Ok, so, i recently read an article that suggested the majority of the British public are all for capital punishment with regards to the most severe of crimes (Ian Huntley anyone?) So when i read about the miscreant who was killed today, i thought it was good news personally.

I even made a facebook group to show the Chinese that we are not all (in fact more than half of us if you read the stats) against the death penalty.

Especially for scumbag heroin pushers that have no history of mental illness.

If anyone wants to join, crack on. I will send it to the Chinese Embassy in London with a box of sweets!

http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=222496463315


Now thats the good stuff over, i have to agree with some of the liberal types. Another thread regarding this matter was trollish to the extreme. And yes, some Americans (again, not the majority, as i have loads of great American military friends and a missus to boot) are ridiculous Hypocrites.

At least i am an equal opportunities executor! Some of you guys are all "waaa waaa Amanda Knox" when the woman is clearly a human toilet, and yet you celebrate when a British scumbag is executed.

I am more than happy to flush all scum away, in fact, i think i like it when its British scum slightly more, because i know it annoys my handwringing liberal countrymen.

Actually, that makes me think of a second question, who honestly cares about nationality anyway?! I loved almost all the soldiers i served with way more than bleeding heart civvies from my own country. I am genuinely not feeling this bizarre loyalty to your "country" isnt it just lines on a map anyway?

I would far rather go for a pint with a centre right ex military Atheist from France than with a lefty tree hugging hippy from Middlesbrough any day of the week!

So there are two questions, firstly, do you think capital punishment is a good idea? And secondly, do you actually care what nationality people are, and if so, why? Would you rather go for a pint with someone you have alot in common with from a foreign (or even histroically hostile) nation, or someone you know you would dislike from your local area?

Im against the death penalty. Its hypercritical and frankly its barbaric.

Another thread regarding this matter was trollish to the extreme.

(gets banhammer back out) Did you just call me a troll?

EDIT. I'm ok with anyone except Leichtensteinians. Those ers will pay for their evil ways!

Your not a troll Frazz, your a thoroughly decent chap who thoroughly agrees with saving the taxpayers alot of money like me right?

mattyrm wrote:Your not a troll Frazz, your a thoroughly decent chap who thoroughly agrees with saving the taxpayers alot of money like me right?

Ok.
In reply to your query:

about sums it up.

LL, why is it barbaric?

Dont you think that it might have been in the past but now maybe it is less so?

My argument is that if there can be any shadow of doubt, we can merely jail them. If they can be rehabilited we can merely jail them. We can merely jail them if they are mentally ill, terminally ill, or there was some kind of circumstances that led to it.

However, someone who kills little kids like Huntley, can NEVER be rehabilitated, NEVER be released and NEVER "cured"

Also, a lethal injection is hardly barbaric, and finally i would say that DNA evidence and CCTV can in 2009 make us 100% sure of guilt in some cases. If were only 99.99% certain, then lets just jail them.

But i fail to see the sense in not killing some of the slime we keep alive and comfortable.

I feel that the death penalty is not good enough for certain criminals. Sure kill the average murderers and rapist, my only stipulation is that we have really good proof (as in a video or what not) and that we do it quickly and cheaply (in fact we should charge there estate for the cost of killing them).


But for terrorist/serial killers/ and pedophiles we need to come up with something far worse.

Perhaps public castration, followed by a life time of hard labor in some salt mine, with no tools.

The fella on the plane on Christmas day?

I'd put a bullet in him myself and I'd be thinking about all those other folks who were on that plane and all their families.

Stompa, killing a suicide bound terrorist is the wrong answer. You are just playing into there hands, read my post above.

I'd rather die then be jailed for life.

Its barbaric, because you are killing somone, even if you use a injection. I mean, are we as a society, saying its to ok to kill people, if they commit a crime, so horrible, that they have they to be removed from society or be killed.

I'd rather die then be jailed for life.

Thats because you live a cushy middle class or higher life.



Try being homeless for a year... Jail looks really tempting, free food, a warm bed, free cable, arts can crafts, a weight room, a library, also how about a pharmacy that gives free meds!


Also on a side note all the anal sex you could want!

Against the DP full stop, also think all drugs sould be legalised.... Also I dont agree with the concept of nations and national identity.

Matty (AKA 'Judas') wrote:I would far rather go for a pint with a centre right ex military Atheist from France than with a lefty tree hugging hippy from Middlesbrough any day of the week!

MATE!!?!

That hurts.

Actually, I'm not really that 'left' or 'right' in any definitive sense... I support the DP for SOME crimes, and stricter immigration policy - I also support legalisation of all narcotics, and am resolutely Pro-Choice with regard to abortion.

But I have never hugged a tree.


Ever.

Life in prison is simply death by time. If we can say that someone is no longer fit for human contact, then we ought to have the moral fortitude to take them out quickly and cleanly.

There are crimes from which no rehabilitation is possible, and no punishment strong enough. In those cases, our society must protect itself from the dangerous degenerates that have forfeited their right to life.

Personally, I support expanding the death penalty to serious repeat offenders- 3 felonies within 5 nonconsecutive years of time outside of prison and you're executed would be sufficiently lenient.

@ Matt,
I'm pretty much with you on this one. I don't care where the person is from. A scumbag is a scumbag a should be executed if they deserve it.

Lord-Loss wrote:I mean, are we as a society, saying its to ok to kill people, if they commit a crime, so horrible, that they have they to be removed from society or be killed.

yes... yes we are. there are some folk that are not redeemable so why keep them here? imho we should follow the court hearings up immediately with the executions. they should have a rope "out back" to deliver the sentence. hell, the death sentence can mean many years on death row alone. i dont think we execute enough people honestly. how many "rehabilitated" people have we seen go out and commit the same crime if not worse? execute them and feed them to the jail population... try to get something out of them at least.
well ok, maybe not the last bit but it's terrible. why do we have guys in jail for life that have committed terrible acts? what purpose does them being there serve besides leeching off of an overburdened system?
and yes, i know mistakes are made and innocent people are convicted of crimes that they didnt commit but id rather have that than the flip side of that.

edited to agree with gitzbitah...

I had a conversation about this with the gf last night actually. We started talking about the Casey Anthoney trial in florida. If you don't know, it's the woman who allegedly killed her toddler and drove around partying with the decomposing body in her trunk. Then she allegedly ditched the poor baby in the swamp. She also did alot of other really crazy things.... needless to say it kept Nancy Grace in business for a long time.
Anyways, my gf said that the woman should be kept in jail for her entire life, basically forced to live with what she had done, and never know freedom again. I said that that was stupid, why should the taxpayers pay for her lifelong incarceration, just to satisfy some need for vengance.
Justice, imho, in this case would be to let the father of the little girl cut this chick's head off himself, but barring that, just execute her and be done. A life of incarceration won't bring the little girl back, it merely satisfies the need for vengance. And more importantly, I don't believe the mother regrets the murder, so there is no guarantee the "punishment" will work. Plus it costs good citizens, and non-murderers alot of fecking money to keep somebody locked up for the rest of their life.
So I am for the death-penalty in cases where the charge is murder, and the proof is undeniable. It's stupid for my tax money to go towards supporting the continued existence of somebody who has destroyed a part of my society.

Lord-Loss wrote:I'd rather die then be jailed for life.

Its barbaric, because you are killing somone, even if you use a injection.

So it's better to die than be jailed for life, but executing someone is "barbaric" while jailing for life is not?

That doesn't make any sense. If we don't look to how the prisoner suffers in determining "barbaric" punishments what are we supposed to look at? Aesthetics? What sounds good on paper?

I mean, are we as a society, saying its to ok to kill people, if they commit a crime, so horrible, that they have they to be removed from society or be killed.

What's wrong with that? As Gitzbitah said, life in prison is death in free society. How about if we put criminals into a 50 year coma instead? Is it okay to destroy them now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necroplaya wrote:Against the DP full stop, also think all drugs sould be legalised.... Also I dont agree with the concept of nations and national identity.

How is an anarchic society going to support a prison system?

You started a facebook page to talk about how china, a country that executes more than the rest of the world combined annually might not be against capital punishment?

Classy. You are classy.

I'm for the death penalty in cases where the offense is extreme or the chance of rehabilitation is exceptionally low. Prison reform is much more important than killing prisoners though, until you realize where the hinges on the revolving door of western punishment is you can't fix it, and offing tones of people doesn't actually solve anything (as chinas growing crime, drug, and unrest statistics indicate).

Against the DP full stop, also think all drugs sould be legalised.... Also I dont agree with the concept of nations and national identity.

Bawwwwww, look at the cute anarchist.

There's the case of the 100 year old pedophile being released that has a lot of people pissed. Even at 100, the son of a bitch can still do damage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/11/national/main5966563.shtml

How much damage? I mean seriously, if that guy does something stupid, and a parent catches him (how did they not know? HOW?) he is bound to get a smack that will put him out of his misery.

ONE. HUNDRED. YEARS. OLD. Have you any idea how old that actually is? He should have been sentenced to life, but the judge made a mistake, take up your angst with her (I think it was a lady Judge). Dude is not going anywhere fast, and those that actually are worried about what he could do, need only stay informed about his whereabouts... which are bound to stay quite limited in variation.

Oh... the OP...

Hmmm... to be perfectly honest I really don't care that much. I basically oppose the DP unless statistics show that enforcing it, actually reduces crime. When it comes to saying, 'Get rid of all of them', which is basically the sentiment I hear quite often; I simply can't take it seriously. If you want to save tax-payer money, work on rehabilitating criminals that actually stand a chance of recovery, instead of continuing a cycle that leads to career criminals using prisons as a vacation home. Well... not that nice, but it could definitely be much nicer than homelessness in a bad area.

Wrexasaur wrote:How much damage? I mean seriously, if that guy does something stupid, and a parent catches him (how did they not know? HOW?) he is bound to get a smack that will put him out of his misery.

ONE. HUNDRED. YEARS. OLD. Have you any idea how old that actually is? He should have been sentenced to life, but the judge made a mistake, take up your angst with her (I think it was a lady Judge). Dude is not going anywhere fast, and those that actually are worried about what he could do, need only stay informed about his whereabouts... which are bound to stay quite limited in variation.

Until you have studied about how children can be sexually molested or experienced the molestation of one of your children, you have no clue what you're talking about.
As the article stated, he was a grandfatherly type that was trusted. People like that use the trust they foster to get their victims to a place where they can perform whatever outrage takes their fancy. Sexual fondling can mess a kid up almost as much as an actual rape. A lot of times these peices of crap try to tell their victims they just imagined what happened or what happened was good, but should be kept "secret". Other times they just use fear or intimidation. It all depends on circumstances.

I'm for killing the whole lot.

I'm not really for the death penalty. not for any political reasons or because I'm a hippy, but more like feel like death for some crimes is too much of an easy way out and a far harsher penalty would be to be forced to spend your life locked in a cell 23 hours a day with a fat, tatooed cellmate named Bubba who will turn your butt into his own personal spooge receptacle every night.

Because Orkeo, being jailed for life is called 'punishment'. Death shouldnt be punishment, its more like a release then a punishment anyway. I think high security prisons, where the prisoner if put in isolation, for the rest of there life.

How can something be barbaric if it fails to even qualify as a punishment?

Ok so I have stated my opinons before in my beliefs of for capital punishment, but for those of you who have missed them AHH HMMM cough cough!!!!

First off we tape the persons mouth shut and string them up tightly. You will want the arms and legs to be tied down so as to not generate much kicking, and what could result in some nice person getting hurt. Once the person is well tied up hanging in the middle of the room the executioner will come in and take a black perminate marker to the criminals major arteries(however that is spelled). Then the family will be brought and and told they get to take turns cutting the guy wuith box cutters or razor blades, but they are not allowed to cut anywhere on or near the black lines. After about an hour or so the exectioner comes in and slits the dudes neck. All this should be viewed and sold on PPV for $29.99. I think the murder rate would drop.... HEAVILY. OO and yes I really do think this because to me if you commit a crime against god and humanity so severe you de3serve the death penalty then you have foregone all rights as a person since you took the life of another.I say kill them quickly after trial, and just to be nice give their family a $5.00 bucks you know, for their trouble.

Executing terrorists is stupid, as its works against the ultimate goal of putting a stop to terrorism. Given that, I don't see how any Western nation can reasonably expect to make use of the death penalty in cases where the offender is a citizen. At least not without a great deal of negative sentiment being directed at the state.

Orkeosaurus wrote:How can something be barbaric if it fails to even qualify as a punishment of any sort?

Depends on the punishment.

Empchild wrote:Ok so I have stated my opinons before in my beliefs of for capital punishment, but for those of you who have missed them AHH HMMM cough cough!!!!

First off we tape the persons mouth shut and string them up tightly. You will want the arms and legs to be tied down so as to not generate much kicking, and what could result in some nice person getting hurt. Once the person is well tied up hanging in the middle of the room the executioner will come in and take a black perminate marker to the criminals major arteries(however that is spelled). Then the family will be brought and and told they get to take turns cutting the guy wuith box cutters or razor blades, but they are not allowed to cut anywhere on or near the black lines. After about an hour or so the exectioner comes in and slits the dudes neck. All this should be viewed and sold on PPV for $29.99. I think the murder rate would drop.... HEAVILY. OO and yes I really do think this because to me if you commit a crime against god and humanity so severe you de3serve the death penalty then you have foregone all rights as a person since you took the life of another.I say kill them quickly after trial, and just to be nice give their family a $5.00 bucks you know, for their trouble.

You sound like someone that wants to move to china.

Relapse wrote:
Until you have studied about how children can be sexually molested or experienced the molestation of one of your children, you have no clue what you're talking about.
As the article stated, he was a grandfatherly type that was trusted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/11/national/main5966563.shtml wrote:Sypnier was released on parole in 2007, only to be returned to prison in 2008 after failing to attend sex-offender counseling. He completed his term in November and will be on parole through 2012. Until then, he's forbidden from using e-mail, chat rooms or social networking sites, hanging around playgrounds or schools, or spending time in bars.

Instead, he spends his days watching television, cooking, socializing in the halfway house and attending programming, King said.

Sypnier's new address has not been disclosed, but the law requires him to enter it in the state's sex offender registry.

Although his age makes him New York's oldest registered sex offender, there is at least one older offender elsewhere. Bert Jackson of Utah is 103 and living under home confinement.

Home confinement, problem solved.

'Not knowing' the inner workings of a Pedo-bear, has very little bearing on the fact that this guy is a century old, and the grease in his bones is drying up quick. There are a million and a half ways for both parents, and authorities, to effectively keep this guy from causing any more harm. Belittling what knowledge you think I have, changes none of those possibilities.

And yes, at the age of one hundred years old, along with a huge media following (that is likely to wain along with the outrage, and has already begun to do so.), any parent (ANY PARENT) should have the knowledge, and reasoning skills to keep a person like that out of their lives. Creepy old Grandpa comes up at the Grocery store and tries to make in with your family... Nice try fella', I have no seat at my table for you.

Relapse wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:How much damage? I mean seriously, if that guy does something stupid, and a parent catches him (how did they not know? HOW?) he is bound to get a smack that will put him out of his misery.

ONE. HUNDRED. YEARS. OLD. Have you any idea how old that actually is? He should have been sentenced to life, but the judge made a mistake, take up your angst with her (I think it was a lady Judge). Dude is not going anywhere fast, and those that actually are worried about what he could do, need only stay informed about his whereabouts... which are bound to stay quite limited in variation.

Until you have studied about how children can be sexually molested or experienced the molestation of one of your children, you have no clue what you're talking about.
As the article stated, he was a grandfatherly type that was trusted. People like that use the trust they foster to get their victims to a place where they can perform whatever outrage takes their fancy. Sexual fondling can mess a kid up almost as much as an actual rape. A lot of times these peices of crap try to tell their victims they just imagined what happened or what happened was good, but should be kept "secret". Other times they just use fear or intimidation. It all depends on circumstances.

I'm for killing the whole lot.

Word.

A whole lot of people have been exonerated by evidence which came to light later. Especially since the introduction of DNA evidence.

If you lock a person up for life in error, a monumental injustice has still occurred, but there remains a chance that they will eventually be exonerated. If they are executed, there is no such chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

@Wrex,

By your comments, it seems like you don't have the knowledge.
I have had both occasion to study these people and have had experience with them. I can tell you from both, that a lot of these people are dangerous predators that can camaflauge themselves well enough to work into positions of trust where they can strike. The guy in an overcoat handing out candy in a playground is only a part of number of this kind of scum.
The man in the article is 100 years old, but is an outlyer for the physical capabilities of that age group. I had a great uncle, who at 98, was still out digging irrigation ditches and had never been sick a day in his life.

Word.

Because clearly being emotionally involved makes you better able to make rational decisions.

By your comments, it seems like you don't have the knowledge.
I have had both occasion to study these people and have had experience with them. I can tell you from both, that a lot of these people are dangerous predators that can camaflauge themselves well enough to work into positions of trust where they can strike. The guy in an overcoat handing out candy in a playground is only a part of number of this kind of scum.
The man in the article is 100 years old, but is an outlyer for the physical capabilities of that age group. I had a great uncle, who at 98, was still out digging irrigation ditches and had never been sick a day in his life.

Then do a better job rehabilitating them. Honestly the answers are pretty god damn easy to come by, people just don't want to bother when throwing criminals into a giant box with eachother works so damn well now.

Lord-Loss wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:How can something be barbaric if it fails to even qualify as a punishment of any sort?

Depends on the punishment.

I said "of any sort", although I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say here.

Either death is worse than life in prison and the sentence will instill more fear into people or death is better than life in prison and it's less barbaric. It can't be both more barbaric and less painful. Unless you're just using "barbaric" to mean "bad".

Since the DP doesn't really accomplish our goal in regards to Islamic Terrorists I propose the following: Give them a sex change, wrap them in pigskin and send them home.

Relapse wrote:@Wrex,

By your comments, it seems like you don't have the knowledge.
I have had both occasion to study these people and have had experience with them. I can tell you from both, that a lot of these people are dangerous predators that can camaflauge themselves well enough to work into positions of trust where they can strike. The guy in an overcoat handing out candy in a playground is only a part of number of this kind of scum.
The man in the article is 100 years old, but is an outlyer for the physical capabilities of that age group. I had a great uncle, who at 98, was still out digging irrigation ditches and had never been sick a day in his life.

So we have a super-human centenarian, who by all measures, should be amongst the most manageable offenders ever... on the face of the whole planet. This super-human centenarian is so freaking ninja-like, that taking measures to actually stop him, are all in vain. No action can stop this Juggernaut of a man, no power can stand up to his super-human might.

I mean really though, it just sounds like people don't know how to do their jobs, or don't care to.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It can't be both more barbaric and less painful. Unless you're just using "barbaric" to mean "bad".

Barbaric just means relatively wild, or uncivilized. A punishment can be more barbaric in that its based entirely on an emotional response, and less painful in that, were emotion not the driving force, a more painful response could be formulated. Though I don't think that's what Lord-loss was trying to say.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Word.

Because clearly being emotionally involved makes you better able to make rational decisions.

By your comments, it seems like you don't have the knowledge.
I have had both occasion to study these people and have had experience with them. I can tell you from both, that a lot of these people are dangerous predators that can camaflauge themselves well enough to work into positions of trust where they can strike. The guy in an overcoat handing out candy in a playground is only a part of number of this kind of scum.
The man in the article is 100 years old, but is an outlyer for the physical capabilities of that age group. I had a great uncle, who at 98, was still out digging irrigation ditches and had never been sick a day in his life.

Then do a better job rehabilitating them. Honestly the answers are pretty god damn easy to come by, people just don't want to bother when throwing criminals into a giant box with eachother works so damn well now.

You really don't seem to understand when I say these guys can camaflauge themselves. They can tell a parole board anything they want to hear and point to being a model prisoner as proof of their right to release. Not much opportunity to rape children while locked in PC, though, so of course there havn't been any offenses.
Watch to Hell out when they get released, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Relapse wrote:@Wrex,

By your comments, it seems like you don't have the knowledge.
I have had both occasion to study these people and have had experience with them. I can tell you from both, that a lot of these people are dangerous predators that can camaflauge themselves well enough to work into positions of trust where they can strike. The guy in an overcoat handing out candy in a playground is only a part of number of this kind of scum.
The man in the article is 100 years old, but is an outlyer for the physical capabilities of that age group. I had a great uncle, who at 98, was still out digging irrigation ditches and had never been sick a day in his life.

So we have a super-human centenarian, who by all measures, should be amongst the most manageable offenders ever... on the face of the whole planet. This super-human centenarian is so freaking ninja-like, that taking measures to actually stop him, are all in vain. No action can stop this Juggernaut of a man, no power can stand up to his super-human might.

I mean really though, it just sounds like people don't know how to do their jobs, or don't care to.

Easy to say until it's your kid that gets molested.

Easy to say when people are not doing their jobs...

Judge makes a huge mistake, and every parent in the country needs to worry? No... we need to worry about the fact that a person like this is considered unstoppable (giving the archetype the power that they crave); we need to worry about why it is so difficult for professionals to actually accomplish something worthwhile. House arrest indefinitely, supervision if needed.

These things are not that complicated, and being apathetic about our prospects in dealing with such issues is just irresponsible.

Relapse wrote:
Easy to say until it's your kid that gets molested.

Yes, it is. That doesn't mean any given person should judge any possible child molester as though he might have molested their child. That's pretty much precisely what the justice system is set up to avoid. It doesn't exist to be your personal catharsis machine.

Wrexasaur wrote:Easy to say when people are not doing their jobs...

You can't reform pedofiles.

Since the DP doesn't really accomplish our goal in regards to Islamic Terrorists I propose the following: Give them a sex change, wrap them in pigskin and send them home.

There's a reason no one is rushing to have you as a foreign security advisor.

You really don't seem to understand when I say these guys can camaflauge themselves. They can tell a parole board anything they want to hear and point to being a model prisoner as proof of their right to release. Not much opportunity to rape children while locked in PC, though, so of course there havn't been any offenses.
Watch to Hell out when they get released, though.

Hyperbolic fearmongering! And without supporting evidence or even arguments! Wonderful.

Easy to say until it's your kid that gets molested.

WATCH YOUR KIDS DAWG, UNCLE RELAPSE WARNED US A PEDOS ON THE LOOSE!

You can't reform pedofiles.

Incorrect, they just have a higher rate of repeat offense once released, meaning that measures need to be taken in ensuring rehabilitation (and watching those released to make sure they don't re offend). Both of which are already done. It's not as if sexual assault against minors is on the rise or is above an acceptable level, though you guys sure seem to make it seem that way.

One immediately can tell Shuma has no kids or he would shut the feth up.

The point of what I'm saying is that there are people that will never be able to be rehabilitated and all evedence says that even at 100, this guy should never be allowed to walk the streets no matter what people think his capabilities for molestation are.

@Wrex, I have to say this to you, when you have kids, guard them close, because with your preconceptions of what people can and can't do, you will have an incident to deal with otherwise.

Frazzled wrote:One immediately can tell Shuma has no kids or he would shut the feth up.

I don't have any kids, it's true, and I'm glad you can make such a concise and compelling argument with that information in hand.

The point of what I'm saying is that there are people that will never be able to be rehabilitated and all evedence says that 100, this guy should never be allowed to walk the streets no matter what people think his capabilities for molestation are.

Oddly enough, I actually agree with you. Had you managed to state your opinions in such a way earlier I wouldn't have disagreed (well not in the same way). Your arguing about capability was pretty poor though, you should have used the concept of unreformed but incapable still being unreformed (though judging by the other article posted he may well have reformed, once again putting this into the camp of none of our fething business).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:One immediately can tell Shuma has no kids or he would shut the feth up.

I don't have any kids, it's true, and I'm glad you can make such a concise and compelling argument with that information in hand.

its brilliance was quite astounding wasn't it.

He has a point shuma.
Having a different viewpoint on a discussion alters what you will say on the topic.
If the topic is about this kind of thing, then people who do have kids will respond alot more harshly towards it.


Now, i have no kids, but i still think a pedo should be executed in public.

Frazzled wrote:
You can't reform pedofiles.

If it is indeed comparable to homosexuality, and if homosexuality is indeed a genetically determined behavior, then this is true. That being said, not all child molesters are pedophiles.

Frazzled wrote:One immediately can tell Shuma has no kids or he would shut the feth up.

Since when did emotional proximity to an issue make you a more qualified judge of appropriate punishment?

JD21290 wrote:He has a point shuma.
Having a different viewpoint on a discussion alters what you will say on the topic.
If the topic is about this kind of thing, then people who do have kids will respond alot more harshly towards it.


Now, i have no kids, but i still think a pedo should be executed in public.

Plus I just realize your avatar may start seizures the world over. Excellent!

Necros wrote:I'm not really for the death penalty. not for any political reasons or because I'm a hippy, but more like feel like death for some crimes is too much of an easy way out and a far harsher penalty would be to be forced to spend your life locked in a cell 23 hours a day with a fat, tatooed cellmate named Bubba who will turn your butt into his own personal spooge receptacle every night.

Why should the society this person has damaged continue to pay for their "punishment?" Who's to say that the punishment is even working? Sometimes these people feel no remorse for their actions, even after years of "punishment." Charlie Manson comes to mind. I don't see the dp as a punishment, it's more like justice. We shouldn't be concerned so much with "making criminals pay" so we can feel better about ourselves.

Having a different viewpoint on a discussion alters what you will say on the topic.
If the topic is about this kind of thing, then people who do have kids will respond alot more harshly towards it.

Hence why these cases are decided by a jury of impartial peers and not the local PTA.

ShumaGorath wrote:[

Easy to say until it's your kid that gets molested.

WATCH YOUR KIDS DAWG, UNCLE RELAPSE WARNED US A PEDOS ON THE LOOSE!

As someone who had a 3 year old molested in what was supposed to be a guarded enviorment, I will tell people there are pedos on the loose. I had to edit this a couple of times to make a more civil response to your ignorance.

Relapse wrote:The point of what I'm saying is that there are people that will never be able to be rehabilitated and all evedence says that even at 100, this guy should never be allowed to walk the streets no matter what people think his capabilities for molestation are.

@Wrex, I have to say this to you, when you have kids, guard them close, because with your preconceptions of what people can and can't do, you will have an incident to deal with otherwise.

My children are going to get molested by a stranger because of what I have said in this thread? A paranoid mind could almost take that as a threat of sorts...

Anyway... By your logic, all of the children in my immediate family should be scared gakless by this mans presence. No... not at all. This guy is scum, I will not give him anymore power.

dogma wrote:Since when did emotional proximity to an issue make you a more qualified judge of appropriate punishment?

Internet winz!

hardly

Plus I just realize your avatar may start seizures the world over. Excellent!

I try my best

Hence why these cases are decided by a jury of impartial peers and not the local PTA.

Bollocks shuma, no such thing as impartial in a jury.
You will find most jury are middle class people who have a family.
When something to do with a pedo comes up in trial he is fethed.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:How can something be barbaric if it fails to even qualify as a punishment of any sort?

Depends on the punishment.

I said "of any sort", although I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say here.

Either death is worse than life in prison and the sentence will instill more fear into people or death is better than life in prison and it's less barbaric. It can't be both more barbaric and less painful. Unless you're just using "barbaric" to mean "bad".

I think he could possibly have expressed himself more clearly, but I think I get basically the idea.

a) People who commit murder, by and large, are either not thinking about the consequences OR think they can get away with it. Compare our murder rate with those of other Western countries without the death penalty. It doesn’t seem to be an effective deterrent.
b) From a philosophical standpoint, many people do find it abhorrent for our government (expressing our collective will) to kill people. It’s not necessary, in many cases the wrong person has been convicted and killed, and in many cases it seems to be done more out of a desire for cathartic revenge, than for justice.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Relapse wrote:The point of what I'm saying is that there are people that will never be able to be rehabilitated and all evedence says that even at 100, this guy should never be allowed to walk the streets no matter what people think his capabilities for molestation are.

@Wrex, I have to say this to you, when you have kids, guard them close, because with your preconceptions of what people can and can't do, you will have an incident to deal with otherwise.

My children are going to get molested by a stranger because of what I have said in this thread? A paranoid mind could almost take that as a threat of sorts...

Anyway... By your logic, all of the children in my immediate family should be scared gakless by this mans presence. No... not at all. This guy is scum, I will not give him anymore power.

No, definitly not a threat. I have seen first hand the heartache of what happens in these cases and it's not something I would wish on anyone. It's just that you are too sure of what people are not capable of and this makes you vulnerable.

Relapse wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:[

Easy to say until it's your kid that gets molested.

WATCH YOUR KIDS DAWG, UNCLE RELAPSE WARNED US A PEDOS ON THE LOOSE!

As someone who had a 3 year old molested in what was supposed to be a guarded enviorment, I will tell people there are pedos on the loose. I had to edit this a couple of times to make a more civil response to your ignorance.

My ignorance? Of what? Your family history? I'm sorry you think that being strongly involved emotionally somehow makes you more capable of making rational decisions concerning the situation.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You can't reform pedofiles.

If it is indeed comparable to homosexuality, and if homosexuality is indeed a genetically determined behavior, then this is true. That being said, not all child molesters are pedophiles.

Here is a brief summary of what dogma is talking about.

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/focus_on_the_cause.html

At no point was I trying to say that worry was not warranted. Being terrorized by a shell of a person though, is simply a waste of time, and a fantastic way to inflate their superficial ego. With the worst cases, it seems to be directly hinged on having the power to manipulate people; through their habits, and their crimes. I would sooner spit in a Pedo-bears eye, than give him (or her) the satisfaction of having actual power over my actions.

The fact that people are biased is not a license to be as biased as you please. People that hear accusations of pedophilia and shout for the death penalty are every bit as bad as aggressive pedophiles. Its stupid, reactionary nonsense designed to generate personal catharsis at the expense of another beings life.

How do angry family people get compared to a pedophile?

To be honest, i think its worrying that you would even say something like that.

dogma wrote:The fact that people are biased is not a license to be as biased as you please. People that hear accusations of pedophilia and shout for the death penalty are every bit as bad as aggressive pedophiles. Its stupid, reactionary nonsense designed to generate personal catharsis at the expense of another beings life.

You just equated people calling for harsh sentencing with child rapists. Thats so nonsensical it makes me think someone logged in using Dogma's password.

How do angry family people get compared to a pedophile?

Angry family people saying that many other people should be killed.

You just equated people calling for harsh sentencing with child rapists. Thats so nonsensical it makes me think someone logged in using Dogma's password.

I also noticed it was badly spelled before the edit. I theorize dogma may have hit the sauce.

That second sentence is the first untrue thing I’ve seen Dogma post in the thread. Up to this point his posts were full of win and awesome.

That said, the other two sentences were still pure truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Easy to say until it's your kid that gets molested.

Yes, it is. That doesn't mean any given person should judge any possible child molester as though he might have molested their child. That's pretty much precisely what the justice system is set up to avoid. It doesn't exist to be your personal catharsis machine.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:One immediately can tell Shuma has no kids or he would shut the feth up.

Since when did emotional proximity to an issue make you a more qualified judge of appropriate punishment?

dogma wrote:The fact that people are biased is not a license to be as biased as you please. EDIT: Uncharacteristic overstatement deleted. Its stupid, reactionary nonsense designed to generate personal catharsis at the expense of another beings life.

QFT.

JD21290 wrote:How do angry family people get compared to a pedophile?

To be honest, i think its worrying that you would even say something like that.

Because all they want is blood, regardless of whether or not its the blood of the right person. Its not a desire to improve society, or even protect their children, its simply a desire to feel personally vindicated. Though, you and several others are right, its not directly comparable. Though its still reprehensible.

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:It can't be both more barbaric and less painful. Unless you're just using "barbaric" to mean "bad".

Barbaric just means relatively wild, or uncivilized. A punishment can be more barbaric in that its based entirely on an emotional response, and less painful in that, were emotion not the driving force, a more painful response could be formulated. Though I don't think that's what Lord-loss was trying to say.

Its barbaric because its uncivilized to kill people. Also for the law to say, that killing is bad and people shouldnt kill each other. Then one of the punishments for killing someone, is killing the person who killed someone.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Relapse wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:[

Easy to say until it's your kid that gets molested.

WATCH YOUR KIDS DAWG, UNCLE RELAPSE WARNED US A PEDOS ON THE LOOSE!

As someone who had a 3 year old molested in what was supposed to be a guarded enviorment, I will tell people there are pedos on the loose. I had to edit this a couple of times to make a more civil response to your ignorance.

My ignorance? Of what? Your family history? I'm sorry you think that being strongly involved emotionally somehow makes you more capable of making rational decisions concerning the situation.

Just the fact of you making light of pedophilia makes me sick. I'm real close to breaking a few forum rules and getting banned because of the moronic quality of what you wrote.
I have learned a lot about pedophiles because of what happened and I can tell you that judging by what you've written so far, you don't know a Goddamned thing about them.

relapse wrote:No, definitly not a threat.

I understand that, it is just in poor taste to promote it in the first place. Which is in many ways, what you did. 'Your stupid, so you need to learn a lesson', -or-, 'You'll learn that lesson the hard way'. I take little offense to this, but it is still beyond what I would consider necessary in a casual conversation online.

I have seen first hand the heartache of what happens in these cases and it's not something I would wish on anyone. It's just that you are too sure of what people are not capable of and this makes you vulnerable.

I worry more about whether or not this happens within my family (and my friends families), and that is simply relying on statistical evidence. I have absolutely no desire to accuse anyone of anything, but the data shows very solidly, that this individual, along with his group, present a much smaller threat than you would like to present.

People are capable of atrocious, and despicable things; being a cynical person by nature, I do not exclude people by default. This also assumes that in order to have a healthy life, I do have to trust some people. Some creepy old guy that I just met, is simply not among that group of people. Having a child, I would only be more wary about said creepy old dude.

ShumaGorath wrote: I theorize dogma may have hit the sauce.

It somewhat amuses me that people can tell when I've been drinking.

Relapse- Writing as someone who helped raise a child from the age of four, and as someone who took child abuse reports for the State of NH for three years, he has valid points.

Wrexasaur wrote:

relapse wrote:No, definitly not a threat.

I understand that, it is just in poor taste to promote it in the first place. Which is in many ways, what you did. 'Your stupid, so you need to learn a lesson', -or-, 'You'll learn that lesson the hard way'. I little offense to this, but it is still beyond what I would consider necessary in a casual conversation online.

I have seen first hand the heartache of what happens in these cases and it's not something I would wish on anyone. It's just that you are too sure of what people are not capable of and this makes you vulnerable.

I worry more about whether or not this happens within my family (and my friends families), and that is simply relying on statistical evidence. I have absolutely no desire to accuse anyone of anything, but the data shows very solidly, that this individual, along with his group, present a much smaller threat than you would like to present.

People are capable of atrocious, and despicable things; being a cynical person by nature, I do not exclude people by default. This also assumes that in order to have a healthy life, I do have to trust some people. Some creepy old guy that I just met, is simply not among that group of people. Having a child, I would only be more wary about said creepy old dude.

The thing is, this is not a creepy old dude someone just met. He was well known and liked. That being said, he apparently had gone a long time before being caught and that is scary.

Allrighty why don't we like frigging move off the topic of child molesters and closer to the topic no?

Lord-Loss wrote:
Its barbaric because its uncivilized to kill people. Also for the law to say, that killing is bad and people shouldnt kill each other. Then one of the punishments for killing someone, is killing the person who killed someone.

It isn't objectively uncivilized to kill people. Indeed, there are many instances in which civilization turns a blind eye towards killing. You might consider that to be hypocritical, but that's only true if you consider something bad to be beyond justification. Its perfectly feasible to understand badness as that which requires justification.

Maybe 'uncivilized' was the wrong word.

dogma wrote:It somewhat amuses me that people can tell when I've been drinking.

I generally refuse to assume that you haven't been....Prost!

Mannahnin wrote:I think he could possibly have expressed himself more clearly, but I think I get basically the idea.

a) People who commit murder, by and large, are either not thinking about the consequences OR think they can get away with it. Compare our murder rate with those of other Western countries without the death penalty. It doesn’t seem to be an effective deterrent.
b) From a philosophical standpoint, many people do find it abhorrent for our government (expressing our collective will) to kill people. It’s not necessary, in many cases the wrong person has been convicted and killed, and in many cases it seems to be done more out of a desire for cathartic revenge, than for justice.

I think you aren't getting any sort of opinion from Lord-Loss so much as you are parroting your own views.

It being ineffective as a deterrent because people don't consider either death or life in prison in their committing of the crime doesn't tell us which one is more frightening, nor is it related to barbarism (being used in this context to denote some sort of fundamental immorality, and simply being aesthetically unpleasant, or bad policy due to financial expense).

That many people find it abhorrent for the government to kill people is similarly irrelevant. I know Lord-Loss finds it fundamentally abhorrent, I'm saying this is irrational. The wrong person being killed is no worse than the wrong person dying in prison (in fact it's better, according to Lord-Loss). Cathartic revenge and justice are two sides of the same coin; so long as the effect is the same there's no reason to distinguish between them.

The way the death penalty is used in the United States is rather inefficient. It costs too much, it leaves less flexibility than prison sentences, it may make it more difficult for jury to reach a verdict (which leads to a different appeals process being put into place, and goes back to the cost issue), and as dogma said it comes off as strange to not execute terrorists (as they're probably the most destructive criminals being dealt with) but executing them isn't that great of an idea (in addition to the martyrdom aspect, there is more room for political corruption in issues of terrorism, and a quick execution may end up too convenient of a method to cover up a mistake).

These are criticisms of the death penalty's implementation though. They aren't fundamental traits of the death penalty itself, and they certainly don't make it "barbaric" (in a useful sense of the word).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord-Loss wrote:Also for the law to say, that killing is bad and people shouldnt kill each other. Then one of the punishments for killing someone, is killing the person who killed someone.

What's the punishment for kidnapping?

I'm going to say yes. Some individuals are too dangerous to be allowed to remain in society at large and cannot be reformed; what's more, returning such individuals to a "state of nature" where they're not bound to the rules of society as social contract theory would suggest is impractical. Even if you were to dump these psychopaths somewhere in the jungle they wouldn't survive as they are dependent on the technology and infrastructure provided to members of society; therefore they are harmful parasites and must be done away with.

Orke- that's a much more useful post, thanks.

You're right that I was more expressing some of my views and a broader general point, rather than directly trying to translate for Lord Loss.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: I theorize dogma may have hit the sauce.

It somewhat amuses me that people can tell when I've been drinking.

No, it's pretty much just me. Your tone changes and you make more spelling errors.

I dont think you understand what Im trying to say Orkeo, but I dont make it easy to understand really.

If someone dies in jail (after serving a life imprisonment) they have served their punishment, they had have X number of years to think over what they had done. The last years of their life had been spent in jail, away from friends and family (If they got any) Should the offender have to be put through the exact same horror that their victim felt when (s)he murdered/raped them? Or should they be submited to a different type of horror, a much more humane punishment, that not only, has the prisoner alone and away from all family and friends, but gives them a large amount of time, to think over what they had done, to be left alone, and away from society. Isn't that a greater punishment?

There are more murders now, then there were ten years ago. So, if there has been a steady increase in the last ten years, it means the death penalty hasnt achually done anything, so whats your excuse now, for taking human life, even if it is the life of a person, who has murdered, or raped someone? It would probally save money, if the death penalty was used alot more, but since when has money, been more important then human life?


There have been over fifty cases, where its later discovered that after the offender is dead, that (s)he is achually innocent. Since 1730, over 130 have been released from death rows after its been discovered that their innocent. How can you support such a faulty system?

It would probally save money, if the death penalty was used alot more, but since when has money, been more important then human life?

Doesn't it actually cost more to put someone to death? The repeated appeals process is considerably more expensive than maintaining a concrete box and making some lunchables.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091229/ap_on_re_us/us_maryland_girl_slain;_ylt=AuV5esJJgDXiU2Fels_TALRvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTJzMmFranVkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjI5L3VzX21hcnlsYW5kX2dpcmxfc2xhaW4EcG9zAzIwBHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDYXV0b3BzeW9uc2xh

Yay, I get to chime in.

So LL, you are saying that the man in the article, Thomas Leggs, served his time and was "punished" properly so his being in prison on previous molestation charges was punishment enough?

Tell that to the mom of this little girl who won't get to see her (daughter) graduate HS and get married, etc etc.

Death is more humane than what most people executed have done to their victims.

Money has always been more important than human life, and always will be. I'm not claiming it's right, just true...

Mannahnin wrote:Orke- that's a much more useful post, thanks.

You're right that I was more expressing some of my views and a broader general point, rather than directly trying to translate for Lord Loss.

I suppose my big problem with the fundamental condemnation of the death penalty is that it devalues freedom when it's compared to life in prison. Suddenly it's a fundamental crime against a person to kill them outright, but to rob them of their life in a different manner is acceptable. I see both sentences as being similar in harm inflicted.

The fact that many people consider life in prison to be a worse sentence than the death penalty is sort of comforting in that regard (although I can't fathom why a person with that opinion would then continue to condemn the death penalty as being barbaric).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord-Loss wrote:I dont think you understand what Im trying to say Orkeo, but I dont make it easy to understand really.

If someone dies in jail (after serving a life imprisonment) they have served their punishment, they had have X number of years to think over what they had done. The last years of their life had been spent in jail, away from friends and family (If they got any) Should the offender have to be put through the exact same horror that their victim felt when (s)he murdered/raped them?

There's no particular reason for it, but that doesn't mean you have to avoid doing it. Kidnappers are forcibly taken away and locked up, that doesn't mean that society is condoning kidnapping, or something silly like that.

Or should they be submited to a different type of horror, a much more humane punishment, that not only, has the prisoner alone and away from all family and friends, but gives them a large amount of time, to think over what they had done, to be left alone, and away from society. Isn't that a greater punishment?

No, it is not by definition, because you said it was more humane. If it is more humane it is less painful. You can't condemn someone to a fate worse than death and say it's more humane than death.

There are more murders now, then there were ten years ago.

I'm not sure this is correct per capita. Crime rates are going down as a rule.

So, if there has been a steady increase in the last ten years, it means the death penalty hasnt achually done anything, so whats your excuse now, for taking human life, even if it is the life of a person, who has murdered, or raped someone? It would probally save money, if the death penalty was used alot more, but since when has money, been more important then human life?

The appeals process for death row puts it at pretty much the same expense as a life sentence. A little more. However, money is always an issue; otherwise all of our soldiers would wear power armor. What if we saved so much money that we could double the number of policemen on force? Etc.

The excuse for taking a human life is that the person in question is a murderer or serial rapist. It's the same excuse for taking their life away from them through imprisonment.

There have been over fifty cases, where its later discovered that after the offender is dead, that (s)he is achually innocent. Since 1730, over 130 have been released from death rows after its been discovered that their innocent. How can you support such a faulty system?

I don't support the use of the death penalty under the current system in the United States. It's inefficient.

That doesn't mean the very concept of the death penalty is immoral. Is is barbaric to build a giant wall around the United States to keep terrorists out? No, it would just be a bad idea.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/

Yep, the death penalty cost more. Texas have executed 431 people since 1973, but I guess that Fraz for ya'.

Well FW, the problem there is that he was let out of jail. He obviously wasnt fit to be let back into society, if he kills a girl, after he is released.

I'm still at a loss as to how keeping him in jail would be more humane than death.

I'd rather die than be locked in a cage (which is more or less what a jail cell is) the rest of my life. That's just me, your idea of what you'd rather have happen will differ from mine.

Lord-Loss wrote:
If someone dies in jail (after serving a life imprisonment) they have served their punishment, they had have X number of years to think over what they had done. The last years of their life had been spent in jail, away from friends and family (If they got any) Should the offender have to be put through the exact same horror that their victim felt when (s)he murdered/raped them? Or should they be submited to a different type of horror, a much more humane punishment, that not only, has the prisoner alone and away from all family and friends, but gives them a large amount of time, to think over what they had done, to be left alone, and away from society. Isn't that a greater punishment?

How can something be both more humane, and more severe? If life imprisonment is worse than the death penalty, then the death penalty is more humane than life imprisonment.

Lord-Loss wrote:
There are more murders now, then there were ten years ago. So, if there has been a steady increase in the last ten years, it means the death penalty hasnt achually done anything, so whats your excuse now, for taking human life, even if it is the life of a person, who has murdered, or raped someone? It would probally save money, if the death penalty was used alot more, but since when has money, been more important then human life?

Killing someone over prosperity in the context of a war, or even a home invasion, has been acceptable (for a lot of people) for a very long time. Simply stating that a human life is priceless* doesn't really get at the crux of the matter in the context of a society in which human life does, in fact, have a price*. You don't live free from effort without being a fundamental drain on the resources* of others, and there is a certain threshold at which the cost* of proving one's innocence exceeds the likelihood that said innocence will lead to a net social gain.

The question we should be asking is not whether or not our system is fair, because it never will be so long as inequality exists, but whether or not it benefits society. Basically, how much are we willing to pay* in order to guard against unjustified punishment?



*Where issues of value relate to matters of money, as well as matters of societal health.

Lord-Loss wrote:
There have been over fifty cases, where its later discovered that after the offender is dead, that (s)he is achually innocent. Since 1730, over 130 have been released from death rows after its been discovered that their innocent. How can you support such a faulty system?

What is the percentage of cases overturned versus cases reviewed?

Orkeo wrote:Kidnappers are forcibly taken away and locked up, that doesn't mean that society is condoning kidnapping, or something silly like that

But murder is alot more serious then kidnap.

You can't condemn someone to a fate worse than death and say it's more humane than death.

Im not good with words But if you replace 'human'
with 'hypercritical' and 'more' with 'less', then it makes more sense.

But what I was trying to say...Im not sure, what I was trying to say really. But Its less painful, and more painful at the same time. I guess it depends on the person being executed.

Lord-Loss wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/

Yep, the death penalty cost more. Texas have executed 431 people since 1973, but I guess that Fraz for ya'.

Well FW, the problem there is that he was let out of jail. He obviously wasnt fit to be let back into society, if he kills a girl, after he is released.

A good question at this point is how many people that serve time for murder, rape and assorted other crimes of this magnitude, commit similar offenses after realease. It goes beyond money for the victims of these people, and may actually outweigh the number of innocent people that get executed.
It could be interesting for the pro and con forces here to dig in and bring back the results of their research.

ShumaGorath wrote:Doesn't it actually cost more to put someone to death? The repeated appeals process is considerably more expensive than maintaining a concrete box and making some lunchables.

Ive heard that alot, its definately untrue. For starters we dont put anyone in a "concrete box with some lunchables" we proper look after the fethers, with medical treatment, 3 square meals, clothing and some recreational facilities. Also, we could even kill people and make a profit, for example, i would kill people for the government for free. I had a salary when i was doing it as a soldier, but once a month i would do it for free as a decent citizen, for you all, my fellow tax payers.

Also i would use a big brother style system where i could actually make money, which would be given to charity.

How do you want Ian Huntley to die this weekend? Text - Hammer to 8111, Text - Kukri Machete to 8112, Text Louisville Slugger to 8113, votes cost 10p per message. To watch the live video feed as Matt "Merciless" Taylor slashes, bludgeons or hacks the dregs of society into oblivion, simply pay 9.99 on paypal!

Or something like that, id give 10% of the takings to the victims family, 10% to a charity of the viewers choice and the rest could help pay for the gruel and rehab for the rest of the more human prisoners. Smart thinking eh?

Oh and good call with the pigskins JEB.

Lord-loss wrote:But murder is alot more serious then kidnap.

Kidnap followed by life imprisonment... that... is pretty fething terrible. I am still not sure I follow what you are trying to say though.

Huh, when did I say that kidnap should be followed by life Imprisonment?

mattyrm wrote:
Ive heard that alot, its definately untrue. For starters we dont put anyone in a "concrete box with some lunchables" we proper look after the fethers, with medical treatment, 3 square meals, clothing and some recreational facilities.

All of which are available to people on death row. It may be different in England, but in the US the death penalty costs a good deal more than life imprisonment. Food is cheap, facilities are not an issue as they're necessary in either case, and medical treatment can be viewed in a similar light.

Lord-loss wrote:Huh, when did I say that kidnap should be followed by life Imprisonment?

Orkeo pointed out the fact that kidnap is not what imprisonment is. In the context of this conversation, it would be lifetime imprisonment vs. death; and in the bit I quoted, kidnapped for life vs. death.

But I am still not sure I follow what you are trying to say overall. Death is bad... m'kay...

Fateweaver wrote:I'm still at a loss as to how keeping him in jail would be more humane than death.

I'd rather die than be locked in a cage (which is more or less what a jail cell is) the rest of my life. That's just me, your idea of what you'd rather have happen will differ from mine.

I think everyone should just forgot what I said about humane Im pretty tired.

Thats exactly the point FW, killing them, would give them the easy way out, left them suffer, for the rest of their days, in a cell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:But I am still not sure I follow what you are trying to say overall. Death is bad... m'kay...

Im trying to say that, life imprisonment can be a better punishment then execution. The death penalty is hypercrite.

The question you have to ask though LL is this:

Is it really suffering to be locked up in a cell, fed 3 times a day with exercise time and cable tv? Maybe that's a better life than a lot of these murderers and rapists live.

*Edited due to the sensitivity of some

Wrexasaur wrote:

Lord-loss wrote:Huh, when did I say that kidnap should be followed by life Imprisonment?

Orkeo pointed out the fact that kidnap is not what imprisonment is. In the context of this conversation, it would be lifetime imprisonment vs. death; and in the bit I quoted, kidnapped for life vs. death.

But I am still not sure I follow what you are trying to say overall. Death is bad... m'kay...

What I was actually trying to say is that if the arrest and imprisonment of criminals was done by random citizens it would be kidnapping. However, no one thinks that this means the government is somehow in support of kidnapping, or hypocritical, for "kidnapping" kidnappers.

There's no more reason to think the government is somehow in support of murder, or hypocritical, for killing murderers.

mattyrm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Doesn't it actually cost more to put someone to death? The repeated appeals process is considerably more expensive than maintaining a concrete box and making some lunchables.

Ive heard that alot, its definately untrue. For starters we dont put anyone in a "concrete box with some lunchables" we proper look after the fethers, with medical treatment, 3 square meals, clothing and some recreational facilities. Also, we could even kill people and make a profit, for example, i would kill people for the government for free. I had a salary when i was doing it as a soldier, but once a month i would do it for free as a decent citizen, for you all, my fellow tax payers.

Also i would use a big brother style system where i could actually make money, which would be given to charity.

How do you want Ian Huntley to die this weekend? Text - Hammer to 8111, Text - Kukri Machete to 8112, Text Louisville Slugger to 8113, votes cost 10p per message. To watch the live video feed as Matt "Merciless" Taylor slashes, bludgeons or hacks the dregs of society into oblivion, simply pay 9.99 on paypal!

Or something like that, id give 10% of the takings to the victims family, 10% to a charity of the viewers choice and the rest could help pay for the gruel and rehab for the rest of the more human prisoners. Smart thinking eh?

Oh and good call with the pigskins JEB.

Do you not have any notion of empathy? Murder isnt a crime specifically committed by "insane scumbags", its committed by ordinary people aswell, what about a woman who after years of abuse kills her husband? Or how about one day if you found out that your partner had been cheating on you, and you killed him/her? Would you if you were sentanced to death say "yeh ok thats fair, i deserve to die?" For some reason I doubt you would.... Murder isnt simply limited to the scummy underclasses.

TBH, some of the descriptions people have said about what they would do to condemed people is disgusting, whilst i realise its mostly internet tough guy syndrome, if you actually believed that you would have to be some kind of sadist....

Necroplaya wrote:


Do you not have any notion of empathy? Murder isnt a crime specifically committed by "insane scumbags", its committed by ordinary people aswell, what about a woman who after years of abuse kills her husband? Or how about one day if you found out that your partner had been cheating on you, and you killed her? Would you if you were sentanced to death say "yeh ok thats fair, i deserve to die?" For some reason I doubt you would.... Murder isnt simply limited to the scummy underclasses.

TBH, some of the descriptions people have said about what they would do to condemed people is disgusting, whilst i realise its mostly internet tough guy syndrome, if you actually believed that you would have to be some kind of sadist....

Wow the bulls t level is getting pretty deep in here.

Frazzled wrote:

Necroplaya wrote:


Do you not have any notion of empathy? Murder isnt a crime specifically committed by "insane scumbags", its committed by ordinary people aswell, what about a woman who after years of abuse kills her husband? Or how about one day if you found out that your partner had been cheating on you, and you killed her? Would you if you were sentanced to death say "yeh ok thats fair, i deserve to die?" For some reason I doubt you would.... Murder isnt simply limited to the scummy underclasses.

TBH, some of the descriptions people have said about what they would do to condemed people is disgusting, whilst i realise its mostly internet tough guy syndrome, if you actually believed that you would have to be some kind of sadist....

Wow the bulls t level is getting pretty deep in here.

Wanna explain how thats bull####? I think its a valid question, all those in favor of the death penalty, if they were sentanced to death would they accept it and say they deserved it?

I thought it hit bottom about the point we started talking about stringing people up to be flayed alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necroplaya wrote:
Wanna explain how thats bull####? I think its a valid question, all those in favor of the death penalty, if they were sentanced to death would they accept it and say they deserved it?

Its not. The same issue of emotional involvement applies.

I thought it hit bottom about the point we started talking about stringing people up to be flayed alive.

No, it still has a ways to go.

A good question at this point is how many people that serve time for murder, rape and assorted other crimes of this magnitude, commit similar offenses after realease. It goes beyond money for the victims of these people, and may actually outweigh the number of innocent people that get executed.

It's possible, but the concept of punishment doesn't negate the idea of re offense. If that was the point then you would kill every criminal to make sure.

Actually, I believe there was a Greek King of some sort who did that. He founded some of the first greek laws, and almost everything had the death penalty...

On the other hand, my only source on this IS Horrible Histories. (While entertaining, I've always found some aspects of it to be of questionable historical accuracy)

Dracon, begetting the term Draconian. Of course he was a bit of a wussy tree hugger and refused to give someone the Brass Bull for spitting once. Thats why Athens fell.

Necroplaya wrote:

Do you not have any notion of empathy? Murder isnt a crime specifically committed by "insane scumbags", its committed by ordinary people aswell, what about a woman who after years of abuse kills her husband?

Murder is killing committed without just cause. It is unlikely that a case like this would warrant the death penalty- odds are pretty good that there would be reasonable doubt of the woman's sanity. If it was in response to a violent attack, it might even be considered self defence. This is not the sort of thing you are executed for.

Necroplaya wrote: Or how about one day if you found out that your partner had been cheating on you, and you killed him/her? Would you if you were sentanced to death say "yeh ok thats fair, i deserve to die?" For some reason I doubt you would.... Murder isnt simply limited to the scummy underclasses.

This would be second degree murder, a lesser form of murder. If someone really believes that someone sleeping with someone else means that they deserve to die and acts on it, then I have no problem allowing their execution. This is the same situation as a rabid dog- the person's jealousy and rage are at levels that they have proven are completely uncontrollable. They are no longer fit to walk among the living.

Necroplaya wrote:TBH, some of the descriptions people have said about what they would do to condemed people is disgusting, whilst i realise its mostly internet tough guy syndrome, if you actually believed that you would have to be some kind of sadist....

On this point, I agree completely. I favor private, quick and relatively painless executions. These are generally only administered to first degree murderers. These are folks that planned their actions and killed without just cause. There are many cases where killing is not murder. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them {in Florida, at least} you've done no wrong. Once someone trespasses and threatens you and your loved ones, you can defend yourself as vigorously as you'd like. If you were to see someone being raped or assaulted, you could kill the aggressor with no legal ramifications. Defending yourself or others is legal. If we, untrained citizens, are allowed to do this to criminals we catch red handed on the street, is it not reasonable that our judges and juries should be able kill them after fair trials?

I oppose capital punishment for the main reason that it doesn't work.

Secondly it is cruel and unjust, that is why history's most horrible regimes are always so strongly associated with it.

Necroplaya wrote:Do you not have any notion of empathy? Murder isnt a crime specifically committed by "insane scumbags", its committed by ordinary people aswell, what about a woman who after years of abuse kills her husband? Or how about one day if you found out that your partner had been cheating on you, and you killed him/her? Would you if you were sentanced to death say "yeh ok thats fair, i deserve to die?"

Necro, read what i wrote. Seriously, what did i say?

I said we can merely jail people for almost anything, this is the beauty of the system, a jury and judge can make educated decisions about criminals.

If you are even merely a murderer i probably wouldnt advocate the DP. You know, a grown man killing another grown man for some reason he deemed worth the risk.. perhaps i wouldnt. Its very simple. Nobody in their right mind would ever say a wife who was beaten by her husband for years deserved "death" if she snapped and slotted him. And what you are saying is utterly irrelevant to the point. Of course she wouldnt get the DP, she probably wouldnt even get life in prison. Indeed, i have heard of many cases where this has happened and the sentence is hugely reduced. Are you saying that if the DP existed in any form at all we would all start hanging everyone!? Of course we wouldnt! We have life imprisonment and we dont put every single criminal in jail for life now do we?

I empathise, i have a great notion of it. I dont think we should or would ever kill people with genuine mental problems, external influences, anyone who could be rehabilitated, or if there was even a miniscule shadow of doubt at all.

However, if we have Video footage of a sicko brutally raping a kid and then chopping his or her nut off, then you will never convince me that a bullet in the back of the swede is not a better idea than that fething verminous creature living to a ripe old age, consuming his nice warm 3 square meals a day paid for by tax payers. I lived in a Cave in Afghanistan, washed by pouring a bottle of frozen water over my head and ate nothing but gak spaceman rations for 6 months. They dont even live worse than that! They get hot meals, hot showers, warm beds, medical care?!

I cannot even imagine the pain victims go through, if my 5 year old nephew was killed like that i would absolutely murder the man who did it and deal with the jail time. Hopefully thanks to folk like you i would get away with only 3 or 4 years with a good lawyer and all the "circumstances"

Instead of worrying so much about the criminal, worry about the victim. I know i do, and i know wouldnt be able to swallow the fury if something like that ever happened to me and the perp was given a "life" sentance in a cushy British prison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Killkrazy, englighten me as to how it does not work?

It is a proven fact that crime falls when penalties are more severe.

Kilkrazy wrote:I oppose capital punishment for the main reason that it doesn't work.

Secondly it is cruel and unjust, that is why history's most horrible regimes are always so strongly associated with it.

Perhaps it doesn't work as a deterrent to other criminals. I've never heard of single person that suffered the death penalty becoming a repeat offender. From the perspective of eliminating any future crimes by the individual, it is 100% effective.

true that.

I think the question we all have to ask ourselves is, how many licks does it REALLY take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?

Necros wrote:I think the question we all have to ask ourselves is, how many licks does it REALLY take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?

Asked and answered.

Three.

My take:

Overview on the principle of the death penalty.
Sometimes it works other times it does not, generally you are better off without it. You cannot unexecute someone, you cannot account for the politised action, some perpetrators might welcome death as martyrdom and sometimes even the darkest criminals rehabilitate.

Death penalty and non-rehabilitation.
it is generally assumed some criminals cant be rehabiklitated, almost always this is du to popular misconception rather than any science, and often due to severity or nature of the offence rather than any dispassionate attitude.Take for example the opinion expressed here that paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. we hate paedophiles because they break one of societys few remaining taboos, actually a paedophile can cover a large range of persons fom someon looking at dodgy porn to a child rapist-murderer. When we look at the law and punishment we have to look dispassionately, which few can do when concerning opinions on paedophiles. Lockl em up or string em up comments are very relieving but who here can judge life or death on such emotive cases fairly. Some paedos especially those who never actually had any sexual contact with children require mental health help not prison, where is the line drawn.
There have been unusual cases of rehabilitiation, and conversely many cases of feigned rehabilitation to try and secure release, both usually involving religious conversion. While a penitant serious offender should simply accept their sentence rather than try and secure release it could be argued that assumed cases of persons beyond rehabilitation should not be taken as an excuse for the death penalty. There have been cases in the US of genuine rehabilitation on death row, such as Karla Faye Tucker. The question remains wherether an execution should still go ahead, this decision is often taken politically and the question of rehabiltiation is a politcal one with personal vocalised viewpoints of the electorate being stronger weighted than psychologists nd other prison professionals opinions.

Sentencing and the media.
the media and pupular opinion will always skew sentencing in such casesd. Furthermore the media is of itself a big unbalancing factor, in the time when Huntley commited his crimes and came to court many many other chidlren went missing in very suspicuous circumstances, some turned up dead. I remebmer a statistic to this effect which was in the low hundreds. The media didnt focus on thiose stories because it had a story ongoing. Huntley was in a way unlucky, he could have committed the same offences a little earlier or later and some other case would have made the press. British pruisons have plenty of prisoners like Ian Huntleys and Peter Sutchiff (Yorkshire Ripper), but many pass through their sentences as unknowns. The minimum life tarrif for the Moors Murderers, Huntley, Sutcliff etc are there simply because they are public cases. This isnt to show any sympathy for those scum, I have no more than you, but why single some out simply because they have had more columnn inches. Its not usualy for someone whos criminal profile is very similar to Huntley to get 30 years and be out after 15. The law is always a lottery, but media involvement and capital offences adds pressures that the justice stystem can ill afford.

Death penalty and martyrdom.
This doesnt just apply to Islamic terrorists, it is well known that the IRA hated sentencing to prison because it clearly plabelled their terrorists as criminals rather than fighters. This was the cause of Bobby Sands and other hunger strikers, Sands wanted IRA prisoners not to wear prison uniform and undergo other activities common to other sentenced criminals, principally on the beleif that they should be considered POW's and not murderers. According to historical sources of the Troubles, prison was a deterent, shooting terrorists was less of a deternet than sentencing them, as fighting against them with soldiers was a form of legitimisation in some eyes.
With regards to Islamic terror there is a current piolicy in many countries not to execute but to reserve unlimited sentences without parole. This is policy in the USA and also the Bali bombers shared this fate. In the latter case we know the Bali bombers requested the death penalty and were purposefully denied it. No martyrdom for you.
This can lead to an issue of fairness if a comon murderer, probably a far less extreme form of criminal is sentenced to die while a terrorist lives.

Death penalty and deliberate miscarraiges of justice.
This makes it easier to hide. I am glad the death penalty was abolished before the cases of the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4, they would never have had any exoneration. Remebmer the clampaign to free them orginalated in the UK legal community There have been a number of unsafe sentences in the USA particualry the southern states and especially where the accused was black, in every case once executed it is harder to exonerate because there are compelling grounds not to even try.

Death penalty and accidental/competence related miscarraiges of justice.
all I can say on this is that the dealth penalty in the Uk would be a disaster as policing standards have gone way downhill. Police are target orientated and heavily dogmatised, they often do not listen to defence stories or follow up leads that question an accusation. They largely want cases open and ashut to keep the stats up and there are benefits for doing so. Miscarriages of justice are on the increase especially where investigationg something which is targeted on a point of dogma. A good example is Operation Orb, an FBI entrapment plan to catch paedophiles while overspread into the UK. Entrapment is not legal in the Uk because many people might be tempted to commit an opportunisitc offence they would otherwiose not comit, but due to the nature and current dogmas on child protection this legal point was overlooked. What was also overlooked was that the stiong site contained but ordinary pay site porn and child pormn in seoperation. Over 700 people were 'caught' in operation orb via their creidt cards and were proptly jumped in by the Uk police as paedos. several commited suicide duie to the harassment from the police, no sympathy I hear. However many of those arrested had clear alibiis, their identities had beern stolen (which is easy to do) others had onle purchased access to standard adult porn which wasx legally avaialable and had avoided all contact to child porn sites. The pilce had 'paedos' though, and were not in the mood to listen. a senior police officer monthsd later defended the campaign on the grounds that it had netted some paedophiles, thism ay be true, but other innocent peope were hounded to their deaths in the process, to the target orientated polce the ends justified the means.
Another example conerns a coked up chav who attacked a manager closing up a business, someone noted that figure were fighting and called the pol;ice, he could identify noone, later the other late manager came down and was attacked by the same chav (who was a martial artist) both ended up is hospital, the former one in a coma. Police turned up, arrested bioth men in hospital and charged the one who woke up. No attempt was made to collect phorensics, or to in any way check up the defence story, the manager was spared a long prison sentence only because the other manager woke from his coma. This type of policing would have been unheard of twenty years ago, excepting rare cases where tghe piolice deliberately framed someone (see Guildford 4). Now this is hapening pretty muchall the time, the piolice dont listen wont investigate and want cases open and shut quickly for conveneince and to meet targets, targets that can make a senior policemans career. I could not truast capital punishment cases to the current generation of Uk police, the old chool has gone, methodology is increasingly sloppy and result targets are politicised.

How to process capital punishment.
If you do want a capital punishment system ironically enough I would withut hesitation choose the British one. It is by far the most well thought out and humane, the specifications for capital punishment were revised and improved by ther Home Office in tghe late 19th century though to the early 20th century. the guidelines are still in use today in commonwealth countries with a capital punishment system. Singapore hax an exact copy of the early 20th century British system.


Trial and appeal.
The trial of a capital case does not differ from that of a non capital case, no special court is convened except in military cases. Thopugh only a high level court is used. the accused is afforded a very good quality lawyer at the states expense, normally the defence lawyer in a capital case is the best available on the state roll, the prosecution lawyer a very close second.
if the accused is found guilty and the sentenced of death pronounced an appeal is automatically lodged unless he condemned waives the appeal. If the case goes to appeal the accused may change his lawyers (which he may do at any time), this will delay the appeal to give the new lawyers a chance to familiarise themselves with the case. otherwise the appeal will be processed quickly. Full access to a legal library is granted in prison, the accused often attempts to take personal interest in the legal minutiae and this is not in any way discouraged. Appeals are fast tracked, delayed only if certain forms of new evidence require such a delay, other appeals are frozen so that the capital case appeal can be dealt with quickly. Normally appeals start within a few weeks of sentencing. The appeals main purpose is to look for grounds to commute the sentence not to aquit, though this can occur if new evidence is found which casts doubt on the orignal conviction.

Post Appeal
Multiple appeals are possible only if compeltely new evidence found after the appeal which can be shown to have not been avaialbe prior to the appeal. This availability of the evidence is scrutinised so that it is not possible for a defence team to trickle evidence to draw out the appeals process. execution is scheduled to be held 2 to 3 weeks after confirmation of sentencing on appeal, the condemend is not informed of the execution date and is kept isolated.

Holding for execution.
The condemned is moved to a cell post appeal and tansfered prison if necessary. Not all prisons have execution chambers. the sondemned is kepty in strict isolation from all other prisoners mainly to prevent taqunting. They are kept comfortable and looked after during waking hours at least one prison officers is in the cell at all times for verbal contact. A priest is avialble on call daily and will be present at the execution.
Family are permitted to visit on Sundays only, this is primarily to kep the actual execution date masked. No other contact with the outside world is permitted, no newspapers past a certain date and no radio. The public is informed of the execution date but this fact is concealed from the condemned.

Execution.
The prefered method of execution is a variable drop gallows, with the drop recessed to the floor below where the prisoner is held. Variable drop gallows mean a form of hanging by which the rope length is dicated by the physique and mass othe the condemened. the heavier the body the shorter the drop. Variable drops ensures that the prisoner does instantly and painlessly and also ensures the rope does not decapitate the prisoner, which can occur if the drop is too long. The gallows is erected in a conceled room no furrther than 15' from the bed of the accused. Sound proofing prevents the condemned from being aware of the gallows existance. Executons are scheduled a minimum of two whole weeks after the appeal to grant the condemened time to confess and/or make their own peace. Executions are held in the morning just after breakfast, a time the prisoner is most relaxed. the prisoner is kept unaware of this timing though it is common to allm executions because art the time execution methodology was kept conceled from the public and press.
The executioner flanked by a second and several prison warders would enter the cell and pinion the condemned and lead them to the concealed gallows. medthodology varied depending on the accused reaction and the execuctionerd style. Sometimes the accused was walked casually to the gallows and kept in conversation, if the accused was distressed the process was rushed and the prisoner manhandled to the gallows drop. a good executioner would walk a condemened to the gallows in well under a minute from first entry to death, if distressed the process would be rushed to half this time often far less. The record was seven and a half seconds by Albert Pierrepoint that is from sitting unsuspecting and relaxing havig a cup of tea or game of cards with the guards to hanging dead on the end of a gallows rope with a hood over your head and your feet and hands bound.

If anything the variable drop as used by Home Office guidelines is a good way to go, I would ironically prefer it to most euthanasia methods. It is considered barbaric purely because of the nature of capital punishment and because the methodology was never released to the public until after capital punishment was abolished. This is its only flaw, while understandable why the methodoligies were concealed the fact that Singapore uses the same methodology, only describes it heps keep the deqath penalty accpetable in the state. the poeple know its humane and thus keeps all its deterent value while minimising public anxiety over its existance.

Many here might even argue that this method is too good for some criminals. I would not agree, the minimisation of brutality helps humanise the system, something to be desired. It is generally understood that many of the execution methods used in the US are chosen because they can be drawn out, this combined with the fact that victims families often attend executions, something not allowed in the system described above, it leaves it open to suggestion that execution process can be influenced.

For those who want further information on the variable drop system watch the first section of this film on youTube, the entire film is here and is worth watching, but the relevant detail is in the introduction here. Its quite chilling the craftsman like way executions were handled:Pierrepoint

That's pretty comprehensive.

Orlanth wrote:My take:

Overview on the principle of the death penalty.
Sometimes it works other times it does not, generally you are better off without it. You cannot unexecute someone, you cannot account for the politised action, some perpetrators might welcome death as martyrdom and sometimes even the darkest criminals rehabilitate.

Death penalty and non-rehabilitation.
it is generally assumed some criminals cant be rehabiklitated, almost always this is du to popular misconception rather than any science, and often due to severity or nature of the offence rather than any dispassionate attitude.Take for example the opinion expressed here that paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. we hate paedophiles because they break one of societys few remaining taboos, actually a paedophile can cover a large range of persons fom someon looking at dodgy porn to a child rapist-murderer. When we look at the law and punishment we have to look dispassionately, which few can do when concerning opinions on paedophiles. Lockl em up or string em up comments are very relieving but who here can judge life or death on such emotive cases fairly. Some paedos especially those who never actually had any sexual contact with children require mental health help not prison, where is the line drawn.
There have been unusual cases of rehabilitiation, and conversely many cases of feigned rehabilitation to try and secure release, both usually involving religious conversion. While a penitant serious offender should simply accept their sentence rather than try and secure release it could be argued that assumed cases of persons beyond rehabilitation should not be taken as an excuse for the death penalty. There have been cases in the US of genuine rehabilitation on death row, such as Karla Faye Tucker. The question remains wherether an execution should still go ahead, this decision is often taken politically and the question of rehabiltiation is a politcal one with personal vocalised viewpoints of the electorate being stronger weighted than psychologists nd other prison professionals opinions.

From what I've learned of Pedos from research and talking to cops, once they've been at it a while, forget about rehabilitation because they can't or won't.

From what I've learned of Pedos from research and talking to cops, once they've been at it a while, forget about rehabilitation because they can't or won't.

It's fairly well known that age based sexual assault isn't something that is easily rehabilitated. It's far from unheard of though.

Relapse wrote:

Orlanth wrote:My take:

Overview on the principle of the death penalty.
Sometimes it works other times it does not, generally you are better off without it. You cannot unexecute someone, you cannot account for the politised action, some perpetrators might welcome death as martyrdom and sometimes even the darkest criminals rehabilitate.

Death penalty and non-rehabilitation.
it is generally assumed some criminals cant be rehabiklitated, almost always this is du to popular misconception rather than any science, and often due to severity or nature of the offence rather than any dispassionate attitude.Take for example the opinion expressed here that paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. we hate paedophiles because they break one of societys few remaining taboos, actually a paedophile can cover a large range of persons fom someon looking at dodgy porn to a child rapist-murderer. When we look at the law and punishment we have to look dispassionately, which few can do when concerning opinions on paedophiles. Lockl em up or string em up comments are very relieving but who here can judge life or death on such emotive cases fairly. Some paedos especially those who never actually had any sexual contact with children require mental health help not prison, where is the line drawn.
There have been unusual cases of rehabilitiation, and conversely many cases of feigned rehabilitation to try and secure release, both usually involving religious conversion. While a penitant serious offender should simply accept their sentence rather than try and secure release it could be argued that assumed cases of persons beyond rehabilitation should not be taken as an excuse for the death penalty. There have been cases in the US of genuine rehabilitation on death row, such as Karla Faye Tucker. The question remains wherether an execution should still go ahead, this decision is often taken politically and the question of rehabiltiation is a politcal one with personal vocalised viewpoints of the electorate being stronger weighted than psychologists nd other prison professionals opinions.

From what I've learned of Pedos from research and talking to cops, once they've been at it a while, forget about rehabilitation because they can't or won't.

Yep.

My take doesnt involve a wall of text - if you are 99% sure a guy is a paedo, send him to prison.

If you are 100% certain (video evidence, DNA on a corpse among others) hang the fether.

Easy.

ShumaGorath wrote:

From what I've learned of Pedos from research and talking to cops, once they've been at it a while, forget about rehabilitation because they can't or won't.

It's fairly well known that age based sexual assault isn't something that is easily rehabilitated. It's far from unheard of though.

Good, then you can have your kids live next to a "rehabilitated pedo", because I know I won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:My take doesnt involve a wall of text - if you are 99% sure a guy is a paedo, send him to prison.

If you are 100% certain (video evidence, DNA on a corpse among others) hang the fether.

Easy.

Amen to that.

Relapse wrote:
Good, then you can have your kids live next to a "rehabilitated pedo", because I know I won't.

What does this have to do with execution?

mattyrm wrote:
If you are 100% certain (video evidence, DNA on a corpse among others) hang the fether.

Easy.

Its interesting to me that one of your examples implies murder. Do you want pedophiles hung if they murder children in addition to sexually assaulting them, or do you want them hung on grounds of sexual assault?

Remember, not all child molesters are pedophiles.

Relapse wrote:

From what I've learned of Pedos from research and talking to cops, once they've been at it a while, forget about rehabilitation because they can't or won't.

Paedophiles are ill, many exist who will not do crimes and just stick to child porn. Not every one is a rapist. I dont think those people need to be in prison, the pornographers most certainly do. Best thing to do with a paedo who has yet to commit an actual physical offence is to section them and let mental health services deal with them.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Good, then you can have your kids live next to a "rehabilitated pedo", because I know I won't.

What does this have to do with execution?

Just answering a statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Relapse wrote:

From what I've learned of Pedos from research and talking to cops, once they've been at it a while, forget about rehabilitation because they can't or won't.

Paedophiles are ill, many exist who will not do crimes and just stick to child porn. Not every one is a rapist. I dont think those people need to be in prison, the pornographers most certainly do. Best thing to do with a paedo who has yet to commit an actual physical offence is to section them and let mental health services deal with them.

If they are into child porn, then they are causing children to be victimized by more active types. I think they should be in prison and more active offenders, if undeniably proven as such, executed.

Relapse wrote:
If they are into child porn, then they are causing children to be victimized by more active types. I think they should be in prison and more active offenders, if undeniably proven as such, executed.

Dogma, as i said, im not some wingnut that leaps enthusiastically onto the "hang em all" bandwagon.

As i said, i am all for mitigating circumstances and such. I think that the DP should be used, but for a small amount of cases, those where we are 100% certain of guilt, and where we are 100% certain of an inability to rehabilitate, such as Ian Huntley or any other well known murderer of Kids and such.

No, i do not think that sexual assault is grounds for hanging people, though, i do think we need to be tougher with sentancing for a whole laundry list of crimes.

Relapse wrote:
If they are into child porn, then they are causing children to be victimized by more active types.

So you're assuming some kind of economy of child porn? As far as I know, that's baseless.

Relapse wrote:
I think they should be in prison and more active offenders, if undeniably proven as such, executed.

Why put non-active offenders in prison so that they can come out of prison, and continue to be non-active offenders? Why not make an attempt to deal with them via qualified, rehabilitation personnel?

mattyrm wrote:Dogma, as i said, im not some wingnut that leaps enthusiastically onto the "hang em all" bandwagon.

I didn't mean to imply that you were.

mattyrm wrote:
As i said, i am all for mitigating circumstances and such. I think that the DP should be used, but for a small amount of cases, those where we are 100% certain of guilt, and where we are 100% certain of an inability to rehabilitate, such as Ian Huntley or any other well known murderer of Kids and such.

No, i do not think that sexual assault is grounds for hanging people, though, i do think we need to be tougher with sentancing for a whole laundry list of crimes.

Ok, so its the murder which you believe merits the death penalty, that clears things up. I also agree, at least insofar as we set aside the debate between life without parole and the death penalty.

mattyrm wrote:My take doesnt involve a wall of text - if you are 99% sure a guy is a paedo, send him to prison.
If you are 100% certain (video evidence, DNA on a corpse among others) hang the fether.
Easy.

The wall of text is about capital punishment not paedophilia. I mentioned the controversial topics deliberately because they are emotive. Your thinking is in two dimensions, you think rationally on capital punishment you need to be dispassionate.

Capital punishment has to deal with scum, presumed scum, people framed as scum, people who some dont think are scum but are scum, and some who the people think are scum not are not scum. There are no 'easy' solutions, just plenty of opportunity for knee jerk reactions.
To have a capital punishment system you have to look at all those who might get executed, its very comforting to say 'kill the paedos' but who, when, where and how. Who decides how far along with one crime or another is the point where the rime becomes capital and why etc etc etc.
The emotive responce is by far the worst, you need to be comprehensive and look at the issues clearly. One of the best arguements fo not having capital punishment is envoked by the knee jerk comments on this thread calling for the deaths of one subset of pariahs. iI ends in all sorts of trouble, and is not 'easy' at all.

Hence my devils advocate defence of the undefendable, because paedos are just the public eye case. The knee will also likely jerk in the direction of terrorists, possibly rapists and murderers too. You might be willing to lend a little thought before advocating the execution of a murderer, some morderers had motives that are more understandable than others, in any case you might envoke a blanket understanding for murderers that is different than that for paedoseven if a paedo does less actual harm. Thus you can fall into a legal quagmire, as justice is leaving and being replaced by raw anger. This can only end in ruin. You have to look at each case from the same mindset, and clearly you and others put paedos in a different category.

We take the worst cases paedos and terrorists because if you cannot think dispassionately about them then you cannot be relied uopon to have a balanced view on capital punishment. The ultimate legal sanction can only be approached by thoe who have level heads and are unswayed by personal distaste, disgust or taboo.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
If they are into child porn, then they are causing children to be victimized by more active types.

So you're assuming some kind of economy of child porn? As far as I know, that's baseless.

Relapse wrote:
I think they should be in prison and more active offenders, if undeniably proven as such, executed.

Why put non-active offenders in prison so that they can come out of prison, and continue to be non-active offenders? Why not make an attempt to deal with them via qualified, rehabilitation personnel?

Are you implying that kiddie porn just comes from nothing? A lot of kiddie porn sites have paying subscribers, movies aren't handed out for free, nor magazines. There is a whole industry at work here that is supported by people that view it. How you assume otherwise I don't understand.
To me what you term "non active offender" is ludicrous. If nothing is acted on, then there is no offense. However, by supporting the kiddie porn industry, these creeps are causing someone, somewhere to put children through this living Hell.

Capital punishment makes little sense in a system where its more expensive to kill offenders than to keep them behind bars. Also putting people to death when they were innocent is also pretty heinous in itself and unfortunately a consequence in the status quo. In addition the legal bureaucracy is also corruptible and susceptible to poor and rushed judgement. Due to these reasons the death penalty makes little sense to me and I'm glad that this normally trigger-happy state has finally started to decline on that end especially after all the controversy Gov. Rick Perry had with the Cameron Todd Willingham case.

Cane wrote:Capital punishment makes little sense in a system where its more expensive to kill offenders than to keep them behind bars. Also putting people to death when they were innocent is also pretty heinous in itself and unfortunately a consequence in the status quo. In addition the legal bureaucracy is also corruptible and susceptible to poor and rushed judgement. Due to these reasons the death penalty makes little sense to me and I'm glad that this normally trigger-happy state has finally started to decline on that end especially after all the controversy Gov. Rick Perry had with the Cameron Todd Willingham case.

Actually its on decline because of less convictions for capital murder.

Actually its on decline because of less convictions for capital murder.

And lowering murder rates (overall, regionally YMMV, midwesterners seem to love killing eachother).

Relapse wrote:
Are you implying that kiddie porn just comes from nothing?

I'm implying that it need not be related to direct support in the economic sense, as is the case with any other type of pornography present on the internet.

Relapse wrote:
A lot of kiddie porn sites have paying subscribers, movies aren't handed out for free, nor magazines. There is a whole industry at work here that is supported by people that view it. How you assume otherwise I don't understand.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm operating from a position which offers no claim in either direction as I haven't done a lot of research into the distribution of child porn.

Relapse wrote:
To me what you term "non active offender" is ludicrous. If nothing is acted on, then there is no offense. However, by supporting the kiddie porn industry, these creeps are causing someone, somewhere to put children through this living Hell.

Yes, and putting them in prison does nothing to stop that. You aren't addressing my point, you're just continuing on an irrational path which puts punishment above improvement with respect to the number of offenses.

The presence of sodomy laws did nothing to curtail homosexuality, why would you expect that imprisonment on grounds of possessing child pornography would have a different effect?

ShumaGorath wrote:
And lowering murder rates (overall, regionally YMMV, midwesterners seem to love killing eachother).

Not much else to do out here.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Are you implying that kiddie porn just comes from nothing?

I'm implying that it need not be related to direct support in the economic sense, as is the case with any other type of pornography present on the internet.

Relapse wrote:
A lot of kiddie porn sites have paying subscribers, movies aren't handed out for free, nor magazines. There is a whole industry at work here that is supported by people that view it. How you assume otherwise I don't understand.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm operating from a position which offers no claim in either direction as I haven't done a lot of research into the distribution of child porn.

Relapse wrote:
To me what you term "non active offender" is ludicrous. If nothing is acted on, then there is no offense. However, by supporting the kiddie porn industry, these creeps are causing someone, somewhere to put children through this living Hell.

Yes, and putting them in prison does nothing to stop that. You aren't addressing my point, you're just continuing on an irrational path which puts punishment above improvement with respect to the number of offenses.

The presence of sodomy laws did nothing to curtail homosexuality, why would you expect that imprisonment on grounds of possessing child pornography would have a different effect?

ShumaGorath wrote:
And lowering murder rates (overall, regionally YMMV, midwesterners seem to love killing eachother).

Not much else to do out here.

I'm thinking we are at risk of derailing this thread since I could tell you a lot on this matter you don't seem to know, so I think a new one on this topic is in order.

I'm thinking we are at risk of derailing this thread since I could tell you a lot on this matter you don't seem to know, so I think a new one on this topic is in order.

Funny, you didn't seem to want to tell me anything aside from "how scary it is".

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm thinking we are at risk of derailing this thread since I could tell you a lot on this matter you don't seem to know, so I think a new one on this topic is in order.

Funny, you didn't seem to want to tell me anything aside from "how scary it is".

Nice attempt at a flame. I didn't want to talk to you after a while yesterday because I was getting in the mood to hit someone the more ignorant your posts became.
You seem to be trying to start some kind of fight with me on this forum for whatever reason, and since I don't have jack crap in the way of respect for you because I think you're just a pissant who doesn't have balls enough to say face to face what he says over the internet, I'll just ignore you.

To anyone else that reads this, I have to apologize, but the circumstance of why I said what I did to Shuma just went beyond my tolerance level.

Relapse wrote:
Nice attempt at a flame. I didn't want to talk to you after a while yesterday because I was getting in the mood to hit someone the more ignorant your posts became.
You seem to be trying to start some kind of fight with me on this forum for whatever reason, and since I don't have jack crap in the way of respect for you because I think you're just a pissant who doesn't have balls enough to say face to face what he says over the internet, I'll just ignore you.

He baits people, but you're not really doing anything better by leaping to conclusions for which you have no evidence.

As ever, claiming the ignorance of another party is simply a veil for a poor argument.

At least Dogma, you don't try to bait people. You put some reasoning behind your posts.

Hehe, I got banned for attacking Shuma. I took the bait once. Never did apologize and never will and to my shock and horror I agree with him on something in one of the 40k threads (or maybe it was two somethings).

Executions would be a lot cheaper if the victims family were allowed to do it. I'd execute someone for a case of beer and compensation for any ammo I expanded (most cases it would be a single .45 to the back of the dome, right where the brain stem meets the spinal column).

@OP

You're in favour of 30 minute trials that don't take into account mental illness?

GG.

Modquisition on. this thread has been reported, obviously because you turkeys have not seen the light and agree with everything I say.

As a reminder lets follow Dakka Rule #1 and try to remain polite.

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on. this thread has been reported, obviously because you turkeys have not seen the light and agree with everything I say.

Not being in complete agreement with Frazzie is an eventual likelihood for anyone posting in lucid coherent sentences.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on. this thread has been reported, obviously because you turkeys have not seen the light and agree with everything I say.

Not being in complete agreement with Frazzie is an eventual likelihood for anyone posting in lucid coherent sentences.

I think Polonius said it best:
"What Frazz is trying to say, and failing at because he's actually barely literate due to dementia and laudenum addiction..." Polonius

mattyrm wrote:My take doesnt involve a wall of text - if you are 99% sure a guy is a paedo, send him to prison.
If you are 100% certain (video evidence, DNA on a corpse among others) hang the fether.
Easy.

Wait, is this a hypothetical paedophile or a murderer?

Wait, are you even sure?

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:
Wait, is this a hypothetical paedophile or a murderer?

Wait, are you even sure?

sA

He cleared it up a bit further down. He meant people who murder children.

and since I don't have jack crap in the way of respect for you because I think you're just a pissant who doesn't have balls enough to say face to face what he says over the internet, I'll just ignore you.

You've clearly never met me. I'm not a pacifistic person.

Hehe, I got banned for attacking Shuma. I took the bait once. Never did apologize and never will and to my shock and horror I agree with him on something in one of the 40k threads (or maybe it was two somethings).

You'll have to get banned 3 more times if you want to catch up to me.

ShumaGorath wrote:You'll have to get banned 3 more times if you want to catch up to me.

Ah yes, our local glutton for punishment. Keep coming back for more eh?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You'll have to get banned 3 more times if you want to catch up to me.

Ah yes, our local glutton for punishment. Keep coming back for more eh?

I just keep making enemies of a certain old crotchety mod.

Yeah see his absurd reply to me in the thread below.. he either has an IQ of 65 or he is doing it on purpose cos he likes to bait people. And you can tell the guy isnt an idiot, ergo Its called "winding someone up" and can be most amusing, so try not to get upset, i dont like to see anyone getting banned or anything over a war of words.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah see his absurd reply to me in the thread below.. he either has an IQ of 65 or he is doing it on purpose cos he likes to bait people. And you can tell the guy isnt an idiot, ergo Its called "winding someone up" and can be most amusing, so try not to get upset, i dont like to see anyone getting banned or anything over a war of words.

It's called needling. Its a form of underhanded debate tactic which just happens to work wonderfully against an entrenched position built largely on a moral highground rather than a foundation of fact or logic. It's similar to the rope a dope of Rocky fame, except it's in a fight without rings and weakness the opposition shows can be exploited by others.

MODQUISITION ON EVERYONE OFF THE PERSONAL NOW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Yeah see his absurd reply to me in the thread below.. he either has an IQ of 65 or he is doing it on purpose cos he likes to bait people. And you can tell the guy isnt an idiot, ergo Its called "winding someone up" and can be most amusing, so try not to get upset, i dont like to see anyone getting banned or anything over a war of words.

It's called needling. Its a form of underhanded debate tactic which just happens to work wonderfully against an entrenched position built largely on a moral highground rather than a foundation of fact or logic. It's similar to the rope a dope of Rocky fame, except it's in a fight without rings and weakness the opposition shows can be exploited by others.

Thts also why you have been suspended three times.

Yeah or needling if your American, i guess its the same thing though eh?

EVERYONE OFF THE PERSONAL STUFF NOW or I am closing this thread and putting out supensions. Seriously.

Frazzled wrote:MODQUISITION ON EVERYONE OFF THE PERSONAL NOW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Yeah see his absurd reply to me in the thread below.. he either has an IQ of 65 or he is doing it on purpose cos he likes to bait people. And you can tell the guy isnt an idiot, ergo Its called "winding someone up" and can be most amusing, so try not to get upset, i dont like to see anyone getting banned or anything over a war of words.

It's called needling. Its a form of underhanded debate tactic which just happens to work wonderfully against an entrenched position built largely on a moral highground rather than a foundation of fact or logic. It's similar to the rope a dope of Rocky fame, except it's in a fight without rings and weakness the opposition shows can be exploited by others.

Thts also why you have been suspended three times.

At least most of my arguments are based in non racist, non homophobic, non jingoistic impartial reality (not stating thats happening here, it's not). I drop to the level of the lowest common denominators when an actual well written response would just be ignored specifically because normal debate doesn't work any more in such cases. I haven't really been needling relapse here, he's just incredibly involved emotionally and has posted nothing possessing any sort of logic or evidence, instead choosing to simply reiterate that pedophiles are scary evil people. What am I supposed to do when interacting with him again?

Besides, you yourself are hardly innocent of needling mister frazzled.

mattyrm wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Killkrazy, englighten me as to how it does not work?

It is a proven fact that crime falls when penalties are more severe.

It isn't.

Crime is too complex a social phenomenon, arising from a wide variety of causal factors, to be easily solved by one severe punishment.

In fact, the opposite is the case. Though its more complicated than simply saying the severity of a punishment has no effect on the rate at which a crime is committed. Start punishing drug possession with death, and the rate of drug possession will likely fall. However, the same is not true for crimes that generally have motivations which run deeper than a desire to get high, or something similar (pedophilia being such an offense).

Multiple studies from around the world have shown that stronger punishments lower the repeat offender pool, but crime remains at a relative constant. It has been shown however that social support for communities (such as sports halls, youth centres, mature education centres) have a possitive effect, lowering crime rates.

Am I in favour of capital punishment? - With the greatest respect to those that are;- No

Dunno, killing someone will sure mean they won't repeat their crime.

Now if we are talking Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees than not so much, in fact it'll just piss them off.

Dunno, killing someone will sure mean they won't repeat their crime.

Realistically thats all it does to effect crime statistics.

So see, it works!

Fateweaver wrote:So see, it works!

About as well as life imprisonment, for more money. Considerably less effective than effectual modern rehabilitation methods.

I meant it works on the perps committing the crimes.

Unless a real life Jason Voorhees starts stalking our streets it will continue to work.

In the case of child rapists a dead man can't rape, can he?

I meant it works on the perps committing the crimes.

You can stop crime by killing people from minorities and areas with high related crime statistics too. You'd probably stop more crimes than you word with increased prevalence of the death penalty considering most convicted criminals eligible but not given the death penalty don't ever go back to the streets.

I'd execute for cheap. A case of beer and compensation for any ammo I expended.

That would cost tax payers $25 maybe.

Fateweaver wrote:
In the case of child rapists a dead man can't rape, can he?

No, but he didn't just appear out of nowhere. If you never address the cause there will always be more child rapists to replace the ones you kill.

The cause is them being alive.

You're not looking at the big picture, dogma.

I'd execute for cheap. A case of beer and compensation for any ammo I expended.

The execution isn't what's expensive. It's the trial and appeals process, which is necessary to make sure that you're killing the right man for cheap.

Unless you believe it is better for a hundred innocent men to die than for one guilty man to walk free.

Kilkrazy wrote:Unless you believe it is better for a hundred innocent men to die than for one guilty man to walk free.

KK that statement was just stupid. I am not the biggest fan of the big DP, and I don't mean Doctor Pepper, but I can't believe you made that statement, and as far as I can tell, being deadly serious. If you say that, you leave the door open for cheap shots from the other side as well....

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'd execute for cheap. A case of beer and compensation for any ammo I expended.

The execution isn't what's expensive. It's the trial and appeals process, which is necessary to make sure that you're killing the right man for cheap.

I'm betting the medicine they use in the needle style execution costs a lot more than a case of beer and a .45ACP round. Good God, 20 anti-strep pills cost me $80 from the doctor.

Yeah KK, that was so uncharacteristic of you to say that. I hope you don't truly believe people believe that?

It is exaggeration for dramatic effect.

Clearly there aren't 100 unjust executions for every just one, but even one is too many.

Fateweaver wrote: I hope you don't truly believe people believe that?

I've met people that do indeed believe that. In fact its essentially China's philosophy with respect to the justice system.

I don't look to China as a model for anything.

I only acknowledge China exists because the US is selling out to them (I swear that 2/3rd's of all toys I see in stores are stamped "Made in China").

I, contrary to what others might say, do not believe what KK said. I don't want innocent people to die but when someone is found guilty of a heinous crime (and rape and child murder are heinous) they don't deserve to live.

I also think when someone is caught red handed doing something they shouldn't get a trial as it's obvious they are guilty. If a security camera catches you in the act of raping someone and it's 100% certain that it's you on that tape it is case closed, open and shut. Die. End of.

I'm for fair trial if it is uncertain but when all the evidence is there (and not just circumstantial) and it is 100% irrefutable and they committed a crime deemed to be heinous even by society (such as rape or child murder) they should die. End of.

Rehab doesn't work on sex offenders. It is why sex offenders are monitored and kept track of. Which begs the question.

If sex offenders are rehabilitated why are they meant to register their whereabouts and are not allowed to do certain activities. Thieves and drug dealers might have a PO after getting out of jail but don't have to register in some database letting others know that they were in for drugs or robbing a liquor store so apparently the courts feel they can trust those perps enough to not keep them under surveillance.

I mean if I didn't feel someone was safe enough to let back into society I sure as hell am not going to let them out back into society.

As a note of interest:

China recently executed the first European to have been put to death there in 50 years, for drug smuggling.

Fateweaver wrote:
I, contrary to what others might say, do not believe what KK said. I don't want innocent people to die but when someone is found guilty of a heinous crime (and rape and child murder are heinous) they don't deserve to live.

There's a difference between wanting innocents to die, and accepting that innocents will die. KK's example relates to the latter.

Obviously the justice system will never be perfect. The question is the extent to which you're willing to accept the inevitable imperfections. China is quite willing, the US is less so, and obviously there are variances within each of those groups.

Fateweaver wrote:
I also think when someone is caught red handed doing something they shouldn't get a trial as it's obvious they are guilty. If a security camera catches you in the act of raping someone and it's 100% certain that it's you on that tape it is case closed, open and shut. Die. End of.

See, now you sound like you endorse something worse than the Chinese justice system. You might not look to them as a model for anything, but even they would hold a trial in such a matter.

Fateweaver wrote:
I'm for fair trial if it is uncertain but when all the evidence is there (and not just circumstantial) and it is 100% irrefutable and they committed a crime deemed to be heinous even by society (such as rape or child murder) they should die. End of.

There is always room for error. That point can never be stressed enough.

Surely if the only realistic way to be sure that someone is 100% guilty is by presenting said video to the court no?

I do not think the issue of whether or not people are entitled to a fair trail is at issue here. They clearly should have a fair and just trial, regardless of what they are accused of. To think different is, quite simply, utter lunacy.

When it has been verified that the person is indeed guilty of said atrocities (IMO only possible through a fair trial) then what should follow is a different matter...

The death penalty has been shown not to work, repeat offenders of serious crimes are low due to a high catch rate and high imprisonment percentage, but people are murdered and people are raped all the time, an aggresor does not think of the consequences and penelties to his/her (usually his) actions, all they think about is action they are commiting. and on top of that most death row inmates live longer than they would inside a normal prison (especially in the case of pedophiles). capital punishment didn't work in 1700's and it doesn't work now.

I think we should do it just like in The Running Man.

Lots o' fun.

BluntmanDC wrote: on top of that most death row inmates live longer than they would inside a normal prison (especially in the case of pedophiles). capital punishment didn't work in 1700's and it doesn't work now.

So you're saying our prison system is so flawed that people that have only been sentenced to incarceration will be murdered more quickly than we can execute someone our courts deem guilty and deserving of death? This seems like more of a reason to reform the appeals process than it does to do away with an official death sentence. If our prisons are so bad that a criminal has a lower survival rate in them than they do on death row, we need to speed up our execution procedures or make our prisons safe. Allowing inmates to take justice into their hands is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Death by sharpened toothbrush and coat hanger stabbing (or whatever the murderous inmate is using these days) is far more cruel than even the most outlandish execution ideas proposed in this thread.

I don't believe many of the supporters of capital punishment favor it for its deterrence ability. It is simply the only thing to do for people that are unfit for society and never will be, in the opinion of a judge and a jury of their peers. If all an execution prevents are the 2 or 3 rapes or murders an individual will commit when he gets paroled, I'm quite comfortable with that. Mission accomplished.

Why are pedophiles being singled out in this thread? A rapist or molester is an individual that gets their kicks out of dominating others and is incapable of recognizing another person's right to free will. Such a person has no place in society, whether they rape children, women, or men. They may have a mental illness, but this isn't a chemical imbalance. There's no anti-rapist or molester pill. These are individuals that do not recognize humans as having any inherent value greater than their own pleasure.
If this trait can be identified and it can be shown that someone is acting on that impulse, they cannot be allowed to ever roam free.

Gitzbitah wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote: on top of that most death row inmates live longer than they would inside a normal prison (especially in the case of pedophiles). capital punishment didn't work in 1700's and it doesn't work now.

So you're saying our prison system is so flawed that people that have only been sentenced to incarceration will be murdered more quickly than we can execute someone our courts deem guilty and deserving of death? This seems like more of a reason to reform the appeals process than it does to do away with an official death sentence. If our prisons are so bad that a criminal has a lower survival rate in them than they do on death row, we need to speed up our execution procedures or make our prisons safe. Allowing inmates to take justice into their hands is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

The increased life expectance is due to the long applies process and living in seperate, single cells, with low to no interaction with other inmates.

Gitzbitah wrote:Why are pedophiles being singled out in this thread? A rapist or molester is an individual that gets their kicks out of dominating others and is incapable of recognizing another person's right to free will. Such a person has no place in society, whether they rape children, women, or men. They may have a mental illness, but this isn't a chemical imbalance. There's no anti-rapist or molester pill. These are individuals that do not recognize humans as having any inherent value greater than their own pleasure.
If this trait can be identified and it can be shown that someone is acting on that impulse, they cannot be allowed to ever roam free.

Actually there is a 'pill', the medical treatment of chemical castration. on the point of punishment, there are two types of offenders: ones that can be rehabilitated, they should serve their time and we should help them start a new life free of crime; and ones that can't be helped, they should be locked up. keeping these two groups seperate is the key to lower repeat offender rates. the reason i used the pedophile for an example is that even criminals don't like them and if they are introduced into the main population they don't last long, which i feel is the prosecutions way of getting the death sentance without the appeals process.

From the evidence found by goverment and free bodies it is clear that increases in the death penalty do not decrease crime rates. As most murders are commited by people that know the victim and are performed with a motive, murderers are actually less likely to murder again that other convicts, if given support.

I don't get how castration would deter sex offenders. Arousal is mental for the most part. Thinking sexual thoughts will give a man a hard-on. Taking away his ability to get a hard-on, contrary to what women say, will not make a man have a lesser sexual appetite.

What if a man enjoys going down on a woman as much as he enjoys intercourse. Sure he'll get a hard-on from it as it's sexually arousing to him to be down there but in his case most of his arousal comes from performing orally. Taking away his ability to get a hard-on does not take away his desire to perform orally on a woman (or a man if he is gay).

Castration would prevent intercourse with children, at least in the traditional sense but the only way to prevent child molesters from repeating what they do is kill them or remove their inability emotionally to get off on performing sex acts on kids, and that will not be solved by castration.

I know how anatomy works to an extent and male arousal (or female I guess) always starts with the thought process.

Fateweaver wrote:I don't get how castration would deter sex offenders. Arousal is mental for the most part. Thinking sexual thoughts will give a man a hard-on. Taking away his ability to get a hard-on, contrary to what women say, will not make a man have a lesser sexual appetite.

Arousal is primarily hormonal. Castration greatly reduces the production of the hormones related to sex, and therefore greatly reduces sex drive.

True but doesn't stop it completely.

It might work on animals as for them their one thought for sexual arousal is to breed so I'm sure they are different in that way, ie don't want sex just for sex.

Humans with their freedom of thought obviously consider sex for just more than breeding so while the sex drive might be lessened it might not be enough to eliminate it altogether (and even if it does eliminate the physical arousal element a man/woman can still be mentally and emotionally aroused).

I'm with Fateweaver on this one. Castration is no sure fire way to stop pedophiles or other sex offenders.

1) It doesn't entirely stop thier sex drive.

2) They may not be doing this for the sex, but so that they can have power over another, vulnerable human being.

3) For sex but sex not involving male genitalia.

Having read through this thread with great interest, I'd like to propose a hypothetical situation here that's a bit more on topic than the child molestation scenario.

You are sitting in a jury in a court, and a nondescript man is lead out. He stands accused of something in the region of a hundred murders, from the rich and powerful to the poor and nondescript, all across the globe. He is an assassin, a hit man, people pay him large sums of money to take care of their 'problems'. He is proficient at what he does, and professional, always ensuing that his targets do not suffer needlessly.

Just before sentencing commences, he stands up and makes a speech. In it, he considers the nature of morality. He asks why paying a man to kill people in the army is socially acceptable, whilst paying what is effectively a freelancer is not. He raises the question as to why he is prosecuted, and dogs of war (mercenaries) are not treated so harshly. He underscores his professionalism, and says that like any soldier, he merely does what he is paid to do. He points out several cases of the Secret Service in your Government doing what he does.

So, as a member of the jury, what would your verdict be? Does this man deserve to hang? He's not motivated by hatred, or even greed particularly, this is simply his job, and he is good at it. He is no greedier than any soldier, and does not make an obscene amount of money. He has a wife, and two daughters he supports from the proceeds, who live a relatively well off middle class life. You know that if you do not kill him, he will simply return to his previous life off liquidating people for money. He is not the kind to be rehabilitated, as he feels his conscience is clear anyway.

Assuming you are the judge, jury, and executioner here, what is your ruling? On what grounds do you make them? Answer me well Dakkaites, as I await your judgments and reasoning with the greatest of curiosity.

Death or Life Imprisonment. And the same sentence should be passed on those who hired him. It is not thier realm to decide who lives and who dies. What kind of society would we live in if this was acceptable? Assasinations (or Murder under a different name) would be commonplace.

Piss poor assassin to get caught in the first place.

Ah,a thread in which to explore my inner-conservitive.
Basicly my views concerning "capital punishment" are simple.
Molest a child (this does not include cases of "he/she was 16 and having consensaul sex with some one over 18") you die.
Brutalize an elderly citizen (beat an old lady over the head for her purse) you die.
Invade anothers home with the intention to commit a crime...home owners descresion,if it's my home...you die.
Everything else taken in a case by case basis.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm with Fateweaver on this one. Castration is no sure fire way to stop pedophiles or other sex offenders.

1) It doesn't entirely stop thier sex drive.

2) They may not be doing this for the sex, but so that they can have power over another, vulnerable human being.

You are spot on with that statement. A lot of pedos get their kicks by fondling, sexual talk, etc., as I've found out.

Fortunately most states allow homeowner to decide if someone lives or dies if their home is broken into.

Ketara wrote:Having read through this thread with great interest, I'd like to propose a hypothetical situation here that's a bit more on topic than the child molestation scenario.

You are sitting in a jury in a court, and a nondescript man is lead out. He stands accused of something in the region of a hundred murders, from the rich and powerful to the poor and nondescript, all across the globe. He is an assassin, a hit man, people pay him large sums of money to take care of their 'problems'. He is proficient at what he does, and professional, always ensuing that his targets do not suffer needlessly.

Just before sentencing commences, he stands up and makes a speech. In it, he considers the nature of morality. He asks why paying a man to kill people in the army is socially acceptable, whilst paying what is effectively a freelancer is not. He raises the question as to why he is prosecuted, and dogs of war (mercenaries) are not treated so harshly. He underscores his professionalism, and says that like any soldier, he merely does what he is paid to do. He points out several cases of the Secret Service in your Government doing what he does.

So, as a member of the jury, what would your verdict be? Does this man deserve to hang? He's not motivated by hatred, or even greed particularly, this is simply his job, and he is good at it. He is no greedier than any soldier, and does not make an obscene amount of money. He has a wife, and two daughters he supports from the proceeds, who live a relatively well off middle class life. You know that if you do not kill him, he will simply return to his previous life off liquidating people for money. He is not the kind to be rehabilitated, as he feels his conscience is clear anyway.

Assuming you are the judge, jury, and executioner here, what is your ruling? On what grounds do you make them? Answer me well Dakkaites, as I await your judgments and reasoning with the greatest of curiosity.

The state needs to eliminate him to retain the monopoly on violence. I would support the state on this one, since I don't see how undermining it in favor of private assassins would be worthwhile.

If this was some sort of V for Vendetta situation I may think differently, but then again they probably wouldn't let the jury be so influential.

Fateweaver wrote:Fortunately most states allow homeowner to decide if someone lives or dies if their home is broken into.

Now that is a little dangerous, I understand the need to protect yourself andf your homes but I think that beyond that you should not have the power of life or death over them. If it's you or them, or you're at risk of bodily harm or something else, go for it. Don't hold back if they're coming at you. But there are limitations to this.

If you have already incapacitated them (knocked out or they surrender), or if they pose no threat (little kid stealing silverware or somesuch) then you should not be permitted to kill or harm them further. Keep them under watch, call the cops, and let them handle it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Now that is a little dangerous, I understand the need to protect yourself andf your homes but I think that beyond that you should not have the power of life or death over them. If it's you or them, or you're at risk of bodily harm or something else, go for it. Don't hold back if they're coming at you. But there are limitations to this.

If you have already incapacitated them (knocked out or they surrender), or if they pose no threat (little kid stealing silverware or somesuch) then you should not be permitted to kill or harm them further. Keep them under watch, call the cops, and let them handle it.

Now that is what you should do, but the prevailing opinion in the US is this, "If you are willing to break in to someone's house, then you get what you deserve." I generally am comfortable with this mentality because if someone broke into my house, I would happily give them their just desserts instead of them potentially harming my family. You should never have to retreat within your own place of residence.

I'm not saying that. But there are obvious exceptions. If a burglar has been caught by you and you've got a gun to his head and he's pleading with you not to kill him, then shooting him there and then is cold-blooded murder. Pure and simple.

Obviously the homeowner shouldn't shoot a person they know to be of no threat. The problem is that it can be pretty difficult to tell whether the home owner knew the burglar was of no threat, as it's usually a pretty subjective matter.

Given a choice between the chance of putting a man in prison for defending himself and the chance of a burglar being murdered while committing his crime, people are generally more inclined to accept the later. After all, this lose/lose situation was a creation of the burglar's.

True. And that's perfectly alright. However, Fateweaver and FITZZ seemed to be advocating actions slightly more 'radical' than that.

JEB seemed to advocate it as an alternative to the potential harm of his family; not necessarily as an alternative to just, well, not killing him.

I agree on the point of not being forced into retreat; of course, being forced into retreat is not the same as being forced to advance without lethal force, which I do think would be morally required in some situations, even if I don't think it should be legally required.

If I could have a man on his knees pleading not to shoot him I'd taser his balls. Failing that, if he wasn't a thread I'd blow out his kneecaps. Hard to burglarize when you will limp the rest of your life.

If I had a man on his knees pleading I wouldn't shoot him in cold blood but most times it's not that simple. Not to mention without witnesses the man can be pleading for his life and you can kill him without cause of recourse. Castle law protects homeowners in most states and gives them the benefit of the doubt.

See, and THAT is worrisome. The guy is on his knees. You can (or already have) called the cops. He's no longer a real threat. And THEN you blow his kneecaps off?

Also, if he's on his knees then they're against the floor, so you would need to shoot from underneath him or something.

Yeah. That too.

Emperors Faithful wrote:See, and THAT is worrisome. The guy is on his knees. You can (or already have) called the cops. He's no longer a real threat. And THEN you blow his kneecaps off?

It'd be amusing to hear Fateweaver's evaluation of the criminal justice system once he got done getting a good view of it from the inside of a cell.

Won't ever be stupid enough to end up in a cell so that's likely not going to happen.

Would be amusing to hear your evaluation of what you did if someone broke into your house and threatened you or your family.

Used the appropriate level of force in response. Which would not involve blowing off someone's knees when I had them on the ground, which is why you'd be in prison, and I, not.

Not very likely. I'd just tell the courts I didn't want to kill him so when he came after me I shot his knees out.

Who is believed and who isn't?

I love me my Mn castle laws and my gun laws. Now I hope that someone tries to break in tonight on this the first day of 2k10. Good way to start the year off methinks.

And that makes you a very disturbing powrfreak who would jump at the opportunity to kill/maim someone at the nearest legal opportunity. Join the army why doncha? ^_-

Fateweaver wrote:Not very likely. I'd just tell the courts I didn't want to kill him so when he came after me I shot his knees out.

Who is believed and who isn't?

You're right, they'll obviously believe the guy with the level three ninja shootist license. What's that, you forgot to bring that with you? Aww, too bad for you.

Emperors Faithful wrote:True. And that's perfectly alright. However, Fateweaver and FITZZ seemed to be advocating actions slightly more 'radical' than that.

Wow,Fateweaver and I on the same side of the fence,strange considering our vastly different political views .
However,I stand by my previous statement,with some clarification,I live in an area where burglary/home invasions do on occasion happen,families have had their doors kicked open and been held hostage/victiamized/injured and even killed.
Now taking this into account,should an individule or individules enter my home with the intent of commiting a crime,I have no intention of assesing why they are there,or attempt to asscertain if they only intend to grab the playstation and run away,I will use deadly force to protect my family from any possibility of harm.

You are right Bookwrack. I'd just hit him with 2 or 3 .45 hollow points in the chest. Will make a mess of him and my house but at least they won't penetrate through his body and risk hurting someone.

Apparently people think I'm serious even when I use orkmoticons.

I live in a neighborhood where 9 out of 10 of my neighbors are drug dealers and we've had our garage broken into a few times. It's okay though, lucky for them I wasn't home at the time.

Fateweaver wrote:Not very likely. I'd just tell the courts I didn't want to kill him so when he came after me I shot his knees out.

Who is believed and who isn't?

Yep...



I mean seriously FW, you have to be freaking kidding here... It is that guys fault right? That guy... over there? The one that no one saw? Or knew anything about really?

Epic... so freaking epic. So much fail I had to edit to contain it.

Sorry Wrex but when someone breaks into my house they give up any and all rights they have.

In my state where I live I can shoot someone who breaks into my house.

If some dude is found in my house with his kneecaps gone and I don't know the guy guess who is going to jail?

Sure as hell won't be me. That is why castle laws are in effect in Mn and a lot of other states. Doesn't matter why they broke into my house, the simple fact of the matter is that they did. I can use whatever force I deem necessary.

End. Of.

Doesn't matter how you feel personally about it Wrex, it only matters how the court feels and the justice system in my state feels the way I do.

I have no problem with the castle code, that is irrelevant. Your home, your rules, graviness to the max, I do not give a flying feck.

You are clearly happy about the fact that you have this opportunity, and not for the reasons that it is in place. I am not going to go into detail, but you seem obsessed with the ability to end another persons life. It sickens me.

I have, and will continue to support peoples rights to protect themselves and their family. I simply do not agree with the fervor that you engage in these imagined scenarios.

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:True. And that's perfectly alright. However, Fateweaver and FITZZ seemed to be advocating actions slightly more 'radical' than that.

Wow,Fateweaver and I on the same side of the fence,strange considering our vastly different political views .
However,I stand by my previous statement,with some clarification,I live in an area where burglary/home invasions do on occasion happen,families have had their doors kicked open and been held hostage/victiamized/injured and even killed.
Now taking this into account,should an individule or individules enter my home with the intent of commiting a crime,I have no intention of assesing why they are there,or attempt to asscertain if they only intend to grab the playstation and run away,I will use deadly force to protect my family from any possibility of harm.

We're actually in agreement here. If you think you're in danger in a home invasion, you're pretty broadly justified in using lethal force to protect yourself. What I'm taking issue with is Fateweaver's silly insinuation that there's nothing wrong with using the guy as a bullet stop after he's already been subdued, and this came up in a previous thread where another poster went off about how, 'you just don't understand the bloodlust man,' re a home invasion ends in the burglar being scared off, but the home owner and friends chase him down the street, hold him down, and curbstomp him.

It's too bad I didn't take my laptop with me to New Year's, or I could've gotten my brother in law's and a half dozen other cops informed thoughts on kneecapping intruders and other acts of vigilantism.

Fateweaver wrote:Not very likely. I'd just tell the courts I didn't want to kill him so when he came after me I shot his knees out.

Who is believed and who isn't?

This is an epic fail in the knowledge of criminal justice and investigation, it would take a even the most inexperiences coroner to look at the bullet wounds and work out how they were shot in conjunction with the obvious blood patterns at your scene and on top of all this, especially in the US DA's don't like vigilantes.

Sorry Wrex, I wouldn't kill someone in cold blood. Guess orkmoticons don't do anything to prevent you from thinking I'm serious.

I also wouldn't seriously aim for the knees if someone is in my house. Aim to kill is what you are taught in basic fire arms safety, not aim to wound and hope the guy breaking into your house doesn't die.

If I could have a man on his knees pleading not to shoot him I'd taser his balls. Failing that, if he wasn't a thread I'd blow out his kneecaps. Hard to burglarize when you will limp the rest of your life.

I somehow doubt you would, but it's fun to talk big and strong online isn't it?

Sorry Wrex, I wouldn't kill someone in cold blood. Guess orkmoticons don't do anything to prevent you from thinking I'm serious.

When your joking stuff sounds just like your regular stuff people can't tell the difference, and I don't mean tone, I mean you have the opinions of someone who would generally want to decapitate people who break and enter (the stuff about throwing out the magna carta reeeaaaally nails home that you prefer civilian justice).

Yes this is another of my 'text walls'. However we are having a seruious discusion, which need not be exclusively conducted with a series of half thought one liners as scrawled out in crayon on a playground wall. I am sure we will find someone here who can read a comprehensive arguement and comment in return.

The problems with paedophilia scare and modern justice.
Becasue of PC dogma it is a well known and tried strategy for the criminal community to make up accusations along this nature. Because everyone hates paedos it is very common to try and accuse someone of being one with a varying degree of 'evidence'.
If you are a scum, say a drug smuggler, and you want someone out of the way, just spread the rumour they are a paedophile. What you get is a fething frenzy. Job done.

I also know of a case where a teenage girl lied to her dad, she was with a 'm8' in her house, but didnt want to admit that, so she said she was detained by so and so. a suspected paedo. For paedo read misfit, he was no more a paedo than an average old woman in 17th century New England is a witch.
It was only after she found out what had happened to this innocent man that she was shamed enough to tell the truth, and likely only because plenty of witnesses to show her as being in her friends house at the refered time.

This is just one case from my home town that has come to my ears. its by no means a rare problem. I would be feel safe to bet that false accuisation is a more common crime than paedophilia, and would not be suprised if the sum total of damage in lives ruined is greater.
Now a lot of people have worrited over released peados in nearby streets, yes that can happen. But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

The Sun newspaper once outed paedos in the papers as a public service. Some people were lynched two died, IIRC both were innocent. after all the paedos ran, but people who looked like them didnt. They had no need to.

But how do you tell and angry mob you are not the child molester they are looking for? When the people who beat up or even kill the faslely accused go to prison, they dont say. 'I hit the wrong man', no they say, 'I beat up a nonce'. There is no provision of innocence even after the fact, and no release for the targeted even if shown to be innocent. Fortuneately the police are beginning to see this and are less susceptible to wolf tickets than they were. his of course means a woman or chidl from an unfavourable background might have a provblem being beleived when abused. It goes in cycles.

Chemical castration is just a modernised clinical form of medieval punishment. Many women and young persons make a false accusation simply becasue as kids or women they will be beleived. Crying 'paedo' is a good way to get rid of a teacher or scoutmaster you don't like. Its bad enough when innocents are witch-hunted on sop little evidence, how do you say sorry to someone who has had their balls cut off (metaphorically) on the strength of a malicious rumour.

I hope the real message comes across. Paedophilia (and terrorism and pensioner bashing and drug smuggling) might be bad and real, but JUSTICE MUST BE LEFT TO THE RATIONAL. If your opinions on capital punishment or law in general are swayed by your disgust at some crimes then I beg to suggest thast you are not yet fit to make an informated and fair choice on the subject of societal punishment. This does open up the new arguement, whom is fit to comment. I think the answer will be relational, to some extent we all are and are not, itdepends on howe ratonal we can feel on a given day.
The problems of leaving justice to the angry are too terrible to contemplate. If this means defending the undefendable so be it. there can be no justice without dispassion towards they type of offence and a measure of compassion strong enough to look at the victim and the accused both fairly.

Yeah you are right Shuma. Someone enters my house in middle of the night I'll shoot first, call the cops later.

If they get there in time to save his dying ass yay for them.

Hopefully I never have to be put into a position to have to make that choice (but when most of my neighbors are meth dealers and meth heads it probably will happen at some point, garage has already been broken into several times).

Bookwrack wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:True. And that's perfectly alright. However, Fateweaver and FITZZ seemed to be advocating actions slightly more 'radical' than that.

Wow,Fateweaver and I on the same side of the fence,strange considering our vastly different political views .
However,I stand by my previous statement,with some clarification,I live in an area where burglary/home invasions do on occasion happen,families have had their doors kicked open and been held hostage/victiamized/injured and even killed.
Now taking this into account,should an individule or individules enter my home with the intent of commiting a crime,I have no intention of assesing why they are there,or attempt to asscertain if they only intend to grab the playstation and run away,I will use deadly force to protect my family from any possibility of harm.

We're actually in agreement here. If you think you're in danger in a home invasion, you're pretty broadly justified in using lethal force to protect yourself. What I'm taking issue with is Fateweaver's silly insinuation that there's nothing wrong with using the guy as a bullet stop after he's already been subdued, and this came up in a previous thread where another poster went off about how, 'you just don't understand the bloodlust man,' re a home invasion ends in the burglar being scared off, but the home owner and friends chase him down the street, hold him down, and curbstomp him.

I get where your comming from,and agree,in a (hypothetical) home invasion,should the individule(s) turn and run/surrender (although I would be extreamly cautious here),they become the problem of the cops/courts as they are no longer an immediate threat to my family.
I have no qaulms about fireing on someone who has illegaly enterd my home,however if they turn and run I'm certainly not going to chase them out into the street shooting at them as they flee,my goal is to protect my family not to play at being (insert favorite action hero here).

Orlanth wrote:Yes this is another of my 'text walls'. However we are having a seruious discusion, which need not be exclusively conducted with a series of half thought one liners as scrawled out in crayon on a playground wall. I am sure we will find someone here who can read a comprehensive arguement and comment in return.

The problems with paedophilia scare and modern justice.
Becasue of PC dogma it is a well known and tried strategy for the criminal community to make up accusations along this nature. Because everyone hates paedos it is very common to try and accuse someone of being one with a varying degree of 'evidence'.
If you are a scum, say a drug smuggler, and you want someone out of the way, just spread the rumour they are a paedophile. What you get is a fething frenzy. Job done.

I also know of a case where a teenage girl lied to her dad, she was with a 'm8' in her house, but didnt want to admit that, so she said she was detained by so and so. a suspected paedo. For paedo read misfit, he was no more a paedo than an average old woman in 17th century New England is a witch.
It was only after she found out what had happened to this innocent man that she was shamed enough to tell the truth, and likely only because plenty of witnesses to show her as being in her friends house at the refered time.

This is just one case from my home town that has come to my ears. its by no means a rare problem. I would be feel safe to bet that false accuisation is a more common crime than paedophilia, and would not be suprised if the sum total of damage in lives ruined is greater.
Now a lot of people have worrited over released peados in nearby streets, yes that can happen. But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Forgive my skeptimism, but where are you getting this information? I'm not aware of any statistics that refute or agree with this.

The Sun newspaper once outed paedos in the papers as a public service. Some people were lynched two died, IIRC both were innocent. after all the paedos ran, but people who looked like them didnt. They had no need to.

That is a truly sad example. And the first I have heard of it. It's disgusting that something like that was allowed to happen.

I hope the real message comes across. Paedophilia (and terrorism and pensioner bashing and drug smuggling) might be bad and real, but JUSTICE MUST BE LEFT TO THE RATIONAL. If your opinions on capital punishment or law in general are swayed by your disgust at some crimes then I beg to suggest thast you are not yet fit to make an informated and fair choice on the subject of societal punishment. This does open up the new arguement, whom is fit to comment. I think the answer will be relational, to some extent we all are and are not, itdepends on howe ratonal we can feel on a given day.
The problems of leaving justice to the angry are too terrible to contemplate. If this means defending the undefendable so be it. there can be no justice without dispassion towards they type of offence and a measure of compassion strong enough to look at the victim and the accused both fairly.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. The court is the only place where things like this should be decided, not in front of a mob. However, I also understand societies wish that such people are never let out again. Once the court has established that the accussed is ACTUALLY guilty in an unbiased, fair trial, then I see no real reason that capital punishment should not be enforced for such a grave crime.

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah you are right Shuma. Someone enters my house in middle of the night I'll shoot first, call the cops later.

If they get there in time to save his dying ass yay for them.

Hopefully I never have to be put into a position to have to make that choice (but when most of my neighbors are meth dealers and meth heads it probably will happen at some point, garage has already been broken into several times).

Fateweaver, I am having real difficulty in recognising when you are joking and when you are not/

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Yes this is another of my 'text walls'. However we are having a seruious discusion, which need not be exclusively conducted with a series of half thought one liners as scrawled out in crayon on a playground wall. I am sure we will find someone here who can read a comprehensive arguement and comment in return.

The problems with paedophilia scare and modern justice.
Becasue of PC dogma it is a well known and tried strategy for the criminal community to make up accusations along this nature. Because everyone hates paedos it is very common to try and accuse someone of being one with a varying degree of 'evidence'.
If you are a scum, say a drug smuggler, and you want someone out of the way, just spread the rumour they are a paedophile. What you get is a fething frenzy. Job done.

I also know of a case where a teenage girl lied to her dad, she was with a 'm8' in her house, but didnt want to admit that, so she said she was detained by so and so. a suspected paedo. For paedo read misfit, he was no more a paedo than an average old woman in 17th century New England is a witch.
It was only after she found out what had happened to this innocent man that she was shamed enough to tell the truth, and likely only because plenty of witnesses to show her as being in her friends house at the refered time.

This is just one case from my home town that has come to my ears. its by no means a rare problem. I would be feel safe to bet that false accuisation is a more common crime than paedophilia, and would not be suprised if the sum total of damage in lives ruined is greater.
Now a lot of people have worrited over released peados in nearby streets, yes that can happen. But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Forgive my skeptimism, but where are you getting this information? I'm not aware of any statistics that refute or agree with this.

The Sun newspaper once outed paedos in the papers as a public service. Some people were lynched two died, IIRC both were innocent. after all the paedos ran, but people who looked like them didnt. They had no need to.

That is a truly sad example. And the first I have heard of it. It's disgusting that something like that was allowed to happen.

Wait, doesn't lynched mean killed?

Relapse wrote:
You are spot on with that statement. A lot of pedos get their kicks by fondling, sexual talk, etc., as I've found out.

If that's the case, then they aren't pedophiles. Pedophile is a specific, clinical term with a discreet meaning. Someone who sexually assaults, or engages sexually with children for reasons other than erotic desire is not a pedophile. Sexual assault does not necessarily relate to carnal wishes.

Its a complicated issue which is handicapped by a limited vocabulary (largely a result of prudish sensibilities).

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wait, doesn't lynched mean killed?

Usually, yes. More accurately, someone who is lynched is tortured to death. Its a manifestation of sadism.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wait, doesn't lynched mean killed?

No. It means unjustly attacked by a mob of vigilantes. One paediatrician's house was attacked. Another person was attacked because he wore a neck brace similar to the one worn by a paedophile in a photo. Neither of them was killed though obvious they got shaken up.

dogma wrote:Usually, yes. More accurately, someone who is lynched is tortured to death. Its a manifestation of sadism.

That is more of "this is how I personally view this" then an actual definition. Lynching is vigilante 'justice', in recent history carried out by hanging. It is a manifestation of disregard for law. It can involve torture, but doesn't necessarily. It most certainly involves terror.

When I actually found myself in a couple of situations in New Orleans, once with a gunman I subdued and held for the cops and another time when I got into a fight with knife armed muggers,
I decided to chuck my kill 'em with no questions asked opinion.
I found in my own case, anyway, it's easier to talk about killing someone vigilante style than actually performing the deed when you have an attacker in the position where, with just an ounce more pressure, you could break bones and cripple them for life.

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:Usually, yes. More accurately, someone who is lynched is tortured to death. Its a manifestation of sadism.

That is more of "this is how I personally view this" then an actual definition. Lynching is vigilante 'justice', in recent history carried out by hanging. It is a manifestation of disregard for law. It can involve torture, but doesn't necessarily. It most certainly involves terror.

To lynch someone is to hang them until death, usually in a mob fashion, the hanging isn't tied to it in all cases, but it's certainly pretty inherent to the meaning.

lynch (lĭnch)
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.

[Short for lynch law.]
lynch'er n., lynch'ing n.

lynch (v.)
1835, from earlier Lynch law (1811), likely named after William Lynch (1742-1820) of Pittsylvania, Va., who c.1780 led a vigilance committee to keep order there during the Revolution. Other sources trace the name to Charles Lynch (1736-96) a Virginia magistrate who fined and imprisoned Tories in his district c.1782, but the connection to him is less likely. Originally any sort of summary justice, especially by flogging; narrowing of focus to "extralegal execution by hanging" is 20c. Lynch mob is attested from 1838. The surname is either from O.E. hlinc "hill" or Ir. Loingseach "sailor."

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: lynch
Pronunciation: 'linch
Function: transitive verb
: to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction —lynch·er noun

It has a pretty solid meaning.

Ahtman wrote:That is more of "this is how I personally view this" then an actual definition. Lynching is vigilante 'justice', in recent history carried out by hanging. It is a manifestation of disregard for law. It can involve torture, but doesn't necessarily. It most certainly involves terror.

Fair enough. A better statement would have been "lynching is closely tied to sadism". Its not an intrinsic link so much as my understanding of popular justice.

Relapse wrote:When I actually found myself in a couple of situations in New Orleans, once with a gunman I subdued and held for the cops and another time when I got into a fight with knife armed muggers,
I decided to chuck my kill 'em with no questions asked opinion.
I found in my own case, anyway, it's easier to talk about killing someone vigilante style than actually performing the deed when you have an attacker in the position where, with just an ounce more pressure, you could break bones and cripple them for life.

While I can appreciate your view Relapse,I was born and raised in New Orleans,grew up on Alvar street a few blocks away from the Desire street projects in the 9th ward,and honestly belive you were extreamly fourtunate considering the situations you described.
As you no doubt are aware of,situations can become very vicious very quickly in New Orleans,and while it would be nice to be able to have a more "merciful" outlook concerning confrontations,in more cases than not it can quickly get you killed.

FITZZ wrote:

Relapse wrote:When I actually found myself in a couple of situations in New Orleans, once with a gunman I subdued and held for the cops and another time when I got into a fight with knife armed muggers,
I decided to chuck my kill 'em with no questions asked opinion.
I found in my own case, anyway, it's easier to talk about killing someone vigilante style than actually performing the deed when you have an attacker in the position where, with just an ounce more pressure, you could break bones and cripple them for life.

While I can appreciate your view Relapse,I was born and raised in New Orleans,grew up on Alvar street a few blocks away from the Desire street projects in the 9th ward,and honestly belive you were extreamly fourtunate considering the situations you described.
As you no doubt are aware of,situations can become very vicious very quickly in New Orleans,and while it would be nice to be able to have a more "merciful" outlook concerning confrontations,in more cases than not it can quickly get you killed.

Both times, I got into it at the Clarion Hotel, on Canal street. The first time, with the gun man, was actually inside the lobby at about 2 am when it was just me and a couple guys behind the desk. The guy just came in from the street and held up the desk clerks. I was in the luggage room having lunch when I first knew anything was going on because of them yelling to me. I came out to see a security guard wrestling with the man who I at first thought was having an epileptic seizure. The desk clerks yelled at me that he had a gun, just as he shook off the guard. My first thought was, great, the guard is going to get us all killed for the night's till. This was followed closley by the thought if I didn't do something quick, the guy was going to shoot the guard and clerks.
As he was pulling up his gun, I ran in and clipped him behind the knees and took him down. We rolled around a second or two with him trying to get the gun on me, but I managed to keep him from getting a good aim and caught him up in a joint lock that caused him enough pain to throw his gun off to one side, the money he stole to the other, and begin screaming for mercy. After the incident, I was told that his screams of pain could be heard throughout the first and second floors of the Clarion.
The security guard then ran in and began slamming his head into the ground. I was a bit worried about lookouts coming in, at which point, I was going to cripple the guy for life and start shooting with his gun. It didn't come to that, though. The cops came to carry him away, literaly, because he couldn't walk after the hold I had him in.
The guys with knives were trying to force me to go to the Iberville projects with them and we just got into it the and there in the early morning hours outside the hotel. I ended up just kicking the living gak out of those two.
After that, I decided the job of graveyard bellman could go to someone else.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Yes this is another of my 'text walls'. However we are having a seruious discusion, which need not be exclusively conducted with a series of half thought one liners as scrawled out in crayon on a playground wall. I am sure we will find someone here who can read a comprehensive arguement and comment in return.

The problems with paedophilia scare and modern justice.
Becasue of PC dogma it is a well known and tried strategy for the criminal community to make up accusations along this nature. Because everyone hates paedos it is very common to try and accuse someone of being one with a varying degree of 'evidence'.
If you are a scum, say a drug smuggler, and you want someone out of the way, just spread the rumour they are a paedophile. What you get is a fething frenzy. Job done.

I also know of a case where a teenage girl lied to her dad, she was with a 'm8' in her house, but didnt want to admit that, so she said she was detained by so and so. a suspected paedo. For paedo read misfit, he was no more a paedo than an average old woman in 17th century New England is a witch.
It was only after she found out what had happened to this innocent man that she was shamed enough to tell the truth, and likely only because plenty of witnesses to show her as being in her friends house at the refered time.

This is just one case from my home town that has come to my ears. its by no means a rare problem. I would be feel safe to bet that false accuisation is a more common crime than paedophilia, and would not be suprised if the sum total of damage in lives ruined is greater.
Now a lot of people have worrited over released peados in nearby streets, yes that can happen. But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Forgive my skeptimism, but where are you getting this information? I'm not aware of any statistics that refute or agree with this.

It's stories from my home town, double sourced of course. The 'girl who lied' story was from an estate under two miles away from where I lived at the time. It never made the press. I didnt know anyone related to the story, but I knew people on the estate.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The Sun newspaper once outed paedos in the papers as a public service. Some people were lynched two died, IIRC both were innocent. after all the paedos ran, but people who looked like them didnt. They had no need to.

That is a truly sad example. And the first I have heard of it. It's disgusting that something like that was allowed to happen.

This was a one off, the press got told. It hasnt happened since. Frankly I don't think even the tabloids imagined what would or even could happen the idea was to warn 'parents'. But provision of information doesnt ensure correct use of the information, even if there is a correct use. From what little more I know of the case the newspapers were shocked at the results of what happened, it would have been bad enough if this had only happened to the 'right' people. The lynchings story was kept out of the papers, I dont know if this was censorship or damage limitation by the journalists themselves. Its a well known stoy in some police departmnts, and on Fleet St.

One of the offshoots of this, there are calls for the Uk equivalent of Megans Law, but while politicians know better than to speak out against it (for fear of losing the confidence of the mob) they are dragging their heels. This, I suspect is the reason. Megans Law in the Uk would likely be a lynch mobs charter.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I agree with you wholeheartedly here. The court is the only place where things like this should be decided, not in front of a mob. However, I also understand societies wish that such people are never let out again. Once the court has established that the accussed is ACTUALLY guilty in an unbiased, fair trial, then I see no real reason that capital punishment should not be enforced for such a grave crime.

My concerns with paedophilia and the legal responce to it and capital punishment are seperate but mutually reinforcing. I think a miscariage of justice is more likely in cases where the public disgust is riled. Capital punishment only raises the ante, it is no the core problem.
The point of connection is that ttherre is a lot of overlap between calls for the death penalty and offences that cause public offence, though nt entirely so. Drug smugglers are not on the 'to execute' list but are hated.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

It was the News Of The World, not The SUn, and no-one died although several were lynched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World#Anti-paedophile_campaign
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1713905.stm

Rebekah Wade went on to edit The Sun later in her career.

I stand almost corrected, so it was not The Sun. I have the story from memory. However the report I heard from credible sources is that at least one innocent mistaken identity case died, I beleive the stories. I don't know if any real paedos were also harmed or killed, that wasnt the gist of the converasations I had. The case of the guy who died (there may have been others) certainly didnt reach the press.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:To lynch someone is to hang them until death, usually in a mob fashion, the hanging isn't tied to it in all cases, but it's certainly pretty inherent to the meaning.

Lynching literally means an extra-judicial hanging performed by an enraged populace, however it has a wider colloquial definition like many modern uses of words. Besides a 'lynch mob', the term I used, has a wider definition built in, a lynch mob might do something other than an actual lynching. Tghe colloquial defintion fr that is even wider, sometime something as 'benign' as hecklers are refered to as a lynch mob in a poetic way.

Outside of the KKK, which IIRC is not very active lately if at all, noone does literal lynchings as far as I have heard. You might have heard otherwise.

Relapse wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Relapse wrote:When I actually found myself in a couple of situations in New Orleans, once with a gunman I subdued and held for the cops and another time when I got into a fight with knife armed muggers,
I decided to chuck my kill 'em with no questions asked opinion.
I found in my own case, anyway, it's easier to talk about killing someone vigilante style than actually performing the deed when you have an attacker in the position where, with just an ounce more pressure, you could break bones and cripple them for life.

While I can appreciate your view Relapse,I was born and raised in New Orleans,grew up on Alvar street a few blocks away from the Desire street projects in the 9th ward,and honestly belive you were extreamly fourtunate considering the situations you described.
As you no doubt are aware of,situations can become very vicious very quickly in New Orleans,and while it would be nice to be able to have a more "merciful" outlook concerning confrontations,in more cases than not it can quickly get you killed.

Both times, I got into it at the Clarion Hotel, on Canal street. The first time, with the gun man, was actually inside the lobby at about 2 am when it was just me and a couple guys behind the desk. The guy just came in from the street and held up the desk clerks. I was in the luggage room having lunch when I first knew anything was going on because of them yelling to me. I came out to see a security guard wrestling with the man who I at first thought was having an epileptic seizure. The desk clerks yelled at me that he had a gun, just as he shook off the guard. My first thought was, great, the guard is going to get us all killed for the night's till. This was followed closley by the thought if I didn't do something quick, the guy was going to shoot the guard and clerks.
As he was pulling up his gun, I ran in and clipped him behind the knees and took him down. We rolled around a second or two with him trying to get the gun on me, but I managed to keep him from getting a good aim and caught him up in a joint lock that caused him enough pain to throw his gun off to one side, the money he stole to the other, and begin screaming for mercy. After the incident, I was told that his screams of pain could be heard throughout the first and second floors of the Clarion.
The security guard then ran in and began slamming his head into the ground. I was a bit worried about lookouts coming in, at which point, I was going to cripple the guy for life and start shooting with his gun. It didn't come to that, though. The cops came to carry him away, literaly, because he couldn't walk after the hold I had him in.
The guys with knives were trying to force me to go to the Iberville projects with them and we just got into it the and there in the early morning hours outside the hotel. I ended up just kicking the living gak out of those two.
After that, I decided the job of graveyard bellman could go to someone else.

Again I have to say how fortunate you were,I'm very familar with the area you worked in,in my late teens/early twenties I lived on Chartres street,which is several blocks from the Iberville projects and a great neighborhood to get your head blown off in.
I belive your decision to give up your night job was indeed a good one.

Orlanth wrote:
But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Forgive my skeptimism, but where are you getting this information? I'm not aware of any statistics that refute or agree with this. :S

It's stories from my home town, double sourced of course. The 'girl who lied' story was from an estate under two miles away from where I lived at the time. It never made the press. I didnt know anyone related to the story, but I knew people on the estate.

Sorry I meant this.

The point of connection is that ttherre is a lot of overlap between calls for the death penalty and offences that cause public offence, though nt entirely so. Drug smugglers are not on the 'to execute' list but are hated.

Actually, they are.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Ok there have been cases that made the press of witchhunts.

Best example are the Tyneside social services cases which were a scandal in the early 90's. Some social workers came to the conclusion that any sign of stretching around a childs anus was defacto proof of sexual abuse. Actually there are plenty of rasons for this many innocuous, and also diagnosis is difficult because the anus is designed to stretch naturally anyway. In any case the social workers conducted spurious tests and based on their own opinions based on very flimsy 'evidence' accused large numbers of parents of being child molesters. Many children were taken into care and many familes lives were ruined as a result.

The story blew up into a major scandal, ansd doctors condemned the testing used as grossly unscientific. Ther parallels betwen this scandal and a witch finding are so close that witchunt is not an unfair description: Fear, stigmatism, spiralling accusation and spurious testing to expose the guilty.

The McMartin Preschool scandel is another good example of a witch hunt like that. The end result was a family lost the school their school, their son spent seven years in prison without ever being convicted of anything, the prosecution cost taxpayers millions of dollars, really all because the claims of a schizophrenic, ill mother were taken at face value, the absolutely awful examination techniques of a psychologist were never questions, and people in positions of power wanted to show how hard ass they were against 'bad people.'

@FITZZ,

One nice thing was that after those two incidents I could do no wrong in the eyes of the NOPD. They'd even come to warn me when tow trucks were coming so I could move my truck somewhere else if I was parked in a place by the hotel where the cars there were going to be ticketed or towed .

Ketara wrote:Having read through this thread with great interest, I'd like to propose a hypothetical situation here that's a bit more on topic than the child molestation scenario.

You are sitting in a jury in a court, and a nondescript man is lead out. He stands accused of something in the region of a hundred murders, from the rich and powerful to the poor and nondescript, all across the globe. He is an assassin, a hit man, people pay him large sums of money to take care of their 'problems'. He is proficient at what he does, and professional, always ensuing that his targets do not suffer needlessly.

Just before sentencing commences, he stands up and makes a speech. In it, he considers the nature of morality. He asks why paying a man to kill people in the army is socially acceptable, whilst paying what is effectively a freelancer is not. He raises the question as to why he is prosecuted, and dogs of war (mercenaries) are not treated so harshly. He underscores his professionalism, and says that like any soldier, he merely does what he is paid to do. He points out several cases of the Secret Service in your Government doing what he does.

So, as a member of the jury, what would your verdict be? Does this man deserve to hang? He's not motivated by hatred, or even greed particularly, this is simply his job, and he is good at it. He is no greedier than any soldier, and does not make an obscene amount of money. He has a wife, and two daughters he supports from the proceeds, who live a relatively well off middle class life. You know that if you do not kill him, he will simply return to his previous life off liquidating people for money. He is not the kind to be rehabilitated, as he feels his conscience is clear anyway.

Assuming you are the judge, jury, and executioner here, what is your ruling? On what grounds do you make them? Answer me well Dakkaites, as I await your judgments and reasoning with the greatest of curiosity.

Thats a great question mate, here is my opinion.

I have always believed that it is ridiculous how our society seems to make organised criminals into celebrity types, in the UK, people like the Krays, Lenny Mclean etc, they all have some sort of hero status, releasing books and such, and yet we scorn burglars and muggers as scum, when maybe there are more convincing reasons for their stupid crimes, such as addiction to drugs or even starving for example.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, i have always belived that killing people for money, is the absolute worst thing a man can do. Stealing and robbing are one thing, but to actually end a mans life just for your own personal gain (money) is abhorent to me. You could argue that many criminals also have a mental issue as well as a motive, paedos and such most certainly do have a mental issue, as normal people do not find children attractive, and yet we vilify them (and rightly so of course) but a hitman, is a sane person, merely killing for wealth.

The solider analogy is a bad one, because a solider is sent to fight by his country, and his country is made up by the officials that were elected to represent the people that inhabit it. Now, since Iraq people have kinda gotten pissed about the whole thing, but the principle remains! A soldier is paid to do his job, and to kill people that their nation decides are deserving of their fate. When i was over in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were very strict ROE and we always made our very best efforts to hurt only combatants. Even if you disagree with the occupation, then do what our protesters do, and peacefully protest and picket. Make your views known as aggresively as possible, just dont hurt people.

In this regard, i never ever felt bad about shooting at a human being on operations, i rationalized that the good people that may have been against the issue would not take up arms to murder coalition soldiers. And that is a black and white mentality, but you need it sometimes as a ranking soldier, you just have to hope that your high ranking officers and politicians are doing their very best and are trying as hard as you.

If you will end a mans existence for nothing other than money, you ARE scum. No matter how you try and dress it up.

Thats my opinion anyway, though i concede that for some reason there is some sort of romantic notion about big time criminals like Al Capone and such.. and i dont understand it, maybe we respect men who we think of as "strong" for some kind of primal reason.

But anyway yeah, a hitman is a dirtbag. Hang the fether!

Capital punishment = Yes.

My 2 cents.

@Waaagh_Gonads: What in that scenario? Or just in general?

@mattyrm: Personally, I agree with you there for the most part. But on the other hand...

...and to kill people that their nation decides are deserving of their fate.

This statment raises a lot of questions.

Ah, so we're finally at the point of death penalty = justified tyranny of the majority.

i have no strong feelings either way

dogma wrote:Ah, so we're finally at the point of death penalty = justified tyranny of the majority.

I was thinking more along the lines of when the nations view of the 'enemy' differs from the peoples view of the 'enemy'. I don't know how I would actually act when faced with a situation, but if a superior ordered me to gun down civilians (of any race/nation) I would refuse. And if s/he proceeded to do so themselves I'd like to think I'd have the gall to stop them.

I read an interesting (and awful) case which happened in Vietnam. I can't remember the towns name (Din Lao?) but the corporal in charge there personlly killed the entire village. His men did nothing but watch. He was found guilty (after the war, the situation had almost been forgotten). However, President Nixon intervened and (gradually, over time) downgraded his sentence. A man convicted of over 20 murders (including the murder of a 6-month old child) and the likely at least 100, and had been sentenced to life in prison, ended up spending only 5 years confined to his apartment.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of when the nations view of the 'enemy' differs from the peoples view of the 'enemy'.

By 'nation' you mean 'state' yes? Nation and people are synonymous.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I don't know how I would actually act when faced with a situation, but if a superior ordered me to gun down civilians (of any race/nation) I would refuse. And if s/he proceeded to do so themselves I'd like to think I'd have the gall to stop them.

Many people enjoy that thought, but statistics seem to indicate that the opposite is true.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
However, President Nixon intervened and (gradually, over time) downgraded his sentence. A man convicted of over 20 murders (including the murder of a 6-month old child) and the likely at least 100, and had been sentenced to life in prison, ended up spending only 5 years confined to his apartment.

This would be a bad time to point out that Nixon was my favorite President (everyone loves a little Niccolo in their jowls).

That said, he should have been prosecuted. Nationality is not relevant to practicality.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of when the nations view of the 'enemy' differs from the peoples view of the 'enemy'.

By 'nation' you mean 'state' yes? Nation and people are synonymous.

(Sorry, 'nation' may have been a poor choice of words. I meant Goverment. (And yes I understand that a Govt is supposed to, im most cases, represent the people)

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I don't know how I would actually act when faced with a situation, but if a superior ordered me to gun down civilians (of any race/nation) I would refuse. And if s/he proceeded to do so themselves I'd like to think I'd have the gall to stop them.

Many people enjoy that thought, but statistics seem to indicate that the opposite is true.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. Which is why I said I'd like to think that I was capable of taking such a large leap of faith and being a man. But, as you can see, it's never going to be a black and white situation.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
However, President Nixon intervened and (gradually, over time) downgraded his sentence. A man convicted of over 20 murders (including the murder of a 6-month old child) and the likely at least 100, and had been sentenced to life in prison, ended up spending only 5 years confined to his apartment.

This would be a bad time to point out that Nixon was my favorite President (everyone loves a little Niccolo in their jowls).

That said, he should have been prosecuted. Nationality is not relevant to practicality.

But I don't understand WHY Nixon pardoned him.

(Who IMHO is a douche. )

(How long before they make an Obama one? )

This would be a bad time to point out that Nixon was my favorite President (everyone loves a little Niccolo in their jowls).

I knew there was a reason I didn't trust you.