NationStates Jolt Archive

HARTSVILLE, South Carolina (AP) -- Had Tonya Dixon realized the man living across the street was a convicted sex offender, she says she would never have moved with her family to a mobile home in a quiet, isolated neighborhood.

Officers, bloodhounds and helicopters continued searching Friday for 47-year-old Kenneth Glenn Hinson, who is wanted in the rape of two teenage girls in an underground room behind his home here in northeastern South Carolina.

Dixon, who moved to the neighborhood about two weeks ago, searched her computer after news of the assaults spread and found Hinson's mug shot on the state's sexual predator list.

"They need a big ol' sign in the yard letting people know," said Dixon, 29, who has three young children.

The two 17-year-olds were abducted and assaulted in a room under a shed on Hinson's property, Darlington County Chief Deputy Tom Gainey said. The girls were left bound but managed to free themselves. Gainey said they opened the trap door in the floor and kick down the shed's door.

Hinson is wanted on kidnapping and criminal sexual conduct charges. There have been no confirmed sightings of him and no confirmed contact with any of his family in the area, Gainey said Friday.

Hinson was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in 1991 and had been recommended for the state's sexually violent predator program just before his release from prison in 2000, but was rejected during the screening process, the state attorney general's office said.

A circuit judge later ruled that prosecutors had failed to show Hinson would likely offend again.

"We thought then that the judge made a mistake," state Attorney General Henry McMaster told ABC-TV's "Good Morning America" on Friday. "I think events, if all this is true that we hear today -- it appears that the man should have gone into the system, certainly."

The judge, Edward Cottingham, told WIS-TV in Columbia that he doesn't remember the case and that official court records should reflect the basis for his ruling. Cottingham, a retired but active judge, did not return messages from The Associated Press.

The rural road leading to Hinson's home outside Hartsville is lined with mobile homes, many of them with bikes and toys lying in the yards. The neighborhood, which one resident described as "one big family," is about 20 miles northwest of Florence where busy Interstate 95 meets Interstate 20.

Argeree Cooks, who lives with her four grandchildren down the street from Hinson's home, was worried. Her family also did not know Hinson was a sex offender, she said.

"Why couldn't they tell us?" she said. "We have seen him. They need to tell people these things."

:mad:

This is why I support the death penalty for trash such as rapists. They do not deserve to breathe our air, drink our water, eat our food. They do not deserve anything.

Just exile offenders. It really isn't hard. Strip them of thier possesions, and march them into a slow boat to a far away island.

This is why I support the death penalty for trash such as rapists. They do not deserve to breathe our air, drink our water, eat our food. They do not deserve anything.
Ahhhh, but who are we to judge their right to life? Better to remove them from the country, that we can do. Exile should replace the death penalty.

Offenders should, however, be tagged. EVERYONE ahould see their crime, for the safety of the society.

Who are we to judge their right to life?

Smarter.

Ahhhh, but who are we to judge their right to life? Better to remove them from the country, that we can do. Exile should replace the death penalty.
Uh huh. Sorry, IIRC Austrailia is already full and not accepting new criminals for the forseeable future.

Where would you "exile" them to?

Exile... perhaps into THE SUN? Seriously, I'd feel much better if we just shot him.

But is it your right to kill a man for his crimes? Certaintly, take measures to protect others from him, but it is not moral to kill him, you become just like him.

Uh huh. Sorry, IIRC Austrailia is already full and not accepting new criminals for the forseeable future.

Where would you "exile" them to?
Small islands, perhaps send them to India or some other country...
There is always Siberia...

Just exile offenders. It really isn't hard. Strip them of thier possesions, and march them into a slow boat to a far away island.
That's pretty much the death penalty, right? I'm all for it. Especially if we can find an island with King Kong on it and lots of dinosaurs.

No, it is not immoral to kill him. He has used children as tools for pleasure. "An eye for an eye", as the Bible says (I'm not even religious, and I agree with it!)

But is it your right to kill a man for his crimes? Certaintly, take measures to protect others from him, but it is not moral to kill him, you become just like him.
Are you teh same guy who in the other thread is saying we need to blow all teh Iraqi's to shit? :confused:

Yeah, they probably die and without the stain on your soul. They can choose to live in their new "home" or give up and die.

No, it is not immoral to kill him. He has used children as tools for pleasure. "An eye for an eye", as the Bible says (I'm not even religious, and I agree with it!)
So says the OLD testament. The New testament states we must turn the other cheek .

Are you teh same guy who in the other thread is saying we need to blow all teh Iraqi's to shit? :confused:
No, radical Muslim terrorist are enemies in WAR, and can be killed as such. Islam must be silenced, it has offended the rest of the world for WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY to long.

Islam was a peaceful religion.

Some take it too far.

goes to show you how the idea of leaving someone to rot in a cage doesn’t work this man is clearly mentally sick and in even the most primordial of societies the sick are cured its just in this case the medicine is someone to talk to

so we have possible choices here:

A) Kill

B) help criminal return to being a normal member of society thus paying taxes, working and so on

c) forced labour which has never been profitable

So says the OLD testament. The New testament states we must turn the other cheek .
Who's daughter's cheek should we trun for this guy? Better not be my daughter.

Any statistics on how many sex offenders of various stripes reoffend?

Any statistics on how many sex offenders of various stripes reoffend?
It's a little more complicated than just that, but here:
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
This guy, however, was reccomended for the violent offenders program after his release but the judge said the state had failed to prove he was still a danger. His first victim was a 12-year-old girl, but he wasn't a danger. :confused: He wouldn't have been a danger if he was in a pine box. Now thereare two 17-year-olds who are lucky that they can testify to how much of a danger he really is. If they had not escaped I'm sure they would be dead. I wonder how many more are.

One thing that people aren't being mindful of is that statutory rape often counts someone as a sex offender. Say you're 18, and your girlfriend isn't. Say the age of consent in your particular place of residence is 18. Say your girlfriend's parents find out and yap to the police. Boom. Do you really want that crap scaring people away from you?

Also, all sex offenders are registered with the state and can't live within a certain distance of schools and parks. They're also required to notify the state if their residence changes, or have a warrant out for their arrest.They can't put signs up in someone's yard, or mark them visibly. Why do some only care about sex offenders? I'd be equally/more unnerved to discover I was living near a murderer or a schizophrenic. (Yes, I have a phobia of untreated schizophrenic people...long story,people.)

It's a little more complicated than just that, but here:
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
This guy, however, was reccomended for the violent offenders program after his release but the judge said the state had failed to prove he was still a danger. His first victim was a 12-year-old girl, but he wasn't a danger. :confused: He wouldn't have been a danger if he was in a pine box. Now thereare two 17-year-olds who are lucky that they can testify to how much of a danger he really is. If they had not escaped I'm sure they would be dead. I wonder how many more are.

If the state failed to demonstrate that he was a continuing danger, it is their fault, not the judge's.

If the state failed to demonstrate that he was a continuing danger, it is their fault, not the judge's.
It was probably a little of both. I think his past offense was enough. Anyone who would violently rape a 12 year old, in my opinion, should be seen as a danger to the public for the rest of their lives and teh judge was certainly aware of teh crime this guy was getting paroled for. But the state probably fucked it up, too.

This guy, however, was reccomended for the violent offenders program after his release but the judge said the state had failed to prove he was still a danger. His first victim was a 12-year-old girl, but he wasn't a danger. :confused: He wouldn't have been a danger if he was in a pine box.
And here's the biggest pproblem of the death penalty: It only works in hindsight.
If they'd known he was going to do this, then sure, killing him would have been the best thing to do. But until they invent a time viewer capable of seeing someone's future actions, all we'd be doing is killing people who have nothing but the potential to reoffend.
Hardly what I'd call a civilised society.

And here's the biggest pproblem of the death penalty: It only works in hindsight.
If they'd known he was going to do this, then sure, killing him would have been the best thing to do. But until they invent a time viewer capable of seeing someone's future actions, all we'd be doing is killing people who have nothing but the potential to reoffend.
Hardly what I'd call a civilised society.

Wasn't it Dostoevsky who said you could tell how civilized a society was by how it treated it's felons?

And here's the biggest pproblem of the death penalty: It only works in hindsight.
If they'd known he was going to do this, then sure, killing him would have been the best thing to do. But until they invent a time viewer capable of seeing someone's future actions, all we'd be doing is killing people who have nothing but the potential to reoffend.
Hardly what I'd call a civilised society.
Its not hindsight. The guy violently rape a 12-year-old girl. People who do that tend to do it again because they are obviously devoid of empathy. In anycase, shoulda just killed him for the first crime.

Just exile offenders. It really isn't hard. Strip them of thier possesions, and march them into a slow boat to a far away island.

yeah the ACLU would love that:rolleyes:

there is also a issue of communities banning sex offenders, when one community bans sex offenders the sex offenders have to move, to another city, which in turn raises the amount of sex offenders in that city

Its not hindsight. The guy violently rape a 12-year-old girl. People who do that tend to do it again because they are obviously devoid of empathy. In anycase, shoulda just killed him for the first crime.

Oh no, but it'd be more 'civilized' to give him government-funded healthcare, housing, food and recreation for life.

And after all, he might say he's really sorry.

Killing the poor guy would be MURDER! :rolleyes:

Oh no, but it'd be more 'civilized' to give him government-funded healthcare, housing, food and recreation for life.

And after all, he might say he's really sorry.

Killing the poor guy would be MURDER! :rolleyes:

I suppose the question is, do you want the state to lower itself to the level of it's criminals? The state should be existing on a moral plane above that, or we are all potentially in a lot of trouble.

Where would you "exile" them to?

Enemy nations?

Enemy nations?

Switzerland. They deserve it.

Nuclear reactors?

what we need is a reform of the death penalty so it doesnt cost as much or take as long to get rid of someone. rope is on sale at the general store for $5

Nuclear reactors?

Nah, be really cruel. Birmingham.

Actually, I'm only supportive of the death penalty if it5 is administered humanely. Yes, shoot him! But no long, painful, bloody deaths please.

Nah, be really cruel. Birmingham.

i saw send em to canada:D

Actually, I'm only supportive of the death penalty if it5 is administered humanely. Yes, shoot him! But no long, painful, bloody deaths please.

so is hanging ok with you, its quick, it has no mess (besides a body), no one can really tell you if its painful or not, they tend to all be dead

Actually, I'm only supportive of the death penalty if it5 is administered humanely. Yes, shoot him! But no long, painful, bloody deaths please.

I do love the moral squeamishness of "only it's administered humanely". I mean, basically, the question is:-
Does the state have the right to take the life of those who operate outside it's laws or not?

Now, we can all agree that this particular offender is a pretty vile human being, but the reason that i am glad my country doesn't have the death penalty is because i don't want to be complicit, being a citizen (or subject, same difference, anyone in the UK who gets that het up about it should get a life and worry about more important things), in legally sanctioned murder, whatever someones crime.

Because i don't know what the mass of humanity might decide is a crime worthy of death next. Judging by the sarky comments i get in work, it could well be "having ginger hair", and then i am truly fucked :)

I suppose the question is, do you want the state to lower itself to the level of it's criminals? The state should be existing on a moral plane above that, or we are all potentially in a lot of trouble.
Oh, no. Here comes the "It makes us just like them" argument.

News flash: That's an opinion and I absolutely disagree. I don't think that because I support the death penalty for people like this that I am in anyway the moral equivalent to a guy who would rape a 12-year-old girl and then kidnap, imprison and rape two 17-year-old girls. Let's face it, if they hadn't escaped he would have killed them.

i saw send em to canada:D

Nah. I like canadians. They are like Americans with a sense of irony, a sense of proportion and a winter coat :)

This is why I support the death penalty for trash such as rapists. They do not deserve to breathe our air, drink our water, eat our food. They do not deserve anything.

Who are you to say who lives and who dies?

Oh, no. Here comes the "It makes us just like them" argument.

News flash: That's an opinion and I absolutely disagree. I don't think that because I support the death penalty for people like this that I am in anyway the moral equivalent to a guy who would rape a 12-year-old girl and then kidnap, imprison and rape two 17-year-old girls. Let's face it, if they hadn't escaped he would have killed them.

I didn't say "it makes us JUST like them", so lets back track here. I said the death penalty lowers the state to the level of criminals. It puts us on the same page as them, in the same context. It doesn't make us PRECISELY like them, no. It might be for the purest and most noble reasons, to protect our young (but then, many a murderer could claim to be acting out of pure moral reasons...)...but next along the line could well be "to protect our property values" or something similarly not quite as moral. Slippery slope. You can reduce that to absurdity if you so desire, but i've already done that above with my crack about death penalty for ginger hair :)

And yes, the man is obviously a vile piece of human sputum. But *i* wouldn't want his blood on my conscience, even my conscience as part of a collective like a state. The state must operate on a higher moral plane than criminals. Simple. I'll say thats my essential point. The Death Penalty, even backed up with law, always strikes me as way too close to "might makes right" for my liking, which IS the attitude of criminals.

I'm not sure whether South Carolina has inacted some form of Megan's Law or not, but really it is their fault for either not enforcing it or simply not having it.

As a matter a fact I'm pretty sure there is a federal mandate forcing the states to inact such a law. You say we should have killed this man when if law enforcement had kept an eye on him like they should have then this may never have happened. Also the punishment for sex offenders in this country is pathetic considering 50% of all sex offenders repeat their crimes when they are released.

Failures at federal and state level.

I didn't say "it makes us JUST like them", so lets back track here. I said the death penalty lowers the state to the level of criminals. It puts us on the same page as them, in the same context.

I don't see how.

Sure, 'criminals' (murderers) take life. And the death penalty is taking life. But one is a crime and one is justice.

It's kind of like how 'criminals' (kidnappers) take someones freedom. And imprisonment is taking someones freedom. Yet one is a crime and one is justice.

I don't see how.

Sure, 'criminals' (murderers) take life. And the death penalty is taking life. But one is a crime and one is justice.

It's kind of like how 'criminals' (kidnappers) take someones freedom. And imprisonment is taking someones freedom. Yet one is a crime and one is justice.

As i said in a previous post, depends entirely on your perspective on whether it is morally justifiable to take a life. I don't think it is myself. You may disagree.

As i said in a previous post, depends entirely on your perspective on whether it is morally justifiable to take a life. I don't think it is myself. You may disagree.

I guess it also depends on whether you think its morally justifiable to take someones freedom.

I just don't see how someone could think one is justifiable (thus, freedom doesn't mean much to them) but the other is not. They're both the same - when its punishment for a crime.

This is why I support the death penalty for trash such as rapists. They do not deserve to breathe our air, drink our water, eat our food. They do not deserve anything.
Yes, because demonizing people is the best way to desensitizing and rationalizing their irrational levels of punishment.

This is why I support the death penalty for trash such as rapists. They do not deserve to breathe our air, drink our water, eat our food. They do not deserve anything.
Pfft, emotional arguments. :rolleyes:

I didn't say "it makes us JUST like them", so lets back track here. I said the death penalty lowers the state to the level of criminals. It puts us on the same page as them, in the same context. It doesn't make us PRECISELY like them, no.Again, that's an opinion I disagree with. I don't think it makes us in any way morally comperable to him. It might be for the purest and most noble reasons, to protect our young (but then, many a murderer could claim to be acting out of pure moral reasons...)I can't think of a single moral argument this guy can make. "The twelve-year-old was coming at me with a knife so I stabbed her in the vagina with my penis for self protection," probably isn't going to fly....but next along the line could well be "to protect our property values" or something similarly not quite as moral. Slippery slope.Thank you for pointing out the logical fallacy that that argument is. *snip*
And yes, the man is obviously a vile piece of human sputum. But *i* wouldn't want his blood on my conscience, even my conscience as part of a collective like a state.See, that doesn't bother me. :) The state must operate on a higher moral plane than criminals. Simple. I'll say thats my essential point. The Death Penalty, even backed up with law, always strikes me as way too close to "might makes right" for my liking, which IS the attitude of criminals.
I don't think this is about might makes right. No one is trying to prove who is the bigger bad-ass here.

Yes, because demonizing people is the best way to desensitizing and rationalizing their irrational levels of punishment.
No one demonized this guy. He demonized himself. "Demonization" implies that you put an evil face on an unkown enemy. This guy is not unknown and the evil on his face was put there by him.

Pfft, emotional arguments. :rolleyes:

An oxymoron?

I guess it also depends on whether you think its morally justifiable to take someones freedom.

I just don't see how someone could think one is justifiable (thus, freedom doesn't mean much to them) but the other is not. They're both the same - when its punishment for a crime.

Well, i'd say it's about "justice" being applied. Thats the difference between our stances, i suppose - you are thinking "punishment" for a crime, i am thinking "justice" for a crime. Which means
(1) that some element of punishment must exist, which is of a level to the crime committed (granted, no one will ever hear me arguing otherwise)
(2) That the citizens of the society are protected from the offender.
(3) that the possibility of redemption and rehabilitation also exists.

Thats how i define justice, y'see. The Death penalty may well be the supreme expression of part (1), and (2) (as long as you aren't the citizen being put to death that is...) but it does kind of remove the possibility of (3).

Well, i'd say it's about "justice" being applied. Thats the difference between our stances, i suppose - you are thinking "punishment" for a crime, i am thinking "justice" for a crime. Which means
(1) that some element of punishment must exist,

Obviously that's not the difference between our stances. Just because I said "punishment" doesn't mean I'm not thinking of Justice. And you just admitted that punishment is part of justice.


(3) that the possibility of redemption and rehabilitation also exists.

Thats how i define justice, y'see. The Death penalty may well be the supreme expression of part (1), and (2) (as long as you aren't the citizen being put to death that is...) but it does kind of remove the possibility of (3).

Yeah it does, but that's because I don't think some criminals are capable of being 'rehabilitated,' and even if it were - lets say mind-wiping was possible and it was possible to totally re-create their personality into a nicey-nicey one - letting them evade the punishment is itself unjust.

As for redemption, let's leave that to God.

And it doesn't seem like you think the guy could be rehabilitated either.

the man is obviously a vile piece of human sputum.

Ok, since it seems so popular i will try to make you see my way by using emotions (in latin, using pathos. Compare to pathetic.)
*Erm*
So you want these sick beings to suffer? Good! So let's not kill them but let them live imprisoned. Dead men do not suffer. Living beings on the other hand can regret what they did, get raped in prison, be depressed goths and so on and so forth.
So, be cruel, say no to the death penalty!

Obviously that's not the difference between our stances. Just because I said "punishment" doesn't mean I'm not thinking of Justice. And you just admitted that punishment is part of justice.

True, punishment IS part of justice, i just think the death penalty tends to make it the dominant part.


Yeah it does, but that's because I don't think some criminals are capable of being 'rehabilitated,' and even if it were - lets say mind-wiping was possible and it was possible to totally re-create their personality into a nicey-nicey one - letting them evade the punishment is itself unjust.

As for redemption, let's leave that to God.

And it doesn't seem like you think the guy could be rehabilitated either.
(1) don't believe in God, and don't believe any nation has the right to decide who lives and who dies, simple.
(2) I think everyone has the POTENTIAL for redemption within them and
(3) I've been a vile piece of human sputum in my time. Not on his level, admittedly, and not with his malice aforethought, admittedly, but i know i have fallen - on occasion - far from what i believe - and believed at the time - to be morally correct. I don't fall that far anymore. I do believe in redemption on THIS earth and in THIS life, sorry.

Nah, sorry, not going to convince me. Sorry.

*I'm not even going to go into the usual "miscarriage of justice" rants because...quite frankly i think that evades the point, and it's the anti-death penalty equivalent of the pro-death penalty "as long as it's humane", it's already conceded the argument, it's already saying "it is morally justifiable for the state to take a life (as long as they get the right one, but we never will, so don't)"

Ahhhh, but who are we to judge their right to life? Better to remove them from the country, that we can do. Exile should replace the death penalty.

How is that an improvement?

You send them where they can rape OTHER PEOPLE'S children instead?

(1) don't believe in God, and don't believe any nation has the right to decide who lives and who dies, simple.

But you DO believe any nation has the right to decide who has freedom and who doesn't. Interesting.


(2) I think everyone has the POTENTIAL for redemption within them and

In light of (1), by "redemption" you just mean rehabilitation.

And that clearly didn't work in this case, did it? So what, Mickey Mouse? If at first you don't succeed, bury the raped and murderered corpses and try, try again?

(3) I've been a vile piece of human sputum in my time.

Nah. In your case you're just a wannabe.

Whatever you've done, it doesn't compare, and its pointless to make the case that it does.

. I do believe in redemption on THIS earth and in THIS life, sorry.

Nah, sorry, not going to convince me. Sorry.


Hey, don't apologize. Everyone has the right to be wrong. ;)

But you DO believe any nation has the right to decide who has freedom and who doesn't. Interesting.

You can be released from prison.



In light of (1), by "redemption" you just mean rehabilitation.

And that clearly didn't work in this case, did it? So what, Mickey Mouse? If at first you don't succeed, bury the raped and murderered corpses and try, try again?

No, i actually mean redemption. Rehabilitation is a different matter. Rehabilitation means being reconditioned not to go out in the world and commit the crime again. Redemption means inner change where you go out into the world and are not the person who would commit that sort of crime again. Subtle but noticeable difference. Sure, most criminals are merely rehabilitated, but yeah, some of them are redeemed. And by that, i don't mean in the quasi-biblical Judeo-Christian sense per se.

Well, yes, but you do have the unfortunate fact that this fellow lives in a nation that spends hugely vast amounts money on incarcerating it's poor and/or underclass for crimes which are based purely upon poverty and lack of education and bad upbringing/environment (not that i am in any way attempting a sociological excuse for *his* crimes here, you understand, so before you think i am, wait till the end of the sentence :p) compared to miniscule amounts on treating and - possibly - curing the real dangers to said society (and the reason they do this? Because they have the handy get out clause of the death penalty. Why bother finding the reason and possibly the cure for something when you can just kill the person who did it?)



Nah. In your case you're just a wannabe.

Whatever you've done, it doesn't compare, and its pointless to make the case that it does.

I bought a Phil Collins album once :p

Hey, don't apologize. Everyone has the right to be wrong. ;)

Oh, no, sorry, i was apologising because i was telling you how wrong you were ;)

It isnt altogether difficult to justify capital punishment for murderers - killing someone is a very clear absolute, it is the ultimate crime.

Applying the death penalty to crimes other than murder means that a new justification for it has to be established, one which is necessarly more encompassing and necessarily makes it conceiveable to expand the death penalty further.

Deterrance of future crime is not what justifies the death penalty today, life imprisonment accomplishes that.

The death penalty is entirely retributive in nature, it exists only because we feel we have to mete out retribution in kind for murder.

An illustration of the difference between killing someone and sexually assaulting him is this:

Given a choice you could not escape, would you rather have your son or daughter molested or killed? Would you rather be molested or killed?

It isnt altogether difficult to justify capital punishment for murderers - killing someone is a very clear absolute, it is the ultimate crime.

That is not a justification. Its your opinion. And its not in anyway close to fact. The ultimate punishment in my view would be life imprionment, not the death penelty.

In any case, you do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies.

In any case, you do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies.

Why?

Why?

Because life is like a possession. Taking it away is stealing. Why do you think we punish murder in the first place.

Why?

Because that's the sole province of Little Jimmy Osmond, judge over us all.

That is not a justification. Its your opinion. And its not in anyway close to fact. The ultimate punishment in my view would be life imprionment, not the death penelty.

In any case, you do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies.


Its the 'ultimate' that threw you off.

"ultimate" means "final"

Death is the ultimate punishment because it cannot conceivably be reversed or its effects in any way mitigated.

That is not a justification. Its your opinion. And its not in anyway close to fact. The ultimate punishment in my view would be life imprionment, not the death penelty.

In any case, you do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies.


One of the more cogent responses to "not have the right to decide &c" is that as reasonable actors, killers make the decision to forfeit their own lives as a consequence of their crime.

Denying them the death penalty, it can be argued, is treating them like children instead of like reasonable human beings, responsible for their own actions.

The only objections to the death penalty for murderers that stand critical examination are those concerning the practicality and possiblity of being entirely sure innocent people are not executed.

It is my opinion that it is better to let an unlimited number of murderers receive life in prison than to execute one innocent person.

Its the 'ultimate' that threw you off.

"ultimate" means "final"

Death is the ultimate punishment because it cannot conceivably be reversed or its effects in any way mitigated.

Darn. There goes my plan for raising an army of the dead.

Actually, that's just one of several definitions.

ul·ti·mate
adj.
Being last in a series, process, or progression: “As the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court occupies a central place in our scheme of government” (Richard A. Epstein).
Fundamental; elemental: an ultimate truth.

Of the greatest possible size or significance; maximum: Has the ultimate diamond been found?
Representing or exhibiting the greatest possible development or sophistication: the ultimate bicycle.
Utmost; extreme: the ultimate insult.
Being most distant or remote; farthest. See Synonyms at last1.
Eventual: hoped for ultimate victory.

n.
The basic or fundamental fact, element, or principle.
The final point; the conclusion.
The greatest extreme; the maximum: actions that represented the ultimate in political expediency.

Because life is like a possession. Taking it away is stealing. Why do you think we punish murder in the first place.

And yet, if you steal money, for example, the courts may fine you, yes?

So, a 'possession' is only ours as long as that is considered reasonable?

Personally, I see life less as a 'possession', more as a 'privilege'... and, thus, I see no problem in that privilege being 'revoked'.

And yet, if you steal money, for example, the courts may fine you, yes?

If you steal money the court is more likly to put you in prison. That takes something from you that is not yours. Time


So, a 'possession' is only ours as long as that is considered reasonable?

Personally, I see life less as a 'possession', more as a 'privilege'... and, thus, I see no problem in that privilege being 'revoked'.

That is a sick view to hold

There are very, very few cases where taking a life is acceptable. The death penlty is not one

Having the death penlty for murder is vengence, not justice. They may be linked but there is a distinct diffrence.

If you steal money the court is more likly to put you in prison. That takes something from you that is not yours. Time


I didn't say the court WOULD give you a fine... but they COULD. An 'eye for an eye', so to speak.

And, you might claim they would give a prison sentence instead... but, I seem to recall at least one BIG case, where they did both.

Also - if my time is 'not mine'.... the who's is it?


That is a sick view to hold


And I find your view gutless and squeamish.

But, our personal opinions are not logical debating tools.


There are very, very few cases where taking a life is acceptable. The death penlty is not one


According to you. I beg very much to differ.


Having the death penlty for murder is vengence, not justice. They may be linked but there is a distinct diffrence.

No - vengeance would be something that equated hurt for hurt. I am not talking about making child-rapists suffer, just 'sanitising' them.