[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Appeal to emotion, not reason. Quite a left-wing tactic Headhunter.
Other than for treason, we should abolish the death penalty.
I am surprised you support it for treason. [/quote]
A crime against the nation, and one that attacks everyone in a way that murder, rape, etc. do not. Ames, Pollard and their ilk should have been executed.
Well, maybe they had an ineffective counsel or there bullet did not kill that officer.
We are talking about someones life here.
If people use those necessary safe guards to obstruct the process, so be it.
As I said on the other side of that continuum is a rope. Cheaper than a bullet, because you can use it several times.
God forbid we let the question of how many safe guards there are be decided on the criterion of making the death penalty economically efficient.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Some crimes are so heinous that, in my view, the perp has disqualified themselves from what I consider human. I would happily execute a mad dog or a rabid skunk — that’s how I feel about the guys who commited those crimes.
[/quote]
I think any time we reduce someone, no matter who and for what, to subhuman status, we’re in a bad place. Someone may be deserving of death, and we may even need to kill them, but that doesn’t make them less than human. It’s the same logic, ultimately, that justifies genocide or abortion.
[quote]orion wrote:
Well, maybe they had an ineffective counsel or there bullet did not kill that officer.
We are talking about someones life here.
If people use those necessary safe guards to obstruct the process, so be it.
As I said on the other side of that continuum is a rope. Cheaper than a bullet, because you can use it several times.
God forbid we let the question of how many safe guards there are be decided on the criterion of making the death penalty economically efficient.
[/quote]
False dichotomy. It’s not all-or-nothing. It wouldn’t be hard at all to accelerate the time limits on allowable appeals, or to get rid of frivolous appeals.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
orion wrote:
Well, maybe they had an ineffective counsel or there bullet did not kill that officer.
We are talking about someones life here.
If people use those necessary safe guards to obstruct the process, so be it.
As I said on the other side of that continuum is a rope. Cheaper than a bullet, because you can use it several times.
God forbid we let the question of how many safe guards there are be decided on the criterion of making the death penalty economically efficient.
False dichotomy. It’s not all-or-nothing. It wouldn’t be hard at all to accelerate the time limits on allowable appeals, or to get rid of frivolous appeals.[/quote]
Yes, if I thought that the death penalty was so necessary that I had to save it as an institution under all circumstances.
Since I don´t and think abandoning futile efforts like the WOD would free much needed court time to deal with really important questions, like taking somebodies life, I like the checks that are in place.
And your are right it isn´t either or, it is a continuum. That also means that every relaxation of standards makes it a little bit more likely that innocent people die. There is no point when it suddenly starts to happen ,every step in the direction you mentioned makes it more likely.
Ultimately you are arguing that a so and so large percentage of innocent deaths are acceptable to achieve whatever goals which is the mindset of the people you want to execute.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The sooner we get these creatures off the planet and into the hands of a just and vengeful God, the better. These creatures belong in Hell. It was God, my God, that created Hell for these types of beings. His will be done…
It was also your god that created those creatures. Shouldn’t he be held responsible?[/quote]
No. Humans have free will. The asshole who tortured the hiker for 3 days, keeping her tied up in the trunk of his car, could have just walked by her. The filth that killed the little girl could have stayed in his house that night.
I DO hope that, since these guys can’t be roasted by a flamethrower, the other cons will introduce these scum to a tiny glimmer of what their eternity will be like.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pedophiles dont scare me …
I assume you don’t have children.
Hey lets play the “take quotes out of context” game.
Zap Branigan wrote:
…don’t have children.
Hey, look at that, cutting off half the sentence kinda changes the whole meaning. Hm. I suppose “pedophiles dont scare me” is a lot different than “pedophiles dont scare me as much as peoples reactions to them”.
Even if I had children, I’d still be more concerned with living in a society where people would even think to give its government the right to torture.[/quote]
I understood your foolish point. You are more scared of people that post an emotional reaction to pedophilia and murder than murderous pedophiles.
You are very strange. Don’t have kids.
[quote]UB07 wrote:
What about the innocent guy wrongly accused/convicted?
When DNA evidence came on the scene, and exhonorated some of the executed, what happened to their right to life? Oops!
[/quote]
If the guy leads the police to the gravesite and then relishes telling of how the little girl or the young woman screamed in agony, its a pretty good bet that they’re NOT innocent.
I would certainly give someone the benefit of the doubt. However, if it is just beyond obvious that this person committed this heinous crime, I’d put 'em on a fast track to Hell.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
In your interactions with others, you are constantly victimizing others and also being made a victim by others, according to your relative positions in the social hierarchy. All human interactions are hierarchical. No person ever confronts another on “equal terms”. Power dynamics are at play in every decision, every conversation, every movement you make throughout your entire life.
The kicker is that the vast majority of human beings do not possess the intellectual or emotional capacity to understand what I have just written above. They follow a knee-jerk reaction dictated by their emotions whenever such subjects are raised. I’m unique in that this shit does not affect me. That makes me a candidate for the ruling class, believe it or not.
Remember:
The greatest crimes of a society are always perpetrated by those at the top and blamed on those at the bottom.
To understand this is to have what it takes to be a king among men.[/quote]
That was certainly one of the more fascinating reads I’ve ever seen here, I certainly grant you that. I see that you are ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, but Nietzsche/Schopenhauer forgot to include that humans have the capacity to love. The world is cruel and power-mad only in so far as we are willing to let it be so.
Reason (your view of it), based upon cruelty and hate, cannot endure as a system. The Soviet Union fell apart. The Nazis were crushed, as were the Japanese. Hate cannot defeat Justice.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
In your interactions with others, you are constantly victimizing others and also being made a victim by others, according to your relative positions in the social hierarchy. All human interactions are hierarchical. No person ever confronts another on “equal terms”. Power dynamics are at play in every decision, every conversation, every movement you make throughout your entire life.
The kicker is that the vast majority of human beings do not possess the intellectual or emotional capacity to understand what I have just written above. They follow a knee-jerk reaction dictated by their emotions whenever such subjects are raised. I’m unique in that this shit does not affect me. That makes me a candidate for the ruling class, believe it or not.
Remember:
The greatest crimes of a society are always perpetrated by those at the top and blamed on those at the bottom.
To understand this is to have what it takes to be a king among men.
That was certainly one of the more fascinating reads I’ve ever seen here, I certainly grant you that. I see that you are ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, but Nietzsche/Schopenhauer forgot to include that humans have the capacity to love. The world is cruel and power-mad only in so far as we are willing to let it be so.
Reason (your view of it), based upon cruelty and hate, cannot endure as a system. The Soviet Union fell apart. The Nazis were crushed, as were the Japanese. Hate cannot defeat Justice.
[/quote]
Don’t encourage this guy. I suspected he was a sociopath when he was posting as Al Shades and this insight he provided just furthers my belief.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
To understand this is to have what it takes to be a king among men.[/quote]
“I regret having grown old in service to my country.”
— George Washington
Washington was putting down a planned march on the government by his men. He started to read a letter to them, then reached for his spectacles. That ended the rebellion. His men wept.
This is America. No kings here, just men.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pedophiles dont scare me …
I assume you don’t have children.
Hey lets play the “take quotes out of context” game.
Zap Branigan wrote:
…don’t have children.
Hey, look at that, cutting off half the sentence kinda changes the whole meaning. Hm. I suppose “pedophiles dont scare me” is a lot different than “pedophiles dont scare me as much as peoples reactions to them”.
Even if I had children, I’d still be more concerned with living in a society where people would even think to give its government the right to torture.
I understood your foolish point. You are more scared of people that post an emotional reaction to pedophilia and murder than murderous pedophiles.
You are very strange. Don’t have kids.[/quote]
I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.
[/quote]
De facto what’s the difference between this and a life sentence in jail?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.
De facto what’s the difference between this and a life sentence in jail?
[/quote]
A life sentence in jail is a way of protecting society from them without going against basic human rights and decency.
Before anyone speaks up about me “defending” anyone, I’ll reiterate that its not a matter of what they do, its a matter of what we do.
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.
BostonBarrister wrote:
De facto what’s the difference between this and a life sentence in jail?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A life sentence in jail is a way of protecting society from them without going against basic human rights and decency.
Before anyone speaks up about me “defending” anyone, I’ll reiterate that its not a matter of what they do, its a matter of what we do. [/quote]
You didn’t address my question. I asked what was the difference, de facto, between a life sentence in jail for a child molester and sentencing them to beatings and rapings. You answered with something about one intent of a life sentence.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.
BostonBarrister wrote:
De facto what’s the difference between this and a life sentence in jail?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A life sentence in jail is a way of protecting society from them without going against basic human rights and decency.
Before anyone speaks up about me “defending” anyone, I’ll reiterate that its not a matter of what they do, its a matter of what we do.
You didn’t address my question. I asked what was the difference, de facto, between a life sentence in jail for a child molester and sentencing them to beatings and rapings. You answered with something about one intent of a life sentence.
[/quote]
Do prisons not have guards to break up fights or rapes? Can a prisoner not be confined from the others for his or her own protection?
Your question seems to assume that a life sentence in jail automatically translates to a lifetime of beatings and rape, whereas this is not true.
I suppose it “could” happen that the prison guards would take it upon themselves to protect a convicted child rapist from the other prisoners. I suppose it “could” happen that individuals who hurt children weren’t subject to massive amounts of abuse, including rapes and beatings, inside of prisons. But this would go against everything I’ve ever read on the subject.
So, again, de facto, what is the difference? Fill in the part that leads to “whereas this is not true.”
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.
BostonBarrister wrote:
De facto what’s the difference between this and a life sentence in jail?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A life sentence in jail is a way of protecting society from them without going against basic human rights and decency.
Before anyone speaks up about me “defending” anyone, I’ll reiterate that its not a matter of what they do, its a matter of what we do.
BostonBarrister wrote:
You didn’t address my question. I asked what was the difference, de facto, between a life sentence in jail for a child molester and sentencing them to beatings and rapings. You answered with something about one intent of a life sentence.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Do prisons not have guards to break up fights or rapes? Can a prisoner not be confined from the others for his or her own protection?
Your question seems to assume that a life sentence in jail automatically translates to a lifetime of beatings and rape, whereas this is not true.
I suppose it “could” happen that the prison guards would take it upon themselves to protect a convicted child rapist from the other prisoners. I suppose it “could” happen that individuals who hurt children weren’t subject to massive amounts of abuse, including rapes and beatings, inside of prisons. But this would go against everything I’ve ever read on the subject.
So, again, de facto, what is the difference? Fill in the part that leads to “whereas this is not true.”
[/quote]
But somewhere, over the rainbow, there is a little alpine country where prisoners aren`t assraped.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I was speaking about the ones who literally suggest the government be given the right to torture them, or “beat and rape them every day”, or other such punishments. The idea of something like that being a reality scares me more.
BostonBarrister wrote:
De facto what’s the difference between this and a life sentence in jail?
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A life sentence in jail is a way of protecting society from them without going against basic human rights and decency.
Before anyone speaks up about me “defending” anyone, I’ll reiterate that its not a matter of what they do, its a matter of what we do.
BostonBarrister wrote:
You didn’t address my question. I asked what was the difference, de facto, between a life sentence in jail for a child molester and sentencing them to beatings and rapings. You answered with something about one intent of a life sentence.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Do prisons not have guards to break up fights or rapes? Can a prisoner not be confined from the others for his or her own protection?
Your question seems to assume that a life sentence in jail automatically translates to a lifetime of beatings and rape, whereas this is not true.
I suppose it “could” happen that the prison guards would take it upon themselves to protect a convicted child rapist from the other prisoners. I suppose it “could” happen that individuals who hurt children weren’t subject to massive amounts of abuse, including rapes and beatings, inside of prisons. But this would go against everything I’ve ever read on the subject.
So, again, de facto, what is the difference? Fill in the part that leads to “whereas this is not true.”
[/quote]
sigh
You’re right, theres no difference. As such, the government should, instead of pretending that it doesnt happen, encourage other inmates to beat and rape child molesters. They could even issue them nonlethal weapons and giant dildos, you know, just in case they aren’t feeling ‘up’ to the rape part of the deal. The inmates that beat them the worst, or rape them the most, will be considered acting in “good behavior”.
Also, child molesters (even if they are only suspect) will be subjected to torture from the government.
Following this lead, every other crime that causes people to become passionate and irrational will carry as strict a pentalty. The government will eventually have the right to torture anyone for suspecion of just about anything, and dole out whatever punishments angry mobs deem appropriate.
Is that what you want to hear?
You’re right, theres no difference. You win?
[quote]storey420 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Appeal to emotion, not reason. Quite a left-wing tactic Headhunter.
Other than for treason, we should abolish the death penalty.
I’m not trying to flame you but I just do not understand the logic here. Do you actually think a man that raped a child and then buried her alive will EVER be rehabilitated and an adjusted, functioning, productive member of society? [/quote]
Perhaps a career in politics?