Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
sebster wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again - death by explosion. Tie them to a chair on top of a gakload of explosive, light a fuse and run like hell.
I mean, you want to obliterate a person from the earth, be honest about what you're doing.
Once more, because the irony appealed to me when originally I found this gem after you first mentioned execution by explosives:
sebster wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again - death by explosion. Tie them to a chair on top of a gakload of explosive, light a fuse and run like hell.
I mean, you want to obliterate a person from the earth, be honest about what you're doing.
Once more, because the irony appealed to me when originally I found this gem after you first mentioned execution by explosives:
Snrub wrote: We most likely haven't even scratched the surface as far as Nth Koreas nuttyness goes Kronk.
Oh it gets crazier. The exact nature of Kim Jong-un's leadership is actually kind of a mess, if you look just at the positions he formally holds. He's got the highest rank in the military, and is the Supreme Leader of North Korea, but if you look into that title it doesn't actually mean anything or confer any official power.
The positions that really matters and give substantial power is General Secretary of the Party - and no-one holds that anymore because Kim Jong-il was named Eternal Chairman. That's right, the real power in North Korea is zombie Kim Jong-il.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/06 05:46:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Firing Squads are a great way too boost unit moral and provide valuable hands-on marksmanship practice.
I wonder how someone gets fat on prison food? Don't they have limits on how much they can eat? Or did he do something like eat a bunch of a toilet paper to clog up his bowels?
Captain Fantastic wrote: Firing Squads are a great way too boost unit moral and provide valuable hands-on marksmanship practice.
I wonder how someone gets fat on prison food? Don't they have limits on how much they can eat? Or did he do something like eat a bunch of a toilet paper to clog up his bowels?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
hotsauceman1 wrote: That leads to another question.
how did an 800 pound man kill someone?
did he roll over on his wife?
Didn't you ever watch Monk?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Fafnir wrote: I could have sworn the real leader was zombie Kim Il-sung
He is the Eternal President. Which is still all kinds of crazy, but only a harmless kind of crazy as he was given that title after he died, and it was purely honorary, with no formal powers. The powers of that position basically returned to the head of the party, where they had rested before the the title of President had been created.
It did set the precedent for giving people positions that they would continue to hold despite being dead, though. And now we have a position with real, formal power, being held by a corpse.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mannahnin wrote: You seem to be suggesting that we should lower ourselves to the level of murderers out of expediency or bloodthirstiness.
No thanks.
Actually, I believe it will end up causing less bloodshed: with our system as it is, murderers often end up in prison for a large amount of time, enjoying access to exercise, work and three square meals a day. My suggestion would mean only people incarcerated for lesser crimes would be imprisoned, as anyone convicted would be removed from existence the same way they removed somebody else. The goal of this is not actual bloodshed, but to provide FEAR of retaliation, that would cause less murders. Would you be more likely to kill someone if you would be killed the same way, or if you were to receive life in a building that has decent temperature control, solid amounts of food, exercise, and a steady job? Hmmm...I know which one sounds worse to me...
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
Considering that we have used escalating punishment to instil fear to reduce crime, and that we continue to imprison more people than any other nation on earth, it seems safe to say that it is a dumb idea that is simply not working.
timetowaste85 wrote: The goal of this is not actual bloodshed, but to provide FEAR of retaliation, that would cause less murders.
Would you change your opinion if you were to learn that the death penalty doesn't lead to fewer murders? That the prospect of extreme retaliation doesn't impact the rate of murder at all?
Would you be more likely to kill someone if you would be killed the same way, or if you were to receive life in a building that has decent temperature control, solid amounts of food, exercise, and a steady job? Hmmm...I know which one sounds worse to me...
I think it's a bit odd to think anyone planning or in the act of committing will spend any time at all considering what might happen to them if they're caught and convicted. There's no rational weighing of the costs and benefits. Instead, you find either an assumption that they'll get away with it, or no consideration given to the idea of likely punishment at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/06 08:43:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I really don't care. I think the fewer breathing murderers there are in a country the better off it is. Similar rapists and other such scum that doesn't deserve to be referred to as a human being any more.
Blood makes the grass grow.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
If we reduce ourselves to becoming blood-lusting barbarians because we want to kill the blood-lusting barbarians then I just say it is a sign that this country is fethed.
More so than any political discourse about Obama, Socialism, Fiscal Cliff, or anything else...
It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/06 10:44:11
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
I imagine you would do the exact same thing that you now do after you pumped a guy full of lethal chemicals to death only to find out that he was innocent.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
Plus the fact it could be highly unconstitutional
Currently debating whether to study for my exams or paint some Deathwing
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
Plus the fact it could be highly unconstitutional
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
IMO, if you have commited serious crimes against society you have lost the right to be protected by societies rules, and those protections should no longer extend to you.
I think anyone that is sentanced to any length of time in prison should have their voting rights suspended for the duration incarcerated.
And for crimes of certain severity, rape, murder, maybe assault and battery(severity dependent), you should lose all of your citizenship rights. Afterall, if someone breaks the rules of society, why should they continue to be protected by that society?
As for false convictions, modern forensic science has advanced to the point where the chance of someone getting wrongly convicted is highly unlikely. So that is not something we should be overly concerned about, especially with cases where Murder or Rape is involved.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
Plus the fact it could be highly unconstitutional
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
.
It states all mena re equal and shouldn't be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, it's their rights as american citizens, all laws in the US can't contradict it.
So a law that says you can do whatever the feth you like to a criminal is unconstitutional, and makes you no better than them
Currently debating whether to study for my exams or paint some Deathwing
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's not about blood lust, it's clinical. You're in the medical profession, you should understand. When there's a sickness that you can't remove with drugs, more extreme measures must be taken... sometimes you have to cut it out.
If a dog gets sick and attacks other dogs and people you kill it. I see no reason that should be different, if not more severe for allegedly "higher" mammals. Would you say that the animal control or police officer putting the dangerous animal down is doing it out of a thirst for revenge or blood lust? Of course not, it's protecting the rest of society from a threat. That simple.
What do you do when you've starved a guy to death after poking his eyes out only to find out that he was innocent?
Plus the fact it could be highly unconstitutional
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?
.
It states all mena re equal and shouldn't be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, it's their rights as american citizens, all laws in the US can't contradict it.
So a law that says you can do whatever the feth you like to a criminal is unconstitutional, and makes you no better than them
Hence why I say they don't deserve to be protected by it. The constitution only applies to citizens, I believe murdering scum should lose their citizenship rights.
We should have a seperate Criminal Bill of Rights that outlines exactly what criminals rights are.
Right to Fair Trial, Right to a Lawyer, Right to appeal, etc...
As for cruel and unusual, I think thats up to interpertations. Death is a punishment, why should it be painless? I doubt his victim died in a way that wasn't cruel and unusual. Why should the criminal have it better then his innocent victim?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.