NationStates Jolt Archive

I apologize if you already know about this site, but if you don't, take a look at this site runned by the Texas Dept of Criminal Justice. Be warned though, it's a morbid site. While I do support the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes, but those who are executed are still human, this helps shed some light on the executed.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

I apologize if you already know about this site, but if you don't, take a look at this site runned by the Texas Dept of Criminal Justice.

Thank God for Texas :)

Thank God for Texas :)

Yep, Texas is the only state that has an express lane for death row inmates. :D

Yes sir.* I want to ask if it is in your heart to forgive me.* You don't have to.* I know I allowed the devil to rule my life.* I just ask you to forgive me and ask the Lord to forgive me for allowing the devil to deceive me.* I thank God for having patience with me.* I don't deserve to cause you pain.* You did not deserve this.* I deserve what I am getting.

On 12/17/1998 during the night in Houston, Resendiz killed an adult Hispanic female by beating her to death with a statuette from the victim's home. Resendiz had broken into the victim's house by going through an open door. Resendiz took the victim's cash and fled the scene in the victim's jeep. Resendiz is believed to have committed a series of murders throughout Texas and other states

Yep. Sounds like justice to me. Oh wait, was this site supposed to make me get all gushy and anti-death-penalty?

Morbid? More like perversion.

And I'm utterly repulsed by the lot of you.

Yep. Sounds like justice to me. Oh wait, was this site supposed to make me get all gushy and anti-death-penalty?
I think that was the general idea.

Which is stupid. The death penalty is not only an inherently good idea, but the people who get all sappy and sentimental about it are really hypocrites. How many of them have stepped on an annoying cockroach or zapped a mosquito? How many have put an old suffering dog to sleep? How many have viciously and heartlessly poisoned rats? How is killing a human different?

I think that was the general idea.

Which is stupid. The death penalty is not only an inherently good idea, but the people who get all sappy and sentimental about it are really hypocrites. How many of them have stepped on an annoying cockroach or zapped a mosquito? How many have put an old suffering dog to sleep? How many have viciously and heartlessly poisoned rats? How is killing a human different?

Because, unlike meaningless animals, humans have this thing called sentience. That is to say, we're aware of ourselves. If animals were, they would also disdain killing one another. They don't, so they have no problem with it.

Murder is no different when a government commits it than when a person commits it. Two wrongs don't make a right (or at least they didn't when I was in Kindergarten)

How many of them have stepped on an annoying cockroach or zapped a mosquito? How many have put an old suffering dog to sleep? How many have viciously and heartlessly poisoned rats? How is killing a human different?
The main argument I've seen is that it is an abuse of power to allow the government the ability to take the life of it's people. Also, standards for human ethics are completely different than those for insects, rodents, and disabled housepets.

Oh Czardas...your wit is too keen for this forum...

February 17, 2004

Last Statement:
Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby. [Remaining portion of statement omitted due to profanity.]


June 20, 2006

Last Statement:
Yeah. Momma, I just want you to know I love you. I want all of you to know I love you all. I am at peace; we know what it is. We know the truth. Stay out of crime; there is no point in it. I am at peace. We know the truth and I know it. I have some peace. I am glad it didn't take that long - no 10 or 20 years. I am at peace. And I want everyone to know I did not walk to this because this is straight up murder. I just want everybody to know I didn't walk to this. The reason is because it's murder. I am not going to play a part in my own murder. No one should have to do that. I love you all. I do not know all of your names. And I don't know how you feel about me. And whether you believe it or not, I did not kill them. I just want you all to have peace; you know what I'm saying. There is no point in that. It is neither here nor there. You have to move past it. It is time to move on. You know what I'm saying. I want each one of my loved ones to move on. I am glad it didn't last long. I am glad it didn't last long. I am at peace. I am at peace to the fullest. The people that did this - they know. I am not here to point fingers. God will let them know. If this is what it takes, just do what you got to do to get past it. What it takes. I am ready, Warden. Love you all. Let my son know I love him.


May 04, 2006

Last Statement:
May I speak to my family? Honey, I love you. Be strong and take care of yourselves. Thanks for being there. Take care of yourself. Ms. Irene, thank you for everything you have done. Chaplain Hart, thank you for helping me. Gary, thank you. Maria, Maria, I love you baby. Thank you for being there for me and all these people here will find the one who did this damn crime. I am going home to be with God. Thank you. Thank you, Warden.


October 20, 2005

Last Statement:
Yes I do. I would like to address you first. I did not kill your loved one, but I hope that one day you find out who did. I wish I could tell you the reason why, or give some kind of solace; you lost someone you love very much. The same as my family and friends are going to lose in a few minutes. I am sure he died unjustly, just like I am. I did not murder him; I did not have anything to do with his death. And to you my family and friends, I love you dearly. Even though I die, that love for you will never die. Into Your hands, Lord, I commit my spirit. Thank you. Thank you all.

That was out of about 20 or so, the most recent ones. I don't know how many of them are actually innocent, but it is not a massive stretch of the imagination to say that some of them probably were. When an innocent person is killed, we call that murder. There are 368 people on that list, so if texas' legal system is so tight that only one in one hundred men are convicted wrongly, that's three to four murders that every citizen of texas who supports the death penalty there are accomplices to.

Because, unlike meaningless animals, humans have this thing called sentience. That is to say, we're aware of ourselves. If animals were, they would also disdain killing one another. They don't, so they have no problem with it.
Animals seem quite aware of themselves enough to go around looking for food, amusement, and mates. They recognise in themselves a need to further the interests of the species, or their pack, or clan, or flock, or herd, or rafter, or what have you.

In addition, I wish to draw your attention to the small fact that not only do many humans not disdain killing their own kind despite their supposed 'sentience', that they do so far more frequently than any other animal; in fact, the human is one of only a few species that kills its own kind, and the others (the monitor lizard, the praying mantis, several dozen species of spider and wasp) do so primarily as mating rituals....

Naturally, animals kill other animals, but that is most frequently in defence of their own territory or young or something. Humans kill other animals for sport.

Oh Czardas...your wit is too keen for this forum...
Unfortunately. There are so many noobs these days that half of them don't understand a word I say. The other half think they're the greatest posters since the days of TIN and Neo-A (I refer to such abominations as Fascist Dominion, Dinaverg, IL Ruffino and the like). :(

One of these days I may even join you in exile....

Animals seem quite aware of themselves enough to go around looking for food, amusement, and mates. They recognise in themselves a need to further the interests of the species, or their pack, or clan, or flock, or herd, or rafter, or what have you.

In addition, I wish to draw your attention to the small fact that not only do many humans not disdain killing their own kind despite their supposed 'sentience', that they do so far more frequently than any other animal; in fact, the human is one of only a few species that kills its own kind, and the others (the monitor lizard, the praying mantis, several dozen species of spider and wasp) do so primarily as mating rituals....

Naturally, animals kill other animals, but that is most frequently in defence of their own territory or young or something. Humans kill other animals for sport.
None of which is much of an excuse for being a fucking voyeur.

Because, unlike meaningless animals, humans have this thing called sentience. That is to say, we're aware of ourselves. If animals were, they would also disdain killing one another. They don't, so they have no problem with it.

Oh, right. I guess that's why animals slaughter one or two or twenty million of each other at a time. OH WAIT THEY DONT. Of course, they do rape 2 year old children. OH WAIT THEY DONT. Well, maybe they simply make war and pollute their own habitats and the entire planet, putting in jeopardy entire ecosystems within a period of tens or hundreds of years. OH WAIT. THEY DONT.

I hate this bullshit sentiment that humans are sentient and thus 'nice' whereas animals are 'barbaric.' Animals are better people than humans are, by a long shot.


Murder is no different when a government commits it than when a person commits it. Two wrongs don't make a right (or at least they didn't when I was in Kindergarten)

Ah, the old "execution is murder" argument. Well I guess if all else fails, use emotive, ignorant language to try to manipulate peoples hearts instead of their brains. Maybe thats one reason we humans are so superior. We have giant brains that we don't want to use.

None of which is much of an excuse for being a fucking voyeur.
Ok...?

I apologize if you already know about this site, but if you don't, take a look at this site runned by the Texas Dept of Criminal Justice. Be warned though, it's a morbid site. While I do support the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes, but those who are executed are still human, this helps shed some light on the executed.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

Where's the website where we get to read the last statements of the victims?

Oh, right...

If the intention of this thread was to change my views on the death penalty, it fell about 40 million miles short.

I don't know how many of them are actually innocent, ... There are 368 people on that list, so if texas' legal system is so tight that only one in one hundred men are convicted wrongly, that's three to four murders that every citizen of texas who supports the death penalty there are accomplices to.

I like how you go from a position of total ignorance (you DONT know who is 'actually innocent') to assuming that 3 or 4 of them are innocent. I guess you'll just be providing all their case and court evidence, data, testimonies and such right now, to show us how you know ANY of them are innocent? Fat chance.

Ah, the old "execution is murder" argument. Well I guess if all else fails, use emotive, ignorant language to try to manipulate peoples hearts instead of their brains. Maybe thats one reason we humans are so superior. We have giant brains that we don't want to use.
Well, naturally. People are frightened of logic and reason, simply because it's so much more powerful in the end than emotion. Thus, they shy away from it and try to turn everything into an emotive debate. Which this isn't.

I like how you go from a position of total ignorance (you DONT know who is 'actually innocent') to assuming that 3 or 4 of them are innocent. I guess you'll just be providing all their case and court evidence, data, testimonies and such right now, to show us how you know ANY of them are innocent? Fat chance.
Do you think the texas courts to be incontrovertible? Is it really so unlikely to you that anyone has ever been wrongly put to death? I don't have full knowledge of the proceedings, and neither do you, but I am working on a knowledge of court systems that occaisionally make mistakes, especially in Texas, which has a court that seems particularly bloodthirsty.

I didn't assume that three or four are innocent, I said that if the court is correct 99% of the time, that still leaves three or four innocent dead men. Do you truly think that the court is right 100% of the time, or are you just gambling with peoples lives to fulfull your bloodlust.

It amazes me that you see 368 people put to death and the idea that any of them were actually innocent seems impossible.

And if any one of those people were innocent, and were killed, then the entire state of Texas is an accomplice.

Do you think the texas courts to be incontrovertible? Is it really so unlikely to you that anyone has ever been wrongly put to death?

I never said that no one has ever been wrongly put to death.

I didn't assume that three or four are innocent, I said that if the court is correct 99% of the time, that still leaves three or four innocent dead men. Do you truly think that the court is right 100% of the time, or are you just gambling with peoples lives to fulfull your bloodlust.

Unless you can show that their convictions were wrong, you're just waving your dick around and calling people "bloodthirsty" to circumvent this human brain we both, presumably, have.


And if any one of those people were innocent, and were killed, then the entire state of Texas is an accomplice.

But consider this. There are far, far more people imprisoned than sentenced to death. By your logic it follows that there are thus many more people wrongly imprisoned than wrongly sentenced to death.

Going by your logic, would it be fair to say that the x-thousands who have been wrongfully imprisoned - their lives ruined, their freedom taken, their rectal cavities violated repeatedly - are "supported" by anyone who doesn't oppose imprisonment as a form of punishment?

That if you don't oppose imprisonment, you are a "party to" the kidnapping, potential rape and potential death (death penalty is not needed to die in prison) of thousands of people?

Maybe I should start calling anyone who doesn't oppose the entire justice system, a bloodthirsty fan of rape and sodomy, a hater of freedom...?

Do you think the texas courts to be incontrovertible? Is it really so unlikely to you that anyone has ever been wrongly put to death? I don't have full knowledge of the proceedings, and neither do you, but I am working on a knowledge of court systems that occaisionally make mistakes, especially in Texas, which has a court that seems particularly bloodthirsty.

I didn't assume that three or four are innocent, I said that if the court is correct 99% of the time, that still leaves three or four innocent dead men. Do you truly think that the court is right 100% of the time, or are you just gambling with peoples lives to fulfull your bloodlust.

It amazes me that you see 368 people put to death and the idea that any of them were actually innocent seems impossible.

And if any one of those people were innocent, and were killed, then the entire state of Texas is an accomplice.
Sigh.

Really.... so what?

The purpose of a trial is, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.

Juries of twelve ordinary honest citizens proved beyond a reasonable doubt that 368 people deserved to die for their crimes. If there had been a reasonable doubt, the defendant would have walked free. And probably did, in many cases.

Naturally the defendant will always insist he is innocent. Who wants to suffer the consequences of your own actions after all? Especially if they are death. And some people like life.

I mean, seriously.

Oh, right. I guess that's why animals slaughter one or two or twenty million of each other at a time. OH WAIT THEY DONT. Of course, they do rape 2 year old children. OH WAIT THEY DONT. Well, maybe they simply make war and pollute their own habitats and the entire planet, putting in jeopardy entire ecosystems within a period of tens or hundreds of years. OH WAIT. THEY DONT.

I hate this bullshit sentiment that humans are sentient and thus 'nice' whereas animals are 'barbaric.' Animals are better people than humans are, by a long shot.

Do animals produce art? Do they produce introspective looks into the hearts of self and others? Do they recognize themselves at all? Do animals strive for self-actualization? Do they have a sense of right and wrong?

That is what seperates people from animals.


Ah, the old "execution is murder" argument. Well I guess if all else fails, use emotive, ignorant language to try to manipulate peoples hearts instead of their brains. Maybe thats one reason we humans are so superior. We have giant brains that we don't want to use.

Oh good. So in response you reply by bitching about the argument rather than trying to adress it? + 1 points for you!

2 wrongs didn't make a right in Kidergarten, they won't make a right tommorrow, and they will never make a right. There is something morally wrong with killing anyone, guilty or innocent. Any death is a tragedy and a moral travesty.

Unfortunately. There are so many noobs these days that half of them don't understand a word I say. The other half think they're the greatest posters since the days of TIN and Neo-A (I refer to such abominations as Fascist Dominion, Dinaverg, IL Ruffino and the like). :(

One of these days I may even join you in exile....
*doffs invisible hat for Neo-A in particular*

We should become ex-pats. Nation States ex-pats.

*pats Czardas on the back*

It's okay. Some of us still understand.

And yes, the death penatly is an abomination.

I love that those of you so keen to keep the state out of your affairs, nonetheless engender the state with the power to take lives.

*doffs invisible hat for Neo-A in particular*

We should become ex-pats. Nation States ex-pats.
Good idea... we can live in Paris, and smoke strange smelling cigarettes, and get a swimming pool and live out our days sitting on the balcony debating some issue or other or reminiscing about posters long consigned to the vagaries of real life....

Do animals produce art? Do they produce introspective looks into the hearts of self and others? Do they recognize themselves at all? Do animals strive for self-actualization? Do they have a sense of right and wrong?

That is what seperates people from animals.

Sure. That and the fact that we're the single most destructive organism on the planet.


Oh good. So in response you reply by bitching about the argument rather than trying to adress it? + 1 points for you!

"Execution is murder" is not an argument. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. I guess I figured this was so obvious that it didn't need saying. Oh well, eh.

2 wrongs didn't make a right in Kidergarten, they won't make a right tommorrow, and they will never make a right. There is something morally wrong with killing anyone, guilty or innocent. Any death is a tragedy and a moral travesty.

Fuck that shit. If every death is a "tragedy," there is no such thing as tragedy. You devalue the term by applying it to anytime a human dies. Did you think it was a "moral travesty" when Stalin died, perhaps? Ugh. You know what, don't even answer. I'm pretty sure you'll just piss me off with it.

I never said that no one has ever been wrongly put to death.



Unless you can show that their convictions were wrong, you're just waving your dick around and calling people "bloodthirsty" to circumvent this human brain we both, presumably, have.



But consider this. There are far, far more people imprisoned than sentenced to death. By your logic it follows that there are thus many more people wrongly imprisoned than wrongly sentenced to death.

Going by your logic, would it be fair to say that the x-thousands who have been wrongfully imprisoned - their lives ruined, their freedom taken, their rectal cavities violated repeatedly - are "supported" by anyone who doesn't oppose imprisonment as a form of punishment?

That if you don't oppose imprisonment, you are a "party to" the kidnapping, potential rape and potential death (death penalty is not needed to die in prison) of thousands of people?

Maybe I should start calling anyone who doesn't oppose the entire justice system, a bloodthirsty fan of rape and sodomy, a hater of freedom...?

The death penalty serves no purpose, except to sate the desire some people have for vengeance. It costs more than imprisonment, and it is final, meaning that if we find out ten years later that we were wrong, we cannot ever make up for it.

Very, very few people ever escape from prison, so we cannot say the death penalty protects us any better than imprisonment.

Imprisonment is a necessary evil. The death penalty is an unnecessary evil, justified only by the idea that the people put to deah are guilty of heinous crimes, and thus their lives are forfiet. But that does not justify it. If we are not 100% correct every time we sentence someone to death, then we are committing murder to fulfill our desire for vengeance, and that is not justice.

*doffs invisible hat for Neo-A in particular*

We should become ex-pats. Nation States ex-pats.
Sounds worse than "After M*A*S*H*", Sin.

So angry today Trostia...I think you'd better not try your experiment if this is the outcome:D

Wait...I like you all vile and bitchy, (and totally wrong on this particular issue, sorry, just never going to see eye to eye on the death penalty)...

*pats Czardas on the back*

It's okay. Some of us still understand.
I love you.

I love that those of you so keen to keep the state out of your affairs, nonetheless engender the state with the power to take lives.
Kindly note that that is not our affair unless we choose to commit murder, rape, or whatnot.

The sole purpose of a government is to protect its citizens from external or internal threats. That means Law Enforcement and National Defence. Leave the economy, healthcare, education, civil rights, and the rest to us.

And, in case you haven't noticed, the pleasant duties of administering the death penalty belong under the banner of Law Enforcement....

Sounds worse than "After M*A*S*H*", Sin.
It totally would be too:D

We'd be online ex-pats. We'd migrate to another forum, and just sit there, whining about this one, wondering why no one appreciates us anymore...

Sigh.

Really.... so what?

The purpose of a trial is, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.

Juries of twelve ordinary honest citizens proved beyond a reasonable doubt that 368 people deserved to die for their crimes. If there had been a reasonable doubt, the defendant would have walked free. And probably did, in many cases.

Naturally the defendant will always insist he is innocent. Who wants to suffer the consequences of your own actions after all? Especially if they are death. And some people like life.

I mean, seriously.
I'm saying that beyond reasonable doubt isn't enough when a person's life is at stake. I'm saying that in order to justify the death penalty, there should be NO doubt. As that is not possible, as some innocents will slip through the net, no matter how tight, then the death penalty is unjustifiable.

And yes, the death penatly is an abomination.
And so is this website. Utterly decadent - totally perverse - and (should be) thoroughly repellant, particularly to supposedly sentient beings. To the nonplussed on this thread I say, "hang your heads in shame for your inhumanity".

Don't make me shout it.

The death penalty serves no purpose, except to sate the desire some people have for vengeance. It costs more than imprisonment, and it is final, meaning that if we find out ten years later that we were wrong, we cannot ever make up for it.
Actually, it doesn't. If you imprison someone for 35 years, you have to pay for each of the 38,325 meals they will consume over those years, as well as the clothing, the maintenance of the prison building, and so on. Not to mention that once they actually get out of prison, they'll be free to go and murder more people.

Of course, the death penalty may not be the best solution, but I shudder to think of all those people sitting there unproductively in prison for years on end. And death is more humane than the alternative, using them as cheap labour....

Kindly note that that is not our affair unless we choose to commit murder, rape, or whatnot.

It might be your affair if you happen to be wrongfully accused and convicted of any of those crimes.

Sure. That and the fact that we're the single most destructive organism on the planet.

Because we were able to create technology (another sign of higher thinking) that allowed us to become that way.



"Execution is murder" is not an argument. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. I guess I figured this was so obvious that it didn't need saying. Oh well, eh.

Well, I'm gonna go after the definition then, to clarify. Murder is the immoral killing of any person. Killing someone is naturally immoral, therefore a government killing someone is still murder.



Fuck that shit. If every death is a "tragedy," there is no such thing as tragedy. You devalue the term by applying it to anytime a human dies. Did you think it was a "moral travesty" when Stalin died, perhaps? Ugh. You know what, don't even answer. I'm pretty sure you'll just piss me off with it.

Aw... Poor baby. Do new and different ideas hurt? :rolleyes:

Stalin wasn't killed, so it wasn't a moral travesty, but it was still a tragedy. It wasn't a tragedy because of anything he did in his life. It was a tragedy because he was a human being with hopes, dreams, fears, and goals (just like the people he killed). I certainly don't think he was a good man, but he was a still a person. People, no matter how awful they are, still feel pain, and still understand the horor of death in ways that make killing them a terrible creulty.

The death penalty serves no purpose, except to sate the desire some people have for vengeance. It costs more than imprisonment, and it is final, meaning that if we find out ten years later that we were wrong, we cannot ever make up for it.

Sigh, another flawed argument that can be easily applied to imprisonment. You think spending 70 years in prison isn't final? That it can be "made up for?" What about dying in prison - do you think everyone who is imprisoned never dies except for being executed? And frankly, your attitude towards freedom is sickening if you think it can be somehow reversed. Time goes forward. Life is finite. Freedom is a valuable commodity.

If the death penalty is 'only vengence,' what about imprisonment? Putting a human being in a fucking cage? That sounds like vengence to me.

Very, very few people ever escape from prison, so we cannot say the death penalty protects us any better than imprisonment.

Heh. And very few people are wrongly executed, so we can't say it's such an epidemic that the state only 'murders' more than executes.

Imprisonment is a necessary evil. The death penalty is an unnecessary evil, justified only by the idea that the people put to deah are guilty of heinous crimes, and thus their lives are forfiet. But that does not justify it.

Fining people is a necessary evil. Imprisonment is an unnecessary evil, justified only by the idea that people put in prison are guilty of crimes warranting it, thus their freedom is forfeit. But that does not justify it.

Nyah nyah nyah.

If we are not 100% correct every time we sentence someone to death, then we are committing murder to fulfill our desire for vengeance, and that is not justice.

If we are not 100% correct every time we sentence someone to imprisonment, then we are committing kidnapping to fulfill our desire for vengence, and that is not justice.

See, I can make lofty meaningless statements too.

Do animals produce art? Do they produce introspective looks into the hearts of self and others? Do they recognize themselves at all? Do animals strive for self-actualization? Do they have a sense of right and wrong?

That is what seperates people from animals.
Animals may not have a sense of right and wrong, but they don't go around killing each other nearly as much as humans do. And humans are supposedly born with the ingrained moralism that killing other humans is immoral and wrong. :rolleyes:

Not to mention, that bullshit about "introspective looks into the hearts of the self and others" is far from true about all humans, either. Not all humans produce art, and of the few that do very little of it is notable in any way. And most humans don't recognise themselves throughout the course of a lifetime.

I suppose the fact that I am a self-recognising and art-producing individual thus makes me a superior species to a human who is neither?

Actually, it doesn't. If you imprison someone for 35 years, you have to pay for each of the 38,325 meals they will consume over those years, as well as the clothing, the maintenance of the prison building, and so on. Not to mention that once they actually get out of prison, they'll be free to go and murder more people.

Of course, the death penalty may not be the best solution, but I shudder to think of all those people sitting there unproductively in prison for years on end. And death is more humane than the alternative, using them as cheap labour....
The appeals process that makes it more than just a crapshoot costs more than a life sentence. People in prison for life cannot "go out and murder more people" or do you think that we'd give someone with a death penalty case five years? Also, I think you would have very few volunteers if you went through a prison and offered to kill anyone who would rather be dead. Or should we just cull anyone in an uncomfortable situation?
And using prisoners as cheap labor doesn't have to be inhumane, so long as we treat them like humans.

It might be your affair if you happen to be wrongfully accused and convicted of any of those crimes.
Which probably will not happen. The most I'm likely to get time for is contempt of court or disrespecting an officer. It happens all too often.

Because we were able to create technology (another sign of higher thinking) that allowed us to become that way.

You keep mentioning this higher thinking, and then completely failing to display any yourself. Kinda torpedoes your arguments that humans are so morally superior to those murderous barbaric animals.

Well, I'm gonna go after the definition then, to clarify. Murder is the immoral killing of any person. Killing someone is naturally immoral, therefore a government killing someone is still murder.

In that case, I will state that immoral is defined as whatever I feel like, and therefore killing anyone isn't immoral, therefore it's not murder.

If you redefine words to suit whatever emotive statements you wish to make, of course you can always redefine them so that you come out 100% accurate. But I don't agree with your silly definitions and see that they are based only in your sense of what is "immoral" or not.

Aw... Poor baby. Do new and different ideas hurt? :rolleyes:

Oh, poor baby. Do you cwy for teh poor murderers? Awwww boo fucking hoo.

Stalin wasn't killed, so it wasn't a moral travesty, but it was still a tragedy.

Alright, we end the conversation here. You want to go apologize for genocidal murders all the while blathering about what a wonderful species we are, do it to someone who gives a shit what someone like you has to say, cuz it ain't me.

Animals may not have a sense of right and wrong, but they don't go around killing each other nearly as much as humans do. And humans are supposedly born with the ingrained moralism that killing other humans is immoral and wrong. :rolleyes:

Not to mention, that bullshit about "introspective looks into the hearts of the self and others" is far from true about all humans, either. Not all humans produce art, and of the few that do very little of it is notable in any way. And most humans don't recognise themselves throughout the course of a lifetime.

I suppose the fact that I am a self-recognising and art-producing individual thus makes me a superior species to a human who is neither?

Everybody has a form of phillosophical or artistic expression. The mediums change vastly, often overlap in ways that make them seem meaningless, and are not always seen by other people, but everyone does it. Some people choose not to do so (another higher decision) but no one is incapable of it.

I never claimed that we were born with the moral absolute of "killing bad; Living good" (after all, if we were it would undermine one of the crucial ways we differ from animals: Ability to choose right from wrong). I beleive, however, that it is the only compassionate and rational descision that we do not kill for any reason. I also beleive that it is a deep shame upon the human race that we do no cease killing.

And using prisoners as cheap labor doesn't have to be inhumane, so long as we treat them like humans.
See, here we run into difficulties. If I were the overseeing officer here, I'd treat them the way humans treat others of their kind: take a look at the American South between about 1640 and 1920, Europe between 1933 and 1945, Northern China between 1931 and 1945, the USSR between 1919 and 1953, and so on.

On the other side we have our sentimental do-gooder who thinks that all sentient life should reside in the Metropolitan Museum and any death is equivalent to the collapse of the known universe.

Guess the outcome.

You keep mentioning this higher thinking, and then completely failing to display any yourself. Kinda torpedoes your arguments that humans are so morally superior to those murderous barbaric animals.

Ad Hominem AND circular reasoning all in one! You win!

Please, adress the argument, not your perception of it.



In that case, I will state that immoral is defined as whatever I feel like, and therefore killing anyone isn't immoral, therefore it's not murder.

If you redefine words to suit whatever emotive statements you wish to make, of course you can always redefine them so that you come out 100% accurate. But I don't agree with your silly definitions and see that they are based only in your sense of what is "immoral" or not.

What's in a definition? We change them all the time. We certainly differ on ideas of "right and wrong". Why should this be any different? Words have only the meaning we attribute to them. I beleive all killing to be murder, no matter who does it. Once again, you undermine your argument by not recognizing that what I am saying is that part of why people ARE special is their ability to define wrong and right personally.

Oh, poor baby. Do you cwy for teh poor murderers? Awwww boo fucking hoo.

Yes. I cry for them, their victims, and their killers. I'm not ashamed of that.



Alright, we end the conversation here. You want to go apologize for genocidal murders all the while blathering about what a wonderful species we are, do it to someone who gives a shit what someone like you has to say, cuz it ain't me.

... And the eventual decision that "I can't win, so I won't play". It was fun while it lasted.

Everybody has a form of phillosophical or artistic expression. The mediums change vastly, often overlap in ways that make them seem meaningless, and are not always seen by other people, but everyone does it. Some people choose not to do so (another higher decision) but no one is incapable of it.
If the mediums are invisible and meaningless, then how do you know they exist? Or are you so finely tuned into the Hive Mind that you can read the minds of every human being on earth?


I never claimed that we were born with the moral absolute of "killing bad; Living good" (after all, if we were it would undermine one of the crucial ways we differ from animals: Ability to choose right from wrong). I beleive, however, that it is the only compassionate and rational descision that we do not kill for any reason.
And why do you believe that? Why also do you believe that the killing of animals cannot be condemned simply because they "aren't as good as we are"?

Likewise, how do you know animals don't have their own modicums of artistic and philosophical expression that are as invisible to us as ours are to them? How do you know that they do not have self-realisation or self-actualisation? Have you ever talked to one?

It was fun while it lasted.
No, it wasn't. ;) You're such a liar, KSP.

If the mediums are invisible and meaningless, then how do you know they exist? Or are you so finely tuned into the Hive Mind that you can read the minds of every human being on earth?


And why do you believe that? Why also do you believe that the killing of animals cannot be condemned simply because they "aren't as good as we are"?

Likewise, how do you know animals don't have their own modicums of artistic and philosophical expression that are as invisible to us as ours are to them? How do you know that they do not have self-realisation or self-actualisation? Have you ever talked to one?
Well, animals don't put up disturbing websites for creepy humans to gratify themselves reading, that much is for damned sure.

Ad Hominem AND circular reasoning all in one! You win!


Damn straight I do. You've maintained how superior humans are and how animals are barbaric, contrary to all the evidence. Now your only defense is whining about ad hominems. Cry me a river.

I beleive all killing to be murder, no matter who does it. Once again, you undermine your argument by not recognizing that what I am saying is that part of why people ARE special is their ability to define wrong and right personally.

I believe all killing is marshmellows. What's in a definition? We define words all the time... hooray for beliefs > fact!

Yes. I cry for them, their victims, and their killers. I'm not ashamed of that.

Then do, cry. I think you're better at that then in making a convincing or coherent argument.

... And the eventual decision that "I can't win, so I won't play". It was fun while it lasted.

And the expected quip of "omg I pissed you off deliberately, I WIN!" Well, fine. You get a medal. A shirt that says "I WON!" And maybe when Stalin kills millions of your people, you'll understand why anyone would possibly be disinclined to agree with your assessment about what a "tragedy" and "travesty" it is when Stalin died.

If the mediums are invisible and meaningless, then how do you know they exist? Or are you so finely tuned into the Hive Mind that you can read the minds of every human being on earth?

Not meaningless. They seem meaningless. Art doesn't necessarily mean Picasso. It also means the way you choose to arange a meal on a table, the way you write a letter (or an argument in debate), the tuneless obnoxious whistling you engage in in the subway while the rest of the people in it glare at you. Art is expression, and most of the time we don't even understand when we are taking part in it.


And why do you believe that? Why also do you believe that the killing of animals cannot be condemned simply because they "aren't as good as we are"?

Likewise, how do you know animals don't have their own modicums of artistic and philosophical expression that are as invisible to us as ours are to them? How do you know that they do not have self-realisation or self-actualisation? Have you ever talked to one?

Very few animals demonstrate emotion in scientific study. Very few even communicate beyond the most simplistic forms. Killing those animals which have attained a sense of self and a means of communication is wrong, but killing mindless beasts is not. I'll gladly admit that the only reason I kill animals is for my own comfort, but I fail to see a moral wrong in killing an animal (unlike a human). If I did, I wouldn't kill animals either.

And so is this website.

What, NS General?

What, NS General?
This one. (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm)

Sigh, another flawed argument that can be easily applied to imprisonment. You think spending 70 years in prison isn't final? That it can be "made up for?" What about dying in prison - do you think everyone who is imprisoned never dies except for being executed? And frankly, your attitude towards freedom is sickening if you think it can be somehow reversed. Time goes forward. Life is finite. Freedom is a valuable commodity.

I realize this, but imprisonment is first of all the minimum required to keep killers off the streets, and second of all, able to be ended. If you are sentenced to life, but in five years they find evidence proving you innocent, they can let you free. They can't if they've killed you.

If the death penalty is 'only vengence,' what about imprisonment? Putting a human being in a fucking cage? That sounds like vengence to me.
It's necessary to keep murderers off the streets. The death penalty isn't. Imprisonment is adeqate for that, so the only reason the death penalty exists is because it makes some people feel good to have killed a murderer.

Heh. And very few people are wrongly executed, so we can't say it's such an epidemic that the state only 'murders' more than executes.
So would you put an innocent man to death if not doing so would let a murderer get off, even if you knew he would eventually break out of jail?

Fining people is a necessary evil. Imprisonment is an unnecessary evil, justified only by the idea that people put in prison are guilty of crimes warranting it, thus their freedom is forfeit. But that does not justify it.
Fining people is obviously inadequate. Please explain to me how the death penalty keeps crime down any better than life inprisonment.
Nyah nyah nyah.
I wonder if that's the attitude you would have sending people to death?

What, NS General?


Well that too.

I think Dobbs means the Texas Dept of Criminal Justice website.

Damn straight I do. You've maintained how superior humans are and how animals are barbaric, contrary to all the evidence. Now your only defense is whining about ad hominems. Cry me a river.

Just pointing out the base flaw in the argument. Hardly whining, just pointing out that you aren't arguing a reasonable case (so much for logic, eh?).


I believe all killing is marshmellows. What's in a definition? We define words all the time... hooray for beliefs > fact!

If you can support it with a rational argument, go right ahead. I'm right behind you. When we enter the arena of right and wrong we must choose to draw on more than mere facts, we must also synthesize from them. That we find different synthesese is a cause for pride, not scorn. While facts are objective, a synthesis is not.


Then do, cry. I think you're better at that then in making a convincing or coherent argument.

Once again, Ad Hominem. Unsupported statement (after all, you have yet to proove me wrong). Either stick to the topic of debate or shut up. Personal atacks are unnecessary and unhelpful (and only serve to show that you have no defense).

And the expected quip of "omg I pissed you off deliberately, I WIN!" Well, fine. You get a medal. A shirt that says "I WON!" And maybe when Stalin kills millions of your people, you'll understand why anyone would possibly be disinclined to agree with your assessment about what a "tragedy" and "travesty" it is when Stalin died.

Hardly. I should hope that I would be able to forgive him his wrongs enough to feel pity at the man for his passing, but I am human enough that I woud not. That is my failing, and not his (unlike his many other failings)

I do not choose to make you angry, or to make you argue from insult and angry language. You have chosen to do that. I would much prefer a cool and collected argument.

And the expected quip of "omg I pissed you off deliberately, I WIN!" Well, fine. You get a medal. A shirt that says "I WON!" And maybe when Stalin kills millions of your people, you'll understand why anyone would possibly be disinclined to agree with your assessment about what a "tragedy" and "travesty" it is when Stalin died.

If I recall correctly, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn mentions in his book The Oak and the Calf that Stalin died upon a few days of getting out of Eikabutz, and he wrote poetry in commemoration of his death, saying it was like a heavy weight was lifted ( I don't remember the actual quote).

I love you.

I'm too much of an oppressive cold-hearted religious fundie capitalist to love, but I must say I admire you. (Hence why I put a small puppet in your region, soley for the adoration of the Most [un]Holy Lord of Sarcasm)

No, it wasn't. ;) You're such a liar, KSP.

Guilty as charged. :p

I am against the death penalty. I feel it is immoral to kill another human being for ANY reason other than to save another human being or more.

Additionally, the fallibility of the justice system means that some innocents will end up dead. I feel it is more important to give those innocents as much time as possible for the truth to eventually turn up, if it does, than to kill murderous criminals in order to save money.

I base this on the logic/emotion that one life is greater than anything else, other than another life or more. Even agreeing with some people that criminals have forfeited their lives, I have this inequation:

innocents that would have died on death row, but would have been proven innocent before they would have died without death row > money that would have been saved by killing murderous criminals that are less than useless to society (anti-constructive)

When that number of innocents reaches 0, then this becomes a different argument. However, there is fallibility without omniscience, so it could never be proclaimed to have reached 0.

That is why I am against the death penalty.

Very few animals demonstrate emotion in scientific study. Very few even communicate beyond the most simplistic forms.
Once again, how do you know this? Have you ever talked to an animal? No, you've talked to (or more likely, seen articles by) scientists who have tested those animals by human standards. Congratulations, you've just proved that animals are not humans. Oh wait, we knew that already.

And besides, emotion is not a sign of higher intelligence.


Killing those animals which have attained a sense of self and a means of communication is wrong, but killing mindless beasts is not.
"Mindless"? For all you know that cockroach you just stomped on was a great artist in whatever forms of art cockroaches have, whose existence you deny because you're incapable of detecting anything but the necessity to rid your house of the nasty critters.


I'll gladly admit that the only reason I kill animals is for my own comfort, but I fail to see a moral wrong in killing an animal (unlike a human). If I did, I wouldn't kill animals either.
Then perhaps you should consider what I've said.

I doubt a rabbit or bumblebee would find humans remotely of a higher culture or order, as they're incapable of understanding human culture. For all we know it goes both ways: rabbits, bumblebees, bears, eagles, and dolphins may well have their own arts, their own sciences, their own technologies that we just can't see, or that are of no use to us because we haven't evolved the same way.

I realize this, but imprisonment is first of all the minimum required to keep killers off the streets, and second of all, able to be ended. If you are sentenced to life, but in five years they find evidence proving you innocent, they can let you free. They can't if they've killed you.


aaaand if you are sentenced to life, and die in prison, but afterwards they find evidence proving you innocent, they can't let you free either.

Therefore you support murder. Right?

Or do you think the above situation never happens?


It's necessary to keep murderers off the streets. The death penalty isn't. Imprisonment is adeqate for that, so the only reason the death penalty exists is because it makes some people feel good to have killed a murderer.

And the only reason to have prisons is because it makes some people feel safer to have locked away a "criminal."

The illusion of security.

Crime rates show that prisons don't keep anyone safe. So maybe justice is indeed about making "some people feel good."

So would you put an innocent man to death if not doing so would let a murderer get off, even if you knew he would eventually break out of jail?

Hey, all that time he hasn't broken out yet, he's not killing people. Except in prison. Luckily, no innocent people get imprisoned, or killed in prison! ;)


Fining people is obviously inadequate. Please explain to me how the death penalty keeps crime down any better than life inprisonment.

What's so obvious about it? We have a higher prison population than any other country, yet we also have soaring crime. So maybe I could say that imprisonment is obviously inadequate too.

I wonder if that's the attitude you would have sending people to death?

I expect its the same attitude you'd have to sending an innocent person to be raped, tortured and killed in prison.

To you, you hold that imprisonment is necessary and if a few innocents get fucked over by it, oh well, shrug, tough titties. To me, I hold that the death penalty, too, is necessary and if a few innocents get fucked over by it, oh well. So we have the same callous view towards people who get convicted, the only difference is you balk at one punishment and I don't.

And that doesn't stem from facts, or KSP's idiotic assertions that humans are morally superior to animals, or guilt-trip attempts to call other people "murderers" or "accomplices to murder," it stems from what you dismiss as "making people feel good." It personally, doesn't make YOU feel good to execute anyone, hence your opinion. Personally, I see that some criminals NEED to be executed to make me feel good, hence mine. See? The same.

I'm too much of an oppressive cold-hearted religious fundie capitalist to love, but I must say I admire you. (Hence why I put a small puppet in your region, soley for the adoration of the Most [un]Holy Lord of Sarcasm)
I was half joking, of course. I never have and never will love. But I guess you knew that already.

I base this on the logic/emotion that one life is greater than anything else, other than another life or more.
In that case, why do you oppose the death penalty? People deserve the right to live... until they take the lives of others. It makes perfect logical sense. Thinking otherwise is irrational and emotive.

I was half joking, of course. I never have and never will love. But I guess you knew that already.

Of course.

Once again, how do you know this? Have you ever talked to an animal? No, you've talked to (or more likely, seen articles by) scientists who have tested those animals by human standards. Congratulations, you've just proved that animals are not humans. Oh wait, we knew that already.

And besides, emotion is not a sign of higher intelligence.

I appologize that I am mortal and must seek only on the plain of the scientific, oh divine one. I wish that we were all as blessed as you to KNOW objective truth, rather than to have to struggle for it with the meager methods of proof that we have.


"Mindless"? For all you know that cockroach you just stomped on was a great artist in whatever forms of art cockroaches have, whose existence you deny because you're incapable of detecting anything but the necessity to rid your house of the nasty critters.

:rolleyes: Bad argument. Cockroaches don't even have developed central brains.


Then perhaps you should consider what I've said.

I doubt a rabbit or bumblebee would find humans remotely of a higher culture or order, as they're incapable of understanding human culture. For all we know it goes both ways: rabbits, bumblebees, bears, eagles, and dolphins may well have their own arts, their own sciences, their own technologies that we just can't see, or that are of no use to us because we haven't evolved the same way.

You are functioning purely on the subjective. I choose to function on the level of the scientific. Science has shown that cows are not in possession of the traits that make humans human. Until such a statement is disprooved by science, I'll keep eating meat.

Ironically, I kill rats gladly (for simple reasons of safety. Rats bring snakes and disease. Putting them out doesn't work. They have to die to stop.), but I try to deposit spiders outside. My kitchen is too clean for cockroaches (and live in the wrong area anyway). There's no point in killing needlessly (for the simple reason that killing without need builds a wastefull mindset).

Edit: I'm not bagging out in defeat, I'm going away to try and get some sleep. Whether or not you lot enjoyed debating, I did. G'night.

I appologize that I am mortal and must seek only on the plain of the scientific, oh divine one. I wish that we were all as blessed as you to KNOW objective truth, rather than to have to struggle for it with the meager methods of proof that we have.

Simply because Czardas is a god doesn't mean you have to get all pissy about it.

Just pointing out the base flaw in the argument. Hardly whining, just pointing out that you aren't arguing a reasonable case (so much for logic, eh?).

Nah. It's whining. Come on, you admitted to crying for anyone who's ever died, you might as well be a brave little soldier and admit to your own whining too.


Once again, Ad Hominem. Unsupported statement (after all, you have yet to proove me wrong). Either stick to the topic of debate or shut up. Personal atacks are unnecessary and unhelpful (and only serve to show that you have no defense).

Or, they might indicate the very low opinion you've earned from me. But hey, any chance to reassert "omg I win" or "you have no defense, all your base are belong to us."

"Prove me wrong" is not proof. You talk of sticking to the topic of debate, but you haven't done jack shit for your own idiotic statements about how morally superior humanity is. Art doesn't make up for genocide and baby-raping.


I do not choose to make you angry, or to make you argue from insult and angry language. You have chosen to do that. I would much prefer a cool and collected argument.

Yeah right. If you want a cool argument, don't bait me with stupid shit like "Aw... Poor baby. Do new and different ideas hurt?" whenever you wind up insulting anyone who was ever killed or affected by genocidal dictators like Stalin. You just took a giant dump in all their (and mine) faces and then mocked me for not eating it.

And it's not like your argument is "new and different." There is no shortage of "murder is wrong" arguments and you've presented nothing new.

I appologize that I am mortal and must seek only on the plain of the scientific, oh divine one. I wish that we were all as blessed as you to KNOW objective truth, rather than to have to struggle for it with the meager methods of proof that we have.
Not a problem at all. Don't let your knuckles scrape the paint on your way out, k?


:rolleyes: Bad argument. Cockroaches don't even have developed central brains.

That's because the scientists who dissected them were looking for characteristics that would make them more human... not characteristics that would make them look more like cockroaches.



You are functioning purely on the subjective. I choose to function on the level of the scientific. Science has shown that cows are not in possession of the traits that make humans human. Until such a statement is disprooved by science, I'll keep eating meat.
Because cows -- gasp -- are not human. They're cows. Thus, they will possess traits cows possess, and they quite possibly have their own forms of art, of science, of other forms of higher thinking we have no name for because we are humans and we cannot understand such things.

(And you really need to read more of the Far Side comics.)

Simply because Czardas is a god doesn't mean you have to get all pissy about it.
My Lord High Priest has spoken! ;)

aaaand if you are sentenced to life, and die in prison, but afterwards they find evidence proving you innocent, they can't let you free either.

Therefore you support murder. Right?

Unless being in prison was the direct cause of someone's death, putting them in prison could not logically be considered murder. I cannot think of a situation in which imprisonment intrinsically leads to death, as even convicted criminals are still supposed to receive any necessary medical treatment.


And the only reason to have prisons is because it makes some people feel safer to have locked away a "criminal."

The illusion of security.

Crime rates show that prisons don't keep anyone safe. So maybe justice is indeed about making "some people feel good."

This is silly. A rapist who cannot access any potential victims is not raping people. Whether or not other rapists continue to rape people, the fact that that particular rapist is not doing so is not an illusion.

I expect its the same attitude you'd have to sending an innocent person to be raped, tortured and killed in prison.

I can't speak for the person you're replying to, but I and most other people I know who oppose the death penalty also support prison reform. Prison should obviously not be a pleasant place, but it should never be a dangerous place, either. A reasonable society should not condone rape, torture, or murder, no matter who the victim is.

Unless being in prison was the direct cause of someone's death, putting them in prison could not logically be considered murder. I cannot think of a situation in which imprisonment intrinsically leads to death, as even convicted criminals are still supposed to receive any necessary medical treatment.
And as we live in a perfect world, criminals will always receive that treatment on time, it will always help, and they will not be expected to take out huge debts or mortgages to pay for it (or be raped or tortured or even killed when they are unable to pay those debts).

Not to mention the unusual number of fairies and unicorns galloping through the skies these days.

And as we live in a perfect world, criminals will always receive that treatment on time, it will always help, and they will not be expected to take out huge debts or mortgages to pay for it (or be raped or tortured or even killed when they are unable to pay those debts).

Not to mention the unusual number of fairies and unicorns galloping through the skies these days.

I'm not really expecting convicts' medical treatment to be perfect, by a long shot. I'm mostly expecting it not to be a great deal worse than what many non-convicts get. I myself am currently in very poor health and lacking health insurance, so I'm rather well aware of how inefficient and overpriced health care can be. I just don't see any reason it would be significantly more inefficient and overpriced for convicts than for, y'know, me.

aaaand if you are sentenced to life, and die in prison, but afterwards they find evidence proving you innocent, they can't let you free either.

Therefore you support murder. Right?

Or do you think the above situation never happens?

Of course it happens, but it is acceptable in the face of the benefit provided by imprisonment. The same cannot be said of the death penalty.

And the only reason to have prisons is because it makes some people feel safer to have locked away a "criminal."

The illusion of security.

Crime rates show that prisons don't keep anyone safe. So maybe justice is indeed about making "some people feel good."
That's just a fallacy. The nation would certainly be doing a lot worse without any prison system at all. Your just making crap up.



What's so obvious about it? We have a higher prison population than any other country, yet we also have soaring crime. So maybe I could say that imprisonment is obviously inadequate too.
But the death penalty doesn't help.

I expect its the same attitude you'd have to sending an innocent person to be raped, tortured and killed in prison.
No. I support prison reform to make such things less common in prisons.

To you, you hold that imprisonment is necessary and if a few innocents get fucked over by it, oh well, shrug, tough titties. To me, I hold that the death penalty, too, is necessary and if a few innocents get fucked over by it, oh well. So we have the same callous view towards people who get convicted, the only difference is you balk at one punishment and I don't.

The difference is that the punishment you support has no value besides making you feel good. It doesn't lower crime, it doesn't deter crime, and the criminals it removes would be just as well in prison.

And that doesn't stem from facts, or KSP's idiotic assertions that humans are morally superior to animals, or guilt-trip attempts to call other people "murderers" or "accomplices to murder," it stems from what you dismiss as "making people feel good." It personally, doesn't make YOU feel good to execute anyone, hence your opinion. Personally, I see that some criminals NEED to be executed to make me feel good, hence mine. See? The same.
And if a few innocent people get caught in the nets, oh well?

And if a few innocent people get caught in the nets, oh well?

Just to throw this out there: Any system created by man is falliable. In a Justice system, there will always be innocents who get caught up in the nets. Some get lucky and we find out they're innocent. Most don't.

Innocents are always getting caught in the nets.

My Lord High Priest has spoken! ;)

:D

The death penalty?

A load of cobblers why have it, what good does it actulay do? Nothing, to kill somebody in revenge still makes you a killer, and as bad as the person you are taking revenge on, and there is no doubt that the death penalty is not about anything else but revenage.

I think that was the general idea.

Which is stupid. The death penalty is not only an inherently good idea, but the people who get all sappy and sentimental about it are really hypocrites. How many of them have stepped on an annoying cockroach or zapped a mosquito? How many have put an old suffering dog to sleep? How many have viciously and heartlessly poisoned rats? How is killing a human different?

That's exactly what the Nazis said about those they called untermenschen.

You know, Jews, the mentally ill, the disabled, Gypsies, Slavics, Communists....etc

And is exactly what the Japanese said about the Chinese in the wake of The Nanjing Massacre.

But you carry on dear chap, carry on.

You obviously feel so morally superior to a criminal, who as a criminal, or no criminal, is still a human, to compare them to a cockroach to be stepped on.

It must be wonderful to be you.

Because you think killing someone for killing someone is excellent and perfect logical thinking.

But wait....

Is Killing someone....

For...killing someone......

To show that killing someone is wrong...

right?

Not so morally superior after all, are you.

Screw moral superiority. Just get rid of the people. The death penalty isn't to show that killing is wrong anyway, it is to show that killing is wrong if it is illegal. So kill all you want just don't murder.

Personally, I support forced labor, it is the favored method by the Soviets and the Nazis but who really cares about them? It would prevent the unnecessary loss of life by the death penalty, it would probably end up being the cheapest option, and if the prisoner did not commit the crime we can always set them free. Sure there is the possibility of cruelty but we all know that prison is full of butt rapes anyway, at the very least it would involve significantly less waste of human resources.

The people who commit these crimes are barbarous. They are violent, murderous scum whose actions threaten the very foundations of peaceful society.

Yet they are still human. And no one should ever be granted the legal power to take the life of another human, regardless of the actions, however heinous, that "other" has commited.

And death is more humane than the alternative, using them as cheap labour....That would depend on how it is done. If they are simply forced to work, then they will suffer through it. If they were to be reduced into mindless, willing slaves however, they could be made to actually enjoy it, thus making it the more humane solution.

The people who commit these crimes are barbarous. They are violent, murderous scum whose actions threaten the very foundations of peaceful society.

Yet they are still human. And no one should ever be granted the legal power to take the life of another human, regardless of the actions, however heinous, that "other" has commited.
So what, they are human, they are also violent, murderous scum who threaten the very foundations of peaceful society. Wouldn't it be better to keep us safe forever from their harm? If we imprison them and they escape and commit more crimes then aren't we, the protectors of the people, responsible for not preventing the loss of life that they cause? The government is responsible for maintaining peaceful society and not responsible for maintaining the threats to peaceful society, so it is best for it to end threats so that society remains peaceful for good.

However, I still think that getting a nice chunk of change per prisoner might be better for everyone(except for the prisoner) than executing them. Then again, I believe that rights are law-given and that they are not something that law-breakers are entitled to.

That would depend on how it is done. If they are simply forced to work, then they will suffer through it. If they were to be reduced into mindless, willing slaves however, they could be made to actually enjoy it, thus making it the more humane solution.
How would we practice such severe brainwashing? To reduce them to that level would be considered by many to be crueler as it might require that they be tortured and it would certainly take away all that makes them human. It would really probably be considered the least humane solution by many.

That would depend on how it is done. If they are simply forced to work, then they will suffer through it. If they were to be reduced into mindless, willing slaves however, they could be made to actually enjoy it, thus making it the more humane solution.
why does this statement frighten me... if they could be made to acutally enjoy it...

with what, drugs? harsh punishment for those who don't work?

such work programs really don't work in the long run. prisoner labor is cheaper, thus they can underbid any other company that does need that work.

while I am for the Death Penalty, it should be in cases where guilt is 100% sure. so perhaps three chances to appeal and one independant investigation done to make sure of the guilt of said person, then if all four tests come back supporting their guilt, go ahead with the death sentence. what's the other option. keeping a person locked up like an animal? taking away their freedom as well as something just as irriplaceable as their life, Time?

So what, they are human, they are also violent, murderous scum who threaten the very foundations of peaceful society. Wouldn't it be better to keep us safe forever from their harm? If we imprison them and they escape and commit more crimes then aren't we, the protectors of the people, responsible for not preventing the loss of life that they cause? The government is responsible for maintaining peaceful society and not responsible for maintaining the threats to peaceful society, so it is best for it to end threats so that society remains peaceful for good.


If they escape then someone failed to do his/her job adequatly, and that is the person who is responsible.

The simple solution to all of this is, don't let them escape.

When an innocent person is killed, we call that murder.

No, when an innocent person is killed, we call that "a death." When an innocent person is wrongfully killed with malice aforethought, we call that "murder." When a person who has been judged guilty of a capital crime by a court of law and sentenced to death for his crime is executed by a lawful government authority, we call that "capital punishment." We also call that "a good thing." :D

If they escape then someone failed to do his/her job adequatly, and that is the person who is responsible.

The simple solution to all of this is, don't let them escape.
hmmm... I know, place them all on an island miles from any civilized port, then surround that Island with a huge frickken wall... then have the coast guard patrol the island with orders to shoot anyone attempting to flee the island.

and new inmates are parachuted in.

hmmm... I know, place them all on an island miles from any civilized port, then surround that Island with a huge frickken wall... then have the coast guard patrol the island with orders to shoot anyone attempting to flee the island.

and new inmates are parachuted in.
For the most part...why not?

For the most part...why not?
my only thought against it is that it made for several bad movies already... :rolleyes:

hmmm... I know, place them all on an island miles from any civilized port, then surround that Island with a huge frickken wall... then have the coast guard patrol the island with orders to shoot anyone attempting to flee the island.

and new inmates are parachuted in.


All the inmates would end up killing each other, thus negatating the life sentence.

Just blasting them would be cheaper, although I DO like your idea. Maybe drop in some shovels and blunt objects?

And hey, people complain about Gitmo, they're gonna go ape over that.

All the inmates would end up killing each other, thus negatating the life sentence.

Just blasting them would be cheaper, although I DO like your idea. Maybe drop in some shovels and blunt objects?

And hey, people complain about Gitmo, they're gonna go ape over that.

I think he (or at least I) meant not so much just an island, but built the functional prision on an island, so that even if you did make it OUT, there's nowhere to go.

If they escape then someone failed to do his/her job adequatly, and that is the person who is responsible.

The simple solution to all of this is, don't let them escape.
If they escape then someone was very clever. Just because they are murderers doesn't mean they aren't smart and why take the risk anyway if we can avoid it? People will always outsmart other people, and if you make a tougher prison to escape from then there will always be a clever man to try to break it, maybe even to succeed.

hmmm... I know, place them all on an island miles from any civilized port, then surround that Island with a huge frickken wall... then have the coast guard patrol the island with orders to shoot anyone attempting to flee the island.

and new inmates are parachuted in.
That would be pretty expensive. You would have to find an island, ship material to it, ship people to it and have them build stuff there, and then supply and maintain it for the years it is operational. It would be better for everyone if you didn't waste the time and money and just killed them. After all, why build a multi-million dollar facility for this when you can just use a 5 dollar rope?

That would be pretty expensive. You would have to find an island, ship material to it, ship people to it and have them build stuff there, and then supply and maintain it for the years it is operational. It would be better for everyone if you didn't waste the time and money and just killed them. After all, why build a multi-million dollar facility for this when you can just use a 5 dollar rope?

Civilization and morality. Pragmatic as it may seem, we have no RIGHT to kill any one else (the only morally just use of a system of justice is one in which we strive to protect society through reformation and seperation programs. Killing people extends beyond the reasonable means of doing either.). Killing remains a moral negative.

In that regard, we best serve a cost-effective model by requiring inmates to work, providing labor equal to the cost of keeping them. This means that we can recoup losses, keep prisoners from being as capable of breaking out (by keeping them busy), and provide trade skills and/or work ethic that prevent petty criminals from reoffending from necessity.

That and parachoutes are really, really innacurate.

How would we practice such severe brainwashing? To reduce them to that level would be considered by many to be crueler as it might require that they be tortured and it would certainly take away all that makes them human. It would really probably be considered the least humane solution by many.The process would undoubtedly be cruel, but the end result would be worth it. Once the emotionally (and to some degree likely physically) painful stages were over, they would live... contently for many years, unlike those in prison for life.

why does this statement frighten me... if they could be made to acutally enjoy it...

with what, drugs? harsh punishment for those who don't work?

such work programs really don't work in the long run. prisoner labor is cheaper, thus they can underbid any other company that does need that work.Their wills would be broken, through very intense... "pherapy". They would of cource sustain (very) severe psychological damage, the point being to make them completely, unconditionally obedient. In the end, they would need no motivation to work; they would simply do what they were told. If some appropriate thought patterns were drilled into them, they could be made to derive pleasure from following their orders as well; modfying the emotional response is not that hard.

There would be some initial cost, but once they had gone through the preparations, they would be efficient and very easy to manage.

Civilization and morality. Pragmatic as it may seem, we have no RIGHT to kill any one else (the only morally just use of a system of justice is one in which we strive to protect society through reformation and seperation programs. Killing people extends beyond the reasonable means of doing either.). Killing remains a moral negative.You have, if you grant it to yourself. That goes for all moral rights. You can define killing as the single most good and wholesome act possible to perform, if you wish. You would be no more "right" or "wrong" than those who did otherwise.

You have, if you grant it to yourself. That goes for all moral rights. You can define killing as the single most good and wholesome act possible to perform, if you wish. You would be no more "right" or "wrong" than those who did otherwise.

Fine... We'll rephrase that as: It is morally wrong to kill anyone for any reason, in my opinion (I am entitled to one too). I beleive that taking any life is an inexcusable creulty and that retaliation is as morally wrong as the act to which it retaliates.

Civilization and morality. Pragmatic as it may seem, we have no RIGHT to kill any one else (the only morally just use of a system of justice is one in which we strive to protect society through reformation and seperation programs. Killing people extends beyond the reasonable means of doing either.). Killing remains a moral negative.

We have the right to kill those who have violated our nation's laws. A moral argument has no weight, it is like claiming that the baby Jesus wouldn't want us to kill people. If we do not subscribe to the same morality then your point is blunted. Society is guided by pragmatism, it is not the job of government to necessarily be moral unless we can define absolute morality, considering the fact that we can't then we must take the most practical approach to dealing with our problems because morality cannot be the deciding factor.

Fine... We'll rephrase that as: It is morally wrong to kill anyone for any reason, in my opinion (I am entitled to one too). I beleive that taking any life is an inexcusable creulty and that retaliation is as morally wrong as the act to which it retaliates.
Good for you, I will support that once we get along to supporting everyone else's wacked moral beliefs like no baby killing and putting up the ten commandments on every government building, and of course pacifism and treating animals as people, and of course ending government stealing of people's money.

Some facts and figures I garnered from the list:
Texas has executed 368 inmates since 1982...
...of which 56 were hispanic, 184 were white, 126 were black, 2 were 'other'
...of which 3 were women, 2 were white, 1 was black
...the average age of at the time of execution was 38.97826087
...the oldest person executed was 66 years old
...the youngest person executed was 24 years old
...nobody was executed in 1983
...all were executed by lethal injection
...Harris county has the most executed, at 90.

As this chart clearly shows, Texas is losing it's efficiency at executing criminals.
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/5092/chart15ni.gif

We have the right to kill those who have violated our nation's laws. A moral argument has no weight, it is like claiming that the baby Jesus wouldn't want us to kill people. If we do not subscribe to the same morality then your point is blunted. Society is guided by pragmatism, it is not the job of government to necessarily be moral unless we can define absolute morality, considering the fact that we can't then we must take the most practical approach to dealing with our problems because morality cannot be the deciding factor.

I'm afraid I dissagree with you strongly. Pragmatism dictates that we should kill anyone who doesn't create a positive change in our nation (whether they commit a crime or not). Pragmatism suggests that a one-party dictator state is better than a democracy. Pragmatism alone is simply insufficient. We must instead temper pragmatism with morality. Killing is wrong no matter who does it. We must not cheapen ourselves by commiting so heinious an action when other alternative exist (And they do).

Good for you, I will support that once we get along to supporting everyone else's wacked moral beliefs like no baby killing and putting up the ten commandments on every government building, and of course pacifism and treating animals as people, and of course ending government stealing of people's money.

:rolleyes:

Because my moral beleifs must align themselves with those of moronic fundamentalists and crazy eco-terrorists, right? I'm not arguing from a position of "all morality is good" or even from "absolute morality", I'm arguing my moral opinion. Everyone does it, whether they lie about it or not.

Obviously morality is subjective. I'm just offering my opinion on what is morally right.

I propose a vast reorganization of the Texas judicial system so that maximum efficiency can be attained, both by streamlining the process of going from court, to death row and then finally to the execution chamber, and by finding a method to reduce overall cost by lowering expenses and finding a revenue source.

I'm afraid I dissagree with you strongly. Pragmatism dictates that we should kill anyone who doesn't create a positive change in our nation (whether they commit a crime or not). Pragmatism suggests that a one-party dictator state is better than a democracy. Pragmatism alone is simply insufficient. We must instead temper pragmatism with morality. Killing is wrong no matter who does it. We must not cheapen ourselves by commiting so heinious an action when other alternative exist (And they do).
Pragmatism does not necessarily suggest that a one-party dictatorship is superior to democracy simply because of the nature of corruption, pragmatism is what suggests a republic and government intervention in the economy. Pragmatism alone is how things are to be judged simply because as you put on your quote below morality is subjective. We cannot agree as a society necessarily what is most morally correct and because of this we need a middle road that middle road being amorality and ignoring morality for practical reasons.
:rolleyes:

Because my moral beleifs must align themselves with those of moronic fundamentalists and crazy eco-terrorists, right? I'm not arguing from a position of "all morality is good" or even from "absolute morality", I'm arguing my moral opinion. Everyone does it, whether they lie about it or not.

Obviously morality is subjective. I'm just offering my opinion on what is morally right.
I know you argue from your moral opinion but the fact that your entire idea is based upon your moral opinion makes you the same as fundies and eco-terrorists and even randroids who argue based upon their morality but not based upon more objective things. I do not really care about your morality, I do care about results, other people do not care about your morality unless they share the same moral ideals which they might not. I would really settle with the cheapest and most effective manner of dealing with these people, I do not really care as I tend towards pragmatism and view governmental pragmatism to be the most moral way to run a government in a world where people have different moral views. Of course, I might have my own moral biases but as you said everyone does.

In that case, why do you oppose the death penalty? People deserve the right to live... until they take the lives of others. It makes perfect logical sense. Thinking otherwise is irrational and emotive.

Please read, quote, and respond to my whole post next time. Your whole post is answered by the parts of my post you neglected to quote.

I have not addressed this issue. I am not arguing whether or not people deserve to die once they've unlawfully taken a life. I don't need to. Personally, I believe that this whole "deserve" notion is emotive, but that's not my argument.

If you want to respond to me, go back to my post, and respond to it all. You'll find that I logically show that the death penalty is bad, because of the innocents that "slip through the net", on the grounds that one human life is greater than any amount of anything else that's not a human life.

It's a bad idea to put a time limit on justice. After all, you never know what new technology will be invented that could clear a prisoner. Also, it's a bad idea to give the government the right to end the life of its citizens. All through out history governments have killed far more people than common criminals.

Considering that the death penalty has these two problems, and no advantages over life imprisonment, it is clear that life imprisonment is the better choice for administering justice.

I think he (or at least I) meant not so much just an island, but built the functional prision on an island, so that even if you did make it OUT, there's nowhere to go.

Meh.....

I propose a vast reorganization of the Texas judicial system so that maximum efficiency can be attained, both by streamlining the process of going from court, to death row and then finally to the execution chamber, and by finding a method to reduce overall cost by lowering expenses and finding a revenue source.

Yep. And quit with the electric chair and p/g, too exspensive. Rifles man....

Yep. And quit with the electric chair and p/g, too exspensive. Rifles man....
Why not rope? Can't you just reuse rope if you have one that is tough enough? I mean, sure rifles are cooler but just buy one simple reusable rope and you are set.

I apologize if you already know about this site, but if you don't, take a look at this site runned by the Texas Dept of Criminal Justice. Be warned though, it's a morbid site. While I do support the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes, but those who are executed are still human, this helps shed some light on the executed.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm
Sad, but many of those people I have no pity for. Saying "I am sorry that child had to die, but I do not deserve to be here" kills all sympathy. It's touching, though.

Yep. And quit with the electric chair and p/g, too exspensive. Rifles man....

I think I'd go with firing squad too. Being strapped to a chair and poisoned? Screw that. And electrocution just looks painful. Firing squad though, has just the right mix of style and instantaneous death.

All the inmates would end up killing each other, thus negatating the life sentence.

Just blasting them would be cheaper, although I DO like your idea. Maybe drop in some shovels and blunt objects?

And hey, people complain about Gitmo, they're gonna go ape over that.
but if the inmates kill each other, then the Inmates are guilty of murder... thus they get sent to....er... they stay where they are.

and the difference with Gitmo is that it's the guards and officals that were "torturing" prisioners.... if prisioners do it, then it's just establishing the pecking order. :D

That would be pretty expensive. You would have to find an island, ship material to it, ship people to it and have them build stuff there, and then supply and maintain it for the years it is operational. It would be better for everyone if you didn't waste the time and money and just killed them. After all, why build a multi-million dollar facility for this when you can just use a 5 dollar rope?
well there are some that say building multi million dollar facilities and paying for it's up keep is still cheaper than executions. and by using an Island, you really don't need walls, after all, miles from civilized ports? heck, the water are the walls.

as for building shipping and supplying materials, consider it a boost to the economy. :D

If they escape then someone was very clever. Just because they are murderers doesn't mean they aren't smart and why take the risk anyway if we can avoid it? People will always outsmart other people, and if you make a tougher prison to escape from then there will always be a clever man to try to break it, maybe even to succeed.

Because it is human life, the taking of which should never be afforded legal protection unless it be deemed absolutly and unequivicably necessary.

This is an awesome webpage. Anyone find one that just says "fuck you!" yet?

well there are some that say building multi million dollar facilities and paying for it's up keep is still cheaper than executions. and by using an Island, you really don't need walls, after all, miles from civilized ports? heck, the water are the walls.

as for building shipping and supplying materials, consider it a boost to the economy. :D
If we did this more cheaply then it wouldn't be more expensive. Like I said, 5 dollar rope or we could use those people for cheap labor. I still think that we should take care of the issue cheaply.

I don't, give people their own money and you would get the same thing only that they would be spending money on what they wanted. People can waste their money and they can do it more efficiently than the government.

Because it is human life, the taking of which should never be afforded legal protection unless it be deemed absolutly and unequivicably necessary.
Why shouldn't it? I mean, really, if I just substituted something in your argument like shown it like below.
Because it is animal life, the taking of which should never be afforded legal protection unless it be deemed absolutly and unequivicably necessary.
Then you are shown to be an adamant vegetarian who opposes most forms of animal population control.

In other words, your argument is not a rational one but rather an emotive one. A rational argument would likely be more resistent to such simple tampering while still staying internally consistent. Your argument fails to specify why human life is special compared to other life. Why should human life be afforded such protection at the expense of every human life in society? If it costs all people more to support something then why should they be forced into supporting it? After all, by costing the tax payer more you are negatively impacting their lives. I would stop the negative impact as soon as possible.

If we did this more cheaply then it wouldn't be more expensive. Like I said, 5 dollar rope or we could use those people for cheap labor. I still think that we should take care of the issue cheaply.

I don't, give people their own money and you would get the same thing only that they would be spending money on what they wanted. People can waste their money and they can do it more efficiently than the government.
hey, if you read my first post, you know where I stand. ;)

Titsworth, teehee.

Why not rope? Can't you just reuse rope if you have one that is tough enough? I mean, sure rifles are cooler but just buy one simple reusable rope and you are set.

But hey, we could put the 9mmvs 45, 5.56 vs 7.62x39vs 308 and 120mmvs155mm threads to death!

Rope is quicker and not as bloody...yes...


I think I'd go with firing squad too. Being strapped to a chair and poisoned? Screw that. And electrocution just looks painful. Firing squad though, has just the right mix of style and instantaneous death.

Rope is quicker, as I have been correctly told.


but if the inmates kill each other, then the Inmates are guilty of murder... thus they get sent to....er... they stay where they are.


I think a b-52 napalm raid every 6 months to turn over the prison population and make room for more would be good.

These guys did some pretty bad stuff. This is a cool website. It is a shame that more offenses are not punishable by death. Rape, perjury in criminal cases, fights where numerous people gang up on one guy. My NationState pretty much works that way.:)

so long as we treat them like humans.

and what way do humans get treated?

like the humans starving and living in filth in third world countries?

like humans living like gods at the top of society?

like humans who have to go through a boot camp to volunteer to fight for this country?

treat them like humans is such a broad and opinionated statement.

Rope is quicker, as I have been correctly told.

Yes, rope is quicker.

When it's done right.

When it's not....

Well, you could hang there for twenty minutes or so as you suffocate, very painfully. Or they misjudged your weight and the rope takes your head clean off.

Yes, rope is quicker.

When it's done right.

When it's not....

Well, you could hang there for twenty minutes or so as you suffocate, very painfully. Or they misjudged your weight and the rope takes your head clean off.
Meh, just close a door, wait for the death. Then clean up the mess. It is easy and simple. Heck, maybe not even clean up, I mean really, how clean does an execution area need to be? I never said that it was quicker but still, it might be cheaper and you know, the cheapest form of killing has got to be the best.

How is killing a human different?
While I kinda agree to that, you don't get the death penalty for beating cats to death with statues, so apparently, there's a HUGE difference according to the law.

Meh, just close a door, wait for the death. Then clean up the mess. It is easy and simple. Heck, maybe not even clean up, I mean really, how clean does an execution area need to be? I never said that it was quicker but still, it might be cheaper and you know, the cheapest form of killing has got to be the best.

The cheapest would be to lock them in a room and wait until they die of non-consumption.

I think the best one ever (and is likely to have been mentioned on this thread somewhere) is...

"I wish that all mankind had but one neck, so that I might choke it."

:(
I want to thank Father Walsh for his spiritual help. I want to thank Bob Ray (Sanders) and Steve Blow for their friendship. What I want people to know is that they call me a cold-blooded killer when I shot a man that shot me first. The only thing that convicted me was that I am a Mexican and that he was a police officer. People hollered for my life, and they are to have my life tonight. The people never hollered for the life of the policeman that killed a thirteen-year-old boy who was handcuffed in the back seat of a police car. The people never hollered for the life of a Houston police officer who beat up and drowned Jose Campo Torres and threw his body in the river. You call that equal justice. This is your equal justice. This is America’s equal justice. A Mexican’s life is worth nothing. When a policeman kills someone he gets a suspended sentence or probation. When a Mexican kills a police officer this is what you get. From there you call me a cold-blooded murderer. I didn’t tie anyone to a stretcher. I didn’t pump any poison into anybody’s veins from behind a locked door. You call this justice. I call this and your society a bunch of cold-blooded murderers. I don’t say this with any bitterness or anger. I just say this with truthfulness. I hope God forgives me for all my sins. I hope that God will be as merciful to society as he has been to me. I’m ready, Warden.
:(

The cheapest would be to lock them in a room and wait until they die of non-consumption.
It depends on how much you would value the usage of the room. If it is a slow year for death then you are right but if you have a schedule that does not give you the time to wait that much you might go with the rope. I mean, you could just over-estimate every time and just clean up every once and a while. I dunno, no matter what we would have to clean up.... unless we use an oven. That way we could do mass executions and save money on janitorial staff(paying some dude to clean up dead bodies would be expensive).

It depends on how much you would value the usage of the room. If it is a slow year for death then you are right but if you have a schedule that does not give you the time to wait that much you might go with the rope. I mean, you could just over-estimate every time and just clean up every once and a while. I dunno, no matter what we would have to clean up.... unless we use an oven. That way we could do mass executions and save money on janitorial staff(paying some dude to clean up dead bodies would be expensive).

Oven would be good, if its electric. They have an auto-clean function.

Because, unlike meaningless animals, humans have this thing called sentience. That is to say, we're aware of ourselves. If animals were, they would also disdain killing one another. They don't, so they have no problem with it.

Murder is no different when a government commits it than when a person commits it. Two wrongs don't make a right (or at least they didn't when I was in Kindergarten)
Oh, I see. The people on death row have sentience...they didn't WANT to kill their victums...I see, so they're different from animals in the fact that THEY are REPULSED by killing.... I see. All is clear now. You Liberals never fail to amuse me. :p