NationStates Jolt Archive

scary shit happens when you look at the US death rates:

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/firearmdeaths.jpg

then again South Africa is even more scary:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42811000/gif/_42811311_firearms_deaths3_203gr.gif

there does seem to be something fishy going on especially when you look at US-Canada

http://daria.no/skole/doc/html/6099.doc-filer/image001.gif

I'm certainly willing to believe that more firearms can result in more deaths. More firearms on the whole will do that since criminals will happily avail themselves of the tools.

But the question remains whether law-abiding citizens are more dangerous with firearms than without, which I suppose it what I was really asking.

And what're the firearm ownership rates per citizen in Canada and the U.S.?

Ahem, the US is currently ruled by a lunatic.

Please do not associate that man with the time honored and prestigious Brotherhood of Lunatics. He's an egotistical asshole dipshit. Not a lunatic.

What is the deal with bush bashing. I hear people say he is an idiot then and evil mastermind make up your mind he cannot be both.

Cannot

Cannot

See the edit button and be enlightened.

Please do not associate that man with the time honored and prestigious Brotherhood of Lunatics. He's an egotistical asshole dipshit. Not a lunatic.Because you say so?

What is the deal with bush bashing. I hear people say he is an idiot then and evil mastermind make up your mind he can be both.

Cannot

No, he can't. I prefer to think of him as the idiot and Cheney as the mastermind.

Because you say so?

Why not?

There apparently isn't a 'Biblical God', because you say so.

And what're the firearm ownership rates per citizen in Canada and the U.S.?

no idea, this might be a cultural thing as well or just to do with Canada's population and such

Yes your absolutly right, no i wasnt.

as you can see I have no apologizing that needs doing :p

What is the deal with bush bashing. I hear people say he is an idiot then and evil mastermind make up your mind he can be both.

Bush is an idiot and the republican party is evil

What is the deal with bush bashing. I hear people say he is an idiot then and evil mastermind make up your mind he can be both.

But do you ever see the same person saying both?

See the edit button and be enlightened.

I am enlightened ohh master.

But do you ever see the same person saying both?

Yea actors and polititions and profesors.

Given that execution is more expensive than life imprisonment - by $2million dollars per execution in North Carolina, for instance - and that the money could be used on programmes that have a more direct link to reducing crime such as extra policemen and drug treatment programmes, or to fund police investigations so that they can actually catch more criminals, I see no reason to support the death penalty.

no idea, this might be a cultural thing as well or just to do with Canada's population and such



Aye...Canada is as lax as the U.S. when it comes to firearm ownership--so far as I am aware--yet they have a much smaller population.

I think part of the problem in the U.S. is our tendency to not try to actually help fix poverty but to sweep it under a rug with idiocy like Reaganomics.

Also, if UB and Kontor start going at it I'm going to grab a bowl of popcorn. :D

Aye...Canada is as lax as the U.S. when it comes to firearm ownership--so far as I am aware--yet they have a much smaller population.

I think part of the problem in the U.S. is our tendency to not try to actually help fix poverty but to sweep it under a rug with idiocy like Reaganomics.

Also, if UB and Kontor start going at it I'm going to grab a bowl of popcorn. :D

Who on earth is UB??

Aye...Canada is as lax as the U.S. when it comes to firearm ownership--so far as I am aware--yet they have a much smaller population.

I think part of the problem in the U.S. is our tendency to not try to actually help fix poverty but to sweep it under a rug with idiocy like Reaganomics.

Also, if UB and Kontor start going at it I'm going to grab a bowl of popcorn. :D

Also can i have some popcorn too. If its not lowfat that it.

Dullards, ill get this party going if you won't:sniper::mp5::headbang::gundge::fluffle:

I broke the speed limit today. Have I renounced my humanity?
What part of bona fide do you not understand?

In whose opinion?
No one's. It's a matter of objective fact.

Since you do not know the proper aims of a criminal justice system, you are wrong.
Except, I do.

Who on earth is UB??
United Beleriand. He's an atheist, but a crazy one who's also an anti-Semite and despises Jews.
Also can i have some popcorn too. If its not lowfat that it.
It's not microwave popcorn. I grow my own, so no.

...

Wow. I did not know that.

Care to answer this, Linus and Lucy? Or will you stick to your foolishness?

There's nothing to respond to.

The chart shows a relationship that would indicate that Canada's abolition of the death penalty led to a reduction in crime.

Since I have never argued that the justification for the death penalty is its effectiveness as a deterrent, it is completely irrelevant to my point. It contradicts absolutely nothing I have said.

Even better, what about if someone shoplifts a candy bar?
Yes, that involves renunciation of one's humanity.

Or a bona fide felony, what about someone who cheats on their taxes, do they renounce their humanity?

No, because that is not a bona fide crime.

The law may be on the books, but that doesn't mean it's legitimate. All taxation is illegitimate, so violation of tax laws is not a bona fide crime.

Yes, that involves renunciation of one's humanity.

No, because that is not a bona fide crime.

The law may be on the books, but that doesn't mean it's legitimate. All taxation is illegitimate, so violation of tax laws is not a bona fide crime.

They do say people will sell their souls for chocolate. (no, I have no idea who 'they' are)

So depriving people of a quality education by not paying taxes is alright, but taking a candy bar from an amoral company like Wal Mart is bad?

There's nothing to respond to.

The chart shows a relationship that would indicate that Canada's abolition of the death penalty led to a reduction in crime.

Since I have never argued that the justification for the death penalty is its effectiveness as a deterrent, it is completely irrelevant to my point. It contradicts absolutely nothing I have said.
Alright, I have a question for you:

Would you prefer to simply stop crimes/punish criminals, or would you like to eliminate the causes of various crimes so that the number of crimes is significantly reduced?

Which would be better for civilization, in your eyes?

The sole proper aim of a legitimate criminal justice system is just that: justice.

Therefore, punishment of the guilty is desirable for its own sake.

Yes, that involves renunciation of one's humanity.

snip

Seems to me that a large portion of humanity partakes in petty theft of one sort or another at times ... I would hardly call them non human by that simple act.

Either way you remind me of another poster who also reminded me of the "Bene Gesserit" in your stark deceleration of who is or is not human... is that intentional?

The sole proper aim of a legitimate criminal justice system is just that: justice.

Therefore, punishment of the guilty is desirable for its own sake.

So, then, you think that we should not eliminate the causes of crime?

Seems to me that a large portion of humanity partakes in petty theft of one sort or another at times ... I would hardly call them non human by that simple act.
Then you're wrong.

Either way you remind me of another poster who also reminded me of the "Bene Gesserit" in your stark deceleration of who is or is not human... is that intentional?
I'm not familiar with the reference, sorry.

So, then, you think that we should not eliminate the causes of crime?

It's not the criminal justice system's job.

If you want to try to do that on your own time, with your own resources, more power to you.

United Beleriand. He's an atheist, but a crazy one who's also an anti-Semite and despises Jews.



What is it with the stereotype that are christians are anti jewish. Its more mulsims and atheists. Hitler was an atheist does his "survival of the fittest" aka holocost ring a bell?

United Beleriand. He's an atheist, but a crazy one who's also an anti-Semite and despises Jews.



What is it with the stereotype that are christians are anti jewish. Its more mulsims and atheists. Hitler was an atheist does his "survival of the fittest" aka holocost ring a bell?

United Beleriand. He's an atheist, but a crazy one who's also an anti-Semite and despises Jews.



What is it with the stereotype that are christians are anti jewish. Its more mulsims and atheists. Hitler was an atheist does his "survival of the fittest" aka holocost ring a bell?

The destruction of life of any form is no right, duty, or moral obligation of any collective group of individuals (in this instance, the state.)

Killing someone for a crime is letting them off easy. No punishment, just death. (Think of the raw labor wasted!)

If a State makes something illegal, even if it is morally justified and immoral to not do so, the State has the obligation to preserve the rights of the individual (life) and the obligation to provide for the punishment decided, and that cannot be solved with death.

So depriving people of a quality education by not paying taxes is alright, but taking a candy bar from an amoral company like Wal Mart is bad?
1. Amoral according to whom? (not contesting, just asking)
2. Stealing is unilaterally wrong, even if it is against an amoral or evil target. In other words, the ends do not justify the means.
3. Depriving people of a quality education? Tax evasion is illegal for one reason, because you do not contribute to society. That said, not having a say in how its spent and having exorbitant taxes is also immoral. I'm not saying either is true, just putting it out there.
4. That 'quality education' could use some clarification. Educating yourself and paying for it is your responsibility. It is a luxury. A valuable and practical one, but a luxury nonetheless. You do not require an education to live, do you? If people do not want an education, you can't force them to; there are plenty of ways to educate yourself without institutions. Public schooling only works if all enrolled want to be there (try to prove that) and they are functional. That is, they provide education without the problems the current system has.

Then you're wrong.


I'm not familiar with the reference, sorry.

Dune ... science fiction book

And what makes me wrong?

I quite enjoy that reference. I would have to be a mentat, however, because Thufir Hawat is the most Kickass character ever.

Therefore, you are against imprisonment?

Or do you honestly think that going to prison is "reversible" simply because you can come out again? Yeah, that 20 years of life - no big deal. Ass-raped in the shower - reversible. Knifed to death - reversible.

No but at least there is a chance to have something rather then nothing ... and a life counts for a lot of something

All the arguments borth both sides have been said again and again. This thread is getting tiresome

It's not the criminal justice system's job.

If you want to try to do that on your own time, with your own resources, more power to you.
Whereas I would say it is. Prevention over cure is almost ALWAYS more sensible for society because it helps save resources, time, and energy better spent on other pursuits.

What is it with the stereotype that are christians are anti jewish. Its more mulsims and atheists. Hitler was an atheist does his "survival of the fittest" aka holocost ring a bell?
What? I didn't say anything about Christians being anti-Jewish. I said United Beleriand was anti-Jewish, which he is.

All the arguments borth both sides have been said again and again. This thread is getting tiresome

Welcome to Nation States General.

Welcome to Nation States General.

I think this slogan goes along with the welcome.

"Can't Do It In Real Life? Do It On NSG."

What part of bona fide do you not understand?

Actually, I do understand it. So, since the law is bona fide, you say I have renounced my humanity by breaking it. I just wanted to be sure that was your view, because it is such a ludicrous claim.


No one's. It's a matter of objective fact.


No it isn't. If it was then, somewhere in the civilised world, there would be a legal system which runs on those lines.


Except, I do.

No, you do not. See above.

Look, I think trial by jury is wildly overrated. However, that opinion flies in the face of conventional thinking about the legal system. Therefore if I want people to take that claim seriously, I have to back it up. I won't do that now, because it is way off topic.
What you are saying is that we should return to a system where justice is solely about retribution. A return, in fact, to Medieval concepts of justice. So back that claim up, preferably with something more substantial than 'yes it is'.

Look, I think trial by jury is wildly overrated. However, that opinion flies in the face of conventional thinking about the legal system. Therefore if I want people to take that claim seriously, I have to back it up. I won't do that now, because it is way off topic.


Please start a new thread based on this then. I really want to hear your thoughts.

Whereas I would say it is. Prevention over cure is almost ALWAYS more sensible for society because it helps save resources, time, and energy better spent on other pursuits.


Well, to be fair Ky, what you'd be trying to prevent in this case is another little girl being fed to an alligator; a noble enough cause, but it does nothing to answer for the first girl.

But I also think that your response is somewhat hopelessly idealistic, and therefore strikes most people as implausible. But you can argue the same case from a much more strikingly realist position: I don't defend this man's right to live. If anything deserves punishment, it's a grown man hurting a child. If there's anything that deserves a man's death, it's the death of a little child caused by him.

What I nevertheless also don't defend is an institution that, while punishing men like this douchebag, also punishes the innocent, punishes those who try to redeem themselves, punishes people largely on the basis of class and race, and punishes people are victims of circumstance just as much as it punishes men like this douchebag.

In simpler terms: it's an immensely foolish argument to argue that on the basis of making sure this tool gets his deserved comeuppance, that 100 other people down the road also have to suffer not because they deserved it but because the court-appointed lawyer was there because he'd failed the bar 7 times and couldn't get work elsewhere. If there were some way of making a law that says "Asshole x gets death by vivisection" without impacting anyone else, I would do it, but it's unconstitutional to make a law that singles out one individual, and rightly so: imagine what Richard Nixon or John Adams would have done with such legal precedents, for instance. As such, while I realize that if justice is giving to a person what he deserves and not giving to him what he does not deserve, then we are doing an injustice by not gutting this man like a fish. But law is just as much about avoiding the greater injustice as it is serving the greater justice, and any law that allows killing him also gives death to those who do not deserve death; hence, it is unjust. That's why I oppose the death penalty in this man's case.

Please start a new thread based on this then. I really want to hear your thoughts.

Okay, but not now - it's gone 1am here and I have a busy day at work tomorrow.

Well, to be fair Ky, what you'd be trying to prevent in this case is another little girl being fed to an alligator; a noble enough cause, but it does nothing to answer for the first girl.

The only solution is to hunt down and kill all alligators, indiscriminate of age, sex, or species.

Both of the above reasons are easy to fix.

I concur.
There is too much time between conviction and appeal. I understand the argument that someone's life is at stake and that time should be allowed for further evidence to come to light but there's a limit to what is acceptable. I don't live in the US (no death penalty here) but I'd suggest a two year limit on the appeal process. Furthermore, once the appeal trial is started it should reach a proper conclusion or be abandoned - no postponements.

*snip*
Yes, it is idealistic. But it's a good idea, and it's actually doable, unlike most idealistic suggestions. We actually can rehabilitate the vast majority of those in our criminal justice system and treat fairly those that can't be rehabilitated instead of leaving them to be raped or knifed or whatever other idiot shit we allow prisoners to pull.

It just seems to me that we can be a hell of a lot fairer and make our society better for it.

I feel so odd for supporting the death penalty, but never having the slightest thought as to when it should be enforced.

I'm pretty much 50/50 on the punishment in this case.

I feel so odd for supporting the death penalty, but never having the slightest thought as to when it should be enforced.

I'm pretty much 50/50 on the punishment in this case.

They should execute the victims/witnesses, as well as the guilty party? :eek:

They should execute the victims/witnesses, as well as the guilty party? :eek:

No no..

As to whether he should get death, or not.

No no..

As to whether he should get death, or not.

Oh, I see. I think my way was fairer..for..

..a troll.

Two words: Medical experimentation. Rather than test experiemntal drugs and products on animals, we ought to test them on assholes like this. Of course, then we'd have to change our warning labels to read "WARNING: This product has been known to cause cancer in asshole criminals."

That's a big waste of human flesh. China does it better. Execute the criminal, harvest organs, cremate body. I mean, a kidney goes for what, $10,000 on the black market these days. A whole set of human organs? That pays tons.

And it wouldn't be so expensive if the number of appeals and automatic granting was tossed out.

But if people still want to complain about right of life, then obviously the next best option is life imprisonment and forced labor. I see absolutely no reason why serious criminal offenders shouldn't at least be made to sweat for their continued existence.

The only solution is to hunt down and kill all feeders of alligators, indiscriminate of age, sex, or species.

While I admired the strict logic of your response, honesty compelled me to provide the correction above

The only solution is to hunt down and kill all alligators, indiscriminate of age, sex, or species.
Sure, piss off those environmentalists why don't you... :p

That's a big waste of human flesh. China does it better. Execute the criminal, harvest organs, cremate body. I mean, a kidney goes for what, $10,000 on the black market these days. A whole set of human organs? That pays tons. except the industry can get a better understanding of how drugs interact with the human body. also, who would get the money? Victim Survivors? the Legal System? who?

But if people still want to complain about right of life, then obviously the next best option is life imprisonment and forced labor. I see absolutely no reason why serious criminal offenders shouldn't at least be made to sweat for their continued existence.

been done before. you end up with a business that can outbid anyone. forcing other businesses out.

Simple economics, it's cheaper to house him for the rest of his life than it is to fight the barrage of appeals that are sure to come. Plus of course that anyone can be redeemed.

Meh, just toss him to the Gators. If he lives, he goes free.

nice to see you coming round to the correct answer

Despite inflation, life as a commodity, is dirt cheap.

While I admired the strict logic of your response, honesty compelled me to provide the correction above

One doesn't need to be fed to an alligator to be irrevocably harmed by one.

There was an undisclosed and undiscussed case where a 'gang' of alligators went raping and pillaging people at nearby pools and resorts.

"It was...really scaly..er..scary."- Anonymous witnesses friend's friend
"And not good scaly.." -Unnamed taxonomer

except the industry can get a better understanding of how drugs interact with the human body. also, who would get the money? Victim Survivors? the Legal System? who?

The thing is, you can't test as often as you could with mice, because they're not as commonplace as mice. As for where the money goes, probably victim survivors?


been done before. you end up with a business that can outbid anyone. forcing other businesses out.

Not if you keep them at extreme labor intensive conditions. Like oh say, a brick kiln.

Sure, piss off those environmentalists why don't you... :p

We have nothing to fear, they are all chained to their trees.

Meh, just toss him to the Gators. If he lives, he goes free.
No..no.. If he is is not eaten, he is guilty, because they recognize him as a feeder. If he is eaten, he is innocent.

The thing is, you can't test as often as you could with mice, because they're not as commonplace as mice.but the mice are soooo cuuuuuute!!! :p

Not if you keep them at extreme labor intensive conditions. Like oh say, a brick kiln. doing what... remember, it has to be a job that no one else does, or you're forcing them out of business.

So let me get this straight... This guy went to Prison for tons of crimes, attempted mulitple escapes, was an all around maniac, he came out "Rehabilitated" and then proceeded to do this cruel murder? Then he acts like an asshole at court?

There is No redemption in this man's soul.
And there is no way in hell he is innocent.

Bring back the firing squad.

Take him out back after the trial, line him against a wall and exterminate the rotten non-human.

My fat hairy white ass.

He and his defense didn't even go for an insanity plea. Certainly, he wasn't judged mentally unfit. Was he mentally "disturbed?" Yes, one can say that all violent criminals are to an extent. One might even say that a majority of US Americans are. But that's no excuse.

That is because, even though you see it a lot in Law & Order, innocent due to mental illness almost never works.

He wasn't legally insane, and there is no other relevant definition of sanity or insanity. Your optimistic appraisal of human nature is not evidence in support of this conclusion.

We don't necessarily know that. There is no indication that an insanity defence was even attempted, even when he was representing himself! This is not my optimism speaking, it is pessimism about the ability of human beings to control their actions and not be lead to evil by circumstances they have no control over. It all stems from my philosophical viewpoint of determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism). That is not to say he shouldn't be punished- he should be locked up for the rest of his life. But I can not justify killing a person for something they had little to no control in. That is just as injust as killing the poor girl.

This is seriously bothering me. When did "Execution is Murder" become an actual argument? Same time "circumcision is child abuse," and "abortion is murder," and "Islam is terrorism," I'd guess? Get a real argument already.

It has always been an argument for the decades of freedom from the death penalty many countries have already, douche bag. Along side with numerous other valid arguments such as the possibility of innocence and economic reasons.

2- If it's about revenge, keeping the person in jail for the rest of their lives and making the person work to pay for its stay works much better.


Because prison IS SO HARD, I mean seriously!

:rolleyes:

Because prison IS SO HARD, I mean seriously!

:rolleyes:

lol, that is an idiotic statement. You have any idea what it will be like for the guy when his inmates find out what he is in for?

Because prison IS SO HARD, I mean seriously!

:rolleyes:

1- So you ADMIT it's about revenge.

2- I'm pretty sure spending your entire life confined in a place where, after hearing what you did, everyone wants to kill you is hard. Unless you have any experience in the joint which you'd like to share with us.

3- Liberty can be restored and reparations made to an innocent unfairly jailed. You need a high-level cleric to restore life to an innocent unfairly executed, and I'm pretty sure there isn't one available in the USA.

There are arguments that American prisons fall under 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Whether or not this is true, this is true:

We need to stop spending in Iraq and instead spend on Domestic stuff. Like prisons, roads, even welfare. Not a war.

Anyway... I've already said my views on capital punishment.

How about this..
Just like during police training when they are tased/pepper sprayed to see what if feels like so they think before using it on someone else, everyone in support of capital punishment should experience it before passing the judgement onto others. :p

How about this..
Just like during police training when they are tased/pepper sprayed to see what if feels like so they think before using it on someone else, everyone in support of capital punishment should experience it before passing the judgement onto others. :p

/thread

This is just a sad situation on all accounts. The guy is obviously mentally disturbed; no sane person would do this. I'm sure if he had a moment of lucidity while committing the crimes he'd have stopped, or at least tried to, but alas he is ill. Are his crimes his fault? Or nature's fault? Or his mother's fault for doing H while he was in the womb? I don't have any idea. But I do know that murdering a man for a crime he had no real choice in is wrong.

Why would you think he had no choice but to commit such heinous crimes? Of course he had a choice; he could have chosen not to do such things. He was free not to murder that little girl, but he did, so he deserves to be put to death.

And the justification for the state putting murderers to death is that if the state lets murderers live, then any further murders the murderers commit, the state is just as guilty (of the blood of the murderers' victims) for not executing the murderers as the murderers are for commiting the murders, because the state could have put the murderers to death, thereby permanently preventing them from committing any more murders, but the didn't, therefore the state is as guilty (if it does not put the murderers to death) as the murderers are.

If the state puts murderers to death, in so doing it saves the lives of those who would otherwise be victims of these murderers had the state let the murderers live.

but the mice are soooo cuuuuuute!!! :p

Still, they take less to feed and breed than a human.


doing what... remember, it has to be a job that no one else does, or you're forcing them out of business.

Well, the xenophobes are always complaining about Mexicans stealing jobs that they wouldn't do anyway. Like tending orchards, sweeping roads, etc, etc.

Meh, just toss him to the Gators. If he lives, he goes free.

Trial by ordeal? I like.

Meh, just toss him to the Gators. If he lives, he goes free.

No..no.. If he is is not eaten, he is guilty, because they recognize him as a feeder. If he is eaten, he is innocent.

Trial by ordeal? I like.

Aye. :)

Why would you think he had no choice but to commit such heinous crimes? Of course he had a choice; he could have chosen not to do such things. He was free not to murder that little girl, but he did, so he deserves to be put to death.

And the justification for the state putting murderers to death is that if the state lets murderers live, then any further murders the murderers commit, the state is just as guilty (of the blood of the murderers' victims) for not executing the murderers as the murderers are for commiting the murders, because the state could have put the murderers to death, thereby permanently preventing them from committing any more murders, but the didn't, therefore the state is as guilty (if it does not put the murderers to death) as the murderers are.

If the state puts murderers to death, in so doing it saves the lives of those who would otherwise be victims of these murderers had the state let the murderers live.

I know it is an unsatisfying rebuttal, but I simply don't accept any of what you said. I don't believe he had a choice in committing the murder and I believe that locking murderers up as opposed to executing them is more humane and avoids the possibility of murdering the innocent, something not uncommon. Put them in prison and have the best security possible so they will never murder again.

That is because, even though you see it a lot in Law & Order, innocent due to mental illness almost never works.


I don't watch TV. And perhaps the reason it doesn't work is because most people are cognizant of their actions when they commit a crime.

We don't necessarily know that. There is no indication that an insanity defence was even attempted, even when he was representing himself! This is not my optimism speaking, it is pessimism about the ability of human beings to control their actions and not be lead to evil by circumstances they have no control over. It all stems from my philosophical viewpoint of determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism). That is not to say he shouldn't be punished- he should be locked up for the rest of his life.

There's no indication whatsoever that he's insane and thus not culpable.

And really, how can you be against "murder" (execution) but support lifelong kidnapping (imprisonment)? I mean is kidnapping so much more morally pure than murder?

Not that it's relevant, because again, punishment is not the same as crime.

But I can not justify killing a person for something they had little to no control in. That is just as injust as killing the poor girl.

He had control. And please do not tell me again that killing a murderer is the same as tossing five year old girls into the alligator pit. They aren't. Not anywhere close. One is the definition of justice, the other the definition of injustice.

It has always been an argument for the decades of freedom from the death penalty many countries have already, douche bag. Along side with numerous other valid arguments such as the possibility of innocence and economic reasons.

While I appreciate your colorful insult, it doesn't support your argument. Sorry. Execution isn't murder, abortion isn't murder, war isn't peace, and slavery isn't freedom. Orwell your way out of that one.

There's no indication whatsoever that he's insane and thus not culpable.

I would dispute this. I think his actions clearly indicate he was and is not in control of a regular person's mental faculties. Also, as I said in my other post, my philosophical beliefs dispute the actions of anybody being "free".

And really, how can you be against "murder" (execution) but support lifelong kidnapping (imprisonment)? I mean is kidnapping so much more morally pure than murder?

Simply because murder as a form of punishment is too harsh, but lifelong imprisonment is not. If they really would rather die I believe they should be allowed to, though. I personally would rather be kidnapped for life than murdered and not get to live the rest of my life, albeit in a cell.

He had control. And please do not tell me again that killing a murderer is the same as tossing five year old girls into the alligator pit. They aren't. Not anywhere close. One is the definition of justice, the other the definition of injustice.

I believe they are, as neither victim had a choice.

While I appreciate your colorful insult, it doesn't support your argument. Sorry. Execution isn't murder, abortion isn't murder, war isn't peace, and slavery isn't freedom. Orwell your way out of that one.

Whether you consider execution to be murder depends on your definition of murder. I believe capital punishment constitutes murder, you don't. Fair enough.

I would dispute this. I think his actions clearly indicate he was and is not in control of a regular person's mental faculties. Also, as I said in my other post, my philosophical beliefs dispute the actions of anybody being "free".

What actions? Your "point" is that since he committed violent crimes he must be mentally disturbed, hence not in control and thus not culpable. Sorry, that's not enough. Irrationality does not amount to insanity, nor does being a violent criminal.

And if in your philosophy everyone is not "free," not culpable, then no one should be punished for crimes, ever. I mean after all why be punished for things beyond one's control - and you evidently think everything in reality qualifies!

Simply because murder as a form of punishment is too harsh, but lifelong imprisonment is not.

Why do you think this way? I think they are both too harsh, or not enough, depending on the crime. Clearly the judge in this case doesn't agree with you about it and I don't either. I think sometimes, "murder" (by the way, just calling execution "murder" a lot doesn't make it so) is not *enough* of a punishment.

If they really would rather die I believe they should be allowed to, though. I personally would rather be kidnapped for life than murdered and not get to live the rest of my life, albeit in a cell.

Heh. You might think differently if you've ever been in prison or known anyone who has.

I believe they are, as neither victim had a choice.

Puh-lease. Even if this were so it wouldn't make them comparable. And you've yet to demonstrate his lack of choice - your beliefs philosophically do not a demonstration make. He had a choice. He chose to commit violent crimes. Multiple times. The girl never had a choice.Or a chance.

Whether you consider execution to be murder depends on your definition of murder. I believe capital punishment constitutes murder, you don't. Fair enough.

Well yeah, if I loosen my definition enough, I can make anything become "murder" in my own eyes, can't I? Like abortion. Or circumcision! Also, masturbation. Most people however, prefer somewhat more narrow definitions as they are of more use.

Most, anyway.

What actions? Your "point" is that since he committed violent crimes he must be mentally disturbed, hence not in control and thus not culpable. Sorry, that's not enough. Irrationality does not amount to insanity, nor does being a violent criminal.

And if in your philosophy everyone is not "free," not culpable, then no one should be punished for crimes, ever. I mean after all why be punished for things beyond one's control - and you evidently think everything in reality qualifies!

Although I don't believe we have free will and can't be blamed for our actions, I still believe crimes should be punished, as this itself will condition people in the future to hopefully not commit crimes. It also obviously keeps somebody from roaming the streets freely slaughtering people. It is for the good of mankind.

Why do you think this way? I think they are both too harsh, or not enough, depending on the crime. Clearly the judge in this case doesn't agree with you about it and I don't either. I think sometimes, "murder" (by the way, just calling execution "murder" a lot doesn't make it so) is not *enough* of a punishment.

And I disagree... Not much to discuss here.

Heh. You might think differently if you've ever been in prison or known anyone who has.

If it was so bad that somebody would prefer death then they should be free to do so.

Puh-lease. Even if this were so it wouldn't make them comparable. And you've yet to demonstrate his lack of choice - your beliefs philosophically do not a demonstration make. He had a choice. He chose to commit violent crimes. Multiple times. The girl never had a choice.Or a chance.

I've told you I don't believe that is true and told you why. What else is there to say?

Well yeah, if I loosen my definition enough, I can make anything become "murder" in my own eyes, can't I? Like abortion. Or circumcision! Also, masturbation. Most people however, prefer somewhat more narrow definitions as they are of more use.

Most, anyway.

If you want to use the definition of murder as killing somebody in a way that contradicts law then that is fine. I prefer to define it as an act of barbarity. Shooting an intruder pointing a rifle at you isn't murder. Knocking them out with a hammer, tying them to a chair and injecting them with a lethal cocktail of drugs is barbaric and thus murder, I believe. Again, we have differing opinions and there is little left to discuss.

An individual has no right to kill=murder. Yet, some vile ones do.

Being nothing but a vector of individual forces of many individuals living on an ever-shifting territory, a state has no right to kill=murder.

Yet, some vile ones do.

I would dispute this. I think his actions clearly indicate he was and is not in control of a regular person's mental faculties.

Sorry, but calling every killer out there a deranged person who can make an insanity plea doesn't make it reality. A lot of people kill in cruel and harsh ways, and they do it in full control of themselves.

We aren't so far evolved from animals that we've forgotten our instinct for killing mercilessly. You can't run away from that reality no matter how many pretty words you use. All you're doing is deluding yourself.

As for the insanity plea? Tough. I would never let a plea of insanity work in a criminal court. All that would matter is whether they did the crime, and if there was anyone behind that criminal's actions. Beyond that, nothing else matters.

You've done the crime? You have to suffer the penalty for it. Insane people don't get to walk away from the law.

Reading this thread has gotten me to start rethinking my beliefs on the death penalty. I still don't believe that it should be abolished - but the possibility of getting it wrong does argue for its restriction.

There are cases, I believe, where a person's guilt can be established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those cases involve rock-solid documentation. If the criminal filmed themselves committing the crime, that would be rock-solid. Really, they have to make a statement of some kind that they did it.

And can we try to keep this debate on-topic?

An individual has no right to kill=murder. Yet, some vile ones do.

Your problem is that you continue to equate killing with murder.

That is simply not true, whether in a strict legal sense or in a broader, deeper moral sense.

Murder is a subset of killing.

Do I need to draw a Venn diagram?

Many people have moral and ethical problems with the death penalty. I accept that.

I do not consider it moral to kill anyone, even with execution methods that are foolproof and painless.

But that said, I find it necessary.

Some people (and I put the subject of the OP in this category) can never be rehabilitated or redeemed. Not that they can't become better people - but it will never be possible for such people to ever be released, become a part of society or forgiven their crimes. They must be eternally removed from any possibility of harming another, because we can never extend to them any degree of trust.

Our two real options are permanent solitary confinement and execution. I consider the latter both the more merciful and the safer.

Although I don't believe we have free will and can't be blamed for our actions, I still believe crimes should be punished, as this itself will condition people in the future to hopefully not commit crimes.

That doesn't make sense. If everything is predetermined and outside one's control, then it doesn't matter if crimes are punished or not - what will be, will be.

If it was so bad that somebody would prefer death then they should be free to do so.

Most people have an irrational (or rational, depending how you see it) tendency to cling to life simply because of instincts. So most people would endure, clinging also to the faint hope of being released or escaping prison. This does not justify it.

I've told you I don't believe that is true and told you why. What else is there to say?

For one thing, you could quit building on your own philosophical assumptions like some kind of masturbatory self-argument. Your philosophy, cute though it is, is not a demonstration in support of your arguments.

If you want to use the definition of murder as killing somebody in a way that contradicts law then that is fine. I prefer to define it as an act of barbarity.

So, rape is murder?

Shooting an intruder pointing a rifle at you isn't murder. Knocking them out with a hammer, tying them to a chair and injecting them with a lethal cocktail of drugs is barbaric and thus murder, I believe. Again, we have differing opinions and there is little left to discuss.

No, I think I want to hear you claim that the murderer is just the same kind of victim as the 5 year old girl he fed to reptiles again. I want to know exactly why you think that culprit = victim. I want to see you type it again so I can laugh in your fucking face.

Many people have moral and ethical problems with the death penalty. I accept that.
I accept that it is a fact that they choose to be wrong.

I do not consider it moral to kill anyone, even with execution methods that are foolproof and painless.
Then you, too, are wrong.

But that said, I find it necessary.
Necessity is irrelevant. All that matters is moral rectitude.

Some people (and I put the subject of the OP in this category) can never be rehabilitated or redeemed. Not that they can't become better people - but it will never be possible for such people to ever be released, become a part of society or forgiven their crimes. They must be eternally removed from any possibility of harming another, because we can never extend to them any degree of trust.
Not that any of this is relevant, since none of it is any concern of a legitimate criminal justice system. It should concern itself solely with punishment of the guilty and, where possible, restitution to their victims.

That doesn't make sense. If everything is predetermined and outside one's control, then it doesn't matter if crimes are punished or not - what will be, will be.
Including whether or not and how the guilty are punished, of course.

So, rape is murder?
It is morally equivalent to murder.

Of course, so is theft, burglary, assault, vandalism, kidnapping, and trespassing.

I accept that it is a fact that they choose to be wrong.


Then you, too, are wrong.


Necessity is irrelevant. All that matters is moral rectitude.


Not that any of this is relevant, since none of it is any concern of a legitimate criminal justice system. It should concern itself solely with punishment of the guilty and, where possible, restitution to their victims.

I disagree. While those are of primary importance, a justice system must also concern itself with two other concepts: safety, and justice.

While a judicial system can, by it's definition, work only as a reactive force, it can and should consider the effects of it's decisions upon the body politic and real. Future problems do need to be taken into account where they can be foreseen, and the safety of the community considered. Simultaneously, if law is not tempered with justice, law itself, rather than providing us relief from tyranny, becomes the tyrant itself.

As for moral rectitude: an irrelevant phrase without meaning or value. Morality is a choice of the individual, not an absolute.

Who the fuck names their kid "Quatisha"?!

i second that...

I disagree. While those are of primary importance, a justice system must also concern itself with two other concepts: safety,
No, it shouldn't.

and justice.
What I just described is justice--giving what is deserved, to the extent possible.

While a judicial system can, by it's definition, work only as a reactive force, it can and should consider the effects of it's decisions upon the body politic and real. Future problems do need to be taken into account where they can be foreseen, and the safety of the community considered.
No, it shouldn't--justice is desirable for its own sake.

As for moral rectitude: an irrelevant phrase without meaning or value. Morality is a choice of the individual, not an absolute.

Wrong. Morality is a matter of objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe.

No, it shouldn't.


What I just described is justice--giving what is deserved, to the extent possible.


No, it shouldn't--justice is desirable for its own sake.

Desirable, yes, but also insufficient. Legal and judicial systems have to deal with those fiddly things called human beings - and we WILL screw things up if care is not taken with possibilities of the future.



Wrong. Morality is a matter of objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe.

Please provide such proof. Note that as an atheist, I will instantly reject any appeal to authority or assumption of the unproven errors.

Desirable, yes, but also insufficient. Legal and judicial systems have to deal with those fiddly things called human beings - and we WILL screw things up if care is not taken with possibilities of the future.
I think you're confusing the concept of justice itself with the practical concerns of humans attempting to apply justice. I'm talking about the former.


Please provide such proof.
A is A.

Both P and ~P cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.

Note that as an atheist,
As am I.
I will instantly reject any appeal to authority
As would I.
or assumption of the unproven errors.
As would I.

N.B. that if you cannot derive the proof from the premises I gave above, I would suggest you find a copy of "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

No, this is not an appeal to authority here--I'm not saying "Ayn Rand said it's true; therefore, it is." It's simply that since I have independently evaluated Rand's proofs and found them to be without error, it is much less work for me to direct you to them than it would be to restate them myself, and I'm only giving you the name of the author to assist you in finding it. I'm all about efficiency and avoiding duplication of effort.

I think you're confusing the concept of justice itself with the practical concerns of humans attempting to apply justice. I'm talking about the former.



A is A.

Both P and ~P cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.


As am I.

As would I.

As would I.

N.B. that if you cannot derive the proof from the premises I gave above, I would suggest you find a copy of "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

No, this is not an appeal to authority here--I'm not saying "Ayn Rand said it's true; therefore, it is." It's simply that since I have independently evaluated Rand's proofs and found them to be without error, it is much less work for me to direct you to them than it would be to restate them myself, and I'm only giving you the name of the author to assist you in finding it. I'm all about efficiency and avoiding duplication of effort.

Thank you for the reference. I must admit, here, to being less than impressed with what I have so far read of Rand's work, but I will track this one down and see where it takes me.

Including whether or not and how the guilty are punished, of course.


It is morally equivalent to murder.

Of course, so is theft, burglary, assault, vandalism, kidnapping, and trespassing.

Rape maybe, but the others are nowhere near as bad as murder, especially trespassing.

Rape maybe, but the others are nowhere near as bad as murder, especially trespassing.

Wrong.

Property is morally and literally equivalent to life, so violating one's property is just as bad as violating one's body.

Wrong.

Property is morally and literally equivalent to life, so violating one's property is just as bad as violating one's body.

No it isn't.

It is you who are wrong on this point. Property is not equivalent to life.

It most certainly is.

Let's say I have a couch that cost me $100, and I make $10/hour.

That couch is now literally equivalent to ten hours of my life.

If you take that couch from me, you have taken ten hours of my life from me.

If I never get that couch back, it is as if you had murdered me ten hours before I would otherwise have died.

It most certainly is.

Let's say I have a couch that cost me $100, and I make $10/hour.

That couch is now literally equivalent to ten hours of my life.

If you take that couch from me, you have taken ten hours of my life from me.

If I never get that couch back, it is as if you had murdered me ten hours before I would otherwise have died.


And if he died as a result of murder then it should be considered a double homicide.

It most certainly is.

Let's say I have a couch that cost me $100, and I make $10/hour.

That couch is now literally equivalent to ten hours of my life.


10 hours of your life is not the same as every hour you've ever lived or will live. A loss of a couch is not the same as having your body torn apart by alligators at 5 years old.


If you take that couch from me, you have taken ten hours of my life from me.

If I never get that couch back, it is as if you had murdered me ten hours before I would otherwise have died.

Yeah. And if someone calls me on the phone and talks to me for 20 minutes and I don't want to, they are stealing 20 minutes of my time. Therefore, telephone calls are MURDER.

No. Your argument fails utterly.

1- Death penalty doesn't work unless we can be 100% sure that said person committed said crime.

2- If it's about revenge, keeping the person in jail for the rest of their lives and making the person work to pay for its stay works much better.

Death penalty DOES work. Those who are executed do not commit more crimes because they are dead.

I agree that life in jail sucks too but most of the time they spend 12-25 years fighting before they die so the death penality is the best of both worlds. I wish they terminated the guilty in the same fashion that their victims died.

10 hours of your life is not the same as every hour you've ever lived or will live.
It's the same as ten hours of one's life.

Let's say it's possible to predict, with absolute certainty, the precise moment when someone will naturally die. If someone then comes in and chops his head off ten hours before that time, is it any less of a murder just because he only had ten hours left?

A loss of a couch is not the same as having your body torn apart by alligators at 5 years old.
Assuming that the five-year-old would otherwise have lived more than ten hours past that point, of course not.

But it is the same as having your body torn apart by alligators ten hours before you would otherwise die.



Yeah. And if someone calls me on the phone and talks to me for 20 minutes and I don't want to, they are stealing 20 minutes of my time. Therefore, telephone calls are MURDER.

You are aware that you can choose whether or not to pick up the phone in the first place, or to hang it up anytime after that, whereas thieves typically don't ask if you care if they steal your stuff.

It's the same as ten hours of one's life.

Let's say it's possible to predict, with absolute certainty, the precise moment when someone will naturally die. If someone then comes in and chops his head off ten hours before that time, is it any less of a murder just because he only had ten hours left?

It is a murder because a person unlawfully killed another person. Not because a person's time was used. Otherwise, according to you, any time you use another person's time, you're killing them - an absurd position.

Assuming that the five-year-old would otherwise have lived more than ten hours past that point, of course not.

But it is the same as having your body torn apart by alligators ten hours before you would otherwise die.

No. Sorry, there is no way without a drastic infusion of psychoactives that I will be able to agree with you that losing a couch is the same as getting ripped apart by alligators. Regardless of the time you would "otherwise" die.

I mean really this is getting absurd enough that I suspect you're shitting everyone. What happens if you win a free couch? Was that morally equivalent to Jesus returning from the dead?

You are aware that you can choose whether or not to pick up the phone in the first place, or to hang it up anytime after that, whereas thieves typically don't ask if you care if they steal your stuff.

Theoretically I can choose to never answer the phone. This has bad practical outcomes however. Hanging up on certain people rudely is also impractical for various social reasons. And you are really dodging the question here. Let's say I *do* hang up on them after a few moments. But I have now lost time in my life, time I will not get back. They have murdered me, yes?

It is a murder because a person unlawfully killed another person. Not because a person's time was used.
Why is killing wrong, if not because it terminates one's life prematurely--in other words, because it takes from time that is rightfully his?

Otherwise, according to you, any time you use another person's time, you're killing them
Only if you do it without his consent.

Theoretically I can choose to never answer the phone. This has bad practical outcomes however. Hanging up on certain people rudely is also impractical for various social reasons. And you are really dodging the question here. Let's say I *do* hang up on them after a few moments. But I have now lost time in my life, time I will not get back. They have murdered me, yes?

No, because you could have always chosen not to pick up the phone. It doesn't matter if you might not have liked the result had you done so. You had a choice regardless.

No, because you could have always chosen not to pick up the phone. It doesn't matter if you might not have liked the result had you done so. You had a choice regardless.

and a murder victim made choices throughout his life that lead to him being there at the time and place to encounter the murderer.

Had he not made the choices he made, he would not have been murdered at that time in place.

A nonsensical justification for an absurd proposition.

Why is killing wrong, if not because it terminates one's life prematurely--in other words, because it takes from time that is rightfully his?

"Taking someone's time" is not equivalent to "terminating" life. Now if you really can't think of any other reason why murder is wrong then I'm afraid your argument is based on little more than your sociopathic inability to differentiate between a minute of someone's attention and a brutal homicide.

Only if you do it without his consent.

Utter nonsense.

No, because you could have always chosen not to pick up the phone. It doesn't matter if you might not have liked the result had you done so. You had a choice regardless.

The little girl could have chosen to run away from her father.

Therefore, she wasn't murdered. Nice.

Come back if you ever find a sense of morality other than wage-rate-per-hour, Stalin.

Just a reminder folks L&L does not represent all Hoosiers, though probably a majority of them.

That doesn't make sense. If everything is predetermined and outside one's control, then it doesn't matter if crimes are punished or not - what will be, will be.

Yes and no. By punishing people now hopefully this will create future conditions which are not conducive to law breaking.

Most people have an irrational (or rational, depending how you see it) tendency to cling to life simply because of instincts. So most people would endure, clinging also to the faint hope of being released or escaping prison. This does not justify it.

Justify what? I said that people should not be subjected to capital punishment, but that if they do want to die that should be able to. You said most people wouldn't take this- so be it...

For one thing, you could quit building on your own philosophical assumptions like some kind of masturbatory self-argument. Your philosophy, cute though it is, is not a demonstration in support of your arguments.

I don't know what else to tell you. Determinism is what I accept. Though even before I knew what it was I was against capital punishment because I value life highly enough that if the taking of someone's life against their will can be avoided it should be. We only get one life, and as unspeakable as some people's crimes are I've never been able to justify killing them in retaliation. I'm just a bleeding-heart lefty. :rolleyes:

So, rape is murder?

My bad, I should have said a barbaric act of murder.

No, I think I want to hear you claim that the murderer is just the same kind of victim as the 5 year old girl he fed to reptiles again. I want to know exactly why you think that culprit = victim. I want to see you type it again so I can laugh in your fucking face.

:rolleyes:

The kid had no choice in being murdered and suffering so horribly. Her murdered had no choice in the committing the crime. I know you don't agree with me, that's fine. We're going round in circles here but.

http://www.local10.com/news/14344768/detail.html



An approapriate sentence indeed. Dumping a 5 year old girl alive into a swamp infested with alligators should have warranted a more drastic sentence in my opinion.

This also raises the question on the death penalty: When the crime is as fucked up as this, shouldn't the offender be sentenced to death? Even worse? How can you morally defend the right to life of this man?

It's a shame the death penalty isn't as inhumane as what he did to that poor child. They should make him beg for death!

It really is a shame that he committed this in FL, a state with an optional, lethal injection death penalty...





























... And not the electric chair as its sole method of execution.


Because "kill" is not a crime. Murder is.

Perhaps you could tell me the difference between judicial execution of a murderer, and feeding five-year old girls to alligators.

If you can't see the difference then there's nothing more to be said.
Because it needs to be said again!