This is outragous!!! warning ***GRAPHIC***

[Rustovitch]

back on topic guys.. take this lovers quarrel to private pm..

I am sorry, I wear my heart on my sleeve. <sigh>

But seriously yes, murderers and rapists, if caught truly to rights should be used as organ donors, test subjects or simply executed. That is my opinion, I make no apoligies for it, I am not the only nutjob on this thread who has called for the death penalty and I would be happy to argue the case with anyone who can demonstrate adult conduct.

[xelabale]

2 of our finest going head to head - I wonder who the other one is? I'm staying tuned to this one - rusty, don't get sidetracked now, it's just getting going.

[PLAYER57832]

I was linked to this video on youtube THIS VIDEO IS HORRIBLE and graphic but i think that this deserves discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b7cjgIllFU
For those who chose not to see the video I will explain A 6 month old baby is beaten to death and raped by her father uncle and mother. They got 18 years to life (keep in mind that life in most states is 20-25 years) in prison I have to ask my self WTF!! why aren't they put to death how can you look at this child and her bruises and her beautiful face and not want the people responsible for such acts dead!!!! I mean at least make sure that they will NEVER get out of prison
Now skip ahead to this morning i ma catching up on some local news and this guy swindled 300,000 bucks from siblings bought a boat, a few cars. and a motorcycle. Guess how many years he is going to prison for
45!!! What the fucking hell is the matter with society??????
http://connect2utah.com/content/video/? ... &cid=46511 about 35 seconds in it tells about this guy.
Does this piss anyone else off or is it just me?

I don't need to see the video to know it is horrible.

As to the hypocrisy of our justice system.. you "preach to the choir", as the saying goes.

The real answer is to do what we can in our own neighborhoods to ensure the kids around us don't grow up to do those things. Sometimes this means having a neighbor kid over for lunch or letting them earn money from "chores" or simply telling them what a wonderful kid they are (despite their imperfections). Sometimes it means explaining to them very carefully, why running out in the road with cars squealing to stop is not a great idea, sometimes it means calling child protective services (or whatever the agency is in your area).

[MrWainthrope]

But seriously yes, murderers and rapists, if caught truly to rights should be used as organ donors, test subjects or simply executed. That is my opinion, I make no apoligies for it

Well unfortunately for you, I seriously think that people who continue to cling to outdated 'eye for an eye' models of justice and who believe that state-sanctioned murders are somehow less blameworthy and reprehensible than privately motivated murders, are ignorant imbeciles driven only by low-level gut-instinct and knee-jerk reactionism. In a civilized society we simply have to be able to do better than blunt physical retribution as a response to criminality. If we fail in that then we might as well just go back to chopping the hands off of thieves and burning heretics at the stake, because morally speaking there's no major difference between that and executing murderers. That is my opinion. That is the opinion of large numbers of people directly involved in the penal system. That IS NOT the opinion of shallow thinking tabloid readers who have never met a criminal and who seem desperate to lead a headlong rush back to the middle-ages. I make no apologies for that.

Good day to you 'Sir'.

[apey]

But seriously yes, murderers and rapists, if caught truly to rights should be used as organ donors, test subjects or simply executed. That is my opinion, I make no apoligies for it

Well unfortunately for you, I seriously think that people who continue to cling to outdated 'eye for an eye' models of justice and who believe that state-sanctioned murders are somehow less blameworthy and reprehensible than privately motivated murders, are ignorant imbeciles driven only by low-level gut-instinct and knee-jerk reactionism. In a civilized society we simply have to be able to do better than blunt physical retribution as a response to criminality. If we fail in that then we might as well just go back to chopping the hands off of thieves and burning heretics at the stake, because morally speaking there's no major difference between that and executing murderers. That is my opinion. That is the opinion of large numbers of people directly involved in the penal system. That IS NOT the opinion of shallow thinking tabloid readers who have never met a criminal and who seem desperate to lead a headlong rush back to the middle-ages. I make no apologies for that.

Good day to you 'Sir'.

I want to know how in the f*ck you can look at that little angel baby and think that the people that did that to her deserve to breath the same air as the rest of us??? THEY ARE A WASTE OF RESOURCES!!!

[khazalid]

so am i the only one in this thread currently nursing a semi? does that make me a bad person..?

[Rustovitch]

Well unfortunately for you, I seriously think that people who continue to cling to outdated 'eye for an eye' models of justice

Who mentioned 'eye for an eye?'
This is the way I look at it, if a dog mauls it's owner and kills a child you put it down don't you? If someone tries to murder you and you happen to have a shotgun in your hand you have a moral right, sometimes a legal right but definitly a legal argument to shoot the person dead. It is only a small jump, not a huge leap to arguing that people who are so mentally and morally deficient that they have murdered and would likely murder again be put to sleep.

It makes sense to me, and having done so I see no problem with utilising their organs or employing them for medical research. Indeed it would be amoral not to.

It solves a problem, it fits the crime, it prevents re-offending, and it gives the relatives of the victims whose rights should exceed that of the criminal a greater chance of 'closure'. Instead of having them face the possibility that the guy who murdered their father or raped their pre-pubescent daughter is living in a nice room, with a TV, games console, regular meals, therapy, excercise, the chance to study for a degree and the future possibility of release back into society which the protection of a new identity. Yes this does happen.

and who believe that state-sanctioned murders are somehow less blameworthy and reprehensible than privately motivated murders, are ignorant imbeciles driven only by low-level gut-instinct and knee-jerk reactionism.

I believe that the state calmly executing someone after finding them guilty of murder or rape is nowhere nearly as bad as me torching an orphanage because the screams of the dying are the only way I can get an erection.

Isn't it strange that though I am the person driven by low-level gut-instinct and knee-jerk reactionism I am one expressing their views in a civil manner? Strained civility admittedly.

In a civilized society we simply have to be able to do better than blunt physical retribution as a response to criminality.

Why?
What is the problem with blunt physical retribution as a response to criminality.

If we fail in that then we might as well just go back to chopping the hands off of thieves and burning heretics at the stake,

There is nothing instrinically wrong with chopping the hands off of thieves, unless the theft was under severe duress, or of minor value, I just feel that generally other punishments would be better. A thief can easily be rehabiliated, murderers and rapists are harder to crack. Burning heretics is meaningless to me as an atheist.

because morally speaking there's no major difference between that and executing murderers. That is my opinion. That is the opinion of large numbers of people directly involved in the penal system.

That is quite irrelevant. The penal system is not society, the penal system has failed society, many of those involved in the penal system need to removed and anyone who is defending the penal system in countries such as the USA and the UK has rather missed the point.

That IS NOT the opinion of shallow thinking tabloid readers who have never met a criminal and who seem desperate to lead a headlong rush back to the middle-ages. I make no apologies for that.

Many would regard that as elitist snobbery, a large number of tabloid readers have met criminals, are more likely to in fact be the victims of crime.

It is not about rushing headlong back into the middle ages, that reads like a politicians sound byte. It is more about restoring society to the greater order in enjoyed in the early and mid part of the 20th century.

[Snorri1234]

I believe that the state calmly executing someone after finding them guilty of murder or rape is nowhere nearly as bad as me torching an orphanage because the screams of the dying are the only way I can get an erection.

Please refrain from using arguments like this. They make you look silly.

[Rustovitch]

I believe that the state calmly executing someone after finding them guilty of murder or rape is nowhere nearly as bad as me torching an orphanage because the screams of the dying are the only way I can get an erection.

Please refrain from using arguments like this. They make you look silly.

No, it was apt and relevant and directly confronts what this argument is all about.

[Snorri1234]

I believe that the state calmly executing someone after finding them guilty of murder or rape is nowhere nearly as bad as me torching an orphanage because the screams of the dying are the only way I can get an erection.

Please refrain from using arguments like this. They make you look silly.

No, it was apt and relevant and directly confronts what this argument is all about.

No it's bollocks. It fits in the same catagory as "OMG WE NEEDZ GUNS BECAUSE OLD GRANDMA'S NEED TO SHOOT BURGLARS!!"

It's irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not the death penalty is morally justifiable.

[muy_thaiguy]

I believe that the state calmly executing someone after finding them guilty of murder or rape is nowhere nearly as bad as me torching an orphanage because the screams of the dying are the only way I can get an erection.

Please refrain from using arguments like this. They make you look silly.

No, it was apt and relevant and directly confronts what this argument is all about.

No it's bollocks. It fits in the same catagory as "OMG WE NEEDZ GUNS BECAUSE OLD GRANDMA'S NEED TO SHOOT BURGLARS!!"

It's irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not the death penalty is morally justifiable.

Actually, it is quite relevant. It is saying that it is best to be rid of certain types of people (like the ones that beat, raped, and muredered the 6 month old baby) by not rehabilitating them (at some point, it is quite impossible), but by ridding the world of them. They are the human equivelent of a rabid dog, with sadism thrown in there at a very extreme level.

[Rustovitch]

I believe that the state calmly executing someone after finding them guilty of murder or rape is nowhere nearly as bad as me torching an orphanage because the screams of the dying are the only way I can get an erection.

Please refrain from using arguments like this. They make you look silly.

No, it was apt and relevant and directly confronts what this argument is all about.

No it's bollocks. It fits in the same catagory as "OMG WE NEEDZ GUNS BECAUSE OLD GRANDMA'S NEED TO SHOOT BURGLARS!!"

It's irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not the death penalty is morally justifiable.

Isn't that one of the main arguments for an armed society?

Anyway, if you had bothered to read the exchange you would have seen that it was put to me that there was no moral difference between the state executing a convicted murderer and any 'private' murder.

My example directly confronts and contradicts that.

[Frigidus]

I believe that the state calmly executing someone after finding them guilty of murder or rape is nowhere nearly as bad as me torching an orphanage because the screams of the dying are the only way I can get an erection.

Please refrain from using arguments like this. They make you look silly.

No, it was apt and relevant and directly confronts what this argument is all about.

No it's bollocks. It fits in the same catagory as "OMG WE NEEDZ GUNS BECAUSE OLD GRANDMA'S NEED TO SHOOT BURGLARS!!"

It's irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not the death penalty is morally justifiable.

Isn't that one of the main arguments for an armed society?

Anyway, if you had bothered to read the exchange you would have seen that it was put to me that there was no moral difference between the state executing a convicted murderer and any 'private' murder.

My example directly confronts and contradicts that.

There certainly is a difference, but not as big as you might think. Just because we hate someone and feel they deserve death does not mean we should be the ones inflicting it. They should spend their life in prison without hope of bail. That takes away their life in a sense as it is.

[Neoteny]

Isn't that one of the main arguments for an armed society?

Anyway, if you had bothered to read the exchange you would have seen that it was put to me that there was no moral difference between the state executing a convicted murderer and any 'private' murder.

My example directly confronts and contradicts that.

[Frigidus]

Isn't that one of the main arguments for an armed society?

Anyway, if you had bothered to read the exchange you would have seen that it was put to me that there was no moral difference between the state executing a convicted murderer and any 'private' murder.

My example directly confronts and contradicts that.

Any guesses as to what psycho over there is thinking?

[Neoteny]

"He thinks it's ok to kill people..."

o_O

[Snorri1234]

Isn't that one of the main arguments for an armed society?

Anyway, if you had bothered to read the exchange you would have seen that it was put to me that there was no moral difference between the state executing a convicted murderer and any 'private' murder.

My example directly confronts and contradicts that.

No it would contradict it only if you could argue that the state ,after a fair trial and weighing all the options, decides that burning a house full of orphans is a fit punishment for their crimes is more moral than you doing the same because it gets you off.

[PLAYER57832]

But seriously yes, murderers and rapists, if caught truly to rights should be used as organ donors, test subjects or simply executed. That is my opinion, I make no apoligies for it

Well unfortunately for you, I seriously think that people who continue to cling to outdated 'eye for an eye' models of justice and who believe that state-sanctioned murders are somehow less blameworthy and reprehensible than privately motivated murders, are ignorant imbeciles driven only by low-level gut-instinct and knee-jerk reactionism. In a civilized society we simply have to be able to do better than blunt physical retribution as a response to criminality. If we fail in that then we might as well just go back to chopping the hands off of thieves and burning heretics at the stake, because morally speaking there's no major difference between that and executing murderers. That is my opinion. That is the opinion of large numbers of people directly involved in the penal system. That IS NOT the opinion of shallow thinking tabloid readers who have never met a criminal and who seem desperate to lead a headlong rush back to the middle-ages. I make no apologies for that.

Good day to you 'Sir'.

While I disagree with most capitol punishment for various reasons, your arguments are idiotic. There truly are people so heneous that the world is just better without them around. There is nothing morally superior about letting a baby killer or child rapist (who all have a VERY high recidivism rate) free to commit those acts again. Nor is putting them away in jail for the rest of their life necessarily more "human" than simply executing them (ironically, that is one objection I have to capitol punishment).

[Rustovitch]

[/quote]

I can't help the fact I have mad staring eyes.

[PLAYER57832]

I believe that the state calmly executing someone after finding them guilty of murder or rape is nowhere nearly as bad as me torching an orphanage because the screams of the dying are the only way I can get an erection.

Please refrain from using arguments like this. They make you look silly.

No, it was apt and relevant and directly confronts what this argument is all about.

No it's bollocks. It fits in the same catagory as "OMG WE NEEDZ GUNS BECAUSE OLD GRANDMA'S NEED TO SHOOT BURGLARS!!"

It's irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not the death penalty is morally justifiable.

Isn't that one of the main arguments for an armed society?

Anyway, if you had bothered to read the exchange you would have seen that it was put to me that there was no moral difference between the state executing a convicted murderer and any 'private' murder.

My example directly confronts and contradicts that.

You guys are both off the wall on this one.

There are TWO differences.

First, there is the issue of scale. Some acts are just plain bad enough that a civilized society cannot have them walking around... largely for our protection. Its not just about vengeance. Some crimes are almost certain to be repeated. Many sex-inspired crimes (be it arson, murder-rape, pedophilia, or whatever) fall in that category. We cannot "fix" teh problem, we can only contain it. So, either we lock them away more or less for good, OR we put society at risk. (there are grey areas, but this discussion is about the extremes).

Second, when you compare killing orphans to the state killing someone who has committed a crime, you are trying to claim that acts against innocent lives .. children at that, and not just killing but torturing them, is comparable to an essentially painfree (supposed to be, anyway ... definitely compared to burning to death) death for someone GUILTY of a crime. Whether you agree the punishment fits or not is another question, to claim they are "equal" is just stupidity.

Isn't that one of the main arguments for an armed society?

Anyway, if you had bothered to read the exchange you would have seen that it was put to me that there was no moral difference between the state executing a convicted murderer and any 'private' murder.

My example directly confronts and contradicts that.

No it would contradict it only if you could argue that the state ,after a fair trial and weighing all the options, decides that burning a house full of orphans is a fit punishment for their crimes is more moral than you doing the same because it gets you off.

No, the comparison is between killing one person adjucated to be guilty in a relatively humane way and killing multiple innocent lives in a heneous manner.

It would contradict if you compared it to killing one person in a like manner, perhaps, though the guilty part still does make a difference.

[Rustovitch]

Nor is putting them away in jail for the rest of their life necessarily more "human" than simply executing them (ironically, that is one objection I have to capitol punishment).

I have encountered that amusing irony before. I am looking upon execution in the context of something quite clinical, efficient and fairly 'humane', other people disagree with me because they want the criminal to suffer and yet my view is the barbaric one!

[Rustovitch]

First, there is the issue of scale. Some acts are just plain bad enough that a civilized society cannot have them walking around... largely for our protection. Its not just about vengeance. Some crimes are almost certain to be repeated. Many sex-inspired crimes (be it arson, murder-rape, pedophilia, or whatever) fall in that category. We cannot "fix" teh problem, we can only contain it. So, either we lock them away more or less for good, OR we put society at risk. (there are grey areas, but this discussion is about the extremes).

Or we execute them. Which does not need to have anything to do with vengeance, protects the public and ensures that the criminal does not re-offend.

Second, when you compare killing orphans to the state killing someone who has committed a crime, you are trying to claim that acts against innocent lives .. children at that, and not just killing but torturing them, is comparable to an essentially painfree (supposed to be, anyway ... definitely compared to burning to death) death for someone GUILTY of a crime. Whether you agree the punishment fits or not is another question, to claim they are "equal" is just stupidity.

So you agree with me?
The two are not morally equal are they?

[Neoteny]

I don't think anyone is claiming the rape, torture, and murder of a baby is morally equivalent to putting said murderer to death. I think the main point is that killing someone, in all cases, is morally wrong, even if there is an uneven balance on the scale of justice. Rustovich can claim he has contradicted that all he wants (he hasn't); moral revenge is not a valid reason to kill someone when that person is locked up and is no harm to anyone else. I don't want to see them released, but I don't think they should be killed.

Put simply: killing of humans is wrong in all cases not directly involved with direct defense of self or loved ones. If the criminal is of no threat, he or she should not be killed. The horrors of a particular crime may make this judgment seem unfair, but we are debasing ourselves by succumbing to the urge for low retribution.

[Rustovitch]

I don't think anyone is claiming the rape, torture, and murder of a baby is morally equivalent to putting said murderer to death.

Actually they did!

I think the main point is that killing someone, in all cases, is morally wrong, even if there is an uneven balance on the scale of justice. Rustovich can claim he has contradicted that all he wants (he hasn't);

I have, the problem is you have actually changed some of the details of the argument, maybe without realising.

moral revenge is not a valid reason to kill someone when that person is locked up and is no harm to anyone else. I don't want to see them released, but I don't think they should be killed.

Put simply: killing of humans is wrong in all cases not directly involved with direct defense of self or loved ones. If the criminal is of no threat, he or she should not be killed. The horrors of a particular crime may make this judgment seem unfair, but we are debasing ourselves by succumbing to the urge for low retribution.

To me its not about revenge or retribution, permanent imprisonment still means they pose a risk and they still cause a drain on society.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think anyone is claiming the rape, torture, and murder of a baby is morally equivalent to putting said murderer to death. I think the main point is that killing someone, in all cases, is morally wrong, even if there is an uneven balance on the scale of justice. Rustovich can claim he has contradicted that all he wants (he hasn't); moral revenge is not a valid reason to kill someone when that person is locked up and is no harm to anyone else. I don't want to see them released, but I don't think they should be killed.

Put simply: killing of humans is wrong in all cases not directly involved with direct defense of self or loved ones. If the criminal is of no threat, he or she should not be killed. The horrors of a particular crime may make this judgment seem unfair, but we are debasing ourselves by succumbing to the urge for low retribution.

I agree, except that some people commit crimes so heneous they are a risk even within prison or, who's crimes are so heneous even the chance that they might be released or escape is just to great a chance for society.

Then you have a whole other group (gang leaders, etc.) who are able to orchastrate or commit crimes while in prison.

Those are the sorts of people I think might need capitol punishment.

Revenge has nothing to do with my view. I don't feel revenge is a proper justification. Just protection.