Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your hiding behind an emotional argument. 'What about the victim" isn't an argument. It's an emotional appeal. The fact that you avoid reason and go with this as your argument suggests that there is no reason to back your point. which probably means you're wrong.
I disagree. Nothing I say will change anyone's mind. Nothing you say will change mine. At the risk of invoking yet another "emotional argument" I will repeat what I said earlier about George and Kitty Dukakis ... George flip-flopped (as he should have) when the situation was brought home. I do indeed hope that you and the rest of the ilk are never in a position to face that scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Your call.
And I have responded. I do not agree with the sentiments that you eloquently presented. I stand by my position and in the horrible event that you and your ilk should ever face that very situation, then you will have an opportunity to make a realistic call on what you really believe. I hope my response is not too "emotional". And as a side-light ... can you enlighten me about 'the good' folks like John Wayne Gayce or Jeffery Dahmer have/had that we as a society are missing out on? I'm sure their victims would like to know.
The Jewish population (those still with us!) would probably disagree with you on a certain 20th century German leader having value, although I guess his current value lies with being deconstructed as an example of how charismatic people can sway millions into doing bad things.
I guess a certain wealthy Saudi who helped finance and plan the attacks on September 11, 2001 had value to the "western military-industrial complex" although his value is probably a lot less to his victims, their families, the country of Afghanistan, the spillover into Iraq, the dead civilians of both conflicts, the dead troops...
Don't care for those "super-villain" examples?
"Albert Fish was an American sadomasochistic serial killer and cannibal. He was found guilty of taking the lives of three children, although he proudly confessed to raping children in each state across America. He was arrested in 1934 and executed by the electric chair in 1936." I'm sure he wrote wonderful poetry.
"Between 1969 and 1980, Pedro Lopez killed more than 300 young girls throughout South America. In the early 1980s he was arrested for his atrocious crimes, but was released 14 years later. Not surprisingly, once released from prison Lopez was back on the streets taking more innocent lives. He was arrested for committing murder (again!) for the last time in 2002." He probably had a mother who loved his sense of humor.
It's a nice platitude, that whole "all life is precious" mantra. It certainly sounds much more acceptable, and righteous than "I want them dead for what they've done." I'd even agree that in the most upstanding and civilized society, like a utopia, it could work. But we live in reality. Reality is full of people who do things straight out of nightmares to innocent people. You seem to think that people who are for the death penalty, or are okay when police or citizens kill bad guys, are all blood-thirsty vigilantes, stalking the streets, looking for targets. Do you see many Charles Bronson types out there? I don't. Know who IS out there? Bad guys.
I disagree. Nothing I say will change anyone's mind. Nothing you say will change mine. At the risk of invoking yet another "emotional argument" I will repeat what I said earlier about George and Kitty Dukakis ... George flip-flopped (as he should have) when the situation was brought home. I do indeed hope that you and the rest of the ilk are never in a position to face that scenario.
And I have responded. I do not agree with the sentiments that you eloquently presented. I stand by my position and in the horrible event that you and your ilk should ever face that very situation, then you will have an opportunity to make a realistic call on what you really believe. I hope my response is not too "emotional". And as a side-light ... can you enlighten me about 'the good' folks like John Wayne Gayce or Jeffery Dahmer have/had that we as a society are missing out on? I'm sure their victims would like to know.
El Nox
If everyone went with the 'nothing said will change anyone mind' logic, the world would be very, very stupid. This is the debate section. If you aren't willing to have your mind changed, even a little, get the hell out. Debates with close minded people have never been productive, at least form my experience.
Now then, to ask your emotionally charged, and totally unnecessary, question on what would happen if it happened to me, my response is simple: no one is supposed to care what I want in that situation. It's fact of civil law; the courts are trusted to make punitive decisions and I don't necessarily have to agree with them. There are restrictions set in place by the constitution (or a state's constitution), but as long as the punishment is within those parameters, that's it.
This is an issue bigger than me, need I remind you. This goes back to the original liberal position (Liberal in regards to John Locke, not the modern definition). To paraphrase Locke (who's thought was the basis of the US constitution), 'humans are not good judges in their own case.' This is why we have courts. Even if my position were to momentarily change if someone I loved was every killed, it would be irrelevant. I believe right now that a civilized society cannot allow the state the authority to kill as a method of punishment. If a distraught me disagrees with that sentiment, I'd advice that version of me to give it time. My emotions are clouding my judgement, and good laws are not made for emotional reasons.
As for your serial killers, I don't know what good qualities they have. I've never met them. Nor do I know what good qualities they could come to posses. I would say that offer some pretty distinct value though. The ability to study these people, whom I'm sure had something deeply wrong with them, could possibly give us insight on what makes a serial killer. If we know what makes one, then we know how to prevent one and this is something that is hugely beneficial to us as a society. No, I don't think we'll ever fully stop these sorts of things, but if we can bring the numbers down, that's still a level of success I'd be satisfied with.
The Jewish population (those still with us!) would probably disagree with you on a certain 20th century German leader having value, although I guess his current value lies with being deconstructed as an example of how charismatic people can sway millions into doing bad things.
I guess a certain wealthy Saudi who helped finance and plan the attacks on September 11, 2001 had value to the "western military-industrial complex" although his value is probably a lot less to his victims, their families, the country of Afghanistan, the spillover into Iraq, the dead civilians of both conflicts, the dead troops...
Don't care for those "super-villain" examples?
"Albert Fish was an American sadomasochistic serial killer and cannibal. He was found guilty of taking the lives of three children, although he proudly confessed to raping children in each state across America. He was arrested in 1934 and executed by the electric chair in 1936." I'm sure he wrote wonderful poetry.
"Between 1969 and 1980, Pedro Lopez killed more than 300 young girls throughout South America. In the early 1980s he was arrested for his atrocious crimes, but was released 14 years later. Not surprisingly, once released from prison Lopez was back on the streets taking more innocent lives. He was arrested for committing murder (again!) for the last time in 2002." He probably had a mother who loved his sense of humor.
It's a nice platitude, that whole "all life is precious" mantra. It certainly sounds much more acceptable, and righteous than "I want them dead for what they've done." I'd even agree that in the most upstanding and civilized society, like a utopia, it could work. But we live in reality. Reality is full of people who do things straight out of nightmares to innocent people. You seem to think that people who are for the death penalty, or are okay when police or citizens kill bad guys, are all blood-thirsty vigilantes, stalking the streets, looking for targets. Do you see many Charles Bronson types out there? I don't. Know who IS out there? Bad guys.
Before I begin, I'd read the last post I made that brings up people not being good judges in their own case and the value of understanding the mind of serial killers, both of which are points relevant to what you say.
I haven't a clue how you came to such an asinine conclusion about my belief that those who like the police and support the death penalty are blood thirsty, especially since I said nothing about the police. I've stated my view, and though doing it again is redundant, is has proven necessary: my view is that the state should not have the authority to end lives. Simple. This is based on what I believe to be a just justice system, on how civilized society should operate, and on the value of human life and dignity.
You say that reality is full of terrible people. False. Reality consists mostly of completely neutral people, with plenty of good people and a fair amount of bad people. The average person is behaving in some overly righteous way, nor are they monstrous people. The very good and very bad are both exceptional cases. My view on how a civilized and morally just justice system works is centered around the average person, who is capable of doing good and bad things. Exceptional cases, like the most hideous of serial killers, would be handled differently because they are exceptional. I've already said why keeping them alive has value to society, but I will add that I think America's prison system is inefficient. Putting people in prison for long periods of time does not make someone better. Proactively getting them to behave does.
I'd argue that any prison sentence (for the average criminal) over 10 years is probably unreasonable, and keeping someone in jail for more than 20 is usually unjust. Exceptional cases, like terrorist and serial killers, are to be handled different. I still don't believe they should be killed, but permanent separation from society in exceptional cases is not unreasonable.
Yet you desire to let the murderers off easy by painlessly killing them, when a lot of them were borderline suicidal anyway. That's not pro-victim. That's pro-status-quo. You like the crime statistics we have now, and want to keep them that way.
If we must be so barbaric as to execute criminals, we should at least do it like justice, and not like cowards. Let the general public kick them to death or something. A painless lethal injection is the work of pathetic cowards. The kind of people who are in favor of capital punishment, but don't want to face its implications.
You are correct. What is your point? Is your point that it is okay to kill? Is there a consequence for same?
I find your question to be absolutely silly. Apparently you care little or nothing for the victim. Lord have mercy. Let us hope that YOU are never a victim ... because if you are, then someone else can pess on your right to exist.
El Nox
MY point is no, its NEVER okay to kill but your points seem to support murder.
I disagree. Nothing I say will change anyone's mind. Nothing you say will change mine. At the risk of invoking yet another "emotional argument" I will repeat what I said earlier about George and Kitty Dukakis ... George flip-flopped (as he should have) when the situation was brought home. I do indeed hope that you and the rest of the ilk are never in a position to face that scenario.
And I have responded. I do not agree with the sentiments that you eloquently presented. I stand by my position and in the horrible event that you and your ilk should ever face that very situation, then you will have an opportunity to make a realistic call on what you really believe. I hope my response is not too "emotional". And as a side-light ... can you enlighten me about 'the good' folks like John Wayne Gayce or Jeffery Dahmer have/had that we as a society are missing out on? I'm sure their victims would like to know.
I find it ironic in todays day and age that people are ok with killing an unborn child (abortion), but yet think its unreasonable to kill a murderer. An innocent child cant get a chance at life yet a criminal taking lives of innocent people does get that chance? Tell me where the sense in that is?
What happens when a dog attacks someone? Do we put it into rehabilitation? Do we keep it caged up the rest of its life? Nope...that costs money and that money could go towards better things. The answer is to put them down. Murderers are animals and should be put down as well.
Just for the record, I am pro choice when it comes to abortion but pro death for hardened criminals.
I find it ironic in todays day and age that people are ok with killing an unborn child (abortion), but yet think its unreasonable to kill a murderer. An innocent child cant get a chance at life yet a criminal taking lives of innocent people does get that chance? Tell me where the sense in that is?
What happens when a dog attacks someone? Do we put it into rehabilitation? Do we keep it caged up the rest of its life? Nope...that costs money and that money could go towards better things. The answer is to put them down. Murderers are animals and should be put down as well.
Just for the record, I am pro choice when it comes to abortion but pro death for hardened criminals.
Do you hold dogs and people to the same standards? If not, comparing the two is a ridiculous thing to do.
I won't address the issue of abortion, since that will only derail this thread, but I'll explain why people oppose the death penalty. Because it's really not about chance. Most people even eligible for the death penalty would most likely find themselves in prison for the rest of their life. If you consider that 'a chance' you are a messed up human being.
Many oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it's barbaric. They see it as a vestige of a less civilized time, reminiscent of burning human beings alive for crimes like witchcraft or being a homosexual. A time when human life frankly was valued less overall than it is today. We are living in the modern world. Every single human being should be seen for what they are: human. Yes, there are dangerous people in the world, but one must ask what is the humane thing to do. Execution does not fit that mark.
Another argument is the cost. Death row trials usually go on for decades, which costs quite a lot more than just leaving them in prison for life.
Another argument that I use is for the purpose of studying them. You seem to think all murders should be put to death, which I find quite extreme, but most would only be the most hideous of murders who would ever be on death row. Serial killers, for example. If we can figure out specifically what causes people to not value human life, perhaps we can begin to find ways to prevent it from happening to others, which will save more lives in the long run.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
