Godfather...you'll never win this argument here in the AMT .
I'ver heard it all here...the best 1 I love is that it's cruel...up here in Canada many of the very dangerous are locked away 23 hours a day in a 6 * 9 cell, only allowed reading materials and a pad and paper. So I don't know whats more cruel.
Here we have a few horrific criminals that even videotaped their crimes that are just wasting tax $$$$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson
(now deceased...but the Canadian taxpayer provided him fine medical care when he was diagnosed with cancer. This guy a great example of human trash. The government paid him to tell where the victims were...once in prison he became a Royal pain an the ass to the government and his victims family. But you know he has rights.
These are just a few examples ... their guilt is not in doubt.
not everyone here is here to "win". here to discuss.
One of my main points against the death penalty is exactly that: why give them the easy way out? let the bastards rot in jail and hell for 30 years on my dime. I'm fine with that.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Vital tax payer money would be saved. Instead of feeding, clothing, and entertaining this monster for the rest of her life we can just inject her with about a dollars worth of bleach into her artery and call it a day.
Wrong. It costs more to execute someone than to keep them alive in jail.
Godfather...you'll never win this argument here in the AMT .
I'ver heard it all here...the best 1 I love is that it's cruel...up here in Canada many of the very dangerous are locked away 23 hours a day in a 6 * 9 cell, only allowed reading materials and a pad and paper. So I don't know whats more cruel.
Here we have a few horrific criminals that even videotaped their crimes that are just wasting tax $$$$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson
(now deceased...but the Canadian taxpayer provided him fine medical care when he was diagnosed with cancer. This guy a great example of human trash. The government paid him to tell where the victims were...once in prison he became a Royal pain an the ass to the government and his victims family. But you know he has rights.
These are just a few examples ... their guilt is not in doubt.
not everyone here is here to "win". here to discuss.
One of my main points against the death penalty is exactly that: why give them the easy way out? let the bastards rot in jail and hell for 30 years on my dime. I'm fine with that.
Then... as much as I'd prefer death... can't they rot in prison with all the other folks? Why do we feel the need to protect them in isolation with their cable television, sloppy joes and mail privileges?
We have no problem leaving people who haven't tortured any children to their awful fates in general population, yet we feel it is responsible to provide some 'extra care' for our most obscene offenders.
Why not let fate play out? I know very well the likely outcome of Clifford Olson in general population, but 'protecting him' lies too far on the other end of the pendulum for my way of thinking. We won't execute him for his heinous crimes and we'll 'kick it up a couple of notches' and provide him with 'extra' care and attention to ensure his time in prison is as comfortable as we can make it.
Then... as much as I'd prefer death... can't they rot in prison with all the other folks? Why do we feel the need to protect them in isolation with their cable television, sloppy joes and mail privileges?
We have no problem leaving people who haven't tortured any children to their awful fates in general population, yet we feel it is responsible to provide some 'extra care' for our most obscene offenders.
Why not let fate play out? I know very well the likely outcome of Clifford Olson in general population, but 'protecting him' lies too far on the other end of the pendulum for my way of thinking. We won't execute him for his heinous crimes and we'll 'kick it up a couple of notches' and provide him with 'extra' care and attention to ensure his time in prison is as comfortable as we can make it.
I'm not there with this.
I'm with ya on that.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Vital tax payer money would be saved. Instead of feeding, clothing, and entertaining this monster for the rest of her life we can just inject her with about a dollars worth of bleach into her artery and call it a day.
Wrong. It costs more to execute someone than to keep them alive in jail.
Godfather...you'll never win this argument here in the AMT .
I'ver heard it all here...the best 1 I love is that it's cruel...up here in Canada many of the very dangerous are locked away 23 hours a day in a 6 * 9 cell, only allowed reading materials and a pad and paper. So I don't know whats more cruel.
Here we have a few horrific criminals that even videotaped their crimes that are just wasting tax $$$$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson
(now deceased...but the Canadian taxpayer provided him fine medical care when he was diagnosed with cancer. This guy a great example of human trash. The government paid him to tell where the victims were...once in prison he became a Royal pain an the ass to the government and his victims family. But you know he has rights.
These are just a few examples ... their guilt is not in doubt.
not everyone here is here to "win". here to discuss.
One of my main points against the death penalty is exactly that: why give them the easy way out? let the bastards rot in jail and hell for 30 years on my dime. I'm fine with that.
you are ... thats fine ... I have no problem with the cases I listed of using capital punishment ... especially the one's that video taped their crimes ... how horrific for those victims knowing what those horrible people did to them was videotaped ...
I'm sure the victims of clifford olson enjoyed constantly be reminded every time he sued the government for something.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Godfather...you'll never win this argument here in the AMT .
I'ver heard it all here...the best 1 I love is that it's cruel...up here in Canada many of the very dangerous are locked away 23 hours a day in a 6 * 9 cell, only allowed reading materials and a pad and paper. So I don't know whats more cruel.
Here we have a few horrific criminals that even videotaped their crimes that are just wasting tax $$$$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson
(now deceased...but the Canadian taxpayer provided him fine medical care when he was diagnosed with cancer. This guy a great example of human trash. The government paid him to tell where the victims were...once in prison he became a Royal pain an the ass to the government and his victims family. But you know he has rights.
These are just a few examples ... their guilt is not in doubt.
not everyone here is here to "win". here to discuss.
One of my main points against the death penalty is exactly that: why give them the easy way out? let the bastards rot in jail and hell for 30 years on my dime. I'm fine with that.
Then... as much as I'd prefer death... can't they rot in prison with all the other folks? Why do we feel the need to protect them in isolation with their cable television, sloppy joes and mail privileges?
We have no problem leaving people who haven't tortured any children to their awful fates in general population, yet we feel it is responsible to provide some 'extra care' for our most obscene offenders.
Why not let fate play out? I know very well the likely outcome of Clifford Olson in general population, but 'protecting him' lies too far on the other end of the pendulum for my way of thinking. We won't execute him for his heinous crimes and we'll 'kick it up a couple of notches' and provide him with 'extra' care and attention to ensure his time in prison is as comfortable as we can make it.
I'm not there with this.
So your fine with death as long as the state has no involvement ... but here in Canada ... it is the obligation of the penitentiaries to see that all individuals serve out there sentences. Here in Canada most capital offenders are isolated 23 hours a day.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Vital tax payer money would be saved. Instead of feeding, clothing, and entertaining this monster for the rest of her life we can just inject her with about a dollars worth of bleach into her artery and call it a day.
Wrong. It costs more to execute someone than to keep them alive in jail.
Well that's some utter bullshit right there.
It very well may be more expensive... but only because of the process we have instilled. It could cheaper if economics were a serious consideration.
So your fine with death as long as the state has no involvement ... but here in Canada ... it is the obligation of the penitentiaries to see that all individuals serve out there sentences. Here in Canada most capital offenders are isolated 23 hours a day.
I'm fine with death either scenario for some creeps. I'm from Canada- I'm well aware of our leniant penal system.
I have no problem with the cases I listed of using capital punishment ... especially the one's that video taped their crimes ... how horrific for those victims knowing what those horrible people did to them was videotaped
So you think that depending on the amount of sadism involved in any crime, the state should sink to a similar, or worse level of depravity, by executing the person in a long drawn-out clinical process that calls itself justice?
And what good does that do? Does it act as a deterrent? Nope. Is it just a simple case of revenge killing that does nothing to elevate 'society' above the level of any murderer? Yep.
I have no problem with the cases I listed of using capital punishment ... especially the one's that video taped their crimes ... how horrific for those victims knowing what those horrible people did to them was videotaped
So you think that depending on the amount of sadism involved in any crime, the state should sink to a similar, or worse level of depravity, by executing the person in a long drawn-out clinical process that calls itself justice?
And what good does that do? Does it act as a deterrent? Nope. Is it just a simple case of revenge killing that does nothing to elevate 'society' above the level of any murderer? Yep.
The cases I have listed ... guilt is not questioned ... there would be no long drawn out criminal process ... plus I don't care how much it cost ... money is not the issue with me ... two of the cases I listed these criminals videotaped their brutality (these criminals don't deserve to be fed 3 meals a day and cot) ... 1 of the other ones the government paid him for details of where his victims were and he continued to be a pain in the ass to the government and his victims long after he ran out of appeals.
If there is the chance the person could be innocent ... then by all means just keep him in jail ... the cases I listed guilt is not in doubt and these people are brutal ... these are people I have no problem with capital punishment ... should be automatic if you video tape your crime.
In Canada money would be less of an issue than the US ... our appeals process is not nearly as drawn out or lengthy.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The cases I have listed ... guilt is not questioned ... there would be no long drawn out criminal process ... plus I don't care how much it cost ... money is not the issue with me ... two of the cases I listed these criminals videotaped their brutality (these criminals don't deserve to be fed 3 meals a day and cot) ... 1 of the other ones the government paid him for details of where his victims were and he continued to be a pain in the ass to the government and his victims long after he ran out of appeals.
If there is the chance the person could be innocent ... then by all means just keep him in jail ... the cases I listed guilt is not in doubt and these people are brutal ... these are people I have no problem with capital punishment ... should be automatic if you video tape your crime.
In Canada money would be less of an issue than the US ... our appeals process is not nearly as drawn out or lengthy.
So you support state-sponsored revenge killings? And why is that? What good do you think it does to live in a society that regards murder as a solution?
The cases I have listed ... guilt is not questioned ... there would be no long drawn out criminal process ... plus I don't care how much it cost ... money is not the issue with me ... two of the cases I listed these criminals videotaped their brutality (these criminals don't deserve to be fed 3 meals a day and cot) ... 1 of the other ones the government paid him for details of where his victims were and he continued to be a pain in the ass to the government and his victims long after he ran out of appeals.
If there is the chance the person could be innocent ... then by all means just keep him in jail ... the cases I listed guilt is not in doubt and these people are brutal ... these are people I have no problem with capital punishment ... should be automatic if you video tape your crime.
In Canada money would be less of an issue than the US ... our appeals process is not nearly as drawn out or lengthy.
So you support state-sponsored revenge killings? And why is that? What good do you think it does to live in a society that regards murder as a solution?
A solution to a problem nobody asked for. Nobody wants murder as a solution... they'd rather the problem never manifest itself.
Given we are forced to deal with such events though, what exactly is the appropriate response? I guess that depends on your perspective. I know where you stand with regards to this issue and I am okay with that. I'm not as forgiving as you however; to me, some crimes simply demand a punishment that meets their level of obscenity.
I do not feel as if I am 'lessening' myself supporting death for some as a consequence for their actions. I'd prefer never having to read of such brutality, but forced to... well... I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.
A solution to a problem nobody asked for. Nobody wants murder as a solution... they'd rather the problem never manifest itself.
Given we are forced to deal with such events though, what exactly is the appropriate response? I guess that depends on your perspective. I know where you stand with regards to this issue and I am okay with that. I'm not as forgiving as you however; to me, some crimes simply demand a punishment that meets their level of obscenity.
I do not feel as if I am 'lessening' myself supporting death for some as a consequence for their actions. I'd prefer never having to read of such brutality, but forced to... well... I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.
this is a common misconception from pro-DPers. It has nothing to do with forgiveness. it is about one thing and one thing only: making a choice about someone's mortality that shouldn't be ours to make. nothing else.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The cases I have listed ... guilt is not questioned ... there would be no long drawn out criminal process ... plus I don't care how much it cost ... money is not the issue with me ... two of the cases I listed these criminals videotaped their brutality (these criminals don't deserve to be fed 3 meals a day and cot) ... 1 of the other ones the government paid him for details of where his victims were and he continued to be a pain in the ass to the government and his victims long after he ran out of appeals.
If there is the chance the person could be innocent ... then by all means just keep him in jail ... the cases I listed guilt is not in doubt and these people are brutal ... these are people I have no problem with capital punishment ... should be automatic if you video tape your crime.
In Canada money would be less of an issue than the US ... our appeals process is not nearly as drawn out or lengthy.
So you support state-sponsored revenge killings? And why is that? What good do you think it does to live in a society that regards murder as a solution?
In these cases and any similar cases I do.
It removes these people from society ... they can no longer torment the family victims or be a pain in the ass to the government or their victims as one case I linked to was. I am especially appalled at those that video tape their crimes (for these jerk offs I'd consider bringing back public executions, see how they like to be humiliated).
The only people I have any sympathy for in these cases are the victims and their families ... these are not victimless crimes. As well as not caring about how much it cost, I also don't care if it reduces crime ... It does guarantee these fine folks will never cause another family to suffer from more crimes from these jerkoffs.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
A solution to a problem nobody asked for. Nobody wants murder as a solution... they'd rather the problem never manifest itself.
Given we are forced to deal with such events though, what exactly is the appropriate response? I guess that depends on your perspective. I know where you stand with regards to this issue and I am okay with that. I'm not as forgiving as you however; to me, some crimes simply demand a punishment that meets their level of obscenity.
I do not feel as if I am 'lessening' myself supporting death for some as a consequence for their actions. I'd prefer never having to read of such brutality, but forced to... well... I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.
this is a common misconception from pro-DPers. It has nothing to do with forgiveness. it is about one thing and one thing only: making a choice about someone's mortality that shouldn't be ours to make. nothing else.
So you have decided what the choices we can make regarding that person's fate can be then. In other words, you feel your ideals are the most appropriate for matters such as these.
What if an extreme naturalist argued that it should not be our choice to lock anyone in prison and that society should be as it was meant to be in our most natural state and survival of the fittest? In other words, we are all free to live as nature intended- doing as we please and dealing with things as we must without any governance at all.
I am sure we would both agree that this is not appropriate. So... as we agreeingly begin to move along the continuum from there to the point where we think humanity should exist (as it pertains to crime and punishment)... we come to the point where the idea of capital punishment is entertained. You elect to stop short of this and declare that we should not make decisions regarding someone's mortality. With 100% confidence, can you declare that this is the correct spot to stop? As much as it 'feels right' for you... the death penalty 'feels right' for others.
Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to attack you. I just think that there are good, intelligent people all along the spectrum and from everything I know... there is no 'correct' course of action. What I do know is that for us to be typing away on these keyboards trying to make sense of it all... there are people that care. Your opinon is valued by me. It is well-stated. I just disagree.
So you have decided what the choices we can make regarding that person's fate can be then. In other words, you feel your ideals are the most appropriate for matters such as these.
What if an extreme naturalist argued that it should not be our choice to lock anyone in prison and that society should be as it was meant to be in our most natural state and survival of the fittest? In other words, we are all free to live as nature intended- doing as we please and dealing with things as we must without any governance at all.
I am sure we would both agree that this is not appropriate. So... as we agreeingly begin to move along the continuum from there to the point where we think humanity should exist (as it pertains to crime and punishment)... we come to the point where the idea of capital punishment is entertained. You elect to stop short of this and declare that we should not make decisions regarding someone's mortality. With 100% confidence, can you declare that this is the correct spot to stop? As much as it 'feels right' for you... the death penalty 'feels right' for others.
Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to attack you. I just think that there are good, intelligent people all along the spectrum and from everything I know... there is no 'correct' course of action. What I do know is that for us to be typing away on these keyboards trying to make sense of it all... there are people that care. Your opinon is valued by me. It is well-stated. I just disagree.
I was wondering if/when this point was going to come up, because it is a valid one. How does the current solution of taking away the freedom of a criminal not infringe upon his rights as capital punishment also does? I get that. But I think the answer lies in doing the very least we have to in order to protect society. putting them to death is an extreme that isn't necessary for public safety. People on death row, or life in prison, pose no risk to the general public. Except in extreme cases of escape, but again, I don't think it's right to kill someone based on a hypothetical.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Given we are forced to deal with such events though, what exactly is the appropriate response? I guess that depends on your perspective. I know where you stand with regards to this issue and I am okay with that. I'm not as forgiving as you however; to me, some crimes simply demand a punishment that meets their level of obscenity.
Forcing someone to live the rest of their life behind bars does not constitute forgiveness.
I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.
Thereby demonstrating that the society in question does not exist on a higher footing than that of emotional responses, and violent impulses.
Such a society sees violence and death as solutions to it's problems. And what society created these problems in the first place? Do murderers and rapists evolve independently of the World around them? Is society perfectly good, and a criminal perfectly evil? I doubt anyone could be so arrogant as to answer yes to either of the above.
Shoud society respond to it's sickness with more sickness? Or should society exist on a level removed from such primitive feelings of violence and revenge? Isn't the test of any civilized society the ability to maintain and adhere to a strict moral code in the face of the worst kinds of sadism and barbarity?
I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.
Thereby demonstrating that the society in question does not exist on a higher footing than that of emotional responses, and violent impulses.
Such a society sees violence and death as solutions to it's problems. And what society created these problems in the first place? Do murderers and rapists evolve independently of the World around them? Is society perfectly good, and a criminal perfectly evil? I doubt anyone could be so arrogant as to answer yes to either of the above.
Shoud society respond to it's sickness with more sickness? Or should society exist on a level removed from such primitive feelings of violence and revenge? Isn't the test of any civilized society the ability to maintain and adhere to a strict moral code in the face of the worst kinds of sadism and barbarity?
whoa. very well put.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Given we are forced to deal with such events though, what exactly is the appropriate response? I guess that depends on your perspective. I know where you stand with regards to this issue and I am okay with that. I'm not as forgiving as you however; to me, some crimes simply demand a punishment that meets their level of obscenity.
Forcing someone to live the rest of their life behind bars does not constitute forgiveness.
I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.
Thereby demonstrating that the society in question does not exist on a higher footing than that of emotional responses, and violent impulses.
Such a society sees violence and death as solutions to it's problems. And what society created these problems in the first place? Do murderers and rapists evolve independently of the World around them? Is society perfectly good, and a criminal perfectly evil? I doubt anyone could be so arrogant as to answer yes to either of the above.
Shoud society respond to it's sickness with more sickness? Or should society exist on a level removed from such primitive feelings of violence and revenge? Isn't the test of any civilized society the ability to maintain and adhere to a strict moral code in the face of the worst kinds of sadism and barbarity?
I never said prison wasn't forgiveness... I said it was more forgiving than death.
As for the rest of your post... the rhetorical questions you ask deserve- at a minimum- some consideration. In particular, I do agree with the part of your passage that implies murderers are by-products of our society. Are murderers inherently evil or the sum of one's experiences? I tend to think they have been shaped more than they are naturally cruel... with some exceptions of course. For society's failures, I feel badly for those driven to homicidal tendencies.
Regardless, I still feel the same. Let's not give ourselves too much credit. Idealistic and romantic notions of a noble and higher order society reflect illusions of grandeur. They sound great, but since the beginning of time, we have waged wars, wreaked havoc on the earth, slaughtered animals, and killed each other for fun. I think it is fair to suggest we are far from divine. In light of what is our reality... I'm not sure why one might think we can dignify ourselves by displaying compassion and mercy on someone who has kidnapped, raped and dismembered a small child.
Regardless, I still feel the same. Let's not give ourselves too much credit. Idealistic and romantic notions of a noble and higher order society reflect illusions of grandeur. They sound great, but since the beginning of time, we have waged wars, wreaked havoc on the earth, slaughtered animals, and killed each other for fun. I think it is fair to suggest we are far from divine. In light of what is our reality... I'm not sure why one might think we can dignify ourselves by displaying compassion and mercy on someone who has kidnapped, raped and dismembered a small child.
but I think we are capable, as a species, of living in this idealistic state. Just because we aren't necessarily that way now doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be better than we currently are.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
As for the rest of your post... the rhetorical questions you ask deserve- at a minimum- some consideration. In particular, I do agree with the part of your passage that implies murderers are by-products of our society. Are murderers inherently evil or the sum of one's experiences? I tend to think they have been shaped more than they are naturally cruel... with some exceptions of course. For society's failures, I feel badly for those driven to homicidal tendencies.
Regardless, I still feel the same. Let's not give ourselves too much credit. Idealistic and romantic notions of a noble and higher order society reflect illusions of grandeur. They sound great, but since the beginning of time, we have waged wars, wreaked havoc on the earth, slaughtered animals, and killed each other for fun. I think it is fair to suggest we are far from divine. In light of what is our reality... I'm not sure why one might think we can dignify ourselves by displaying compassion and mercy on someone who has kidnapped, raped and dismembered a small child.
So you don't think that 'society' (our laws, customs, moral codes) can set a positive example?
Regardless, I still feel the same. Let's not give ourselves too much credit. Idealistic and romantic notions of a noble and higher order society reflect illusions of grandeur. They sound great, but since the beginning of time, we have waged wars, wreaked havoc on the earth, slaughtered animals, and killed each other for fun. I think it is fair to suggest we are far from divine. In light of what is our reality... I'm not sure why one might think we can dignify ourselves by displaying compassion and mercy on someone who has kidnapped, raped and dismembered a small child.
but I think we are capable, as a species, of living in this idealistic state. Just because we aren't necessarily that way now doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be better than we currently are.
Certainly. But don't you think measuring our progress towards an idealistic state might be best measured with our efforts to feed the hungry or to stop waging wars?
I'm not prepared to agree with the statements that suggest we are 'better' for not executing some murderers. Such statements reflect one set of values and, as I have expressed in an earlier post, these values may not necessarily be the 'correct' or 'best' values. I still feel death is appropriate for some no matter how one might try to illustrate the nobility in displaying a level of compassion towards a person committing a heinous and brutal crime.
Certainly. But don't you think measuring our progress towards an idealistic state might be best measured with our efforts to feed the hungry or to stop waging wars?
I'm not prepared to agree with the statements that suggest we are 'better' for not executing some murderers. Such statements reflect one set of values and, as I have expressed in an earlier post, these values may not necessarily be the 'correct' or 'best' values. I still feel death is appropriate for some no matter how one might try to illustrate the nobility in displaying a level of compassion towards a person committing a heinous and brutal crime.
it is not compassion. it is saying "we don't have the right to kill anyone, no matter what". it's compassion if it's a case by case basis. it's not. it's across the board.
if it was compassion I'd say kill the bastards instead of letting them live a life of hell on earth that is prison.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Comments
not everyone here is here to "win". here to discuss.
One of my main points against the death penalty is exactly that: why give them the easy way out? let the bastards rot in jail and hell for 30 years on my dime. I'm fine with that.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Then... as much as I'd prefer death... can't they rot in prison with all the other folks? Why do we feel the need to protect them in isolation with their cable television, sloppy joes and mail privileges?
We have no problem leaving people who haven't tortured any children to their awful fates in general population, yet we feel it is responsible to provide some 'extra care' for our most obscene offenders.
Why not let fate play out? I know very well the likely outcome of Clifford Olson in general population, but 'protecting him' lies too far on the other end of the pendulum for my way of thinking. We won't execute him for his heinous crimes and we'll 'kick it up a couple of notches' and provide him with 'extra' care and attention to ensure his time in prison is as comfortable as we can make it.
I'm not there with this.
I'm with ya on that.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/ju ... e-budgets/
(And that's FOXNEWS! haha)
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issu ... nalty-cost
you are ... thats fine ... I have no problem with the cases I listed of using capital punishment ... especially the one's that video taped their crimes ... how horrific for those victims knowing what those horrible people did to them was videotaped ...
I'm sure the victims of clifford olson enjoyed constantly be reminded every time he sued the government for something.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
So your fine with death as long as the state has no involvement ... but here in Canada ... it is the obligation of the penitentiaries to see that all individuals serve out there sentences. Here in Canada most capital offenders are isolated 23 hours a day.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
It very well may be more expensive... but only because of the process we have instilled. It could cheaper if economics were a serious consideration.
I'm fine with death either scenario for some creeps. I'm from Canada- I'm well aware of our leniant penal system.
No I believe I don;t.
Bingo.
Who's modifying any facts or statistics? Or did you just make that up because it sounded good?
No, it doesn't come down to money. Though maybe your buddy Godfather thinks it does.
EVerything in the World comes down to money.
So you think that depending on the amount of sadism involved in any crime, the state should sink to a similar, or worse level of depravity, by executing the person in a long drawn-out clinical process that calls itself justice?
And what good does that do? Does it act as a deterrent? Nope. Is it just a simple case of revenge killing that does nothing to elevate 'society' above the level of any murderer? Yep.
Maybe in your World it does.
The cases I have listed ... guilt is not questioned ... there would be no long drawn out criminal process ... plus I don't care how much it cost ... money is not the issue with me ... two of the cases I listed these criminals videotaped their brutality (these criminals don't deserve to be fed 3 meals a day and cot) ... 1 of the other ones the government paid him for details of where his victims were and he continued to be a pain in the ass to the government and his victims long after he ran out of appeals.
If there is the chance the person could be innocent ... then by all means just keep him in jail ... the cases I listed guilt is not in doubt and these people are brutal ... these are people I have no problem with capital punishment ... should be automatic if you video tape your crime.
In Canada money would be less of an issue than the US ... our appeals process is not nearly as drawn out or lengthy.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
So you support state-sponsored revenge killings? And why is that? What good do you think it does to live in a society that regards murder as a solution?
A solution to a problem nobody asked for. Nobody wants murder as a solution... they'd rather the problem never manifest itself.
Given we are forced to deal with such events though, what exactly is the appropriate response? I guess that depends on your perspective. I know where you stand with regards to this issue and I am okay with that. I'm not as forgiving as you however; to me, some crimes simply demand a punishment that meets their level of obscenity.
I do not feel as if I am 'lessening' myself supporting death for some as a consequence for their actions. I'd prefer never having to read of such brutality, but forced to... well... I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.
this is a common misconception from pro-DPers. It has nothing to do with forgiveness. it is about one thing and one thing only: making a choice about someone's mortality that shouldn't be ours to make. nothing else.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
In these cases and any similar cases I do.
It removes these people from society ... they can no longer torment the family victims or be a pain in the ass to the government or their victims as one case I linked to was. I am especially appalled at those that video tape their crimes (for these jerk offs I'd consider bringing back public executions, see how they like to be humiliated).
The only people I have any sympathy for in these cases are the victims and their families ... these are not victimless crimes. As well as not caring about how much it cost, I also don't care if it reduces crime ... It does guarantee these fine folks will never cause another family to suffer from more crimes from these jerkoffs.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
So you have decided what the choices we can make regarding that person's fate can be then. In other words, you feel your ideals are the most appropriate for matters such as these.
What if an extreme naturalist argued that it should not be our choice to lock anyone in prison and that society should be as it was meant to be in our most natural state and survival of the fittest? In other words, we are all free to live as nature intended- doing as we please and dealing with things as we must without any governance at all.
I am sure we would both agree that this is not appropriate. So... as we agreeingly begin to move along the continuum from there to the point where we think humanity should exist (as it pertains to crime and punishment)... we come to the point where the idea of capital punishment is entertained. You elect to stop short of this and declare that we should not make decisions regarding someone's mortality. With 100% confidence, can you declare that this is the correct spot to stop? As much as it 'feels right' for you... the death penalty 'feels right' for others.
Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to attack you. I just think that there are good, intelligent people all along the spectrum and from everything I know... there is no 'correct' course of action. What I do know is that for us to be typing away on these keyboards trying to make sense of it all... there are people that care. Your opinon is valued by me. It is well-stated. I just disagree.
Yes. The real world.
I was wondering if/when this point was going to come up, because it is a valid one. How does the current solution of taking away the freedom of a criminal not infringe upon his rights as capital punishment also does? I get that. But I think the answer lies in doing the very least we have to in order to protect society. putting them to death is an extreme that isn't necessary for public safety. People on death row, or life in prison, pose no risk to the general public. Except in extreme cases of escape, but again, I don't think it's right to kill someone based on a hypothetical.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Forcing someone to live the rest of their life behind bars does not constitute forgiveness.
Thereby demonstrating that the society in question does not exist on a higher footing than that of emotional responses, and violent impulses.
Such a society sees violence and death as solutions to it's problems. And what society created these problems in the first place? Do murderers and rapists evolve independently of the World around them? Is society perfectly good, and a criminal perfectly evil? I doubt anyone could be so arrogant as to answer yes to either of the above.
Shoud society respond to it's sickness with more sickness? Or should society exist on a level removed from such primitive feelings of violence and revenge? Isn't the test of any civilized society the ability to maintain and adhere to a strict moral code in the face of the worst kinds of sadism and barbarity?
whoa. very well put.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I never said prison wasn't forgiveness... I said it was more forgiving than death.
As for the rest of your post... the rhetorical questions you ask deserve- at a minimum- some consideration. In particular, I do agree with the part of your passage that implies murderers are by-products of our society. Are murderers inherently evil or the sum of one's experiences? I tend to think they have been shaped more than they are naturally cruel... with some exceptions of course. For society's failures, I feel badly for those driven to homicidal tendencies.
Regardless, I still feel the same. Let's not give ourselves too much credit. Idealistic and romantic notions of a noble and higher order society reflect illusions of grandeur. They sound great, but since the beginning of time, we have waged wars, wreaked havoc on the earth, slaughtered animals, and killed each other for fun. I think it is fair to suggest we are far from divine. In light of what is our reality... I'm not sure why one might think we can dignify ourselves by displaying compassion and mercy on someone who has kidnapped, raped and dismembered a small child.
but I think we are capable, as a species, of living in this idealistic state. Just because we aren't necessarily that way now doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be better than we currently are.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
So you don't think that 'society' (our laws, customs, moral codes) can set a positive example?
Certainly. But don't you think measuring our progress towards an idealistic state might be best measured with our efforts to feed the hungry or to stop waging wars?
I'm not prepared to agree with the statements that suggest we are 'better' for not executing some murderers. Such statements reflect one set of values and, as I have expressed in an earlier post, these values may not necessarily be the 'correct' or 'best' values. I still feel death is appropriate for some no matter how one might try to illustrate the nobility in displaying a level of compassion towards a person committing a heinous and brutal crime.
it is not compassion. it is saying "we don't have the right to kill anyone, no matter what". it's compassion if it's a case by case basis. it's not. it's across the board.
if it was compassion I'd say kill the bastards instead of letting them live a life of hell on earth that is prison.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014