A Schizophrenic Murderer

[rigney]

"that you would not have the right to kill the attackers to stop the assault?"

Straw man alert!

To do something in order to stop them killing your family during an attack is not the same as killing the perpetrator, cold bloodedly, afterwards when it won't bring anyone back from the dead.

 

 

 

Fundamentally, I don't see how you can hope to be both a killer and morally better than a killer at the same time.

Since I can't be both, I know which I prefer to choose.

(for the record I don't see the moral difference between sentencing someone to death, killing them yourself, or handing them over to a judicial system that will kill them; it's like saying "I didn't kill him. The bullet I fired did that")

 

Cuthber, No one can be both God and Devil at the same time. I thank "Our Creator" that we are not a nation of fools. Rational people, yes! And people who can do what is necessary when our country deems it necessary. Could I push the button or pull a switch to end a human life? I really don't know since I've never been in that position. But the two who raped and murdered this mother, and then burn her two children to death!, I could cut their throats like winnowed hay and never wince, not even once! Yes, you might call my rationale cold, but it is not wussy.

Edited November 10, 2010 by rigney

[A Tripolation]

Because "I'm gonna hurt you because you hurt me!" is a sentiment that fits in a civilized society. Perhaps a society of 3 year olds.

 

Retribution. That's the sentiment. I love my family enough that it would elicit a violent reaction from me were they to be harmed in any way by malice. Some people do not.

 

Yet you've already said that jail is not a punishment. It's free room and board!

 

True. But I believe those people can be mended. I do not feel the same for killers or child molesters.

 

(for the record I don't see the moral difference between sentencing someone to death, killing them yourself, or handing them over to a judicial system that will kill them; it's like saying "I didn't kill him. The bullet I fired did that")

 

There most likely isn't one. I would rather kill the person that killed my family than let the courts let him linger for decades. I would want to see his death as quickly as possible.

 

I don't believe in war either, or soldiers killing each other.

 

There is no good in war. But there is good in why you fight a war. I'm personally glad that the Allies were able to stop Hitler with violence rather than being submissive.

 

Violence only respects violence. Or are you saying that any of the conquerors in history would've been stopped by kind words?

Edited November 11, 2010 by A Tripolation

[random]

Is the person who is extremely brutal in a murder more ill than one who kills humanely? Dahmer I believe was the one who thought pouring acid through a hole in the skull onto the frontal lobe would create a somewhat lobotomized sex "toy" That failing he killed and ate them. He was given life imprisonment though it could clearly be argued he was extremely mentally ill. In my opinion he was a monster but it wasn't his fault. So he does not deserve to die but society must protect society. Government likely spent more on plastic ice cream scoops and eccentricities than the cost of humanity in cases like these.

 

What about the mentally stable child molesters who are deemed significant risk to re-offend? They are released into society when it's been proven rehabilitation is useless. (should be castrated IMO before) Only to re-offend and be apprehended again and again.

 

A psychotic individual who is put into remission with medication is very unlikely to relapse while taking their medication. Soooooo it is in essence a rehabilitated individual whom at the time had no control over themselves and should not be held accountable for somthing which they had no control over. That's why we have charges like involuntary man slaughter and the like. But it needs to be guaranteed this person will not discontinue treatment and then become a significant risk to re-offend That's where the issue of trust come in isn't it?

Can we trust this person to not make an error in judgement?

[rigney]

Random, there are no mentally stable child molesters who are not deemed significant risks if you set them free. Releasing them back into society would be like setting a rabid fox loose in a hen house. Should they be castrated? No! You may "geld" a stallion that you want to ride, but you don't keep him around if he bucks you off even with his nuts removed. That one you make "dog food" out of. A child molester, you simply bury. A person that kills with reasoning, you may find compassion. But a flagrant murderer? You either bury them, or turn them into dog food.

Edited November 11, 2010 by rigney

[ewmon]

there are no mentally stable child molesters

And then there's the ever-widening insanity in the world ...

 

Diapers.com wants nothing to do with parent Amazon's pedophilia-philia

[rigney]

And then there's the ever-widening insanity in the world ...

 

Diapers.com wants nothing to do with parent Amazon's pedophilia-philia

 

Rigney: ewmon, Because of continuing misdeeds to an overall humanity, perhaps a higher power in this universe is taking mankind to an ultimate high of mental exasperation and degradation before pulling the plug and turning us into "Krispy Kritters"?

[A Tripolation]

Is anyone truly opposed to the death sentence for the perpetrators of this massacre?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638

 

One child had choked to death on toxic fumes and another had been strangled.

 

The Ametovs' niece Yelena, 19, and her nine-month-old daughter Amira, whom Ametov was holding when they were killed

 

I do not see how anyone would be capable of letting the murderers in this case live.

Edited November 11, 2010 by A Tripolation

[rigney]

Is anyone truly opposed to the death sentence for the perpetrators of this massacre?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638:I do not see how anyone would be capable of letting the murderers in this case live.

 

Quote by Rigney: Trip, as long as we have do-gooders, sob sisters and the ACLU bellowing that we are totally unfair to the criminal element and murderers in particular, there is damn little that can be done to correct the havoc. When the world majority finally says "Fuck It" and anarchy reigns, it will be too late for the wussasses, moaner and groaners and even what's left of our sanity.

Edited November 11, 2010 by rigney

[imatfaal]

Yes - I am really against the death sentence for these people - without even opening the link I am opposed to them being condemned to death. I am not going to enter the debate - mainly because these are deeply ingrained personal ethics that do not really translate to a forum debate; but I did want to let you know that many people have thought long and hard about cases such as these and remain opposed to any form of judicial death sentence for any crime.

 

 

PS you might want to edit the link - your ":I" are too close and forming part of the url and stop automatic opening of link

[rigney]

Yes - I am really against the death sentence for these people - without even opening the link I am opposed to them being condemned to death. I am not going to enter the debate - mainly because these are deeply ingrained personal ethics that do not really translate to a forum debate; but I did want to let you know that many people have thought long and hard about cases such as these and remain opposed to any form of judicial death sentence for any crime.

 

 

PS you might want to edit the link - your ":I" are too close and forming part of the url and stop automatic opening of link

 

Quote: Rigney. The line above leaves me a bit uncertain as to your meaning? Could you give me a little better understanding, since I'm not well versed in the Kings English?

 

Also, there's no need for you getting into the debate if that is your wish. Everyone has a blue eye and a brown eye when it comes to how they feel about criminal justice. Lord knows, we'd have another million or two on unimployment and welfare rolls here in this country without attorneys. Folks keep them in business by trying to distinguish between your principals and mine. Have a good one!.

Edited November 11, 2010 by rigney

[imatfaal]

Rigney - you started typing the sentence "I do not see how anyone...." without a space after the link. Therefore if you click the link it error 404s because it has :I appended to the end or the url. I realise I was more than a little cryptic...

You have a good one too

[A Tripolation]

Yes - I am really against the death sentence for these people - without even opening the link I am opposed to them being condemned to death. I am not going to enter the debate - mainly because these are deeply ingrained personal ethics that do not really translate to a forum debate; but I did want to let you know that many people have thought long and hard about cases such as these and remain opposed to any form of judicial death sentence for any crime.

 

I appreciate your wanting to let me know.

What do you propose we do with people like this?

[ydoaPs]

Is anyone truly opposed to the death sentence for the perpetrators of this massacre?

Yes.

[A Tripolation]

Yes.

 

And what do you propose we do with them? Expect someone who is capable of that level of violence to be repaired by being in jail for 20 years?

[rigney]

Rigney - you started typing the sentence "I do not see how anyone...." without a space after the link. Therefore if you click the link it error 404s because it has :I appended to the end or the url. I realise I was more than a little cryptic...

You have a good one too

 

In all honesty, I'm still lost. Told you, I'm not dealing witha literally full deck when it comes to fact. Which thread # was it. I'm curious?

[zapatos]

rigney -

 

In post #32 A Tripolation used the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638

 

When you replied to him in post #33 you started typing right next to the link like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638:I do not see how anyone would be capable of letting the murderers in this case live.

 

Which means the link that used to be

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638

and worked fine,

 

Now looks like

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638:I

and does not work because of the "I" at the end of the line.

 

That's all.

Edited November 11, 2010 by zapatos

[rigney]

rigney -

 

In post #32 A Tripolation used the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638

 

When you replied to him in post #33 you started typing right next to the link like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638:I do not see how anyone would be capable of letting the murderers in this case live.

 

Which means the link that used to be

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638

and worked fine,

 

Now looks like

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638:I

and does not work because of the "I" at the end of the line.

 

That's all.

 

Thanks Zap. Told you, I'm not fully into this new fangled thing. While I didn't make the statement, I did copy it and brought it into thread #33. A bit dumb. but I'm learning.

[ydoaPs]

And what do you propose we do with them? Expect someone who is capable of that level of violence to be repaired by being in jail for 20 years?

Because the choice between tossing them in a cell to be forgotten and killing them is a true dichotomy. Nice. Perhaps some actual rehabilitation is in order instead. Negative reinforcement does not work exactly the same on everyone; perhaps we should do some psychoanalysis to see what method of rehabilitation would be more apt to work well.

 

What about soldiers? They kill often without remorse(counting kills as a competition, etc). How is their actions less violent than that of a person who kills once? It seems to me that it all comes down to whether or not you agree with their justification for their actions.

[John Cuthber]

Can I ask what hat the figure of 20 years was drawn from?

 

Ever heard of a life sentence? Sometimes that's a literal description.

[rigney]

Because the choice between tossing them in a cell to be forgotten and killing them is a true dichotomy. Nice. Perhaps some actual rehabilitation is in order instead. Negative reinforcement does not work exactly the same on everyone; perhaps we should do some psychoanalysis to see what method of rehabilitation would be more apt to work well.

 

What about soldiers? They kill often without remorse(counting kills as a competition, etc). How is their actions less violent than that of a person who kills once? It seems to me that it all comes down to whether or not you agree with their justification for their actions.

 

quote by rigney: ydoaPs, You don't actually think those two lines exonerate you from your last watch on board? "Soldiers are soldiers, and relish in killing"? Get out'a of here! Evidently this wasn't something the Navy taught you?

Edited November 11, 2010 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

indecipherable content which disallowed the use of quote feature

Learn to use the quote feature.

[A Tripolation]

Because the choice between tossing them in a cell to be forgotten and killing them is a true dichotomy. Nice. Perhaps some actual rehabilitation is in order instead. Negative reinforcement does not work exactly the same on everyone; perhaps we should do some psychoanalysis to see what method of rehabilitation would be more apt to work well.

 

What about soldiers? They kill often without remorse(counting kills as a competition, etc). How is their actions less violent than that of a person who kills once? It seems to me that it all comes down to whether or not you agree with their justification for their actions.

 

Rehabilitation is rarely successful. And for someone in the armed forces, that surprised me. I assume that it's ok because they're..you know...shooting at you and trying to kill you.

 

And 20 years is the average-ish time served. More often than not "life" doesn't mean life. They get parole or a lessened sentence.

[Mr Skeptic]

And what do you propose we do with them? Expect someone who is capable of that level of violence to be repaired by being in jail for 20 years?

 

And what if you kill the wrong person? Nothing is ever 100% sure, you know. With a life sentence (or decades long sentence) at least they could be shown to be innocent and released. Me, I'm kind of torn between the fact that for death sentence there is much more difficulty to convict/condemn, to the extent that it costs about as much as life imprisonment, and the fact that life imprisonment is about as bad but requires less certainty, but can be canceled partway. (I consider life imprisonment a death sentence, death by old age)

[A Tripolation]

And what if you kill the wrong person? Nothing is ever 100% sure, you know. With a life sentence (or decades long sentence) at least they could be shown to be innocent and released. Me, I'm kind of torn between the fact that for death sentence there is much more difficulty to convict/condemn, to the extent that it costs about as much as life imprisonment, and the fact that life imprisonment is about as bad but requires less certainty, but can be canceled partway. (I consider life imprisonment a death sentence, death by old age)

 

If it were TRUE life sentence, I would consider that an acceptable punishment.

 

And the system is set up to prevent innocent people from being executed. That's why it takes decades to get through the process. And I'm only for the death penalty on sure-fire cases. Like the guy admits to doing it, or there's irrefutable evidence, ect ect.

[ydoaPs]

Retribution. That's the sentiment. I love my family enough that it would elicit a violent reaction from me were they to be harmed in any way by malice. Some people do not.

So, a man comes home from work to see his wife tied up and being raped. This man shoots and kills the unarmed rapist.

 

Should this man be killed?

 

Rehabilitation is rarely successful.

Indeed, let's keep all criminals locked up forever.

 

I assume that it's ok because they're..you know...shooting at you and trying to kill you.

Yes, how could I forget that our military is defensive rather than offensive? Wait a minute......