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.

Generally, the stuff that gets these people on death row makes me not give a flying feth about whether they die painlessly or not. Normally I'd say feth humane execution for the gak these animals do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 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...

I support executing people in the same way as the committed the murder.

I'm shocked he hasn't sued the prison for making him fat yet. Wait for it.

 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.

Agreed.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?

Because edge cases are the best place for an unethical man to seize greater power. When Stephen Conroy tried to cripple Australia's internet with an unaccountable blacklist, he lied and said he was doing it to protect children from child pornographers. When George Bush tried to claim his prisoners were entitled to the protections of neither the Third nor Fourth Geneva Conventions, he lied and said that they were "unlawful combatants".

A government that believes itself above the requirement for oversight and constraints is capable of far greater harm than any lone murderer. I consider lethal injection an overengineered solution to a problem that does not exist, but if you're going to kill someone you should at least do so quickly, humanely and by the book.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?

Because edge cases are the best place for an unethical man to seize greater power. When Stephen Conroy tried to cripple Australia's internet with an unaccountable blacklist, he lied and said he was doing it to protect children from child pornographers. When George Bush tried to claim his prisoners were entitled to the protections of neither the Third nor Fourth Geneva Conventions, he lied and said that they were "unlawful combatants".

A government that believes itself above the requirement for oversight and constraints is capable of far greater harm than any lone murderer. I consider lethal injection an overengineered solution to a problem that does not exist, but if you're going to kill someone you should at least do so quickly, humanely and by the book.

Wait, what?

I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.

I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.

EDIT

This isn't advocating for pre emptive execution, not at all.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.

I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.

Ehhh, that might be a little too far. If the victim wants to do it, ok, but I still think it would be wierd.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:


Sociopaths aren't human.

"People with asperger aren't humans..."

See what I did there?

Every year I try to get "Death by Catapult" added to the list of options for Capital Punishment at the Texas State Legislature, and every year my "Banned from Austin" court order is extended by 365 days.

It's not fair.

 d-usa wrote:
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...

But, aren't we there already? Just look at out entertainment... we show blood galore/murders/sick things... but, show a little bewbs on the telly and it's "no knowz, what about the kidz!"

 Grey Templar wrote:
I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.

My post was not about what the murderer deserves. I'm saying that the government does not deserve to be trusted to violate its own constitution.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.

My post was not about what the murderer deserves. I'm saying that the government does not deserve to be trusted to violate its own constitution.

Again, how is that relevant to this conversation?

Grey Templar wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?

Because edge cases are the best place for an unethical man to seize greater power. When Stephen Conroy tried to cripple Australia's internet with an unaccountable blacklist, he lied and said he was doing it to protect children from child pornographers. When George Bush tried to claim his prisoners were entitled to the protections of neither the Third nor Fourth Geneva Conventions, he lied and said that they were "unlawful combatants".

A government that believes itself above the requirement for oversight and constraints is capable of far greater harm than any lone murderer. I consider lethal injection an overengineered solution to a problem that does not exist, but if you're going to kill someone you should at least do so quickly, humanely and by the book.

Wait, what?

I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.

Because they unethically created areas where they could whatever the feth they wanted to people they didn't like (at least in Bushes case)

In legal situations justice has to be ethical and should never lower itself to the criminal's level.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.

I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.

Labelling people as "non-humans" is never a good sign, and saying you should just remove them from society is dangerous thinking,
In many instances you don't know if somebody is a criminal before they commit the crime, and socio-paths can learn to hide their condition and can attempt to function in society

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why should our glorious constitution be applied to murdering scum?

Because edge cases are the best place for an unethical man to seize greater power. When Stephen Conroy tried to cripple Australia's internet with an unaccountable blacklist, he lied and said he was doing it to protect children from child pornographers. When George Bush tried to claim his prisoners were entitled to the protections of neither the Third nor Fourth Geneva Conventions, he lied and said that they were "unlawful combatants".

A government that believes itself above the requirement for oversight and constraints is capable of far greater harm than any lone murderer. I consider lethal injection an overengineered solution to a problem that does not exist, but if you're going to kill someone you should at least do so quickly, humanely and by the book.

Wait, what?

I am failing to see how that has any bearing on if murderers deserve the protection from the Constitution of a society they have flagrently violated.

Because they unethically created areas where they could whatever the feth they wanted to people they didn't like (at least in Bushes case)

In legal situations justice has to be ethical and should never lower itself to the criminal's level.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.

I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.

Labelling people as "non-humans" is never a good sign, and saying you should just remove them from society is dangerous thinking,
In many instances you don't know if somebody is a criminal before they commit the crime, and socio-paths can learn to hide their condition and can attempt to function in society

I'm not advocating for preemptively executing them. (though I do think waiting for them to kill someone represents a total failure) If they do kill or rape someone, we shouldn't feth around with our morality that they don't understand anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:


Sociopaths aren't human.

"People with asperger aren't humans..."

See what I did there?

There is no comparison between those disorders. If you understood psychology, you would know that. This demonstrates that you are trolling. You also knowingly attacked a disability that I have, which is a severe violation of the rules.

Please stop deliberately trying to troll my posts and actually post something productive.

A human is a human, whether he's a sociopath, a leper, a school teacher, or a bus driver.

Unless you're a psychologist, Inquisitor Ehernstein, don't try playing the "if you understood psychology" card, please.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
I'm not advocating for preemptively executing them. (though I do think waiting for them to kill someone represents a total failure) .

There's no guarantee that they will kill, and how would you identity the ones that would kill unless stopped

kronk wrote:A human is a human, whether he's a sociopath, a leper, a school teacher, or a bus driver.

Unless you're a psychologist, Inquisitor Ehernstein, don't try playing the "if you understood psychology" card, please.

well said, exalted

 kronk wrote:
A human is a human, whether he's a sociopath, a leper, a school teacher, or a bus driver.

Unless you're a psychologist, Inquisitor Ehernstein, don't try playing the "if you understood psychology" card, please.

In an absolute biological sense, yes, but in the American Liberal overly feels deep thought moral sense, "humans have the ability to have emotions and display empathy for other people." Sociopaths don't do that.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:


Sociopaths aren't human.

"People with asperger aren't humans..."

See what I did there?

A) There is no comparison between those disorders. B) If you understood psychology, you would know that. C) This demonstrates that you are trolling. D) You also knowingly attacked a disability that I have, which is a severe violation of the rules.

Please stop deliberately trying to troll my posts and actually post something productive.

A) They are disorders, therefore they can be compared.
B) Not that it matters, but Philosophy Master with a specialisation in Consciousness Studies here.
C) No it does not. You cannot infer from my ignorance that I am malicious.
D) No, I drew light on the matter at hand in a way which might resonate with your experience. Humanity is not something clear cut, and it's certainly not something you might lose because of a disorder.

This is even funnier coming from the Nazi hunter wannabe guy...

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:


In an absolute biological sense, yes, but in the American Liberal overly feels deep thought moral sense, "humans have the ability to have emotions and display empathy for other people." Sociopaths don't do that.

That's nice. And not all sociopaths are murderers. Some are bus drivers. They're still people.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 kronk wrote:
A human is a human, whether he's a sociopath, a leper, a school teacher, or a bus driver.

Unless you're a psychologist, Inquisitor Ehernstein, don't try playing the "if you understood psychology" card, please.

In an absolute biological sense, yes, but in the American Liberal overly feels deep thought moral sense, "humans have the ability to have emotions and display empathy for other people." Sociopaths don't do that.

Humans have the ability to clap their hands. People who have lost an arm do not have that ability. Therefore, they are not humans.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:


Sociopaths aren't human.

"People with asperger aren't humans..."

See what I did there?

A) There is no comparison between those disorders. B) If you understood psychology, you would know that. C) This demonstrates that you are trolling. D) You also knowingly attacked a disability that I have, which is a severe violation of the rules.

Please stop deliberately trying to troll my posts and actually post something productive.

A) They are disorders, therefore they can be compared.
B) Not that it matters, but Philosophy Master with a specialisation in Consciousness Studies here.
C) No it does not. You cannot infer from my ignorance that I am malicious.
D) No, I drew light on the matter at hand in a way which might resonate with your experience. Humanity is not something clear cut, and it's certainly not something you might lose because of a disorder.

This is even funnier coming from the Nazi hunter wannabe guy...

If it was a serious suggestion, that I'm sorry for making that conclusion.

While they are disorders, they are completely different; they can't even co exist in the same person.

While you chose something that I had experience with, I think it would have been good if you had thought about how it would have been received.

Your last comment is simply trolling. You are expressing a serious point, but that isn't the way to do it. Please explain your thoughts without ridicule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:


In an absolute biological sense, yes, but in the American Liberal overly feels deep thought moral sense, "humans have the ability to have emotions and display empathy for other people." Sociopaths don't do that.

That's nice. And not all sociopaths are murderers. Some are bus drivers. They're still people.

That's why I don't advocate for rounding them up or anything like that. If they do kill or rape someone, we shouldn't feth around.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

While they are disorders, they are completely different; they can't even co exist in the same person.

That's not the point, the point is that they are both disorders which do not affect a normal human being. If you say that a lack of empathy makes someone less of a human, what is stopping me from saying that a lack of social skills makes someone less of a human?

While you chose something that I had experience with, I think it would have been good if you had thought about how it would have been received.

That is precisely why I chose that example. People with disorders should better understand then most why you shouldn't judge someone based solely on their disorder.

Your last comment is simply trolling. You are expressing a serious point, but that isn't the way to do it. Please explain your thoughts without ridicule.

I'm expressing my disbeleif that someone with such a hatred of Nazism would in turn end up judging others as something less than human.

I have never heard so many accusations of trolling coming form one person...

Firstly, I find it utterly baffling that someone could say the Constitution of the United States shouldn't apply to certain criminals, when the very document itself explicitly states that it does. In fact, several amendments are dedicated to fair, humane treatment of criminals.

Secondly, if you pretend that your "herpaderp cut off their testicles and starve them, then set them on fire" plans of executing these "monsters" are based on anything other than blind, dumb bloddlust, you're deluding yourself.

Most murders are crimes of passion, not the work of cold, calculating killers. The people that commit them deserve prison time, not cruel death. On top of that, the prison with the lowest re-commital rate of former inmates is one in Norway that essentially lets them live normal, respectable lives amongst themselves until they are released.

But seriously, most criminals are normal, everyday people that have made terrible decisions and who would be quite capable of going on to be productive members of society. That is if we didn't stick them in horrible, dysfunctional for-profit prisons or, as in the deluded minds of teenagers and communazi fetishists the internet over, brutally slaughter them.

 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.

C'mon Seb, you've seen the pictures of what happens when they dynamite whale carcasses

the color purple wrote:
Firstly, I find it utterly baffling that someone could say the Constitution of the United States shouldn't apply to certain criminals, when the very document itself explicitly states that it does. In fact, several amendments are dedicated to fair, humane treatment of criminals.

Yeah, it applies now. I think it should be changed or amended to take away certain rights from criminals if they are convicted. Thats all.

edited.

 ENOZONE wrote:
" at more than 400 pounds, was too heavy to be hanged because he might be decapitated."

That's something I'd like to see....

Who ever catches his head after it pops off gets a $25 gift certificate to Dairy Queen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the color purple wrote:
Firstly, I find it utterly baffling that someone could say the Constitution of the United States shouldn't apply to certain criminals, when the very document itself explicitly states that it does. In fact, several amendments are dedicated to fair, humane treatment of criminals.

Secondly, if you pretend that your "herpaderp cut off their testicles and starve them, then set them on fire" plans of executing these "monsters" are based on anything other than blind, dumb bloddlust, you're deluding yourself.

Most murders are crimes of passion, not the work of cold, calculating killers. The people that commit them deserve prison time, not cruel death. On top of that, the prison with the lowest re-commital rate of former inmates is one in Norway that essentially lets them live normal, respectable lives amongst themselves until they are released.

But seriously, most criminals are normal, everyday people that have made terrible decisions and who would be quite capable of going on to be productive members of society. That is if we didn't stick them in horrible, dysfunctional for-profit prisons or, as in the deluded minds of teenagers and communazi fetishists the internet over, brutally slaughter them.

Incarceration is already stripping them of most of their rights.

Most forms of punishment are retributive. Steal a car: lose a few years of your life. Kill someone: execution. People have different ideas on the extent of retribution to be had.

Not really. If you'd like to cite some stupid statistics that would be cool, but people will murder over anything be it financial, anger or gang related. Private prisons are generally looked down upon because they are for-profit, state prisons don't make a profit.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

Which is fine, if that's your opinion.

I was challenging the argument that the death penalty is good as it works as a discouragement to other murderers, because it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Sociopaths aren't human. At the very least, like you said in your subsequent post, they're like a dangerous dog that has to be put down. Under various ways of how you define "human," they literally wouldn't qualify.

No, they're people. They've got human arms, and human legs, and human heads, and all the other bits that humans have. They were born from the womb of a human woman. They're human.

I know it's cool and exciting to imagine the sub-human things that hard men have to make hard decisions about and all that, but seriously, what you posted up there is just silly.

I think that in murder, the families of the victims should be allowed to perform the execution, possibly by having each person flip a switch that completes a circuit to start the process. In cases of rape, the victim should be allowed to perform the execution.

2,000 years of judicial progress, all for kids on the internet to invent weird little revenge fantasies.

Because nothing say's, "We're still human" than the agreement to exterminate other humans that exterminate other humans.