and he slaughtered two innocents. One was his daughter and the other her best friend. Then he tried to pretend he found them while looking for them. Worse of all, on Mother's Day. 
Those who argue against the death penalty might disagree with me and at this point I don't care. We hear of horrible crimes almost daily, but this ... this horrorific loss of life by such savagery cannot and should not go unpunished without death. No matter what his motives, no matter how "temporarily insane", no matter what his freakin problem is... he deserves to die die and die again. 
How can anyone think of a lesser punishment that doesn't equal the crime that he committed? 
I'm sickened by this more than I can say. If he had a rage great enough to take the life of his own child that cannot be excused but to also kill her friend who's only crime was being with her when it happened. It's too bad that he can only be killed once. But if they decide he should be killed via capital punishment then he should die slowly and painfully. It's just too damn bad that we don't have a punishment designed to do that. 

My heart breaks... ah my heart.


----------



## Kempogeek (May 11, 2005)

Im with you 100% MACaver! As long as he proven guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt, this punk should be strapped to the electric chair to suffer and suffer more. Or better yet bring back public hanging. Never mind the lethal injecion, that's too easy. Anything other than the death penalty, then that tells me that the girls' lives didn't mean a thing to the eyes of the courts......Steve


----------



## SwedishChef (May 11, 2005)

Plus is there anyway we can slow down the execution process?  We can make a whole day of it.


----------



## Bammx2 (May 11, 2005)

TORTURE!

MT torture party!

Bring yer own tools and I'll buy the pizza!

y'all think I'm jokin?!

I got some sandpaper and a bag of salt for that boy.....

Best thing they could do for him "legally" is take that boy down to algiers and let him lose into population with some of them louisiana boys.
Bad things can happen to a man in them swamps.....
combined with that fine,easy southern living...things would just take thier own sweet time to pass.He'd have plenty o time to ponder the errors of his ways.
piece by piece.......


----------



## Ender (May 11, 2005)

Instead of the death penalty we can make them mandatory organ donors.*G...one organ at a time.


----------



## Gemini (May 11, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Instead of the death penalty we can make them mandatory organ donors.*G...one organ at a time.


Ahhh, a fresh concept. I think it's worth a try.


----------



## Blindside (May 11, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> This bastard definitely deserves it if anyone else does. Article here  shows that the man was unstable and violent. They let him out and he slaughtered two innocents. One was his daughter and the other her best friend. Then he tried to pretend he found them while looking for them. Worse of all, on Mother's Day.
> Those who argue against the death penalty might disagree with me and at this point I don't care. We hear of horrible crimes almost daily, but this ... this horrorific loss of life by such savagery cannot and should not go unpunished without death. No matter what his motives, no matter how "temporarily insane", no matter what his freakin problem is... he deserves to die die and die again.
> How can anyone think of a lesser punishment that doesn't equal the crime that he committed?
> I'm sickened by this more than I can say. If he had a rage great enough to
> ...



Hey MACaver someone down in your state knows how to deal with this, see story here 

It sounds like a CSI story.

Lamont


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 11, 2005)

Ok, how about we pretend to give him a public execution. Wipe him off the record, take him to a research facility and test on him. Hey presto three problems solved...

1) No need for animal testing
2) The guy pays for his crimes, we technically torture him anyway!
3) He's technically dead on record so therefore there are no ethical problems, if nobody knows about it.
So whoz up for that?


----------



## Adept (May 11, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> He's technically dead on record so therefore there are no ethical problems, if nobody knows about it.


 Hicks, I like the way you think.


----------



## Bammx2 (May 11, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Ok, how about we pretend to give him a public execution. Wipe him off the record, take him to a research facility and test on him. Hey presto three problems solved...
> 
> 1) No need for animal testing
> 2) The guy pays for his crimes, we technically torture him anyway!
> ...


I see a prime-ministership in your future dude.....
you got my vote!


----------



## ginshun (May 11, 2005)

Assuming they prove that he is the murderer, anything that they would actually do to him would be much too humane IMO.

 Some good ideas in this thread though.


----------



## psi_radar (May 11, 2005)

Provided they prove beyond a doubt it was him, drive him out to BLM land, have him dig his own unmarked grave, and tell him to think about what he did right before you put a rim-fire .22 in the back of his head. He doesn't deserve a .45 slug. And torture might give him the impression he is worth attention in some way. Just let him know his death is coming and there's nothing he can do about it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 11, 2005)

While I tend to agree on purely emotional grounds (couldn't happen to a nicer guy...) maybe we could try just following the law, the Constitution, and our moral traditions rather than hoorawing about?

In the end, I'm more scared of a society that encourages hoorawing than I am of this freak.

Or else, we could maybe hooraw too about the long list of government and military officials who have ordered children's horrible deaths for transparently absurd and ugly reasons?


----------



## BrandiJo (May 11, 2005)

i dont suport the death penalty, i always have and still do  belive that life (truely life not this get off on good behavior crap) is far wrose then death


----------



## kid (May 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> While I tend to agree on purely emotional grounds (couldn't happen to a nicer guy...) maybe we could try just following the law, the Constitution, and our moral traditions rather than hoorawing about?
> 
> In the end, I'm more scared of a society that encourages hoorawing than I am of this freak.
> 
> Or else, we could maybe hooraw too about the long list of government and military officials who have ordered children's horrible deaths for transparently absurd and ugly reasons?


Gosh!...why did you have to go and rune it?  (napoleon dynomite voice)

*crumples up plans and tosses them aside*


kid


----------



## Bammx2 (May 11, 2005)

BrandiJo said:
			
		

> i dont suport the death penalty, i always have and still do belive that life (truely life not this get off on good behavior crap) is far wrose then death


Some people just need killin.
BUT.....
I can compromise.....

How about...
total sensory deprivation for life?!

uh?! uh?!

whatchu tink bout dat?!


----------



## psi_radar (May 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> While I tend to agree on purely emotional grounds (couldn't happen to a nicer guy...) maybe we could try just following the law, the Constitution, and our moral traditions rather than hoorawing about?
> 
> In the end, I'm more scared of a society that encourages hoorawing than I am of this freak.
> 
> Or else, we could maybe hooraw too about the long list of government and military officials who have ordered children's horrible deaths for transparently absurd and ugly reasons?




Hmmm, well, maybe, NAAAHHHH!!!! :jedi1: 

Don't be alarmed Robert, this guy will definitely get all the benefits of due process. However, he deserves a much more ignominious end. This is one case where law and justice are not in agreement. He stabbed his own daughter in the eyes. Several times. 

Though the actions of government and military officials are sometimes questionable and possibly criminal, there's really no gray area here.


----------



## Tgace (May 11, 2005)

Everything must be diverted towards the military/government dont you know?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 11, 2005)

Let's see if I can whip this out of memory:

"...nor be deprived of life, limb or property without due process of law..."

Even this turd deserves his day in court.  I'm guessing he most likely did it, but he has the right to a trial to determine that.  Note how quickly the press jumped to conclusions with the "Runaway Bride," casting suspicions on her boyfriend.  

Given that the 6th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, why euthenize him?  Leave him in prison to rot, where he can be a thorn in the side of other miscreants.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## psi_radar (May 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Everything must be diverted towards the military/government dont you know?



What's up with that, anyway?!?

hardheadjarhead, the latest I read, he had confessed to the whole thing.


----------



## Tgace (May 11, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Given that the 6th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, why euthenize him?


Execution doesn't violate the *8*th amendment. (The 6th deals with the issue of a "speedy trial" and to be confronted by your accuser.) 

As the supreme court has decided on a few occasions....

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect16.htm



> * While the imposition of death is constitutional per se, the procedure by which sentence is passed must be so structured as to reduce arbitrariness and capriciousness as much as possible.*




http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/06.html#1



> *Capital Punishment *.--In Trop, the majority refused to consider ''the death penalty as an index of the constitutional limit on punishment. Whatever the arguments may be against capital punishment . . . the death penalty has been employed throughout our history, and, in a day when it is still widely accepted, it cannot be said to violate the constitutional concept of cruelty. 50 But a coalition of civil rights and civil liberties organizations mounted a campaign against the death penalty in the 1960s, and the Court eventually confronted the issues involved. The answers were not, it is fair to say, consistent one with another.


That being said, many of the "alternate" methods of punishment mentioned here probably would be considered "unusual".


----------



## Ender (May 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Everything must be diverted towards the military/government dont you know?



I'm sure you recognize the politics of obfuscation....*G


----------



## Tgace (May 11, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> I'm sure you recognize the politics of obfuscation....*G


I thought it looked familiar...


----------



## MA-Caver (May 11, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> Hey MACaver someone down in your state knows how to deal with this, see story here
> 
> It sounds like a CSI story.
> 
> Lamont


Dang, I was hoping they wouldn't find that bastard too soon... should've dumped  the pieces down a mine shaft. Oh well... (wishful thinking of course  )

As for the rest of the replies. A lot of them were along the lines of my own intial post, very emotional, full of hate/anger/disgust and desire for justice. 
I am guessing that the emotional outpouring shown here is indicative of the awareness that this guy will probably languish in prison for the remainder of his days instead of getting what most of us feel he deserves. 
Brandi Jo I understand and respect that you don't support the death penalty, yet I wonder if you cannot see that there is no better means of punishing him? For a lot of (habitual criminals) prison isn't a bad deal. Three squares a day, free laundry, secure protected environment (if in solitary) and all the time to gloat, and relish in the crimes that he's committed. 
If he had done this to two adult females I could probably be pursuaded to not think he should have the death penalty but these are two young innocent little girls. Lured to someplace by someone they trust. That one of them had to experience the extreme terror of watching their friend get brutalized first... if he didn't knock them both out first. 
Still we all hope that justice will be met out to this beast who no longer is a part of human society by committing to these acts of violence against those who were powerless to prevent him. 
May God have NO mercy on his soul!


----------



## Gin-Gin (May 11, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Brandi Jo I understand and respect that you don't support the death penalty, yet I wonder if you cannot see that there is no better means of punishing him? For a lot of (habitual criminals) prison isn't a bad deal. Three squares a day, free laundry, secure protected environment (if in solitary) and all the time to gloat, and relish in the crimes that he's committed.  If he had done this to two adult females I could probably be pursuaded to not think he should have the death penalty but these are two young innocent little girls. Lured to someplace by someone they trust. That one of them had to experience the extreme terror of watching their friend get brutalized first... if he didn't knock them both out first. Still we all hope that justice will be met out to this beast who no longer is a part of human society by committing to these acts of violence against those who were powerless to prevent him.  May God have NO mercy on his soul!


This is one of the worst crimes I've ever heard of [and being from Texas where murderers like Kenneth McDuff & Henry Lee Lucas are from, that's saying something]--*those poor little girls!!!* :rpo:   The article made no mention of him (Hobbs) ever being in a psychiatric hospital, so I'm guessing he was never found "incompetent to stand trial" or mentally ill.  Although I'm not an expert on the Criminal Justice system, the fact that he served a prison sentence for assault & still did not "learn his lesson" indicates two things to me: 1) that he is a repeat offender & obviously prison did not rehabilitate him, & 2) because the level of violence seems to have escalated since his last crime (the article didn't go into the details of the 2001 crime but I'm assuming since he didn't serve a very long sentence that it was not as heinous as this one), that he should not be around anyone ever again.  If it turns out that he was diagnosed as mentally ill & should have been institutionalized & wasn't--then the system failed him & those two little girls miserably.  

Yes I'm biased, but with reason: a dear friend of mine was killed in 1996, also a victim of violent crime (his ex stalked him for days & then shot him 3 times while he was in his car at a stoplight) but someone who goes to this level of violence--I just can't think of anything more suitable than the death penalty for them (or that Louisiana swamp idea someone proposed earlier sounds good too).  If this guy didn't value his own child's life, he obviously doesn't value anyone else's, so I really don't want my tax dollars spent supporting him with "3 hots & a cot" for the rest of his life.   This is just my opinion, but the system doesn't work for everyone.  I agree with MACaver, this is best argument for the death penalty I've heard in recent years.  

Think of me what you will, but I just can't feel sorry for murderers (or child molesters or rapists).   :disgust:


----------



## Bammx2 (May 11, 2005)

Personally...and I truely don't care if "sensitive" people disagree,


That man has no right to a "fair and just trial"!
He has about as much right as those girls had the right to die like that!
Forensics is all the "trial" he desrves!
If they PROVE he did it....right to the front of the line he goes!
Better yet....screw lethal injection...the crime should fit the punishment!
I may live in the UK,for now,I STILL have friends back in the US and I will be returning.
We have the same arguement here as well......My tax dollars ain't there to support some scumbag like that!
I have never seen on my pay stubs...."Scumbag Living expenses"(politicians not includued).
If they could find a way to feed and house them without using hard earned tax dollars....SO?! Smoke the sick a-holes anyway!
When you take someones right to live like that,especially kids,you should forfit your right to a "fair and speedy trial"!
A jury of his peers?! ffftt! I don't know any peers that screwed up!
What good is it to these morons sit in prison anyway?
Some of them ACTUALLY like it! Thats why they commit the crime they do!
C'mon....3 hots and a cot for life?! No work,no taxes?! Free cable and AC?!
In some states...free college!
For those who think life in prison is all they should get....let'em live at your house then!
Bet you'll be reachin for that syringe before too long....or a pick-axe
Some say "God forgives" I say "Not my job....maybe to arrange the meeting".
(go norman)
Some would say "Vigilanteism"...
in this particular case,I say:

"DARN TOOTIN"!


----------



## arnisador (May 11, 2005)

Did all of you who favor the torture of this guy also favor the torture of prisoners in Iraq?

  I leave aside the issue of waiving the trial and going straight for the old-fashioned lynching.


----------



## heretic888 (May 11, 2005)

Lesson Number One, class: society shows us its wrong to kill people by, well, killing people. Please turn to page 132 of your _The Complete Hypocrite's Guide to Justice and Compassion_ for research and references.

 :ultracool

Maybe its just me, but I just don't see how imitating the behavior of torturers, rapists, murderers, and other assorted "baddies" passes off as morally justified. It has nothing to do with "sensitivity", as much as it does with moral integrity. "Eye for an eye" is, like, so Iranian, dude.

Not to mention, the comments thus far on the thread lead to some pretty good examples of demonizing and de-humanizing the Other to justify pretty much anything we damn well please against him/her/it. A pretty typical trend in history.

Of course, maybe its just because I know that socially-sanctioned violence actually encourages and creates _more_ violence. Ergo, if your stated goal is to "stop the killin", this isn't the best way to go about it.

Vengeance is as vengeance does, Forrest.


----------



## arnisador (May 11, 2005)

Let alone the slippery slope argument. We're 100% sure _he's_ guilty; next time, will 99% sure suffice?

As an aside, wasn't "eye for an eye" a call for mercy--no _more_ than an eye for an eye, no _more_ than a tooth for a tooth?


----------



## Tgace (May 11, 2005)

> Most states responded to the requirement that the sentencing authority be given standards narrowing discretion to impose the death penalty by enacting statutes spelling out ''aggravating'' circumstances at least one of which must be found to be present before the death penalty may be imposed. The standards must be rel atively precise and instructive in providing guidance that minimizes the risk of arbitrary and capricious action by the sentencer, the desired result being a principled way to distinguish cases in which the death penalty is imposed from other cases in which it is not. Thus, the Court invalidated a capital sentence based upon a jury finding that the murder was ''outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman,'' reasoning that ''a person of ordinary sensibility could fairly [so] characterize almost every murder.'' 75 Similarly, an ''especially heinous, atrocious or cruel'' aggravating circumstance was held to be unconstitutionally vague. 76 The ''especially heinous, cruel or depraved'' standard is cured, however, by a narrowing interpretation requiring a finding of infliction of mental anguish or physical abuse before the victim's death. 77


 
.


----------



## Tgace (May 11, 2005)

Of course a legally justified execution and the process to get there is miles from some things mentioned here.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 11, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Did all of you who favor the torture of this guy also favor the torture of prisoners in Iraq?
> 
> I leave aside the issue of waiving the trial and going straight for the old-fashioned lynching.


The Iraqi scandal was just that ... scandalous and wrong. That they (the prisoners) had probably had crimes on their heads as part of Saddam's military/police force against their own people and ended up as POW's and were detained is right. Torture and abuse of said POW's is wrong. 
This guy is probably no better than those Iraqi's who murdered tortured innocent men, women and children and thus is on the same level of inhuman-ness. 
However; justice (for them) should be met out by the Iraqi people now in power. However may they decide to deal with them and punishment by their laws. Our soldiers were wrong in taking Iraqi justice into their American hands.

This guy (I'm ashamed to say) is an American and should be punished how our own people see fit. The death penalty is (IMO) the only just punishment that he deserves and that right soon, not languishing 14-18 years on death row like Ted Bundy. Our emotions are saying let the punishment fit the crime, let him suffer as those girls suffered. Our outrage is just and our feelings are just. 
Rationally he should die as dictated by our laws if the system determines that. 
As Gin Gin said the system failed him (and the girls) the first time around. Let us pray that it not fail him or US again.


----------



## Flatlander (May 11, 2005)

I agree that this is most certainly a good argument for the death penalty.  I also firmly believe that due process is the one and only layer of protection that lies between the citizenry of a society, and the justice system which defines and enforces the laws of that society.  

 As expensive, rigorous, and time consuming as due process tends to be, it is the one thing that keeps us safe from the whims of those who would use the law to serve themselves at the expense of our freedoms and liberties.


----------



## Ender (May 11, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Let alone the slippery slope argument. We're 100% sure _he's_ guilty; next time, will 99% sure suffice?
> 
> As an aside, wasn't "eye for an eye" a call for mercy--no _more_ than an eye for an eye, no _more_ than a tooth for a tooth?




Sure, 99% will suffice, as will as 98%, 97%, etc...As long as it's beyond reasonable doubt, in which our court system is built upon. Percentage is irrelevant.


----------



## PeachMonkey (May 11, 2005)

As Mohandas Gandhi said so eloquently, an eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind.


----------



## arnisador (May 11, 2005)

Ender said:
			
		

> Sure, 99% will suffice, as will as 98%, 97%, etc...As long as it's beyond reasonable doubt, in which our court system is built upon. Percentage is irrelevant.


 I think the classic French standard of "reasonable doubt" was 1 in 10,000, if memory serves. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all doubt.

 In any event, we have a jury system in part because reasonable doubt is defined differently by different people; having 12 people on the jury tends to "average out" those differences (or, sometimes, I suppose, the most stringent standard wins out, if a unanimous decision is needed). I don't agree that percentage is irrelevant, but in one sense it doesn't matter--reasonable doubt means different things to different people in different circumstances.

 Advice to juries on this matter is usually not quantitative, I believe.


----------



## Athena (May 11, 2005)

Does this sicko deserve to die? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the death penalty is right in this country. I think it's better to keep a guilty man alive in prison than to kill an innocent one. Until you have a system that is fool-proof, you just should not be killing people with my tax money. It costs more to go through all of the appeals processes than to keep someone in prison for life. Until you have a judicial system that is not clouded by racial and economic factors- not to mention contains blatant errors- nobody should be put to death. Even if I really really really want them to die...


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 12, 2005)

This man deserves a trial sure! If he didnt have a trial it would be shown that people seem to make up their minds before taking into account the entire evidence. I dont mean to say that I dont think he did not do it, I'm just saying the legal system main aim is to focus on everybody having a fair trial.
Cant sometimes take what the media say, because what if it wasnt him? What if it was some other guy? Have the trial and prove the point! Then do all that other stuff.

What would annoy me however is if you get the "sensitve" people on the jury who eventually agree that this man could "change" and that he didnt believe what he did, and he wasnt in his right mind and therefore he should be given another chance.... er NO!
I think with jury's like this (which is what you get alot of over here) you should throw some reality straight into their faces. The public dont even have a clue of what goes on in this country because its hidden from them. Most people on the jury have never felt the intimidation or terrorising nature that one person in a town is cable of, and they believe that person when that person states that if they go to a "rehab" centre they can "change". I would say send them to "rebah" after they have served a full sentence of what they deserve not halve the sentence and then send them to rehab. 

The justice system is messed up over here, people are getting sick of it, personally, I dont blame them. For assaulting a police officier and seriously enjurying them the most stupid setence I have heard is 18 months?????????? What the hell? If they are well behaved that shortens to 16 months? Justify that, they assault a police officier and hardly get a sentence. What does that make them think? Ah, doesnt matter I'll do it again if need be, since I'd hardly get a worse sentence! The best my TKD instructor told me was that some guy assaulted one of your American Police Officer's and got a sentence of 18 years, 18 years!!!!!!!!! now that is a sentence.
Of course it depends on the circumstances I appreciate that!

In terms of this guy! If they prove him guilty as hell! I'd go for what I said earlier. This guy has no morals, so lets show him the lack of ours!

Regards


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 12, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> This man deserves a trial sure! If he didnt have a trial it would be shown that people seem to make up their minds before taking into account the entire evidence. I dont mean to say that I dont think he did not do it, I'm just saying the legal system main aim is to focus on everybody having a fair trial.
> Cant sometimes take what the media say, because what if it wasnt him? What if it was some other guy? Have the trial and prove the point! Then do all that other stuff.
> 
> What would annoy me however is if you get the "sensitve" people on the jury who eventually agree that this man could "change" and that he didnt believe what he did, and he wasnt in his right mind and therefore he should be given another chance.... er NO!
> ...


I mean how we CAN lack morals, if we choose to do so lol!


----------



## MisterMike (May 12, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> As Mohandas Gandhi said so eloquently, an eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind.



Well, the suspect kinda took out 2 "eyes", and most people are talking about just taking him out now (1) to prevent any further blindness.


----------



## Ender (May 12, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> As Mohandas Gandhi said so eloquently, an eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind.



And I'm sure thats exactly what the killer was thinking as he stabbed them in the eyes.*s


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 12, 2005)

The moral fact is, it doesn't matter what this bastard was thinking. It matters what WE think, and how we act.

Otherwise--and the same would be true of terrorism--we simply adopt their viewpoint. Do what you want, kill who you want--who cares what the law says, or what morality says. Who cares that it won't do any good.


----------



## MJS (May 12, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> This bastard definitely deserves it if anyone else does. Article here  shows that the man was unstable and violent. They let him out and he slaughtered two innocents. One was his daughter and the other her best friend. Then he tried to pretend he found them while looking for them. Worse of all, on Mother's Day.
> Those who argue against the death penalty might disagree with me and at this point I don't care. We hear of horrible crimes almost daily, but this ... this horrorific loss of life by such savagery cannot and should not go unpunished without death. No matter what his motives, no matter how "temporarily insane", no matter what his freakin problem is... he deserves to die die and die again.
> How can anyone think of a lesser punishment that doesn't equal the crime that he committed?
> I'm sickened by this more than I can say. If he had a rage great enough to take the life of his own child that cannot be excused but to also kill her friend who's only crime was being with her when it happened. It's too bad that he can only be killed once. But if they decide he should be killed via capital punishment then he should die slowly and painfully. It's just too damn bad that we don't have a punishment designed to do that.
> ...



I agree.  This is a very sick person.  I'm sure that throughout the course of his life, he was showing some signs of being a sick person, but most likely, they went un-noticed.  I'm all for the death penalty.  Even if he does not get the death penalty, chances are good that once he gets to prison, the inmates will dish out their own "justice".  People who molest, injure, etc. children usually are not on the Top 10 list of favorite people in prison.

There are many out there though that think that the death penalty is wrong.  On a slightly different note, in CT., Michael Ross is scheduled to die via lethal injection early Friday morning.  I'm sure that many will be protesting, as their thoughts are "Why kill someone who killed someone just to prove that killing is wrong?"  

I wonder if a study has been done to compare the cost of keeping someone in prison for life vs. the cost of putting them to death.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 12, 2005)

"The essence of the law is that the sweets of private vengeance shall be denied."

--Sinclair Lewis, "Cass Timberlane"


Interesting to see that some folks cheerfully celebrate the same ideas of revenge and, "justice," that we see in dictatorships, theocracies, and mobs.

Disturbing that some are so quick to give the last six thousand years of slow development up from barbarism the quick, old heave-ho.


----------



## Ender (May 12, 2005)

Well it does matter what the bastard was thinking, else we wouldn't have hate crimes. Whats the difference between a "hate" crime and a similar crime? You can have two identical crimes, yet one will be prosecuted as a hate crime for what an attacker can say (an outward expression of his thoughts) or who he targets (a minority he hates). The only difference being is his mind set. Then you have pre-meditation, which is planning the crime (in his thoughts) ahead of time. So what an attacker is thinking matters quite a bit.

But for the point above, I was being sarcastic about the killer thinking of Ghandi.


----------



## Tgace (May 12, 2005)

Following are the crimes that fall under Capital Murder: 

* Robbery and Murder 
* Two or more murders at one time 
* Rape and Murder 
* Kidnapping and Murder 
* The Murder of a Child under the age of six 
* Car-jacking and Murder [Federal] 
* Murder of a Police Officer while in the official course of duty 
* Serial Killings 
* Murder for Hire [note: The Hitman and person who paid him will be charged and tried for Capital Murder and the death penalty should the state's attorney choose to do so] 
* Arson Causing Death


----------



## MA-Caver (May 12, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> I wonder if a study has been done to compare the cost of keeping someone in prison for life vs. the cost of putting them to death.
> Mike


Right here on MT there was another discussion about the death penalty and it's cost. Seems that it costs more to put someone to death than to keep them alive in prison. 
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/issues.html
(I googled "death penalty costs" and there you are) 

But in my thinking is it justice that this animal should *live* after *taking the lives* of those two little girls? He was a waste to society and those girls... who knows where they could've lead to? The doctor that discovers the cure for a disease or eventually is the mother of one, and so on with the cliche' that isn't really a cliche'.  But these two girls will never find out what their full potential might be because this bastard snuffed out their sparks. 
Justice. It's due to the same for the mothers (and father) of the girls. Their anguish at their loss. And so on.

Crimes like these don't make sense. But they deserve to be punished and punished rightly by our laws and by due process. Our emotions say bust down the jail cell door and pull him out and drag him nude behind a pick-up truck down a long gravel road at 40 mph. ... or something akin to that. 

What is the right thing to do? Do we follow logic and reasoning? Or do we listen to our hearts?


----------



## Tgace (May 12, 2005)

Probably more due the endless appeals process than anything else.


----------



## MJS (May 12, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Probably more due the endless appeals process than anything else.




Good point!  How long does someone get to sit on death row before it actually happens?  CT hasn't had an execution in years, yet we still have a few people that are sitting on "death row".  It'll be interesting to see if tonight, we actually have one.

Mac--Thanks for the links! :ultracool 

Mike


----------



## MJS (May 12, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> But in my thinking is it justice that this animal should *live* after *taking the lives* of those two little girls? He was a waste to society and those girls...



If he does live, he needs to spend the rest of his life in prison.  Its apparent that he is a danger to the community.  He already had spent some time in prison and it obviously did nothing to change his outlook on life.  Then again, IMO, it rarely does, and this is obvious due to all of the repeat offenders.

Mike


----------



## Gray Phoenix (May 13, 2005)

A quick death, however unrewarding, will be the most inexpensive way to flush this guy. 

Unfortunatly, that wont happen. He'll rate the footnote section of the local paper in 25 years, when we finally get around to him.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (May 13, 2005)

Gray Phoenix said:
			
		

> A quick death, however unrewarding, will be the most inexpensive way to flush this guy.
> 
> Unfortunatly, that wont happen. He'll rate the footnote section of the local paper in 25 years, when we finally get around to him.


Bribing prison wardens? Slip in a bit of rat poison!


----------



## KenpoTex (May 13, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Bribing prison wardens? Slip in a bit of rat poison!


Put him in general population...maybe someone will pull a Jeffrey Dahmer on him.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 13, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or else, we could maybe hooraw too about the long list of government and military officials who have ordered children's horrible deaths for transparently absurd and ugly reasons?


 _*>>>> LINK DELETED - SHESULSA <<<<*_

 So, who gets all that fancy treatment described above for this?  

 I'm a bit perplexed...didn't Moses bring down the tablets inscribed with "thou shall not kill"?

 Why are "we" not emotionally invested in the death of these children?

 upnorthkyosa

 ps - "we" does not refer to "me."  I can hardly bear to look at this website...


----------



## arnisador (May 14, 2005)

I'm not sure that link was necessary...how very disturbing.


----------



## arnisador (May 14, 2005)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Put him in general population...maybe someone will pull a Jeffrey Dahmer on him.


 Oh, almost surely this would happen. He wouldn't last long. (I leave aside whether this is fair--I simply consider it factual.) You could make book on it.


----------



## Tgace (May 14, 2005)

And nothing to do with the death penalty in the US...


----------



## MA-Caver (May 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that link was necessary...how very disturbing.


I agree.. I've seen that site... and it's NOTHING to do with the topic at hand... 

Sorry Upnorth but it's inappropriate for this topic... mebbe somewhere else in the Study that is RELATED to the Iraqi war... but not here... 


MODS!!


----------



## Makalakumu (May 14, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> I agree.. I've seen that site... and it's NOTHING to do with the topic at hand...
> 
> Sorry Upnorth but it's inappropriate for this topic... mebbe somewhere else in the Study that is RELATED to the Iraqi war... but not here...
> 
> ...


Sorry to rain on everyone's parade...

There certainly was graphic description of what happened in the article. I beleived the link provided a little perspective. People are very cavalier regarding the death penalty because they feel that these crimes are so very terrible, and they are, but when similar things happen at the push of a button, attitudes toward similar atrocities change and shift. I quoted Robert, because he made a good point, and those images hammer it home. 

Why do we kill for one atrocity and celebrate another?

upnorthkyosa

PS - that link appeared elsewhere in the study, on another thread, yet in a discussion regarding murder and appropriate punishment for those crimes, it is entirely appropriate to "see" the crime from a different POV.

Maybe, more killing and death is not the answer in this case or in any other...


----------



## MA-Caver (May 14, 2005)

The thing is it's two different views and actions of death and killing we're talking about here. 
That soldiers are killing un-armed non-combatants (civilians) is a terrible and unjust crime indeed. But in *every-single-war* since recorded history began civilians have always been casualties. I'm not trying to excuse or condone the action. We would want to think that American soldiers are trying to be careful in minimizing those casualties. But as the other side is showing us the case is reportedly different. But give us proof that all of those photos are American caused casualties. 
Either way that justice needs to be weighed by the world courts and by the military. A soldier lobbing a grenade or firing a rocket into a building to kill insergents or opening up an automatic rifle on a group of armed combatants... civilians that are in the line of fire are going to be injured, maimed and killed. The insergents aren't giving a damn who they are killing now are they? 
Way off topic here... If you want to continue this particular "thread" then copy/paste and create a new topic in the Study.  :asian:  :asian:  :asian: 

On topic: 
A man taking out his mad on two girls and concocting a story about how he had to defend himself and basically slaughtering them... he stabbed one repeatedly and then stabbed the other ... repeatedly. This is *had* to be a crime in the pleasure he took in doing one and then the other. It was pure savagery and he has no place in a civilized society, yea even behind bars. 
I see prison as a place for a criminal to sit and stew in their remorse for the crimes they committed. The actions of this animal shows that he will not. He'll be angry that he's locked up, he'll be resentful towards the society that keeps him behind bars. He will not give a damn about those two girls that he slaughtered. This animal is just that an animal, uncaring and unfeeling except for his own anger which he went far and beyond the normal idea of punishment. 

In the words of Carl Lee Hailey: "Yes (they) deserved to die and I hope (they) burn in hell!" So should this guy. 

 :asian:


----------



## shesulsa (May 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa - 

  Please point me to the thread where that link was used to discuss the death penalty.  I'd like to see it.

  Also, the link in your post # 59 in this thread points to nonsense every time I click it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Sorry to rain on everyone's parade...
> 
> There certainly was graphic description of what happened in the article. I beleived the link provided a little perspective. People are very cavalier regarding the death penalty because they feel that these crimes are so very terrible, and they are, but when similar things happen at the push of a button, attitudes toward similar atrocities change and shift. I quoted Robert, because he made a good point, and those images hammer it home.
> 
> ...


You've got me all wrong. I believe the death penalty is right because it is an extremely effective way of reducing recidivism (save the silly "studies" about how the death penalty has been "proven" not to be a deterent, they are based on the most absurd distortion of reality imaginable: of course the death penalty as it is applied in the US is no deterrent, any more than cancer is a deterrent to smoking, they both take about as long to kill). 

Because it is my society, and MY children, i'm unashamedly selfish about murder and brigandage. Those who are dangerous to those I love and care about, should be removed from society. If you're hoping to point out some inconsistency in order to show hypocrisy on my part, I'll save you the trouble. I have no problem being a hypocrit. There is no universal rule that need apply, only the pragmatics of necessity. 

Maybe more killing, and of the right people IS the answer. You've yet to prove that it isn't, significant evidence suggests it is. Please avoid any arguments that require empathy on my part toward the death penalty recipient, as that would be futile. 

I find most anti-death penalty arguments to be absurd strawman arguments. Instead of dealing with the issues honestly, most of the time they just get in to silly emotionalistic pleas OR transparent attempts to show some moral irrelavency, or the classic "It makes you as bad as them". I felt insulted watching The Life of David Gale. Did they actually believe I was stupid enough to be swayed by that false argument. The whole situation was nothing but an elaborate suicide. How that had any real impact on the death penalty debate, I have no idea. Likewise, Dead Man Walking, what a load of emotional tripe. 

A real, intellectual argument against the death penalty would be extremely refreshing.

As it is difficult to only talk in abstract terms, I propose we discuss a specific case.  Review this one, and let me know your opinions folks. http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You've got me all wrong. I believe the death penalty is right because it is an extremely effective way of reducing recidivism (save the silly "studies" about how the death penalty has been "proven" not to be a deterent, they are based on the most absurd distortion of reality imaginable: of course the death penalty as it is applied in the US is no deterrent, any more than cancer is a deterrent to smoking, they both take about as long to kill).


It would probably be better if you provided actual studies that support your point, as well as specifically address the insufficiencies of particular studies to the contrary, rather than just make a general statement about any studies that disagree with you. 



> Because it is my society, and MY children, i'm unashamedly selfish about murder and brigandage. Those who are dangerous to those I love and care about, should be removed from society. If you're hoping to point out some inconsistency in order to show hypocrisy on my part, I'll save you the trouble. I have no problem being a hypocrit. There is no universal rule that need apply, only the pragmatics of necessity.


Well last time I checked, this isn't any type of autocracy, and at any rate you're not king. This is not you're society, it belongs to all who live in it. 



> significant evidence suggests it is.


Such as?



> Please avoid any arguments that require empathy on my part toward the death penalty recipient, as that would be futile.


This much is apparent. Going back to your whole "it's MY universe" approach, I wonder how you'd feel if it was your precious kiddies on death row. 



> As it is difficult to only talk in abstract terms, I propose we discuss a specific case. Review this one, and let me know your opinions folks. http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html


Will do.


----------



## arnisador (May 15, 2005)

People are arguing at cross-purposes here. One side says the death penalty is philosophically wrong because killing people to show that killing people is wrong is absurd. The other side says, but it works. Both could be true. There's no point of contention here.

 I have no problem with the death penalty morally. But, I have a practical problem, given how many death penalties have been overturned on DNA evidence. I think Illinois has it right--let's stop until we figure out how to do it right.

 By the way, abstract terms is the only way to do this. Every murder cries out for vengeance...but are we above that urge?


----------



## Kempogeek (May 15, 2005)

BrandiJo said:
			
		

> i dont suport the death penalty, i always have and still do  belive that life (truely life not this get off on good behavior crap) is far wrose then death


 Although I strongly disagree with your statement, I respect your opinion. I just do see how fair it is that this monster can continue to live, even in jail while 2 girls will never have a chance to grow up and have a future. Im sorry but if you take an innocent life, then you should give up your own. But I would be happy if some inmate snubs him. One can only hope......Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (May 15, 2005)

I have two points...

1.  There is a double standard in the way we feel about the deaths of some children.  Some are collateral damage and some are crimes.  
2.  There is a double standard in the way we deal with each.  Some who commit these crimes get the death penalty and some get medals.  

This, in my opinion, is a nasty dose of moral relativism and I believe that pointing out this double standard is important.  If we feel righteous anger for one, why not the other?  Or, if we are able to casually dismiss one, why not the other?

I do not think it is right to put a man to death for the same "end result" that another commits and is therefore labled a hero.  The hubris in the hypocrisy is staggering to contemplate.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (May 15, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> upnorthkyosa -
> 
> Please point me to the thread where that link was used to discuss the death penalty. I'd like to see it.
> 
> Also, the link in your post # 59 in this thread points to nonsense every time I click it.


The link appeared in the "100,000 Dead in Iraq" thread...and is still active because I was able to cut and paste it from that thread to this thread.  I reposted the same link in order to potray the double standard I am speaking of in the above post.

I am currently seeking clarification on MT policy for posting graphic links.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 15, 2005)

> As it is difficult to only talk in abstract terms, I propose we discuss a specific case. Review this one, and let me know your opinions folks. http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html



So this is a friend's personal website relating the tale of a double rape and double homicide.  A sad story, and certainly an occurrence that should be addressed by society at large, but ultimately this site does little more than appeal to a desire for revenge.  It says nothing about the effectiveness of capital punishment at general deterrence, the risk of innacurate proof in capital punishment cases, or the validity of the state's right to take life.  All the website says is "I'm so appalled by this act that this person just has to die"--revenge in its plainest.


----------



## Tgace (May 15, 2005)

The death penalty isnt a deterrent in this country because it's seldomly applied. If everybody on death row was actually executed and this happened consistently over a period of time maybe I could accept these "studies" until then.....


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 15, 2005)

Seldomly applied?  I really hope you're not referring to the appeals process.  At any rate, I'm curious as to why you say this.  Care to elaborate?


----------



## Tgace (May 15, 2005)

New York current has 4 inmates on "death row".....we havent had an execution since 1976.

Ratio of "Death Row" inmates to actual executions...state by state application varies greatly.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=477


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 15, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> It would probably be better if you provided actual studies that support your point, as well as specifically address the insufficiencies of particular studies to the contrary, rather than just make a general statement about any studies that disagree with you.
> 
> Well last time I checked, this isn't any type of autocracy, and at any rate you're not king. This is not you're society, it belongs to all who live in it.
> 
> ...


Well, so as to deal directly with your emotionally based argument first, if my child commits an act so attrocious as to merit the death penatly, i'm sure that's what they deserve. My "feelings" on the matter be damned. I tell you this as a person who has a relative currently serving time in federal prison. That's where he deserves to be, and had society deemed it necessary to execute him, i'd not be waiving a protest sign to stop it. This despite the fact I personally like him. 

I never claimed to be king. I DID say how I arrived at my decisions. Sorry if that offends you, but too bad. As for me not being society, what are you saying, that you ARE society, and I am not. Seems as though society is made up of a group of people, and I plan on influencing my society as much as you do. In fact, I desire to have a greater impact to offset yours, as I have become sick at what I see as the degradation of logical reasoning in our culture. 

I'm sorry my pointing out the Emperor was naked offended you on the effectiveness of the death penatly studies.  Simply read them with a little bit of a critical eye. It's not required to conduct a parallel study to point out the flaws in a study, it merely requires logical reasoning. If I perform a study that said hospitals were responsible for the majority of deaths, simply because that's where most people die, would you have to perform ANOTHER study to refute that, or would simply examining the flawed way the study was conducted be enough to question it's validity. It's not rocket science. The idea that someone else has to interpret data for you is mental slavery. 

I also didn't see you dealing directly with the case I cited. Come on, lets get specific.  The reason it is necessary to deal with these cases individual is obvious.  The opposing side seeks to distance itself from the specifics, because it is easier to distort reality that way.  It is with the specifics that it becomes harder to introduce ficitious arguments.  The guilt of the individuals in this case is not in dispute at all.  So the whole "They might be innocent" argument is done away with.  It comes down to "do they deserve to die" for this.  

Each death penalty case MUST be taken as an individual case.  The ideawe can determine if the death penalty is right or wrong wholesale is absurd.  So lets take THIS case, then we'll work on another, and another, and another.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 15, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I have two points...
> 
> 1. There is a double standard in the way we feel about the deaths of some children. Some are collateral damage and some are crimes.
> 2. There is a double standard in the way we deal with each. Some who commit these crimes get the death penalty and some get medals.
> ...


I have no problem with double standards. My children and the children of my neighbors and friends are simply more important. This is a universe where, sometimes, there is no room for universal application of principles. Sometimes we settle for the pragmatics of the situation. I'm comfortable with that, some people aren't. 

What you are doing is attempting to apply principles with limited applicability universally ad absurdum. That's the point of trying to show that applying moral principles in one sense, and ignoring them in another, is hypocrisy. A certain amount of hypocrisy is necessary in life. 

For example, to say that my child has more of a right to live than a lab rat's child, who is given cancer to test a treatment for cancer, is absolutely necessary and moral. An argument could be made that it is hypocrisy, if we follow your logic. There is a flaw in that line, however, and that is that it is based on a flawed premise. That morality is universally applicable, and that is not the case (unless you want to first make the case for a universal arbiter or judge of right and wrong, in which case this becomes a theology discussion). I reject the whole premise as absurd.  A certain balance of selfishness is necessary for a society.  That of course conflicts with certain types of group think (Sorry, Marx) but we'll live with it.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What you are doing is attempting to apply principles with limited applicability universally ad absurdum. That's the point of trying to show that applying moral principles in one sense, and ignoring them in another, is hypocrisy. A certain amount of hypocrisy is necessary in life.


That is very interesting.  The current pope and his predecessor disagreed.  There is a reason why they think moral relativism is a giant black hole.  It is very reminiscent of Darth Vader...soon the list of neccessary evils becomes so long that one ceases to be "good".  

Brush off what you wish, but to me, a dead child is a dead child is a dead child...


----------



## Tgace (May 15, 2005)

Intentional murder of innocents out of rage, compulsion, etc. Is different from "collateral" (unintentional) death dyring combat operations. One of the key "elements" of a "crime" is intent.....


----------



## MJS (May 15, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Seldomly applied?  I really hope you're not referring to the appeals process.  At any rate, I'm curious as to why you say this.  Care to elaborate?



I'm not going to speak for TGace, but that is the way it sounds to me, and I have to say that if that is what hes referring to, I agree.  Seems to me that there can certainly be some flaws in the legal system.  While there have been cases of people wrongly put into prison, I would think that if there is no doubt that said person did the crime, then there should be no appeals.


----------



## arnisador (May 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> New York current has 4 inmates on "death row".....we havent had an execution since 1976.


  It's like a life sentence plus 10 demerits, then.

 We're still answering the Kitty Dukakis question after all this time! What a shame. I live in Terre Haute where we get federal executions (e.g. Timothy McVeigh) and the corresponding protests. It's a local issue here.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I also didn't see you dealing directly with the case I cited. Come on, lets get specific.


Um, are you referring to this....



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As it is difficult to only talk in abstract terms, I propose we discuss a specific case. Review this one, and let me know your opinions folks. http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html


to which I did respond with this...



			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So this is a friend's personal website relating the tale of a double rape and double homicide. A sad story, and certainly an occurrence that should be addressed by society at large, but ultimately this site does little more than appeal to a desire for revenge. It says nothing about the effectiveness of capital punishment at general deterrence, the risk of innacurate proof in capital punishment cases, or the validity of the state's right to take life. All the website says is "I'm so appalled by this act that this person just has to die"--revenge in its plainest.


I guess I wasn't "dealing directly with the case" enough. Would you prefer me to put up neon arrows?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 16, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> I'm not going to speak for TGace, but that is the way it sounds to me, and I have to say that if that is what hes referring to, I agree. Seems to me that there can certainly be some flaws in the legal system. While there have been cases of people wrongly put into prison, I would think that if there is no doubt that said person did the crime, then there should be no appeals.


Yet since there are cases of people being wrongly put in prison, as you've conceeded, then there is doubt concerning their guilt, so there should be appeals.  Even without such cases, there is a right to appeal you know.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 16, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Intentional murder of innocents out of rage, compulsion, etc. Is different from "collateral" (unintentional) death dyring combat operations. One of the key "elements" of a "crime" is intent.....


Timothy McViegh talked about the children he killed as "collateral damage".

When collateral damage is "expected" there is nothing "unintentional" about it.  Also, intent can be a very subject thing...yet the end result is the same.  Some parents get to bury the peices of their children and live with that horror for the rest of their lives.

Thus, I think it is hypocritical to put one person for death make another a hero for the same thing.

Moreover, what good comes from putting someone to death?  

My uncle is a guard at the Oak Park Heights maximum security prison in MN.  Inmates with life sentances for horrible crimes can get educated there.  They can go to church, get counseling, and they can willingly perform some acts of restitution.  

If given a life sentance, there is a chance to make amends.  Leave death for God to decide...


----------



## Kempogeek (May 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Timothy McViegh talked about the children he killed as "collateral damage".
> 
> When collateral damage is "expected" there is nothing "unintentional" about it.  Also, intent can be a very subject thing...yet the end result is the same.  Some parents get to bury the peices of their children and live with that horror for the rest of their lives.
> 
> ...


Im not going to tackle the issue of playing God as far as executing a proven guilty person. Everything you said about getting an education, going to church etc. is something those girls will never get to do now. It doesn't seem fair that anyone who commits murder can get all that and more while their victims are laid to rest long before their time. No amount of act of restitution can ever forgive his act. BTW, did God decide to put those girls to death and sent Hobbs as the messenger?


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Yet since there are cases of people being wrongly put in prison, as you've conceeded, then there is doubt concerning their guilt, so there should be appeals.  Even without such cases, there is a right to appeal you know.



True, and I for one, would hate to be sitting on death row, with the chance of getting executed, when I was not guilty of the crime.  However, you have guys on DR that are guilty and yet they're appealing.  Michael Ross, CT's first execution in over 40 yrs. was guilty of killing a number of women in the 1980's, yet he was allowed to appeal the process countless times.  Why?  I guess a good question would be, how many times is someone allowed to appeal?  As I said, if there is no doubt that the person is guilty, why the long process?

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2005)

Kempogeek said:
			
		

> BTW, did God decide to put those girls to death and sent Hobbs as the messenger?


I sure hope not!

Yet, there are many that live that probably should die and many that die that probably should live. 

I'm not wise enough to make that distinction.

My heart aches for these girls and I feel outrage at there deaths...the same outrage I would feel at the murder of any child whether its committed by a person or the state.

Again, why execute some and celebrate others? Are some children just not worth as much? I reject this hypocrisy.

upnorthkyosa

ps - forty years of guilt can make one wish for death...and that should be revenge enough...and it doesn't take away the opportunity to find some good in this tragedy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That is very interesting. The current pope and his predecessor disagreed. There is a reason why they think moral relativism is a giant black hole. It is very reminiscent of Darth Vader...soon the list of neccessary evils becomes so long that one ceases to be "good".
> 
> Brush off what you wish, but to me, a dead child is a dead child is a dead child...


To you, yes. But that's the key. You aren't charged with making those decisions (thank god) because you'd constantly be stuck in ethical quagmires that would lead to nothing but indecision that would result in the deaths of MORE people, all so you could avoid the slightest hint of hypocrisy and go to sleep feeling morally superior.  Popes have the luxury, being able to pick and choose their moral causes (being no real consequence for inaction, as they have LIFETIMES to debate moral and ethical stands).  Leaders of states don't.  

As for the ad hominem, i guess calling me Darth Vader is more timely than calling me Hitler, that's the usual leftist mantra. I'll give you points for being contemporary.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 18, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Um, are you referring to this....
> 
> to which I did respond with this...
> 
> I guess I wasn't "dealing directly with the case" enough. Would you prefer me to put up neon arrows?


Sure, i'll spell it out for you.  If you're making the claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent, then support that assertion.  Use whatever case study or evidence that you desire and we'll debate it.  Try to stay on task, however, as I hate to begin debating one thing, and then have someone try to shift focus at the last minute.  

So a debate on whether the death penalty CAN be or IS an effective deterrent it is.  I'll be awaiting your reply.


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So a debate on whether the death penalty CAN be or IS an effective deterrent it is.  I'll be awaiting your reply.



IMHO, I think it could be a great deterrent, depending on the person.  As a LEO, I'm sure you've seen some people out there, that once you pull out the OC or the Taser, they drop to the ground like a puppy, out of fear of getting shocked, while others will not, and still continue to disregard your orders.  

The same can be said with the death penalty.  Im sure there are some hard core people out there who don't think twice about killing, raping, etc. someone, so when they themselves are faced with death, they don't think twice about looking it right in the face.

Just my .02.

Mike


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

And those are the people who probably "deserve" it most.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As for the ad hominem, i guess calling me Darth Vader is more timely than calling me Hitler, that's the usual leftist mantra. I'll give you points for being contemporary.


Oh come now...Darth Vader is just an analogy.  It is not a label in any way.

Also, I believe that one can be decisive and not compromise their moral values.  Putting someone in prison for life is very decisive.  So is giving them a chance to do some restitution.  

How would that cause more deaths?


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

Funny how people can say "moral relativism" is wrong when it supports their cause, but then say "we cant judge" when it does not.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Funny how people can say "moral relativism" is wrong when it supports their cause, but then say "we cant judge" when it does not.


Yeah, that is interesting...


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> And those are the people who probably "deserve" it most.


If someone killed my children, I would feel rage and want to kill that person.  In fact, it may take physical force to restrain me...

I think alot of people would feel this way...most in my opinion.

Agreed?

If this is true, then what separates someone who advocates for the death penalty from a suicide bomber?

It is well documented by the Israelis that persons who have experienced tragedy are targeted by various opposition groups because suicide bombing fulfills that need for revenge.  I imagine the same thing is happening in Iraq...there are certainly a (large) number of innocent children being killed and plenty of greiving parents.

Some similarities...

1.  Both are revenge killings.  

2.  Both are indiscriminate (the death penalty is in the sense that innocents are put to death...).  

3.  Both are seen as deterrents (suicide bombings are seen as deterrents in the sense that they drive the forces that caused the death of children away).  

4.  Both unfairly label and target people who may have been uninvolved with the act in question (again, innocent people are put to death in this country and those innocent people are most likely to be from a minority group since the death penalty is applied disproportionately to those groups).

We expect countries where suicide bombings occur to "reign in the terrorists" in the name of _morality.  _Yet, that same _morality_ is tossed away in our country when it comes to the death penalty.  Shouldn't the State have a responsability to restrain people's desire/ability to kill in revenge in all circumstances?  

If not, then we have no right to tell a suicide bomber to stop what they are doing.

upnorthkyosa

PS - perhaps now, the wisdom of Ghandi's quote, "An eye for an eye makes the world blind," is a little clearer.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Oh come now...Darth Vader is just an analogy. It is not a label in any way.
> 
> Also, I believe that one can be decisive and not compromise their moral values. Putting someone in prison for life is very decisive. So is giving them a chance to do some restitution.
> 
> How would that cause more deaths?


An analogy is a comparison. I was being compared, or analogized, to Darth Vader. Now, come on, lets at least have the moral courage to stand behind our statements.

As far as Ghandi was concerned, he was a really inspiring figure, but not much of a realistic leader. Idealists typically live in a fantasy world where if they just care enough, the world will be a really good place. Idealism is a great concept, as long as the world is filled with idealists. Unfortunately, idealists can only be free to be idealists, when hard men protect them, despite their idealism. 

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell.

I defy anyone to call Orwell a fascist.  Keep in mind he wrote this phrase after returning from Spain, where he got shot in the neck FIGHTING the fascists. 

It's funny that idealists always compare rough men to the nazis, but forget about the rough men that saved the world FROM the Nazis. Without those rough men, who also value liberty and justice, there could be no idealism.

I'll make a deal with you. You keep dreaming the dream, and i'll deal with the world on it's own terms so that you are free to keep dreaming. Just leave the dealing with vermin to me, it's my lot in life. If it makes you feel better, you can say i'm doing it in my name, not in yours. I'll even note your protest. If you have a better way that DOES work (instead of one that you wish would work) let me know.


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

Allong the lines of "A Cop with no complaints filed against him isnt doing anything." aint it??


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 1.  An analogy is a comparison. I was being compared, or analogized, to Darth Vader. Now, come on, lets at least have the moral courage to stand behind our statements.
> 
> 2.  As far as Ghandi was concerned, he was a really inspiring figure, but not much of a realistic leader. Idealists typically live in a fantasy world where if they just care enough, the world will be a really good place. Idealism is a great concept, as long as the world is filled with idealists. Unfortunately, idealists can only be free to be idealists, when hard men protect them, despite their idealism.
> 
> ...


1.  Not you, your ideas.  They are separate.  I assume that you are a good man.

2.  I don't think you know very much about men like Ghandi or M.L. King.  They had more courage then you'll ever possess...me too for that matter.

3.  Self defense is one thing, vengeance is another.  You confuse the two.

4.  Here is a good working definition of fascism...




> *The 14 Defining*
> Characteristics Of Fascism
> by Dr. Lawrence Britt
> 
> ...


The shoe doesn't fit Orwell, but it fits many others...

5.  Some would argue that our ideals and morals allowed us to prevail against the Nazi.  My grandfather included...a man who actually stormed the beaches of Normandy.  He wasn't a rough man.  He was a kid, who wanted to do what was right.  How like our founding fathers!  And you sit here and trash that idealism...that is shameful.

6.  No, I'll make a deal with you...I'll keep my idealism AND act upon it AND make this country a better place, and I'll leave you to spout the same things that every petty dictator in the world spews.  You are selling Americans short.

Again, when does the list of neccessary evils become so long that one ceases to be good?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

Some people act as if idealism is weakness, but what it really shows is that they don't have the guts to follow through with what they believe.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## arnisador (May 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Allong the lines of "A Cop with no complaints filed against him isnt doing anything." aint it??


 I always say that a teacher who generates no complaints--offends no one--isn't trying hard enough.


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Some people act as if idealism is weakness, but what it really shows is that they don't have the guts to follow through with what they believe.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


He places his life between you the "evil" of society. Not speaking for him, but many do it out of the "idealism" that they are there to protect the society/culture/nation and people they love....so take your sanctimonious.....
guts!? Whats your experience in that department?

forget it you have joined the list.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. Not you, your ideas. They are separate. I assume that you are a good man.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. I don't think you know very much about men like Ghandi or M.L. King. They had more courage then you'll ever possess...me too for that matter.


Courage, devoid of effective action, is useless. Ghandi and M.L. King were only successful because they lived in a (mostly) civilized society that they could appeal to. They would have been completely ineffective in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia. In fact, you'd have never heard of them. Again, the tools used must fit the problem. A point I keep trying to make to idealists, as they keep attempt to use the wrong tactics for given problems. 

For example, the idea of conflict resolution, great idea when it applies. Yet, all conflict is not solvable using conflict resolution methods. For example, how do you apply conflict resolution methods if you are a woman who is being attacked by Ted Bundy, for example. What misunderstand lead to this situation, that you can simply fix by properly negotiating? Same with passive resistance, it works if your attackers have a conscience. How'd it work out at Tienaman Square? Did it stop those tanks? Wrong tactic. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 3. Self defense is one thing, vengeance is another. You confuse the two.


I confuse nothing. Vengence is irrelavent, and is based on an emotional response. A murderer of children is not worth the effort to keep them alive, they are threat to society if free, and a burden to society if incarcerated for life. The logical thing to do is to kill them, and spend the money that would have been spent on them to build schools and educate children. That's justice. While you're at it, harvest their organs so that others may live, that is also a way of salvaging a wasted life.  It's no more vengence that removing a malignant tumor is vengence.  


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 4. Here is a good working definition of fascism...
> 
> 
> The shoe doesn't fit Orwell, but it fits many others...


Again, this obsession with fascism by the left. The world is much more complex than this bipolar idea that there are only two kinds of people...People that agree with you and fascists.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 5. Some would argue that our ideals and morals allowed us to prevail against the Nazi. My grandfather included...a man who actually stormed the beaches of Normandy. He wasn't a rough man. He was a kid, who wanted to do what was right. How like our founding fathers! And you sit here and trash that idealism...that is shameful.


Our ideals were our motivator, what beat fascism was superior production, brave fighting men, and overwhelming force. Ideals mean nothing on a battle field. Your grandfather, who is worthy of respect, didn't do what he did at Normandy for ideals. He may have brought those with him, but he did what he did our of necessity. And lets not be coy about what he did. He took the role of our nations sharp edge of the spear. He killed men, so that others might live. He executed lethal force for his country, bringing death to it's enemies so that others may live. Your grandfather did what rough men do, he killed. But he did so out of love...love for his friends, for his country and for his own life. There's nothing dishonorable about that and we salute him. 

I trash nothing, but the idea that simply believing that if you care enough, it will change the world. Actions change the world, not dreams. Having an ideal, and end goal, is worthy. Simply having a false view of how the world SHOULD be, that's not in line with the way it is, however, is delusional. I think I understand the founding fathers AND your grandfather better than you.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 6. No, I'll make a deal with you...I'll keep my idealism AND act upon it AND make this country a better place, and I'll leave you to spout the same things that every petty dictator in the world spews. You are selling Americans short.


Yep, here we go. Simply call those who disagree with you fascists and dictators. Ok, you deal with the murderer and the rapist and the child killer on your own. I doubt you've ever even met one. That's what's pathetic, your idealism is based on books and movies and what you read on the internet. It's why you aren't taken seriously on this topic. 

Have you even seen the dead body of a murdered child abused and tortured by it's step father, and finally suffocated because it wouldn't quit crying? Have you looked that same smug, whiney, SOB in the eye who did it, and heard him lie his butt off to your face about how the baby "accidentally" died? Have you seen the same guy in court, after he made a false claim to his attorney that the police threatened him to get a statement? 

I can assure you, you have not. And you have the gall to tell me i'm a coward and a petty dictator and that YOU will make the world a better place. You haven't said ONE thing that shows you have the slightest clue where to start. Youth and vigor are no substitute for an action plan. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your youthful idealism. Go recycle some cans and volunteer at a no-kill animal shelter and leave the real problems of the world to those who understand them.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Again, when does the list of neccessary evils become so long that one ceases to be good?


Only when they become destructive to the ends.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

We certainly are making lots of assumptions about people we've never met...

From your writing though, I can say this;

1.  You are throwing up a charicature of courage that devalues the contributions of a great many people.  You sleep well at night because of the greater contribution of _people_ who are not at all _rough_.
2.  Sometimes, the ends do not justify the means.  Action without belief is immoral.
3.  Other then being a charicature, this "rough men" propaganda is just an excuse.  It's a rationalization to slip by what you know to be good, to justify the means...no matter how horrible.
4.  By all means, get the bad guys.  Watch them be replaced by new faces.  Why?  Because you just don't understand the things that can make a society great.  In the end, when you are old and retired, you may look back at the society you helped shape and wonder what happened to it.  How did we fall so low?  Who will be left holding the bag?  Someone else, no doubt...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> He places his life between you the "evil" of society. Not speaking for him, but many do it out of the "idealism" that they are there to protect the society/culture/nation and people they love....so take your sanctimonious.....
> guts!? Whats your experience in that department?
> 
> forget it you have joined the list.


Sanctimonious!  Nope, sorry.  The difference is that I try, really hard, all of the time, to do what I think is right...and I don't make excuses when I fail.  My experience is relevant in that it equals any contribution you have made _because_ of the above effort...despite our differences this is true.  

Wow, this is getting way too personal, I'm outta here.


----------



## shesulsa (May 19, 2005)

*Mod. Note. 
  Please return to a polite and respectful conversation.

  -Georgia Ketchmark
  -MT Senior Moderator-*


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Sanctimonious! Nope, sorry. The difference is that I try, really hard, all of the time, to do what I think is right...and I don't make excuses when I fail. My experience is relevant in that it equals any contribution you have made _because_ of the above effort...despite our differences this is true.
> 
> Wow, this is getting way too personal, I'm outta here.


I don't just TRY to do what's right, I DO what's right. You act as if you are the only one with any courage of conviction. My convictions are just different and i'm willing to back them with actions. You keep backpedaling, now you've finally admitted that "the end's don't ALWAYS justify the means". Well, no kidding, but that statement leaves open the fact that they SOMETIMES justify them.

It's like the statement that violence isn't always the answer. Yes, that's true, and thank goodness. But when it IS the answer, it's the only answer.

Lets examine your line of logic.  By your logic, your grandfather was a murderer and a war criminal.  He didn't fight off an enemy that was attacking him, he proactively attacked an enemy that he believed was a threat to his country in the future.  He went to them.  That's not self-defense, according to you.  It's murder.  I don't see it that way, however, I honor your grandfather for what he did.  Do you have any idea how many German and Japanese children we "murdered" in WWII?  Do you think your grandfather was a war criminal?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

"Have you even seen the dead body of a murdered child abused and tortured by it's step father, and finally suffocated because it wouldn't quit crying? Have you looked that same smug, whiney, SOB in the eye who did it, and heard him lie his butt off to your face about how the baby "accidentally" died?"

Pretty much, yeah, I have. And I think the death penalty's wrong.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "Have you even seen the dead body of a murdered child abused and tortured by it's step father, and finally suffocated because it wouldn't quit crying? Have you looked that same smug, whiney, SOB in the eye who did it, and heard him lie his butt off to your face about how the baby "accidentally" died?"
> 
> Pretty much, yeah, I have. And I think the death penalty's wrong.
> 
> ...


You've "pretty much" picked up a murdered child? lol. Let me guess, from the safety and comfort of your computer and TV, right? You never cease to amuse me, robertson.

So exactly which is it, are murdered children a bad thing (deserving of NEVER going to war) or are they a not so bad thing (giving a child murderer a reason for a second chance, considering murder isn't so bad). Just exactly what IS your argument, Robertson?

I know, anything the US government does is REALLY bad (such as a child that dies from a US bomb gone astray) but anything a criminal does INTENTIONALLY and for SELF-GRATIFICATION or SEXUAL-GRATIFICATION, isn't so bad, because, hey, mistakes happen?

For rationality sake, you might want to discuss the role INTENT plays in murder.  Are you saying, robertson, that if you are driving your car down a roadway, and you're going just a little too fast, and a child runs out in to the roadway and you kill the child, it's EXACTLY the same, morally, as a man who kidnaps a child, then tortures the child, then slowly strangles the child.  Is that what you are trying to say with your idiotic analogies?  Go ahead, i'd love to hear THIS rationalization.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

My argument, as I suspect you know perfectly well, is that a) experience doesn't dictate political beliefs, despite the fantasy that if them libs just got out more, they'd all agree with Sean Hannity, b) if one is going to argue that one's beliefs can only legitimately come from direct experience of atrocity, perhaps one should get up close and personal with the full horrors of war before cheering them on.

By the way, I went back and edited the last bit. Thought it was over the top--but I see that not everyone has such compunctions.

Incidentally, after ten years of hospital work, and over a year in a Children's Hospital mostly working in ICUs, I pretty much avoid connecting, "lol," and what sick bastards do, all too often, to children. And I wrote nothing about picking anybody up. Or driving. Or our government. Those are your fantasies, not mine....as is the notion that guys like me, or, "upnorthkyosa," are your enemies.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> My argument, as I suspect you know perfectly well, is that a) experience doesn't dictate political beliefs, despite the fantasy that if them libs just got out more, they'd all agree with Sean Hannity, b) if one is going to argue that one's beliefs can only legitimately come from direct experience of atrocity, perhaps one should get up close and personal with the full horrors of war before cheering them on.
> 
> By the way, I went back and edited the last bit. Thought it was over the top--but I see that not everyone has such compunctions.
> 
> Incidentally, after ten years of hospital work, and over a year in a Children's Hospital mostly working in ICUs, I avoid connecting, "lol," and what sick bastards do, all too often, to children. And I wrote nothing about picking anybody up.


Understanding dictates belief. Sitting in your living room your entire life, does not give you the insight to make a decision. Inserting Sean Hannity in to the debate does nothing to advance your agenda. 

Because it seems like that if the facts and evidence don't support your conclusions, you simply alter the argument.  Stick to the topic.  Does a man who tortures and murders a child deserve the death penalty.  The question wasn't "Do you think US foreign policy is wrong".  There is another thread for that question.  The two are not mutually answerable.  You can be FOR US foreign policy, and agains the death penalty, and vice versa.  So answering one, doesn't answer the other.  Debate one thing at a time.

Answer the car versus child analogy with an actual honest answer.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

It's also your fantasy that I've spent my life sitting in my living room--would that that were true!

And as for your demand that I respond to your rather peculiar analogy, you are quite right to suspect that I wrote the, "Communist Manifesto," killed God, and changed the Pledge of Allegiance to legitimate gay marriage.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's also your fantasy that I've spent my life sitting in my living room--would that that were true!
> 
> And as for your demand that I respond to your rather peculiar analogy, you are quite right to suspect that I wrote the, "Communist Manifesto," killed God, and changed the Pledge of Allegiance to legitimate gay marriage.


You always backpedal so poorly when cornered. Try to stay on task.  I'll even repeat the question.  Is a person who commits a traffic violation, and kills a child, morally equal to a man who kidnaps, tortures and murders a child?  I'll await your (non) reply.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I don't just TRY to do what's right, I DO what's right. You act as if you are the only one with any courage of conviction. My convictions are just different and i'm willing to back them with actions. You keep backpedaling, now you've finally admitted that "the end's don't ALWAYS justify the means". Well, no kidding, but that statement leaves open the fact that they SOMETIMES justify them.
> 
> It's like the statement that violence isn't always the answer. Yes, that's true, and thank goodness. But when it IS the answer, it's the only answer.
> 
> Lets examine your line of logic. By your logic, your grandfather was a murderer and a war criminal. He didn't fight off an enemy that was attacking him, he proactively attacked an enemy that he believed was a threat to his country in the future. He went to them. That's not self-defense, according to you. It's murder. I don't see it that way, however, I honor your grandfather for what he did. Do you have any idea how many German and Japanese children we "murdered" in WWII? Do you think your grandfather was a war criminal?


"Every person you kill, you get to live with for the rest of your life."

That pretty much sums up what my grandfather thinks and I agree.  Do I think that my grandfather thinks of himself as a murderer?  I don't know, but I'm sure the priest does.

I disagree that WWII vets weren't thinking about "self defense" in the terms of their country and their families, the Nazis and the Japanese were portrayed and believed to be a threat...but that is another thread.

Basically, can only strive to do their best.  This isn't backpeddling, its a reverence for an ideal and an honest attempt at reaching it.  I believe the murder is wrong, yet, if I had to defend my family, I could only hope that God would forgive me.  For me, it is the last resort and the practical limit of my ideology.  What else could a father do?

I would be a "murderer" for my family and go straight to hell to defend them.

Thankfully, I haven't been tested like this and I believe that this is a direct results of my efforts to keep the peace in my community and bring people together.  This reduces the overall violence in my city...and I work with some of the most violent.

As far as the death penalty is concerned though, there is nothing of this extremity involved.  There is no immediate emergency that demands action.  It is a cold blooded act of murder and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  

upnorthkyosa

ps - when you say I DO what's RIGHT you imply many things.  I would like to know what you think is right?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

Well, skipping blithely past the personal attacks that seem so essential to what passes for "intellectual," argument by conservatives these days (who knew I'd ever miss Goldwater!), you simply haven't provided sufficient information and detail to make any moral judgment meaningful. 

I also see that you haven't answered any of the questions I posed, which were rather more specifically described. 

Did I mention that I personally built the Gulags?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

The problem I have with the death penalty is that nothing is really forcing your hand to take another's life.  There are no circumstance that are beyond one's control.  There is no emergency.  One is simply selling out their values for the sake of revenge...cold blooded as it may be (and I do not believe for one minute the line that "one is not deserving of life" that just gives me shivers).  

The rationalizations I've seen thus far have been barely vieled attempts to shunt aside the difficulties of morality.

It takes a lot of strength to lock a guy like this up for life knowing that those beautiful children are dead.  Just as it takes a lot of strength to speak out when other children are killed by the state in the face of criticism, hatred, and violence.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> "Every person you kill, you get to live with for the rest of your life."
> 
> That pretty much sums up what my grandfather thinks and I agree. Do I think that my grandfather thinks of himself as a murderer? I don't know, but I'm sure the priest does.  Nobody ever claimed otherwise.  Every man you kill, you have to live with.  But that doesn't always make it wrong.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I disagree that WWII vets weren't thinking about "self defense" in the terms of their country and their families, the Nazis and the Japanese were portrayed and believed to be a threat...but that is another thread.


Of course they were thinking about self-defense.  Just as I think about defending my child when i'm glad to hear some violent criminal is put to death.  That's what the Nazis were, violent criminals who needed to be wiped from the planet, and thanks to your grandfather and his generation, they were.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Basically, can only strive to do their best. This isn't backpeddling, its a reverence for an ideal and an honest attempt at reaching it. I believe the murder is wrong, yet, if I had to defend my family, I could only hope that God would forgive me. For me, it is the last resort and the practical limit of my ideology. What else could a father do?
> 
> I would be a "murderer" for my family and go straight to hell to defend them.
> 
> Thankfully, I haven't been tested like this and I believe that this is a direct results of my efforts to keep the peace in my community and bring people together. This reduces the overall violence in my city...and I work with some of the most violent.


Nothing wrong with working to reduce violence, I salute your efforts.  However, not all violence is a misunderstanding, some violence is predatorial.  That's what most idealists refuse to ever understand.  Some men operate as predators, and they don't care about conflict resolution, they merely seek to rip what they want from the weak.  Those are the men I concern myself with.  Your idealogy does not allow you to deal with men like that BECAUSE you are a fundamentally decent person, you don't understand their mentality.  I salute YOU for being a good and decent person.  Please understand, however, that predators will use that very decency against you.  Those men DON'T respect you, they only understand FEAR.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as the death penalty is concerned though, there is nothing of this extremity involved. There is no immediate emergency that demands action. It is a cold blooded act of murder and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


It leaves a bad taste in your mouth because you are a fundamentally good, and decent person.  If this world were fully civilized, it would be filled with men like you.  Because it is NOT yet fully civilized, but at most half-civilized (if we're lucky), then it needs men like me.  I'm not your enemy.  I am the enemy of predators who seek to prey on good and decent people.  I've dedicated my life to rooting out those who prey on the weak and helpless.

You see, upnorth, it is not our goals that are different from one another, but the understanding on my part that this world is not yet civilized enough to accept your ideology.  There is still much work to be done before that can happen.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> ps - when you say I DO what's RIGHT you imply many things. I would like to know what you think is right?


What I think is right, is that children be able to play without fear, that they should be educated, that they should grow up in a world without anger and hate.  What I think is right as that people should live a decent and just life, free from tyranny and repression.  That's what I think is right.  I'm a little more cynical about the work necessary to bring that about, however.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

Oh wow, there are actually bad people in the world. And sometimes violence seems necessary, unfortunately.

'Tis meet I write this down.

Did I mention that I was actually Son of Sam's dog?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course they were thinking about self-defense. Just as I think about defending my child when i'm glad to hear some violent criminal is put to death. That's what the Nazis were, violent criminals who needed to be wiped from the planet, and thanks to your grandfather and his generation, they were.
> 
> Nothing wrong with working to reduce violence, I salute your efforts. However, not all violence is a misunderstanding, some violence is predatorial. That's what most idealists refuse to ever understand. Some men operate as predators, and they don't care about conflict resolution, they merely seek to rip what they want from the weak. Those are the men I concern myself with. Your idealogy does not allow you to deal with men like that BECAUSE you are a fundamentally decent person, you don't understand their mentality. I salute YOU for being a good and decent person. Please understand, however, that predators will use that very decency against you. Those men DON'T respect you, they only understand FEAR.
> 
> ...


Nice, well thought out, post.  I'll leave you to spar with Robert, I've got to put my kids to bed.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Does a man who tortures and murders a child deserve the death penalty.


  Yes. I have no ethical issue with this at all.

 But that doesn't mean we should necessarily do it. First, we'd have to be 100% sure he did it, and knew what he was doing--easy in a hypothetical situation, harder in real life.

 Second, we can rise above vengeance, however justified it may be. Can't we be better than killing killers? Look how many nations have rejected the notion of institutionalized murder. Sure, it's justified--but do we really want to codify appropriate situations for murdering U.S. citizens?

 I can't support it because of the large number of mistakes that have been made. When everyone facing Death Row gets a Johnny Cochrane style defense, ask me again.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 19, 2005)

Sometime this week in Idaho a man found his wife, brother and friend murdered in his home. His two small children are missing. It is hoped beyond hope that the children are still alive and will be long enough for the authorities to find them. 
As to the why's of this particular crime it's not known. But already the perpetrator(s) have marked themselves for just cause of capital punishment. 
Of course that's just my opinion isn't it? 

There's lots of bad people out there and lots of them have a better chance of getting life in prison than capital punishment because of the fights to abolish it. Not a deterrent? Mebbe not, but it will ensure that these *animals* do not grace our planet again doesn't it?

Yahoo News article here 
Pictures of these innocents here. Yeah it's manipulative I know but it *might* help show the point.


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes. I have no ethical issue with this at all.
> 
> But that doesn't mean we should necessarily do it. First, we'd have to be 100% sure he did it, and knew what he was doing--easy in a hypothetical situation, harder in real life.
> 
> ...


There is some truth in that....however I believe that points out that changes in the system need to be made to make the system work better, not as a reason to abandon it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/11/death.penalty/

...


> *Bad lawyers are to blame, study finds*
> 
> Leibman said incompetent counsel is to blame for many of the errors his study found in death-penalty cases.
> 
> ...


In other words, very few of these errors were "innocent man put on death row" type events. Most were cases of "while they did do the crime, they were not death penalty cases" events.


----------



## arnisador (May 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> In other words, very few of these errors were "innocent man put on death row" type events. Most were cases of "while they did do the crime, they were not death penalty cases" events.



Or, they did do the crime, but procedural or other errors were made in their defense, which is unfair.

But, there certainly are a number of cases of absolute mistakes as well. Perhaps the system can be repaired to an acceptable extent. For now, it's hard to support it as it stands.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 20, 2005)

Yeah okay but who's going to do the repairs? Seems that is up to the judical committees and all the other law makers on capital hill... but they got better things to do don't they? Like fighting a war on Terror, balancing the budget, giving themselves raises, wondering who's party is going to rule the house and so forth. 
If I remember correctly one of our historical documents starts out with "We The People..." hmm seems that's the answer right there.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 21, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Or, they did do the crime, but procedural or other errors were made in their defense, which is unfair.
> 
> But, there certainly are a number of cases of absolute mistakes as well. Perhaps the system can be repaired to an acceptable extent. For now, it's hard to support it as it stands.


Perhaps a system where the TRUTH is the ultimate goal, as opposed to the system we have where it's about who's lawyer is the best in front of a jury. 

Truth? I can't believe I said that, I guess deep down inside I must be a bit of a romantic to even think that truth should be part of the equation.


----------



## arnisador (May 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Perhaps a system where the TRUTH is the ultimate goal, as opposed to the system we have where it's about who's lawyer is the best in front of a jury.


 So, what would that mean? A tribunal system of judges investigating and deciding?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2005)

Uh...hate to mention reality here, but our current system is designed precisely to produce truth through dialectic: the prosecution provides the thesis, the defense provides the antithesis, the judge watches the rules, the jury listens, deliberates, and provides the synthesis.

One problem is that we refuse to ante up, and provide an educated populace for the jury. Another is that our justice system is unequal: people with money get off more easily, people of color get screwed more easily by a system biased a little at every level.

And, we taxpayers refuse to spend the money on cops, decent records, adequate staff and equipment, etc., that the whole thing badly needs. We also refuse to make needed reasonable changes, such as the British banning of the press from direct reporting on trials-in-progress. 

Instead, we fiddle around with loopy, "reforms," that have nothing to do with the real problems, or we fool around blaming, say, "the ACLU," for the real problems.

Show of Internet hands: who's willing to ante up for the criminal justice system we actually need?


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

I wonder what the effect will be if there was still "Public Executions"?


----------



## MA-Caver (May 23, 2005)

The idea of public executions have been played around for a while. Pay-per-view people argue that it would be probably THE biggest and most watched event in history and then after a while it would taper off... but not much. Dispite the hue and cry people (in general) still have a fascination with watching someone die. A lot probably won't admit it openly but it's something primal in us, in our psyche that gets us to want to watch. Some will resist but many won't. Remember how many hits the beheading videos from Iraq a while back got? Same idea. 
But the other side had argued about who would get the money? The families of the victims? The company straight out. Would it pay for the cost of the execution? 
Then there's the morality side of the coin. How do/can you screen it so that those under 18 aren't going to watch it? You can't... not 100%. So there we have violations or possible violations of laws preventing that. 
In a sense executions are public with selected witnesses that have no connection to the crime or case (not excluding the families and so forth). There are vigils outside prisons where an execution is being held. While they are not actually witnessing it per se' it's still an indication of the turn out a pay-per-view would get. 
With the advent of the internet and the ability to transfer video copies to the computer such events would probably suffer viewership once someone copies the live broadcast and puts it out on the net. They'll make money off of it first before someone else copies what they put out and then puts it out for free on places like Kaaza and other Napster-clones. 
I'd be surprised that in the next five years that this starts happening.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Yeah, I had this discussion long ago, and it was tohught that such will not occur, per a public broadcast.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...hate to mention reality here, but our current system is designed precisely to produce truth through dialectic: the prosecution provides the thesis, the defense provides the antithesis, the judge watches the rules, the jury listens, deliberates, and provides the synthesis.


So how's that working out for us? 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One problem is that we refuse to ante up, and provide an educated populace for the jury. Another is that our justice system is unequal: people with money get off more easily, people of color get screwed more easily by a system biased a little at every level.


We can agree there, about the money that is.  Money makes our system.  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And, we taxpayers refuse to spend the money on cops, decent records, adequate staff and equipment, etc., that the whole thing badly needs. We also refuse to make needed reasonable changes, such as the British banning of the press from direct reporting on trials-in-progress.


Because we're cheap and lazy as a people. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Instead, we fiddle around with loopy, "reforms," that have nothing to do with the real problems, or we fool around blaming, say, "the ACLU," for the real problems.


The ACLU certain contributes, mostly because trial lawyers don't get paid as much, if they lose.  Especially if the guy is guilty.  But i'll save my critique of attorneys for another day. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Show of Internet hands: who's willing to ante up for the criminal justice system we actually need?


You can put me down.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

Uh-oh, agreement. The Apocalypse is here.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

My county is in such a mess that they are cutting the Sheriff Dept. and the DA's office down to nothing. The chopper is grounded and they are telling the local courts to start thinking about providing their own prosecutors for misdemeanor cases.....


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> My county is in such a mess that they are cutting the Sheriff Dept. and the DA's office down to nothing. The chopper is grounded and they are telling the local courts to start thinking about providing their own prosecutors for misdemeanor cases.....


Youre kidding?


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

Nope...county government is wrecked here. Glad I turned down a job with the Sheriffs dept. Any search on Erie county fiscal crisis will show the extent....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

Join the crowd, man.  People are very cheap on the local level.  They all want federal money to pay for everything.  They don't realize that if they spent a little more on taxes on the local level, they would get more out of their tax dollar.  Oh well.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Nope...county government is wrecked here. Glad I turned down a job with the Sheriffs dept. Any search on Erie county fiscal crisis will show the extent....


Poor managemet of funs or not enough supporting community revenue?


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

At this point, I think I should mention that side issues like crime deterrency or material cost or who else does it or DNA testing are all pretty much secondary or derivative to the central issue at hand: meaning, are state-sanctioned executions a moral institution??

I will argue that they are not. I will argue that murdering another human being (hey, let's call it what it is) when it can rather easily be avoided is not moral. I will argue that punishing those who kill by, well, killing is the most contrived moral logic one could possibly resort to.

I will further argue that many, if not all, of the defenses of state executions that have been advanced on this thread have been variations of the logical fallacies known as Appeal to Emotion and Two Wrongs Make A Right. 

I will argue even further that much of the logic underlying these defenses are forms of Other psychology or Jungian Shadow psychology. Namely, these are Ego defense mechanisms whereby one projects the "Shadow" or "Other" onto those believed to be "evil", in order to rationalize and justify their utter destruction. This is basically a dehumanizing process whereby one is conditioned to distance oneself from the Other --- often with telltale terms like "inhuman", "monster", "demon", "devil", and so forth. 

The goal, of course, is not only to dehumanize the Other so as to "moralize" its destruction but to ensure the Ego is everything the Other is not (i.e., "evil"). Milgram used it in his classic experiments. As did Zimbardo during the "Stanford prison" experiment. So did the Vietcong, for that matter.

I will argue to even further degree that executions have been used by human beings for a long, long, long time --- and the origins of such institutions have little to do with "justice", "morality", or "the right thing". It has to do with vengeance, and destroying the Other --- so as to preserve the Order.

Lastly, I shall argue that bringing up such things as the material costs or the ability of capital punishment to "deter" future crimes is a manifestation of the industrial ontology (re: materialism) that Western culture has been immersed in for at least 200 years. An issue cannot have psychological or moral value in and of itself, but must ultimately be relegated to "socioeconomic" issues. 

All of which, of course, I find to be very, very, very interesting.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 28, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> At this point, I think I should mention that side issues like crime deterrency or material cost or who else does it or DNA testing are all pretty much secondary or derivative to the central issue at hand: meaning, are state-sanctioned executions a moral institution??
> 
> I will argue that they are not. I will argue that murdering another human being (hey, let's call it what it is) when it can rather easily be avoided is not moral. I will argue that punishing those who kill by, well, killing is the most contrived moral logic one could possibly resort to.
> 
> ...


I applaud your intellectual honesty in dealing with the central issue, as opposed to the fallacious attempt to create complex side issues for the purpose of creating strawmen.

Now, i'll deal with your argument.  Morality is subjective, not objective.  The death penalty, appropriately applied and all other issues aside, is the most pragmatic way to eliminate a violent element from society.  As it is a violent minority that commits the majority of violent crime, meaning they commit multiple offenses in their lifetime, the rational thing to do is eliminate them permanently from society, and the most sure way of doing that is to execute them.


----------

