It's 100% effective method. Even without a cellmate, he will be in contact with other human beings at some point in the future and you cannot guarantee 100% that he will never harm another human being in the future.
I wonder if troy davis would have wanted him as a cellmate? Deterrent or not, this guy is defective to the point he cannot function within society, is beyond rehabilitation, and presents an extreme risk to those that encounter him. Is it more humane to stick this guy in a small cell and let him rot away in isolation or put him out of his misery?
can you guarantee a drunk driver isn't ever going to drive drunk again? ... no ... life isn't about offering guarantees ... i'm sure there are means by which they could have facilitated his incarceration without endangering others ...
as for the humane point ... i do believe in assisted suicide ... but that's totally different ... if dude wants out - i'm ok with it ... the state killing him - i am not ...
Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean that someone thinks "violence is the solution to all that ails." That's a large leap to reach that conclusion. It's not like death penalty advocates are in favor of chopping the hands off thieves or beating drug dealers with steel pipes.
As much as we'd like to think that our prisons are escape-proof, there really is no such thing as a 100% secure prison. Convicts find ways to escape every year. Killing the ones who have been proven to commit premeditated murder is the only way to ensure that they won't escape and kill someone else.
you want to live in a world where violence is the solution to all that ails ... so be it ... is it any wonder that america is involved in so many conflicts around the world where many INNOCENT people have died!?? ... i wonder if troy davis wanted to live in a such a world?
Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean that someone thinks "violence is the solution to all that ails." That's a large leap to reach that conclusion. It's not like death penalty advocates are in favor of chopping the hands off thieves or beating drug dealers with steel pipes.
As much as we'd like to think that our prisons are escape-proof, there really is no such thing as a 100% secure prison. Convicts find ways to escape every year. Killing the ones who have been proven to commit premeditated murder is the only way to ensure that they won't escape and kill someone else.
why not just cut their limbs off? ... i'm pretty sure they won't be able to escape nor kill anyone without legs and/or arms ...
if advocates of capital punishment don't believe in violence then why is that none of them seek other remedies to what the problem is? ... most advocates are satisfying the same lust serial killers have ... it's just rooted in some notion of justice ...
Sure, you could surgically paralyze them, too. :roll: I think the Supreme Court would block either of those forms of punishment, though. Something about "cruel and unusual punishment."
I thought I explained why we don't seek other remedies to the problem. Life in prison without parole doesn't guarantee they won't escape or kill a guard or other inmates who committed lesser crimes regardless of whether they have a cellmate or not. What remedy beyond prison do you suggest? Rehabilitation? I'd say that would have a very low success rate among people who commit that type of crime and it isn't exactly justice to release someone who committed first-degree murder back into society in the hopes that the rehabilitation was a success.
Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean that someone thinks "violence is the solution to all that ails." That's a large leap to reach that conclusion. It's not like death penalty advocates are in favor of chopping the hands off thieves or beating drug dealers with steel pipes.
As much as we'd like to think that our prisons are escape-proof, there really is no such thing as a 100% secure prison. Convicts find ways to escape every year. Killing the ones who have been proven to commit premeditated murder is the only way to ensure that they won't escape and kill someone else.
why not just cut their limbs off? ... i'm pretty sure they won't be able to escape nor kill anyone without legs and/or arms ...
if advocates of capital punishment don't believe in violence then why is that none of them seek other remedies to what the problem is? ... most advocates are satisfying the same lust serial killers have ... it's just rooted in some notion of justice ...
as for the humane point ... i do believe in assisted suicide ... but that's totally different ... if dude wants out - i'm ok with it ... the state killing him - i am not ...
what if the monster in prison wants to check out and he has a painful illness of some kind?
Sure, you could surgically paralyze them, too. :roll: I think the Supreme Court would block either of those forms of punishment, though. Something about "cruel and unusual punishment."
I thought I explained why we don't seek other remedies to the problem. Life in prison without parole doesn't guarantee they won't escape or kill a guard or other inmates who committed lesser crimes regardless of whether they have a cellmate or not. What remedy beyond prison do you suggest? Rehabilitation? I'd say that would have a very low success rate among people who commit that type of crime and it isn't exactly justice to release someone who committed first-degree murder back into society in the hopes that the rehabilitation was a success
but death isn't cruel!?
and i addressed your notion of guarantees ... the justice system isn't about guaranteeing anything ... in this particular case - i'm not looking at rehabilitation ... he's serving 7 consecutive life sentences ... i would incarcerate him and employ every possible measure to ensure that he is kept secure ... the first thing i would do is leave him in the maximum security prison as opposed to the medium security prison he got transferred to ... if the prison system can't ensure the safety of their guards and inmates - then they need to do a better job ...
as for the humane point ... i do believe in assisted suicide ... but that's totally different ... if dude wants out - i'm ok with it ... the state killing him - i am not ...
what if the monster in prison wants to check out and he has a painful illness of some kind?
as for the humane point ... i do believe in assisted suicide ... but that's totally different ... if dude wants out - i'm ok with it ... the state killing him - i am not ...
what if the monster in prison wants to check out and he has a painful illness of some kind?
Death is a lot kinder than amputation, especially when it's death by means such as lethal injection. It's not like any of the states that have the death penalty are executing prisoners by stabbing them repeatedly or beating them over the head with hammers.
When it comes to violent criminals who have displayed the ability to take another person's life after thinking about it beforehand, I'd like a guarantee that they won't get the opportunity to do it again. Barring a zombie uprising, the death penalty does that. No matter how tight the security is at a prison, there's always a way out. It might not be easy, but it can be done.
Sure, you could surgically paralyze them, too. :roll: I think the Supreme Court would block either of those forms of punishment, though. Something about "cruel and unusual punishment."
I thought I explained why we don't seek other remedies to the problem. Life in prison without parole doesn't guarantee they won't escape or kill a guard or other inmates who committed lesser crimes regardless of whether they have a cellmate or not. What remedy beyond prison do you suggest? Rehabilitation? I'd say that would have a very low success rate among people who commit that type of crime and it isn't exactly justice to release someone who committed first-degree murder back into society in the hopes that the rehabilitation was a success
but death isn't cruel!?
and i addressed your notion of guarantees ... the justice system isn't about guaranteeing anything ... in this particular case - i'm not looking at rehabilitation ... he's serving 7 consecutive life sentences ... i would incarcerate him and employ every possible measure to ensure that he is kept secure ... the first thing i would do is leave him in the maximum security prison as opposed to the medium security prison he got transferred to ... if the prison system can't ensure the safety of their guards and inmates - then they need to do a better job ...
Death is a lot kinder than amputation, especially when it's death by means such as lethal injection. It's not like any of the states that have the death penalty are executing prisoners by stabbing them repeatedly or beating them over the head with hammers.
When it comes to violent criminals who have displayed the ability to take another person's life after thinking about it beforehand, I'd like a guarantee that they won't get the opportunity to do it again. Barring a zombie uprising, the death penalty does that. No matter how tight the security is at a prison, there's always a way out. It might not be easy, but it can be done.
death is a lot kinder!?? ... to you maybe ... and why are you only focusing on the apparent pain!? ... ending one's life has got to fall under the category of "cruel" ...
what about repeated drunk drivers!?? ... no one seems to care to want to guarantee they will never drive again? ... if you want those kind of guarantees in life - then death is certainly the answer for a lot of problems ...
in any case - it appears your contention is that the only way to ensure a murderer doesn't murder again is to kill them ... which again brings me back to what this issue is about ... do you want to live in a society that utilizes death/violence to solve problems!?? ... i don't ...
If its used as an excuse to harm others then yes i'm mocking it.
I'm not mocking child abuse, it the people who use it as an excuse to harm others I'm mocking.
so ... victims of child abuse lose any form of empathy as soon as they do something bad themselves!? ... :(
If you start killing people with premeditation, yes .... unless it's the bastard who assaulted you. If you kill someone unrelated and use past abuse as your defense, you can go cry me a river.
You can rehabilitate an alcohol problem a lot easier than you can rehabilitate the willingness the murder. That's like comparing taking hostages during an armed bank robbery with shoplifting a Tootsie Pop. But if you really need to know how it works here in the US, drunk drivers have their licenses revoked. If they do it again after they get their license back, they have it taken away for an even longer period. If they are fortunate enough to get their license back and drive drunk a 3rd time, most states will revoke the license for no less than 3 years (some may revoke it permanently, but I'm not 100% sure about that). At that point, the only way to get a license after those 3 years are up is to attend AA or some other type of counseling. For all drunk driving offenses, there are large fines associated with the crime and there are large fees imposed in order to get the license back once the suspension has ended and there is often jail time served.
Death is a lot kinder than amputation, especially when it's death by means such as lethal injection. It's not like any of the states that have the death penalty are executing prisoners by stabbing them repeatedly or beating them over the head with hammers.
When it comes to violent criminals who have displayed the ability to take another person's life after thinking about it beforehand, I'd like a guarantee that they won't get the opportunity to do it again. Barring a zombie uprising, the death penalty does that. No matter how tight the security is at a prison, there's always a way out. It might not be easy, but it can be done.
death is a lot kinder!?? ... to you maybe ... and why are you only focusing on the apparent pain!? ... ending one's life has got to fall under the category of "cruel" ...
what about repeated drunk drivers!?? ... no one seems to care to want to guarantee they will never drive again? ... if you want those kind of guarantees in life - then death is certainly the answer for a lot of problems ...
in any case - it appears your contention is that the only way to ensure a murderer doesn't murder again is to kill them ... which again brings me back to what this issue is about ... do you want to live in a society that utilizes death/violence to solve problems!?? ... i don't ...
If an abuse victim is committing murder or some other violent crime, they lose any empathy from me. I feel bad for anyone who is molested or beaten as a child, but there are psychiatrists, psychologists, support groups, etc. where someone can go to get help dealing with those issues before they begin harming others. It's not an excuse for killing someone or perpetrating the same type of abuse you endured on others.
You can rehabilitate an alcohol problem a lot easier than you can rehabilitate the willingness the murder. That's like comparing taking hostages during an armed bank robbery with shoplifting a Tootsie Pop. But if you really need to know how it works here in the US, drunk drivers have their licenses revoked. If they do it again after they get their license back, they have it taken away for an even longer period. If they are fortunate enough to get their license back and drive drunk a 3rd time, most states will revoke the license for no less than 3 years (some may revoke it permanently, but I'm not 100% sure about that). At that point, the only way to get a license after those 3 years are up is to attend AA or some other type of counseling. For all drunk driving offenses, there are large fines associated with the crime and there are large fees imposed in order to get the license back once the suspension has ended and there is often jail time served
but that doesn't guarantee they don't drive ... not having a license doesn't prevent that same person to a) drink nor b) drive ... your focus was on guarantees ... i'm pretty sure more people die from drunk drivers than serial killers ...
either way - i reiterate again ... it's about what kind of society you want to live in ... america = #1 in violent crime in developed countries ... i think there is a correlation ... i'm guessing you don't ...
If you start killing people with premeditation, yes .... unless it's the bastard who assaulted you. If you kill someone unrelated and use past abuse as your defense, you can go cry me a river.
well ... that's that ... not much else to say to add to that ... i guess you don't have empathy for solidiers with ptsd either as soon as they commit violent acts ...
If an abuse victim is committing murder or some other violent crime, they lose any empathy from me. I feel bad for anyone who is molested or beaten as a child, but there are psychiatrists, psychologists, support groups, etc. where someone can go to get help dealing with those issues before they begin harming others. It's not an excuse for killing someone or perpetrating the same type of abuse you endured on others.
but often these kids don't get the help they need ... they are ignored and ostracized ... often made to feel as if it was their fault ...
i'm saddened to see how black and white some of you guys treat this thing ... it's not about giving these killers an excuse or reason to kill ... it's about understanding how one becomes a serial killer ... if you don't think being abused as a child can lead to these things - you are eliminating one of the key issues in preventing more serial killers from developing ... your solution is just to keep killing them ... yet, these guys keep coming up ...
it's like youth crime in toronto is down and if you ask the cops - it's because there was a reinvestment into after school programs for youth (which was decimated under a previous right wing gov't) ... you folks focus on your lust for justice but don't seem interested in preventing this from happening in the future ...
If you start killing people with premeditation, yes .... unless it's the bastard who assaulted you. If you kill someone unrelated and use past abuse as your defense, you can go cry me a river.
well ... that's that ... not much else to say to add to that ... i guess you don't have empathy for solidiers with ptsd either as soon as they commit violent acts ...
If they murder an innocent person with premeditation, no, I do not.
Yes, it is possible that someone with a suspended license will drive. That person will also serve jail time for doing so and will either have their license suspended even longer or will have it suspended permanently. And while that person is in jail they will not be able to drive. My focus isn't on guarantees; my focus is on guarantees when it applies to the most violent criminals and those are the ones who commit premeditated murder. It seems like you want to try to trick me into thinking I have to support the death penalty for drunk driving in order to guarantee that it doesn't happen again, but I'm not that dumb.
I'm not talking about just serial killers, although that was a nice attempt to change the appearance of the debate so that it favors your argument. I could counter that by saying that 100% of serial killers kill more than one person and then ask you how many drunk drivers are involved in multiple fatal accidents if that's the path you want to take.
I don't agree with your assessment that we have violence because we have the death penalty. I would say that we have the death penalty because we have people willing to murder. It's not like we created the death penalty for no reason and then someone stepped up and said, "I'll go kill someone now in order to justify this strange new penalty!" Murder existed before the death penalty for committing murder.
You can rehabilitate an alcohol problem a lot easier than you can rehabilitate the willingness the murder. That's like comparing taking hostages during an armed bank robbery with shoplifting a Tootsie Pop. But if you really need to know how it works here in the US, drunk drivers have their licenses revoked. If they do it again after they get their license back, they have it taken away for an even longer period. If they are fortunate enough to get their license back and drive drunk a 3rd time, most states will revoke the license for no less than 3 years (some may revoke it permanently, but I'm not 100% sure about that). At that point, the only way to get a license after those 3 years are up is to attend AA or some other type of counseling. For all drunk driving offenses, there are large fines associated with the crime and there are large fees imposed in order to get the license back once the suspension has ended and there is often jail time served
but that doesn't guarantee they don't drive ... not having a license doesn't prevent that same person to a) drink nor b) drive ... your focus was on guarantees ... i'm pretty sure more people die from drunk drivers than serial killers ...
either way - i reiterate again ... it's about what kind of society you want to live in ... america = #1 in violent crime in developed countries ... i think there is a correlation ... i'm guessing you don't ...
Yes, it is possible that someone with a suspended license will drive. That person will also serve jail time for doing so and will either have their license suspended even longer or will have it suspended permanently. And while that person is in jail they will not be able to drive. My focus isn't on guarantees; my focus is on guarantees when it applies to the most violent criminals and those are the ones who commit premeditated murder. It seems like you want to try to trick me into thinking I have to support the death penalty for drunk driving in order to guarantee that it doesn't happen again, but I'm not that dumb.
I'm not talking about just serial killers, although that was a nice attempt to change the appearance of the debate so that it favors your argument. I could counter that by saying that 100% of serial killers kill more than one person and then ask you how many drunk drivers are involved in multiple fatal accidents if that's the path you want to take.
I don't agree with your assessment that we have violence because we have the death penalty. I would say that we have the death penalty because we have people willing to murder. It's not like we created the death penalty for no reason and then someone stepped up and said, "I'll go kill someone now in order to justify this strange new penalty!" Murder existed before the death penalty for committing murder.
firstly ... i'm not trying to trick you into anything ... i am only framing the discussion as i see it ... if you want to dismiss my talking points ... that's your prerogative but you are not making a case for capital punishment in the process ... all i'm seeing is that you support capital punishment based on the actions of a minute percentage of criminals and on the notion that you want to guarantee they never re-commit ... i think that is absurd based on relative detriment to society ...
you have violence because your society accepts the use of violence ... see wars and gun laws for reference ...
anyhoo - i'm out for the day ... i'll respond to all you pitchforkers tomorrow ...
Death isn't a punishment though...
The purpose of the justice system consists of 4 main points
1) punishment
2) Rehabilitation
3) Protection of Society
4) Warn off other potential offenders.
Without going into all of the ethical (and possibly opinion based reasons, not to mention the fact that it is very rare to have all of the relevant information relating to a case) the death penalty serves only the protection of society from the offender.
Death is easy and once youre gone it has zero effect on you
Obviously you can't rehab a dead person :roll:
And again for other potential offenders death is easy and depending on the crime many may be willing to die for it in this day and age...
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
Death isn't a punishment though...
The purpose of the justice system consists of 4 main points
1) punishment
2) Rehabilitation
3) Protection of Society
4) Warn off other potential offenders.
Without going into all of the ethical (and possibly opinion based reasons, not to mention the fact that it is very rare to have all of the relevant information relating to a case) the death penalty serves only the protection of society from the offender.
Death is easy and once youre gone it has zero effect on you
Obviously you can't rehab a dead person :roll:
And again for other potential offenders death is easy and depending on the crime many may be willing to die for it in this day and age...
Except it doesn't work as a deterrent. Therefore it's just blood lust.
now there is a debate relating to Capital Punishment...
is anyone ever born evil or do they only become evil from abuse and mental defect?
In either case are they responsible for heinous crimes?
And the idea of evil ...
makes it a force not within a human or perhaps a by product
of human actions.
The article speaks to the craving and power felt from killing ...
if you stand for moment in the killers shoes you can feel this force,
it is extreme power.
Just as we can feel love in our Mothers arms, that is also an extreme power
that can last a lifetime
for those lucky enough to have had loving Mothers.
The people I'm referring about has done something a little worse than bad. They are monsters.
again ... look at my ptsd example ... war veterans coming home and going postal ... no empathy for them either!?
you think these people become "monsters" by choice?
All I'm saying is that I'd no problem with capital punishment, if it eliminated the Paul Bernardo's. Williams, Clifford Olson of the world...these monsters are 100% guilty...
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 war vet with PTSD would probably be able to plead insanity and wind up in a mental health facility instead of being on death row unless it could be proven that PTSD had nothing to do with his/her actions. That's not the same as someone who plans out his wife's murder and carries through with it, for example.
A war vet with PTSD would probably be able to plead insanity and wind up in a mental health facility instead of being on death row unless it could be proven that PTSD had nothing to do with his/her actions. That's not the same as someone who plans out his wife's murder and carries through with it, for example.
A war vet with PTSD would probably be able to plead insanity and wind up in a mental health facility instead of being on death row unless it could be proven that PTSD had nothing to do with his/her actions. That's not the same as someone who plans out his wife's murder and carries through with it, for example.
i think you miss the point of the discussion associated with ptsd ... the point is simply that our goal should be to not have serial killers ... if being abused as a child can lead to psychological scarring that turns someone into a serial killer - why wouldn't we do something to address that?
focusing on just killing a person doesn't prevent the next person who comes along ...
Comments
can you guarantee a drunk driver isn't ever going to drive drunk again? ... no ... life isn't about offering guarantees ... i'm sure there are means by which they could have facilitated his incarceration without endangering others ...
as for the humane point ... i do believe in assisted suicide ... but that's totally different ... if dude wants out - i'm ok with it ... the state killing him - i am not ...
As much as we'd like to think that our prisons are escape-proof, there really is no such thing as a 100% secure prison. Convicts find ways to escape every year. Killing the ones who have been proven to commit premeditated murder is the only way to ensure that they won't escape and kill someone else.
why not just cut their limbs off? ... i'm pretty sure they won't be able to escape nor kill anyone without legs and/or arms ...
if advocates of capital punishment don't believe in violence then why is that none of them seek other remedies to what the problem is? ... most advocates are satisfying the same lust serial killers have ... it's just rooted in some notion of justice ...
I thought I explained why we don't seek other remedies to the problem. Life in prison without parole doesn't guarantee they won't escape or kill a guard or other inmates who committed lesser crimes regardless of whether they have a cellmate or not. What remedy beyond prison do you suggest? Rehabilitation? I'd say that would have a very low success rate among people who commit that type of crime and it isn't exactly justice to release someone who committed first-degree murder back into society in the hopes that the rehabilitation was a success.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
If its used as an excuse to harm others then yes i'm mocking it.
I'm not mocking child abuse, it the people who use it as an excuse to harm others I'm mocking.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
but death isn't cruel!?
and i addressed your notion of guarantees ... the justice system isn't about guaranteeing anything ... in this particular case - i'm not looking at rehabilitation ... he's serving 7 consecutive life sentences ... i would incarcerate him and employ every possible measure to ensure that he is kept secure ... the first thing i would do is leave him in the maximum security prison as opposed to the medium security prison he got transferred to ... if the prison system can't ensure the safety of their guards and inmates - then they need to do a better job ...
this happens all the time ...
so ... victims of child abuse lose any form of empathy as soon as they do something bad themselves!? ... :(
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
When it comes to violent criminals who have displayed the ability to take another person's life after thinking about it beforehand, I'd like a guarantee that they won't get the opportunity to do it again. Barring a zombie uprising, the death penalty does that. No matter how tight the security is at a prison, there's always a way out. It might not be easy, but it can be done.
death is a lot kinder!?? ... to you maybe ... and why are you only focusing on the apparent pain!? ... ending one's life has got to fall under the category of "cruel" ...
what about repeated drunk drivers!?? ... no one seems to care to want to guarantee they will never drive again? ... if you want those kind of guarantees in life - then death is certainly the answer for a lot of problems ...
in any case - it appears your contention is that the only way to ensure a murderer doesn't murder again is to kill them ... which again brings me back to what this issue is about ... do you want to live in a society that utilizes death/violence to solve problems!?? ... i don't ...
but that doesn't guarantee they don't drive ... not having a license doesn't prevent that same person to a) drink nor b) drive ... your focus was on guarantees ... i'm pretty sure more people die from drunk drivers than serial killers ...
either way - i reiterate again ... it's about what kind of society you want to live in ... america = #1 in violent crime in developed countries ... i think there is a correlation ... i'm guessing you don't ...
well ... that's that ... not much else to say to add to that ... i guess you don't have empathy for solidiers with ptsd either as soon as they commit violent acts ...
but often these kids don't get the help they need ... they are ignored and ostracized ... often made to feel as if it was their fault ...
i'm saddened to see how black and white some of you guys treat this thing ... it's not about giving these killers an excuse or reason to kill ... it's about understanding how one becomes a serial killer ... if you don't think being abused as a child can lead to these things - you are eliminating one of the key issues in preventing more serial killers from developing ... your solution is just to keep killing them ... yet, these guys keep coming up ...
it's like youth crime in toronto is down and if you ask the cops - it's because there was a reinvestment into after school programs for youth (which was decimated under a previous right wing gov't) ... you folks focus on your lust for justice but don't seem interested in preventing this from happening in the future ...
I'm not talking about just serial killers, although that was a nice attempt to change the appearance of the debate so that it favors your argument. I could counter that by saying that 100% of serial killers kill more than one person and then ask you how many drunk drivers are involved in multiple fatal accidents if that's the path you want to take.
I don't agree with your assessment that we have violence because we have the death penalty. I would say that we have the death penalty because we have people willing to murder. It's not like we created the death penalty for no reason and then someone stepped up and said, "I'll go kill someone now in order to justify this strange new penalty!" Murder existed before the death penalty for committing murder.
firstly ... i'm not trying to trick you into anything ... i am only framing the discussion as i see it ... if you want to dismiss my talking points ... that's your prerogative but you are not making a case for capital punishment in the process ... all i'm seeing is that you support capital punishment based on the actions of a minute percentage of criminals and on the notion that you want to guarantee they never re-commit ... i think that is absurd based on relative detriment to society ...
you have violence because your society accepts the use of violence ... see wars and gun laws for reference ...
anyhoo - i'm out for the day ... i'll respond to all you pitchforkers tomorrow ...
The people I'm referring about has done something a little worse than bad. They are monsters.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The purpose of the justice system consists of 4 main points
1) punishment
2) Rehabilitation
3) Protection of Society
4) Warn off other potential offenders.
Without going into all of the ethical (and possibly opinion based reasons, not to mention the fact that it is very rare to have all of the relevant information relating to a case) the death penalty serves only the protection of society from the offender.
Death is easy and once youre gone it has zero effect on you
Obviously you can't rehab a dead person :roll:
And again for other potential offenders death is easy and depending on the crime many may be willing to die for it in this day and age...
Except it doesn't work as a deterrent. Therefore it's just blood lust.
again ... look at my ptsd example ... war veterans coming home and going postal ... no empathy for them either!?
you think these people become "monsters" by choice?
is anyone ever born evil or do they only become evil from abuse and mental defect?
In either case are they responsible for heinous crimes?
And the idea of evil ...
makes it a force not within a human or perhaps a by product
of human actions.
The article speaks to the craving and power felt from killing ...
if you stand for moment in the killers shoes you can feel this force,
it is extreme power.
Just as we can feel love in our Mothers arms, that is also an extreme power
that can last a lifetime
for those lucky enough to have had loving Mothers.
All I'm saying is that I'd no problem with capital punishment, if it eliminated the Paul Bernardo's. Williams, Clifford Olson of the world...these monsters are 100% guilty...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I agree...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i think you miss the point of the discussion associated with ptsd ... the point is simply that our goal should be to not have serial killers ... if being abused as a child can lead to psychological scarring that turns someone into a serial killer - why wouldn't we do something to address that?
focusing on just killing a person doesn't prevent the next person who comes along ...