NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure that some of the posters on this forum have already read about this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1582614

But if you havn't I'll recap quickly. In New Bedford, Massachusetts USA an 18 year old guy went into a gay bar and attacked the patrons with a hatchet and a 9mm pistol. He then escaped for a few days and ended up in Arkansas where he killed a state trooper and a woman that he had picked up in West Virginia (knew her previously) before being gunned down by the police.

The twist is that New Bedford is the neighboring city next to my town and my Uncle has recently come out that he is gay. He was one of the three men who was attacked at the bar and got hit in side of the face with the hatchet shattering his cheek bone and was then shot with the 9mm. The bullet traveled from one shoulder blade to the other but luckily did not hit anything vital or any bones. If you care to look up the articles I'm sure you can find pictures or video of him speaking publicly after the attack. He is already out of the hospital and doing pretty well considering.

The purpose of telling you this is, first of all ,to just point out this fucked up incident and how strange it is when it happens to someone in your family. Secondly though, this seems like a perfect case for advocates of the death penalty. Massachusetts does not have it but Arkansas does (especially for murdering a police officer). The killer was killed by the police in the confrontation but it leaves me wondering what people who are against the death penalty feel about cases like this. A hateful neo-nazi who tries to murder people he does not even know and then kills an officer when stopped.

Personally, I have always supported the death penalty so it is kind of difficult to understand the other side of the argument. With reference to this case, how do you all feel about it? (obviously he is dead already, I am supposing he had lived)

I read about this the other day. It's truly a terrible incident but i'm glad that your uncle is okay.

However, what is the death penalty going to solve, I ask you?

The killer was killed by the police in the confrontation but it leaves me wondering what people who are against the death penalty feel about cases like this. A hateful neo-nazi who tries to murder people he does not even know and then kills an officer when stopped.
I'd say that putting him in jail is just as good a protection of the rest of society as killing him is.
And being a neo-nazi is not an incurable disease - it's one of the perfect cases where someone can reform, so this is a particularly good case for a rehabilitation policy.

I read about this the other day. It's truly a terrible incident but i'm glad that your uncle is okay.

However, what is the death penalty going to solve, I ask you?

...I'm not sure I know what you mean. It would kill him. He would no longer exist to interact with anyone or anything else and thus his useless and highly detrimental presence in the world would be extinguished. It is the definition of "solve". Present a case for his life.

...I'm not sure I know what you mean. It would kill him. He would no longer exist to interact with anyone or anything else and thus his useless and highly detrimental presence in the world would be extinguished. It is the definition of "solve". Present a case for his life.

It doesn't fix anything. He has already committed his crimes.

I saw the interview and the aftermath. Glad your uncle made it out alive.

The only case I could present against the death penalty is that a lifetime in a prison cell is a much worse fate. And for the NeoNazi, would be just as effective as the death penalty. There are fates worse than death.

I read about this the other day. It's truly a terrible incident but i'm glad that your uncle is okay.

However, what is the death penalty going to solve, I ask you?
One less murdering Neo-Nazi in the world?

You do the crime you do the time. And if the crime is murder the time should be the same as the crime.

And I'm glad your Uncle is okay.

I just don't know what to say.

I'd say that putting him in jail is just as good a protection of the rest of society as killing him is.
And being a neo-nazi is not an incurable disease - it's one of the perfect cases where someone can reform, so this is a particularly good case for a rehabilitation policy.

It depends on the system the country has in place. I don't know how Germany or Australia handles criminals but we have a system I wonder about sometimes.

We have the judiciary that hands out the punishments and then there is the penal institution that holds and at time paroles them. Once judgement has passed, they are no longer in control.

Locking him up doesn't mean he will stay locked up.

As Mark Twain once described. I view this animal as what he is a "man-tiger"

It's an interesting situation that we will gun down any animal that will attack a human. However, humans killing humans is wrong.

Part of the death fights in the US is as Mark Twain described it. It's a mistake to call it justice. The state dispenses injustice for the protection of the community.

The police solved our problem this time.....

I'd say that putting him in jail is just as good a protection of the rest of society as killing him is.
And being a neo-nazi is not an incurable disease - it's one of the perfect cases where someone can reform, so this is a particularly good case for a rehabilitation policy.

I see what you are saying but that is making the assumption he reforms. He could instead turn every prisoner he meets into a racist nazi and go on to write books and publish web pages in jail to promote his beliefs and be raised to the level of a martyr in racist circles. Why give him the chance? It is no secret that the United States prison system is an extremely volitile, hateful, and racist environment. This is the type of environment that can create people who believe this shit in the first place. He has lost his opportunity to live near another human. Why two chances?

One less murdering Neo-Nazi in the world?

That doesn't fix anything though. That's the result of eliminating him. What does that solve, however?

You do the crime you do the time. And if the crime is murder the time should be the same as the crime.

Heh.

Okay....why?

...I'm not sure I know what you mean. It would kill him. He would no longer exist to interact with anyone or anything else and thus his useless and highly detrimental presence in the world would be extinguished. It is the definition of "solve". Present a case for his life.
With all respect to your present situation,

Since his actions come from his political beliefs (neonazism), he is the perfect case for a rehabilitation program. He comitted a huge mistake, to that I agree. Hell, it wasn't even a mistake, it was being a pure m.fucker.

But he deserves a second chance. A chance to perhaps change his way of thinking, to be a better man. Yes, he did kill someone.

Your only solution would be to kill another person, the "murderer"? What the fuck is that kind of solution? What good will it does to the family of the first victim? Nothing at all. Vengence is not a solution in a civilized society.

In societies where the death penalty has been abolished, there is less crimes and less violent ones. Where rehabilitation programs are well-funded, there's even less crimes.

Just compare Canada and the USA on this issue to get a good portray.

I would prefer death to life imprisonment.

It doesn't fix anything. He has already committed his crimes.

It can be argued that you prevent further crimes. One can argue locking him up but then the great "what if" comes into play if he escaped and killed somebody else.

A person that kills a cop, probably will kill again.....

I see what you are saying but that is making the assumption he reforms. He could instead turn every prisoner he meets into a racist nazi and go on to write books and publish web pages in jail to promote his beliefs and be raised to the level of a martyr in racist circles. Why give him the chance? It is no secret that the United States prison system is an extremely volitile, hateful, and racist environment. This is the type of environment that can create people who believe this shit in the first place. He has lost his opportunity to live near another human. Why two chances?

Well hey, there are Nazi's out in public too. They could potentially convert anyone they meet into a racist - what should we do with them? Should we give them the chance to do so?

It depends on the system the country has in place. I don't know how Germany or Australia handles criminals but we have a system I wonder about sometimes.

We have the judiciary that hands out the punishments and then there is the penal institution that holds and at time paroles them. Once judgement has passed, they are no longer in control.

Locking him up doesn't mean he will stay locked up.

As Mark Twain once described. I view this animal as what he is a "man-tiger"

It's an interesting situation that we will gun down any animal that will attack a human. However, humans killing humans is wrong.

Part of the death fights in the US is as Mark Twain described it. It's a mistake to call it justice. The state dispenses injustice for the protection of the community.

The police solved our problem this time.....

Ah, this is a clear description of how I largely feel. Obviously human life is valued much higher than animal life but if you prove that you are in many ways much much worse than an animal that has "snapped" and we would put down why do you deserve to live? This argument makes sense for Euthanasia as well. Why do we save animals from horrible suffering with death but not humans who share the same dismal fate?

The purpose of telling you this is, first of all ,to just point out this fucked up incident and how strange it is when it happens to someone in your family.
While it didn't happen to me, my best friends Uncle had a shoot out with the police. There was a seige of his house, he escaped through a tunnel he dug in the basement, but was later apprehended after putting on a police uniform and standing around with the forces surrounding his house. Messed up. No one was injured though.

Secondly though, this seems like a perfect case for advocates of the death penalty...The killer was killed by the police in the confrontation but it leaves me wondering what people who are against the death penalty feel about cases like this.
I, personally, am against the death penatly.

However, since was too violent to be apprehended, I'm sure he was happy to be shot rather than waste away in a prison. The police are probably pretty happy they don't have to deal with another wacko in the court house.

Well hey, there are Nazi's out in public too. They could potentially convert anyone they meet into a racist - what should we do with them? Should we give them the chance to do so?
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/5840/hanginghearhear7ao.jpg
With them, freedom of speech!

I don't know how Germany or Australia handles criminals but we have a system I wonder about sometimes.
It's fairly similar, except judges aren't appointed by politicians and there is no jury in the same sense as in the US.
Once someone is sent to jail, they eventually can get out again. Usually, in Germany "life" actually means "15 years" because parole is usually granted by then - remember the case of the plane hijacker who shot the American dude that came up in the media recently.

To everyone's great surprise, Germany is however not an anarchic ruin in a state of constant civil war and where raping and pillaging hordes destroy suburbia.

My guess is that most people who go to jail don't enjoy their experience much and will suppress any tendencies they may have, just for the sake of not having to go back.

Locking him up doesn't mean he will stay locked up.
As I said, in his case I'm not even sure he needs to stay locked up indefinitely. A political affiliation, as this seems to be, is one of the most easily curable causes of crime there is.
I know of neo-nazis who have reformed and made something completely different out of themselves (and then, I also know some who didn't get there yet, and there was violence at times between my clique and their clique...).

So let me make clear that I don't sympathise with the guy at all, but ultimately, doing things to him doesn't make anything right. This is probably not all that popular a view, but to me, all the police and courts can do is protect the rest of society. They can not dish out justice, because two wrongs don't make a right.

Well hey, there are Nazi's out in public too. They could potentially convert anyone they meet into a racist - what should we do with them? Should we give them the chance to do so?

This is a pretty foolish comparison. Yes, words are words. When they go on a killing spree and murder police officers, no. Death is both the punishment and solution for the crime and any subsequent damage he might cause. Speaking, writing, and demonstrating are not crimes (assuming it isn't libel) therefore you cannot punish someone by making them stop. Murder is a serious crime and therefore, in certain cases, you should punish them with death. It is merely a perk that they lose the ability to speak as well. The point is to take their opportunity to live away because they have shown they are not deserving.

He could instead turn every prisoner he meets into a racist nazi and go on to write books and publish web pages in jail to promote his beliefs and be raised to the level of a martyr in racist circles.
And killing him will prevent him from becoming a martyr? :confused:

not that it changes the basic debate but he's already dead


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/05/robida/index.html

With all respect to your present situation,

Since his actions come from his political beliefs (neonazism), he is the perfect case for a rehabilitation program. He comitted a huge mistake, to that I agree. Hell, it wasn't even a mistake, it was being a pure m.fucker.


The problem is that neonazism is not a crime. Well at least in the US. You can expose hatred(well no so much these days) as long as you don't cause a criminal act.

You can't force rehabilitation of a person.


But he deserves a second chance. A chance to perhaps change his way of thinking, to be a better man. Yes, he did kill someone.


What of say a Charles Manson?


Your only solution would be to kill another person, the "murderer"? What the fuck is that kind of solution? What good will it does to the family of the first victim? Nothing at all. Vengence is not a solution in a civilized society.


It does remove a dangerous animal. The one fault of the pro-death penalty side is when they label it justice.


In societies where the death penalty has been abolished, there is less crimes and less violent ones. Where rehabilitation programs are well-funded, there's even less crimes.


Not always the case. I remember many years ago reading about one those tiny countries in Africa. I can't provide the source as this was a long time ago. They had the brutal approach to justice. They were convinced to take a western approach kind of along the lines as the US approach. Crime skyrockted 600% in one year. They went back to the old ways starting with the sentence of 600 lashes for a pedophile. Crime dropped significantly.


Just compare Canada and the USA on this issue to get a good portray.

Now 300 million vs what 32 million people comes into play would it not?

To everyone's great surprise, Germany is however not an anarchic ruin in a state of constant civil war and where raping and pillaging hordes destroy suburbia.
Not only is that an entertaining image, that's showing that there is a difference between the prison systems and culture. Most people that end up going to prison in the States tend to frequent it. I'm not sure why, however, its almost certainly due to the prison system itself and their socio-economic background.

I remain anti-death penalty in face of this despite being a gay man. My convictions are stronger than to be undone by some deranged homophobe.

It can be argued that you prevent further crimes. One can argue locking him up but then the great "what if" comes into play if he escaped and killed somebody else.

A person that kills a cop, probably will kill again.....

That "what if" is always there though, with anything...if a person who stole to feed a drug addiction serves his sentence and gets released from prison, he may offend again. What do we do there?

So let me make clear that I don't sympathise with the guy at all, but ultimately, doing things to him doesn't make anything right. This is probably not all that popular a view, but to me, all the police and courts can do is protect the rest of society. They can not dish out justice, because two wrongs don't make a right.

No worries then as I am not singling you out. ;)

Just an explanation of why the locking them up for good argument doesn't work here.

But you are right as I mentioned calling it justice is a mistake....

This is a pretty foolish comparison. Yes, words are words. When they go on a killing spree and murder police officers, no. Death is both the punishment and solution for the crime and any subsequent damage he might cause. Speaking, writing, and demonstrating are not crimes (assuming it isn't libel) therefore you cannot punish someone by making them stop. Murder is a serious crime and therefore, in certain cases, you should punish them with death. It is merely a perk that they lose the ability to speak as well. The point is to take their opportunity to live away because they have shown they are not deserving.

It's not at all a foolish comparison. You were arguing against rehabilitation with the possibility that he might spread his ideas in prison. People in normal society have the same ideas and are spreading them. I believe the questions I raised are quite relevant.

::snip::
My guess is that most people who go to jail don't enjoy their experience much and will suppress any tendencies they may have, just for the sake of not having to go back.


There are people in jail who can be murdered or hurt as well. Most in america are black. They have no right to life?


As I said, in his case I'm not even sure he needs to stay locked up indefinitely. A political affiliation, as this seems to be, is one of the most easily curable causes of crime there is.
I know of neo-nazis who have reformed and made something completely different out of themselves (and then, I also know some who didn't get there yet, and there was violence at times between my clique and their clique...).

So let me make clear that I don't sympathise with the guy at all, but ultimately, doing things to him doesn't make anything right. This is probably not all that popular a view, but to me, all the police and courts can do is protect the rest of society. They can not dish out justice, because two wrongs don't make a right.

Let me make this clear as well. I called him a neo-nazi because he had nazi flags and material in his room not because he was a member of a nazi party. As far as anyone knows he was simply extremely predjudiced and often people with those beliefs lean towards the teachings of the nazis since they successfully eradicated so many people based on race. You can look him up on myspace. He paints his face like the insane clown possee or whatever that band is in some of his pictures. He was fixated on hate and violence, not politics.

There is a fundamental difference in your outlook and argument. "two wrongs don't make a right"? I only see one wrong. Killing someone like that guy is no more wrong than putting down a suffering animal. I would pull the trigger myself.

That "what if" is always there though, with anything...if a person who stole to feed a drug addiction serves his sentence and gets released from prison, he may offend again. What do we do there?

Well the death penalty has (I think) never been handed out for theft.

In the matters of the drug addict, rehabilitation can work. A racist neonazi that murders a cop? Doubtful.....

Just for fun. Here is that article Mark Twain once wrote over the issue:

THE TEN Commandments were made for man alone. We should think it strange if they had been made for all the animals.

We should say "Thou shalt not kill" is too general, too sweeping. It includes the field mouse and the butterfly. They can't kill. And it includes the tiger, which can't help it.

It is a case of Temperament and Circumstance again. You can arrange no circumstances that can move the field mouse and the butterfly to kill; their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it.

Butterflies and field mice are common among men; they can't kill, their temperaments make it impossible. There are tigers among men, also. Their temperaments move them to violence, and when Circumstance furnishes the opportunity and the powerful motive, they kill. They can't help it.

No penal law can deal out justice; it must deal out injustice in every instance. Penal laws have a high value, in that they protect--in a considerable measure--the multitude of the gentle-natured from the violent minority.

For a penal law is a Circumstance. It is a warning which intrudes and stays a would-be murderer's hand--sometimes. Not always, but in many and many a case. It can't stop the real man-tiger; nothing can do that. Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.

Holmes, the Chicago monster, inveigled some dozens of men and women into his obscure quarters and privately butchered them. Holmes's inborn nature was such that whenever he had what seemed a reasonably safe opportunity to kill a stranger he couldn't successfully resist the temptation to do it.

Justice was finally meted out to Slade and to Holmes. That is what the newspapers said. It is a common phrase, and a very old one. But it probably isn't true. When a man is hanged for slaying one man that phrase comes into service and we learn that justice was meted out to the slaver. But Holmes slew sixty. There seems to be a discrepancy in this distribution of justice. If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice.

But the phrase is wrong, anyway. The word is the wrong word. Criminal courts do not dispense "justice"--they can't; they only dispense protections to the community. It is all they can do. (1905 or 1906)

It's not at all a foolish comparison. You were arguing against rehabilitation with the possibility that he might spread his ideas in prison. People in normal society have the same ideas and are spreading them. I believe the questions I raised are quite relevant.

Actually the core argument is that he lost his right to life. The thought about his ideas is merely presenting another reason why death is better as a sidenote. He has no right to rehabilitation. People can pretend.

Most in america are black.
I checked this, because, I thought it would be wrong, but percentage wise, there are more blacks in prison per 100,000 black males, however there are significantly less blacks in the US than there are whites. So, I would say that there are more whites in prison.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

At yearend 2004 there were 3,218 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,220 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 463 white male inmates per 100,000 white males.

There are, certainly, more whites being executed in the US.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm


Of persons under sentence of death in 2004:
-- 1,850 were white
-- 1,390 were black
-- 28 were American Indian
-- 32 were Asian
-- 14 were of unknown race.

Of persons executed in 2005:
-- 41 were white
-- 19 were black

There are people in jail who can be murdered or hurt as well. Most in america are black. They have no right to life?
That's a matter for prison security, not the legal system or its underlying foundations.

He was fixated on hate and violence, not politics.
Well, I don't know of the exact details, but the point stands that if he is dangerous to society, he can get locked away, and if he isn't, he can be let go.
The death penalty is not a necessity (apart from the whole problem of convicting the wrong guy and so on).

There is a fundamental difference in your outlook and argument. "two wrongs don't make a right"? I only see one wrong. Killing someone like that guy is no more wrong than putting down a suffering animal. I would pull the trigger myself.
Killing is killing. Humans are not animals, not even the worst human is. We are thinking, sentient beings, and every one of us has the potential to better ourselves, to overcome hardship and to right wrongs.
And besides, putting down an animal at a vet is a medical procedure meant to end suffering. Most criminals don't suffer, to them what I said above applies. It's a different thing on many levels.

The idea that killing this neo-nazi kid is not wrong is something that I can only interpret if you are out for revenge. And that is what I have always believed about the death penalty: It's state-sponsored revenge, and I'm too idealistic for that sort of thing.

Well the death penalty has (I think) never been handed out for theft.

In the matters of the drug addict, rehabilitation can work. A racist neonazi that murders a cop? Doubtful.....

Why doubtful? What makes this man less likely to rehabilitate than the drug addict? I just asked myself that question, and while I might be inclined to think that the neo-nazi is less likely, I can't really think of anything that supports that.

(well, he's dead now, so eh. I should say "what would make")


Actually the core argument is that he lost his right to life. The thought about his ideas is merely presenting another reason why death is better as a sidenote. He has no right to rehabilitation. People can pretend.

Well, it comes down to this. You might think that he has lost his right to life. I however, don't think any person or institution has the right to take that life away regardless.

That "what if" is always there though, with anything...if a person who stole to feed a drug addiction serves his sentence and gets released from prison, he may offend again. What do we do there?

Black Forest already answered this point pretty well but it brings to mind a more valid point that I think would suit what you are trying to say better. Although it doesn't help my argument it is an interesting and difficult matter that is very similar to what we are talking about. So here it is:

Repeat Sex Offenders. What do you do with them? It has been asserted over and over again that there is no cure for pedophilia. Every time a true child molestor is set free they almost always will strike again. But can you lock someone up or in the extreme cases castrate or kill them because you know they will commit a crime not because they have already? It is a very difficult matter. Should the sentence for molestation be chemical castration? Would it be better not only for society but also for the pedophiles who hate themselves and simply cannot stop? I have no good answer for this. I feel death is too harsh and chemical castration seems extreme but releasing them is not working. Neither is rehabilatation.

-snip Twain-
Well, apart from him obviously being from the 19th century and probably thinking one could measure a person's character by the distance between his nose and his ears, I find that I agree with him.

The job of police and courts is protection. There is no reason to assume that putting someone into jail for life doesn't protect the outside as much as killing them. The same level of protection can be achieved without the death penalty.

I think Tolkien said it best:
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

-snip-...

I feel death is too harsh and chemical castration seems extreme but releasing them is not working. Neither is rehabilatation.

Sometimes it does. It's a case by case thing. Of course, we don't hear often about the ones that get released and don't reoffend, do we? I blame the media...it makes for poor news sales. :p

Why doubtful? What makes this man less likely to rehabilitate than the drug addict? I just asked myself that question, and while I might be inclined to think that the neo-nazi is less likely, I can't really think of anything that supports that.

(well, he's dead now, so eh. I should say "what would make")


It's a tough question and I have to admit it's an area I don't know about.

Just looking at some of my redneck relatives, I would argue it rather hard to convert one.....

Well, apart from him obviously being from the 19th century and probably thinking one could measure a person's character by the distance between his nose and his ears, I find that I agree with him.

The job of police and courts is protection. There is no reason to assume that putting someone into jail for life doesn't protect the outside as much as killing them. The same level of protection can be achieved without the death penalty.

I think Tolkien said it best:
You've used that before.

I live in the United States and I am in favor of the death penalty, but I also believe in rehablilitation if they can be actually rehabilitated, just who determines who can be rehabilitated? I can't say. One thing I would like to see discarded is the insanity defense (permanent or otherwise) When someone takes a life then they forfeit their right to live, unless of course that person was acting on self-defense towards immediate life-threatening danger.

Death is a better deterrent than prision, since prision here is more and more ineffective due to constant protest by human-rights activists, which in the end facilitate drug and raw-material trafficking into our prisions (as some friends who work in a prision as officers have told me since they are the ones that end up finding drugs and even needles). I would like to see the U.S. mandate a test period of 2-4 years to see what the effects of cruel punishments (which the U.S. outlaws in the Bill of Rights) have on crime rate.

Why doubtful? What makes this man less likely to rehabilitate than the drug addict? I just asked myself that question, and while I might be inclined to think that the neo-nazi is less likely, I can't really think of anything that supports that.

(well, he's dead now, so eh. I should say "what would make")


There are people who cannot be rehabilitated. I think you agree with this to some degree. Granted maybe he possibly could someday be rehabilitated. Why? So he can do what? Live out a happy life with a family?

If he can't be rehabilitated which is in all probability more likely. Since there is no way he could survive prison without hooking up with other racists to protect him from the brothers he would just get much worse until he murdered again. Some people are mentally sociopaths. What if his body is not even capable of feeling remorse or sympathy?



Well, it comes down to this. You might think that he has lost his right to life. I however, don't think any person or institution has the right to take that life away regardless.

If he shot you in the back and hit you with a hatchet and you secretly had a gun as he came over to put the last bullet in your head, would you kill him first? (assuming he looks away or something and you can)
What if it was your friend on the floor and you came out of the bathroom with a gun and could save him? Would you kill the assailent?

If the answer is "yes" to either than think about that long and hard. You have the right to protect innocent life. He has proven that he is so depraved that there is a good chance he could kill again. In the very least he will most likely never do anything positive for anyone on purpose and can never repay what he has done. Why doesn't anyone have the right to kill him before he does more damage?

It's a tough question and I have to admit it's an area I don't know about.

Just looking at some of my redneck relatives, I would argue it rather hard to convert one.....

Hahaha.

I have rednecks and drug addicts in my extended family. I would argue both are probably equally as difficult. But hey, something to think about I guess.

I'm quite cognisant of the flaws of capital punishment. I realize that, per capita, more blacks are sentenced to death that whites, and that isn't fair; however, some criminals--some crimes--deserve nothing but the death penalty. It's easy to tell if the death penalty fits the crime: if a sociopath sodomizes a grandmother with a broomstick, say a prayer for the bast.rd and flip the switch. If some subhuman excuse for a person rapes a little girl, fry the fuc.er. And if a neo-Nazi, an adherant to a doctrine propagated by a demonic little spawn of hell, tries to kill a group of people different from him solely because they're different, well, there's only one thing to do.

I live in the United States and I am in favor of the death penalty, but I also believe in rehablilitation if they can be actually rehabilitated, just who determines who can be rehabilitated? I can't say. One thing I would like to see discarded is the insanity defense (permanent or otherwise) When someone takes a life then they forfeit their right to live, unless of course that person was acting on self-defense towards immediate life-threatening danger.

Death is a better deterrent than prision, since prision here is more and more ineffective due to constant protest by human-rights activists, which in the end facilitate drug and raw-material trafficking into our prisions (as some friends who work in a prision as officers have told me since they are the ones that end up finding drugs and even needles). I would like to see the U.S. mandate a test period of 2-4 years to see what the effects of cruel punishments (which the U.S. outlaws in the Bill of Rights) have on crime rate.
I think that an uninformed citizen with the right to vote is much more dangerous than any single criminal.

Ironically, for an anti-death penalty supporter, I feel tempted to deny you your right to live just for approving state-sponsored torture, state-sponsored murdering and good ol' fascism.

I live in the United States and I am in favor of the death penalty, but I also believe in rehablilitation if they can be actually rehabilitated, just who determines who can be rehabilitated? I can't say. One thing I would like to see discarded is the insanity defense (permanent or otherwise) When someone takes a life then they forfeit their right to live, unless of course that person was acting on self-defense towards immediate life-threatening danger.

Death is a better deterrent than prision, since prision here is more and more ineffective due to constant protest by human-rights activists, which in the end facilitate drug and raw-material trafficking into our prisions (as some friends who work in a prision as officers have told me since they are the ones that end up finding drugs and even needles). I would like to see the U.S. mandate a test period of 2-4 years to see what the effects of cruel punishments (which the U.S. outlaws in the Bill of Rights) have on crime rate.

What about manslaughter? Unitentional murder in a heat of passion. That does not deserve death. Certain extreme cases deserve death, not all. Prisons are a mess I agree. Cruel punishments won't fix this. Out of curiosity what would you suggest for Grand theft auto? Possesion of weed?

There are people who cannot be rehabilitated. I think you agree with this to some degree. Granted maybe he possibly could someday be rehabilitated. Why? So he can do what? Live out a happy life with a family?

Or make amends to society for his crimes?

If he can't be rehabilitated which is in all probability more likely. Since there is no way he could survive prison without hooking up with other racists to protect him from the brothers he would just get much worse until he murdered again.

How do you know this, though? It's your opinion that it is less likely. It's your opinion that he might get worse. It doesn't make it correct or fact. He might have been a perfect candidate for rehabilitation - how do you know?

Some people are mentally sociopaths. What if his body is not even capable of feeling remorse or sympathy?

Well, I ask you - is that his fault, or is it a disease?

If he shot you in the back and hit you with a hatchet and you secretly had a gun as he came over to put the last bullet in your head, would you kill him first? (assuming he looks away or something and you can)
What if it was your friend on the floor and you came out of the bathroom with a gun and could save him? Would you kill the assailent?

That's an immediate life or death situation. It's a totally different thing to having him in custody and putting him on trial for the death penalty. They can't be compared. Nobody is immediately in danger in the latter situation.

If the answer is "yes" to either than think about that long and hard. You have the right to protect innocent life. He has proven that he is so depraved that there is a good chance he could kill again. In the very least he will most likely never do anything positive for anyone on purpose and can never repay what he has done.

As I asked you, how do you know this?

Why doesn't anyone have the right to kill him before he does more damage?

Because you don't know that he would have done more damage. It's only your opinion. You can't see through the future, just as I can't.

I think that an uninformed citizen with the right to vote is much more dangerous than any single criminal.


One person? Hardly? It takes many uninformed people to be dangerous.


Ironically, for an anti-death penalty supporter, I feel tempted to deny you your right to live just for approving state-sponsored torture, state-sponsored murdering and good ol' fascism.

Now that will win people over to your side. :rolleyes:

Hm. He cannot be rehabilitated. If he were just a nazi, you could probably change his point of view. It'd be hard, but possible.

However, he demonstrated that he was willing to kill, and likely die, for his beliefs. Think about that, a person who is willing to kill for their ideal would be almost impossible to persuade away from it, would grow stronger in their resolve for it, so no he could not be rehabilitated.

If he were left in prison, for life, let us say, you could argue that since he is in prison he couldn't persuade to his ideals anyone who matters. This is not the case. I would like to point out the infamous Charles Manson, if I may. He currently is serving out a life sentence for having his cult savagely kill roughly nine celebrities, if you don't count the unborn child of Sharon Tate. He currently is a martyr for rascism and such everywhere, and still has a large underground following. I'm sure he has them via the internet and books, although I am unsure as to whether he has published books or not.

There is one solution to rid ourselves of our man, and that is death. Killing him will demonstrate that we will meet killing with killing and, theoretically, put a sudden end to his category of crime. I understand that it does not alwaya work one way, but I am selectively optimistic. Killing the man will also keep his genetic capability for violent murder from being passed on to future generations. It will keep him from publishing his obviously destructive and dangerous beliefs, so that he cannot personally recruit others to his ideals. That, and it keeps Prisons empty for people who can be rehabilitated, or serve a useful role for society.

I would here make an argument for executing him by the means he killed, but that moves out of the realms of what I can rationalize, and into a realm more spiritual, which has no place in U.S. legislature.

By the by, Tderjeckistan, I would like to point out that hypocrisy never impresses anyone. If you want to support anti-death penalty things, then do so by all means. But don't make others who also are against the death penalty look bad with those kinds of comments. It reflects badly on others.

Or make amends to society for his crimes?


Not possible. That cop and woman are dead. The others are seriously and probably permenately injured. What is he gonna do? Bake cookies for first graders? Nothing can make amends in this world.


How do you know this, though? It's your opinion that it is less likely. It's your opinion that he might get worse. It doesn't make it correct or fact. He might have been a perfect candidate for rehabilitation - how do you know?


I don't know it for sure. I'm judging the man by the acts that he commited. You are gambling with innocent lives by giving him another chance. I am simply throwing out an extremely guilty and worthless one.


Well, I ask you - is that his fault, or is it a disease?


Either way he should be "put down". Sociopathic murderers who get off on hate and violence have no place in the living world. If that is the case for him it is unfortunate his mother was cursed with such shitty genes.


That's an immediate life or death situation. It's a totally different thing to having him in custody and putting him on trial for the death penalty. They can't be compared. Nobody is immediately in danger in the latter situation.


Of course they can. Every cellmate, ethnic minority, or homosexual he passes is hated by him. Enough to want to kill them all until he is himself killed, as has been proven by no other than himself. Who are you to just wait around and see if he gets better or if he just waits till he can shank some jewish car thief? Your life on the line directly and you would act but you would then place him in proximity to the people he's been trying to kill the whole time? Would you put him in a locked room with your child? What if your child was 30 had a drug problem and was in jail for possession? I somehow think your answer is no for both.


As I asked you, how do you know this?


As I said, I of course don't know it for sure. But I would rather not gamble with the lives of others to give a second chance to a human monster who deserves nothing.


Because you don't know that he would have done more damage. It's only your opinion. You can't see through the future, just as I can't.

Exactly. So you can't assure anyone that this person that went on a pychotic killing spree ending in the death of a state cop simply because he hates certain people won't kill again. Even if he wouldn't kill again I see no reason he should live.

I'm sure that some of the posters on this forum have already read about this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1582614

But if you havn't I'll recap quickly. In New Bedford, Massachusetts USA an 18 year old guy went into a gay bar and attacked the patrons with a hatchet and a 9mm pistol. He then escaped for a few days and ended up in Arkansas where he killed a state trooper and a woman that he had picked up in West Virginia (knew her previously) before being gunned down by the police.

The twist is that New Bedford is the neighboring city next to my town and my Uncle has recently come out that he is gay. He was one of the three men who was attacked at the bar and got hit in side of the face with the hatchet shattering his cheek bone and was then shot with the 9mm. The bullet traveled from one shoulder blade to the other but luckily did not hit anything vital or any bones. If you care to look up the articles I'm sure you can find pictures or video of him speaking publicly after the attack. He is already out of the hospital and doing pretty well considering.

The purpose of telling you this is, first of all ,to just point out this fucked up incident and how strange it is when it happens to someone in your family. Secondly though, this seems like a perfect case for advocates of the death penalty. Massachusetts does not have it but Arkansas does (especially for murdering a police officer). The killer was killed by the police in the confrontation but it leaves me wondering what people who are against the death penalty feel about cases like this. A hateful neo-nazi who tries to murder people he does not even know and then kills an officer when stopped.

Personally, I have always supported the death penalty so it is kind of difficult to understand the other side of the argument. With reference to this case, how do you all feel about it? (obviously he is dead already, I am supposing he had lived)
If you intentionally kill anyone, especially in this violent of a manner, and show no signs of being able to be rehabilitated, the killer should be put to death. I wish the guy would have lived so Arkansas could put him to death. You don't kill policemen. And if you think a cop killer from Yankeeland would have gotten any slack from an Arkansas jury, you are dead wrong.

It doesn't fix anything. He has already committed his crimes.

Yes it does. It keeps the fucker from committing another crime and we don't have to waste money to keep him fed, clothed, or otherwise snug as a bug.

I think that an uninformed citizen with the right to vote is much more dangerous than any single criminal.

Ironically, for an anti-death penalty supporter, I feel tempted to deny you your right to live just for approving state-sponsored torture, state-sponsored murdering and good ol' fascism.
Then go inform those citizens with the right to vote. The death penalty is the law in most of the USA.

I hope your uncle gets well quickly.

I hope justice gets served.

You've used that before.
I have, and I will again. It's a good quote that illustrates how I feel, by a person whom most people would like.

I like that quote. :D

Hm. He cannot be rehabilitated. If he were just a nazi, you could probably change his point of view. It'd be hard, but possible.

However, he demonstrated that he was willing to kill, and likely die, for his beliefs. Think about that, a person who is willing to kill for their ideal would be almost impossible to persuade away from it, would grow stronger in their resolve for it, so no he could not be rehabilitated.

If he were left in prison, for life, let us say, you could argue that since he is in prison he couldn't persuade to his ideals anyone who matters. This is not the case. I would like to point out the infamous Charles Manson, if I may. He currently is serving out a life sentence for having his cult savagely kill roughly nine celebrities, if you don't count the unborn child of Sharon Tate. He currently is a martyr for rascism and such everywhere, and still has a large underground following. I'm sure he has them via the internet and books, although I am unsure as to whether he has published books or not.

There is one solution to rid ourselves of our man, and that is death. Killing him will demonstrate that we will meet killing with killing and, theoretically, put a sudden end to his category of crime. I understand that it does not alwaya work one way, but I am selectively optimistic. Killing the man will also keep his genetic capability for violent murder from being passed on to future generations. It will keep him from publishing his obviously destructive and dangerous beliefs, so that he cannot personally recruit others to his ideals. That, and it keeps Prisons empty for people who can be rehabilitated, or serve a useful role for society.

I would here make an argument for executing him by the means he killed, but that moves out of the realms of what I can rationalize, and into a realm more spiritual, which has no place in U.S. legislature.

By the by, Tderjeckistan, I would like to point out that hypocrisy never impresses anyone. If you want to support anti-death penalty things, then do so by all means. But don't make others who also are against the death penalty look bad with those kinds of comments. It reflects badly on others.

He's already dead. Died in the hospital. Doesn't really change the nature of the debate, however.

Either way he should be "put down". Sociopathic murderers who get off on hate and violence have no place in the living world. If that is the case for him it is unfortunate his mother was cursed with such shitty genes.

Oh, so you're a Nazi?

I read about this the other day. It's truly a terrible incident but i'm glad that your uncle is okay.

However, what is the death penalty going to solve, I ask you?

It saves a lot of time and trouble when the bad guy keeps fighting back, and the police gun him down.

You have to admit that while it does make a mess on the pavement, it's less messy in the long run.

I hope your Uncle has a quick and smooth recovery.

I'm glad this dopey nazi prick is gone. I would have been sickened hearing all the defense bullshit on the nightly news.

I'd say that putting him in jail is just as good a protection of the rest of society as killing him is.
And being a neo-nazi is not an incurable disease - it's one of the perfect cases where someone can reform, so this is a particularly good case for a rehabilitation policy.

I've never heard of anyone giving up neo-nazism, myself.

I hope justice gets served.

With or without a side dish?

Oh, so you're a Nazi?

Wow many Godwins of late......

I read about this the other day. It's truly a terrible incident but i'm glad that your uncle is okay.

However, what is the death penalty going to solve, I ask you?

with todays, put them to sleep and let them drift away peacfully method, nothing

but with the 1800's firing squad, rope, etc...

would save alot of money

lol i'm lazy so i skipped most of the posts in here but I's just like to register my disgust at this attack, my hope that yr uncle recovers fully, and my beleif that the death penalty should be reintroduced in Britain at least as should corporal punishment

Well, first off, it costs more money to put someone on death row than to give them life in prison.

Also, obviously the man's rabidly anti-gay. Seems to me like putting him in prison where he gets raped up the ass by a guy named Bubba for the rest of his days would be worse punishment than killing him.

Having said that, fucker got what he deserved.

With all respect to your present situation,

Since his actions come from his political beliefs (neonazism), he is the perfect case for a rehabilitation program. He comitted a huge mistake, to that I agree. Hell, it wasn't even a mistake, it was being a pure m.fucker.

But he deserves a second chance. A chance to perhaps change his way of thinking, to be a better man. Yes, he did kill someone.

Your only solution would be to kill another person, the "murderer"? What the fuck is that kind of solution? What good will it does to the family of the first victim? Nothing at all. Vengence is not a solution in a civilized society.

Why does he deserve a second chance?

Or to paraphrase, "What right to life has a man drowning in the sea?"

im just glad he didnt saw something along the lines of "in the name of jesus" theres already enough atheist nuts on NS that beleive people like this represent the whole christian population

Well,my regards to your uncle.No-one enjoys an attempted murder,espically the victim.Well,mabye the psycho who attempts it might,but I digress...

Anyways,to the anti-death penalty,while not being an American,I still see the death penalty as a logical punishment.I know you're probably going to read half of this and type a half-assed flame back but...

Let's think of it this way.Your life is worth a certain amount,just as any other posession you own,although the exact price is ,for the sake of this arguement,priceless or nothing is worth a life but another life.

If you steal,you recompensate,do you not?Therefore if you 'take a life',you must give one back.And since you only own one life,you must give it up.

Obviously,I'm not debating whether this is 'moral' or not,but it makes sense,does it not?You have one less potential drain on your economy,your country and one less possible repeat offender.

Personally,I don't see a point in attempting a reform in a person.As a famous man once said/wrote,I'm not sure,"If you allow the commision of a crime,you encourage many more."

Well, first off, it costs more money to put someone on death row than to give them life in prison.

Also, obviously the man's rabidly anti-gay. Seems to me like putting him in prison where he gets raped up the ass by a guy named Bubba for the rest of his days would be worse punishment than killing him.

Having said that, fucker got what he deserved.

I think it's obvious that the man was an antisocial psychopath - more so than a man acting on his political beliefs.

He just wanted an excuse to kill people whenever he liked, so he adopted "reasons" that were convenient.

He's better off dead.

I think it's obvious that the man was an antisocial psychopath - more so than a man acting on his political beliefs.

He just wanted an excuse to kill people whenever he liked, so he adopted "reasons" that were convenient.

He's better off dead.

And we're better off he's dead too.

With or without a side dish?

Better to save some room for Just Desserts. :)

Ya know, I have failed to hear the media show he was a national Socialist. I have read accounts saying he had a swasi as a tat, I have read others saying he has not. I have read reports where his friends say he talked about it, others say he did not. To me, he is not a Nazi, as I have seen no proof of that. I think it was just that strupd ICP shit he listned to that had more effect on him then anything else.

""It is clear the immediate cause of Robida's behavior
was his consumption of the music produced by the
Insane Clown Posse, a horror-rap group that openly
advocates mass murder with an axe."

Having reviewed
his MySpace.com profile --
http://www.myspace.com/jakejekyll, I do not see any
'National Socialist' symbols or material posted -- but
I do see the lyrics of Insane Clown Posse raps posted
prominently throughout the site, as well as pictures
of Robida in Insane Clown makeup. I also see numerous
calls of support from other followers of the group.

"This kind of nihilism is much more closely associated
to militant anti-racism and to Jewish modernism than
it is to National Socialism. There is no question
that youth who engage in this kind of behavior often
look at National Socialism, either, a) in an effort
to find a sense of identity and lift themselves out of
their nihilism, or b) because they have watched too
much Jewish television and come to believe that
National Socialism is somehow linked to their
nihilistic fantasies.



I am sorry, but none of the Nazis I know think this guy is even close to a nazi, as no Nazi would listen to shit like ICP, and there has been no proof he was one.


From your local skinhead nazi

Having reviewed
his MySpace.com profile --
http://www.myspace.com/jakejekyll, I do not see any
'National Socialist' symbols or material posted
I can't get the thrice-damned page to load anymore, it's probably been dropped or something. Figures.
But I distinctly remembered a "but im also proud of who i am!!14/88!!" in there, I had thought?

I'm sure that some of the posters on this forum have already read about this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1582614

But if you havn't I'll recap quickly. In New Bedford, Massachusetts USA an 18 year old guy went into a gay bar and attacked the patrons with a hatchet and a 9mm pistol. He then escaped for a few days and ended up in Arkansas where he killed a state trooper and a woman that he had picked up in West Virginia (knew her previously) before being gunned down by the police. ...
So, the question is, Why the hell didn't anyone do anything to stop this punk during his rampage?

Oh, silly me:

Gun Laws (M.G.L. ch. 140, s. 131 and ch. 269 s. 10, 12B & 14)
In 1998, Massachusetts enacted some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. These laws have significantly changed requirements regarding the purchase, possession, carrying, storage, and licensing of firearms. This summary highlights a few of the key points. However, it in no way sets forth all of the obligations and rights of individuals with regard to firearms laws.

Local police departments have the authority to issue gun permits. Known as "Shall Deny" Permits :rolleyes: Such permits include licenses to carry (L.T.C.) and firearm identification cards (F.I.D.). There are two types of licenses to carry. A Class A license to carry allows an individual to purchase, possess and carry large-capacity handguns, rifles, shotguns and feeding devices. A Class A license to carry is the only permit that authorizes a holder to carry a concealed and loaded firearm. A Class B license to carry permits a holder to purchase, possess, and carry non-large capacity handguns and large-capacity rifles and shotguns.

There are also two types of firearm identification cards. Unrestricted firearm identification cards allow for the possession of non-large capacity rifles and shotguns. The restricted version of the card is available solely for the possession of chemical sprays.

Massachusetts gun laws require that all firearms, rifles, and shotguns be stored in a secured, locked container or equipped with a tamper resistant mechanical lock or other safety devices properly engaged as to render the weapon inoperable by unlawful users. Moreover, every firearm and large capacity weapon sold in the Commonwealth must be equipped with a safety device (trigger lock) designed to prevent its discharge by an unauthorized user.

New residents have 60 days to obtain proper licenses. Non-residents may obtain temporary licenses to carry through the Firearms Record Bureau in order to possess and transport firearms through the Commonwealth. All non-residents must comply with all Massachusetts laws regarding transportation and storage while in the Commonwealth.

No one may possess, transport or store any type of gun in a building or on the grounds of any school without prior authorization by the board in charge of the school.


So, it's almost impossible for a law abiding Gay Guy to get and carry a firearm to protect himself from a hatchet weilding teenager who, being a criminal anyway, was undaunted by either the FEDERAL restriction against an 18 year old from carrying a pistol OR the Massachusetts' "toughest gun control laws in the country".

Now we get to debate whether or not this shit should fry for whacking a cop in addition to attacking all those folks in New Bedford.

Boy... Let's hear it for Gun Control - Uncle (Hic) Teddy's gift to Gays. :rolleyes: