, but I strongly feel the death penalty is appropriate in some cases.
i really feel that this is the first reaction,for a human beign..
i mean,u see someone kiil 30 people,or he rape and killed,or put a bomb and the explode killed alot of people..i really think is the first reaction.,lets kill him too..
and for sure everyone thinks what if was me,or my people..what i would do?for sure i want him killed..
but i think society in general must think different...cant go in the same low level with the bad guys..with the kilers..
is very diffeicult conversation this..you are right that some people do horrible things dont deserve to live..
but lets not us play Gods,who will live or dies..
just lock those bastards for ever in jail so cant do bad to anyone else..
let them fuckin realise for the next years of their lifes,that all their millions breaths they will take,will never be Free ones...
let them u nderstand,that life is so important only when its Free..
and in the end...even if u kill the bad guy..the victim..,will not come back..
I'll agree with you regarding the fact that these discussions are difficult. I'll also agree with you that prison would not be a fun time.
I don't think we're playing God though, Dimi. I think we're just dealing with situations that are difficult to deal with. When forced to... one side takes a hard line while the other takes a 'milder' stance. Who decides who's right?
you are right..is so difficult situation..but my opinion,any type of revenge will not get result..
at some countries,people stealing some bread they cut their arm..sound fair???no..
did they stop stealing??no..
i dont know..killing someone will not solve the problem..we need and we can do different than criminals..we need to do and go the other way of the one they choose..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
why isit so different now ? believe me if someone breaks into my home and threatens my family or myself that person will be carried out of my house when it's all said and done.
why is it so hard to understand a punishment of death for killing ?
everybody here speaks so highly of their personal morals and opinions like they're the only ones who know right from wrong,useing terms like "state sanctioned revenge killing" and prison don't fix it every time...you all talk about the wrong man being exacuted but you don't talk about the ones that are guilty and spend 5 years or less in prison..well I have not heard of a drug that brings dead victims of violent crimes back to life, it's not about revenge in a court of law it's about laws that have been in place for a long time and if you kill and don't know the punishment for murder then I'd say you fucked up or your lieing.
our court systems and laws are not perfect for sure but if you take a life with out provacation it stands to reason you will forfit yours thru a court of law...you may even lose it trying to commit a murder.
Godfather.
i agree with you,that seems not fair punishment prison,for someone do horrible crimes,
believe me ,im with the good guys and not with the ones do crimes..
i dont have any interest to support them.as u said,the system of laws,not only isnt perfect,my opinion is that sucks/..i believe this need to fixed,and not just say,..:
what this guy did?he kill someone,?ok,kill him too..
when someone come to your house and threat u is different to protect your self..we are talking for someone do a crime and he gotr arrested..
as u understand we arent in wild west anymore,we have courts,we dont do public trials,in 2 min,anfd put a rope in someone throat..
we need to do seperate things than monsters..
monsters do crimes,humans need to do different..
we need to control our instincts,we arent a jungle..we are a society..
the bigger part of me agrees with you but it just makes me so angry that a person can kill and go on living with out feeling the pain they have created in the friends and family of the loved ones that are left to feel the loss of a friend or loved one but I also realize that the judgment of life is in Gods hands.
I see both sides of the debate and understand them both but as I said the bottom line is in Gods hands and not a desission that I could never make,the crime of murder just make me very angry.
why is it so hard to understand a punishment of death for killing ?
everybody here speaks so highly of their personal morals and opinions like they're the only ones who know right from wrong,useing terms like "state sanctioned revenge killing" and prison don't fix it every time...you all talk about the wrong man being exacuted but you don't talk about the ones that are guilty and spend 5 years or less in prison..
Godfather.
it's not hard to understand, it's just hard for me to agree with. believe me, I used to actually hold that same stance. I'm not saying I had some sort of "epiphany" or anything, or that I'm more moral than you, not at all, I just hold a different position. I understand that people who are pro DP want to protect society, and get justice for the victims. I totally get that. I just personally don't think it is necessary. How many mass murderers escape prison? My guess would be zero. And even families of victims, as I've stated before, many of them disagree with the death penalty. They think it's getting off easy. I agree with them. I'd rather the piece of shit rot in prison for life. You think prison life is cushy, just because they get a few cable channels and 3 squares? Think again. Their conditions are usually piss poor.
I'd rather be dead than in jail for 30 years. Think about that for a second. THIRTY YEARS. Or more. Now think about being locked in your room as a kid for being bad for 20 minutes. Didn't it drive you insane? Multiply that by a million. I don't think they get off easy at all.
yes, our (western) justice system sucks when it comes to letting criminals out too quickly, most of them who will probably offend again.But honestly, these aren't the people we are talking about. No one who is on death row in one state is getting paroled in another. You're talking apples and oranges here.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
why is it so hard to understand a punishment of death for killing ?
everybody here speaks so highly of their personal morals and opinions like they're the only ones who know right from wrong,useing terms like "state sanctioned revenge killing" and prison don't fix it every time...you all talk about the wrong man being exacuted but you don't talk about the ones that are guilty and spend 5 years or less in prison..
Godfather.
it's not hard to understand, it's just hard for me to agree with. believe me, I used to actually hold that same stance. I'm not saying I had some sort of "epiphany" or anything, or that I'm more moral than you, not at all, I just hold a different position. I understand that people who are pro DP want to protect society, and get justice for the victims. I totally get that. I just personally don't think it is necessary. How many mass murderers escape prison? My guess would be zero. And even families of victims, as I've stated before, many of them disagree with the death penalty. They think it's getting off easy. I agree with them. I'd rather the piece of shit rot in prison for life. You think prison life is cushy, just because they get a few cable channels and 3 squares? Think again. Their conditions are usually piss poor.
I'd rather be dead than in jail for 30 years. Think about that for a second. THIRTY YEARS. Or more. Now think about being locked in your room as a kid for being bad for 20 minutes. Didn't it drive you insane? Multiply that by a million. I don't think they get off easy at all.
yes, our (western) justice system sucks when it comes to letting criminals out too quickly, most of them who will probably offend again.But honestly, these aren't the people we are talking about. No one who is on death row in one state is getting paroled in another. You're talking apples and oranges here.
I would rather dispose of them than to pay for them to live in prison. If we are not going to "rehabiltate" them why pay for them to live? Lost causes deserve no more money spent. A few shots and they go bye bye.
why is it so hard to understand a punishment of death for killing ?
everybody here speaks so highly of their personal morals and opinions like they're the only ones who know right from wrong,useing terms like "state sanctioned revenge killing" and prison don't fix it every time...you all talk about the wrong man being exacuted but you don't talk about the ones that are guilty and spend 5 years or less in prison..
Godfather.
it's not hard to understand, it's just hard for me to agree with. believe me, I used to actually hold that same stance. I'm not saying I had some sort of "epiphany" or anything, or that I'm more moral than you, not at all, I just hold a different position. I understand that people who are pro DP want to protect society, and get justice for the victims. I totally get that. I just personally don't think it is necessary. How many mass murderers escape prison? My guess would be zero. And even families of victims, as I've stated before, many of them disagree with the death penalty. They think it's getting off easy. I agree with them. I'd rather the piece of shit rot in prison for life. You think prison life is cushy, just because they get a few cable channels and 3 squares? Think again. Their conditions are usually piss poor.
I'd rather be dead than in jail for 30 years. Think about that for a second. THIRTY YEARS. Or more. Now think about being locked in your room as a kid for being bad for 20 minutes. Didn't it drive you insane? Multiply that by a million. I don't think they get off easy at all.
yes, our (western) justice system sucks when it comes to letting criminals out too quickly, most of them who will probably offend again.But honestly, these aren't the people we are talking about. No one who is on death row in one state is getting paroled in another. You're talking apples and oranges here.
I can't argue with you man, I know a few people that have done 5 years 20 years even 30 years and the story is always the same "it sucks" and I can honestly say it changed a few of them if not all of them and not for the better every time.
and I can't argue that killing for punishment is wrong either...I do sometimes but it's more anger than clear thinking.
I'm not so sure it would be "cheering a pre-meditated murder". I think it is more along the lines of playing the hand you were dealt. It's not as if society is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to fry someone. I view capital punishment as a solemn affair that marks closure to an undesirable event: an unfortunate event that is borne out of necessity given the nature of the case.
Necessity? Why is it necessary to murder someone who is already cut off from society behind bars?
From Reflections on the Guillotine - Albert Camus:
"For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him to his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."
I love that attempt at making the murderer some kind of a victim.
And obviously this idiot isn't aware of what some of these monsters have done. There are plenty of monsters like that in private life.
If I care to read Camus... then I'd go do it. I'm not interested.This subject can be discussed without intervention from scholars outside the 10C- it's really not that profound a topic.
You're not interested in what one of the 20th Century's leading intellectuals had to say on the subject?
And what could be more profound a topic than the taking of a life?
I used profound to talk of the complexity of the subject at hand. Maybe I should have used difficult. The topic isn't as complex as what I think you are trying to suggest here.
And, no... I'm only mildly interested (at best) in reading what Camus has to say. As 'elaborate' as he paints his viewpoint in the quotes you have provided... he's ultimately saying the same thing as most 'common folk' with regards to this topic. Did I miss something new or fresh with regards to ideology as it pertains to condemning the death penalty?
why is it so hard to understand a punishment of death for killing ?
everybody here speaks so highly of their personal morals and opinions like they're the only ones who know right from wrong,useing terms like "state sanctioned revenge killing" and prison don't fix it every time...you all talk about the wrong man being exacuted but you don't talk about the ones that are guilty and spend 5 years or less in prison..
Godfather.
it's not hard to understand, it's just hard for me to agree with. believe me, I used to actually hold that same stance. I'm not saying I had some sort of "epiphany" or anything, or that I'm more moral than you, not at all, I just hold a different position. I understand that people who are pro DP want to protect society, and get justice for the victims. I totally get that. I just personally don't think it is necessary. How many mass murderers escape prison? My guess would be zero. And even families of victims, as I've stated before, many of them disagree with the death penalty. They think it's getting off easy. I agree with them. I'd rather the piece of shit rot in prison for life. You think prison life is cushy, just because they get a few cable channels and 3 squares? Think again. Their conditions are usually piss poor.
I'd rather be dead than in jail for 30 years. Think about that for a second. THIRTY YEARS. Or more. Now think about being locked in your room as a kid for being bad for 20 minutes. Didn't it drive you insane? Multiply that by a million. I don't think they get off easy at all.
yes, our (western) justice system sucks when it comes to letting criminals out too quickly, most of them who will probably offend again.But honestly, these aren't the people we are talking about. No one who is on death row in one state is getting paroled in another. You're talking apples and oranges here.
About 30 years ago, we had a fellow stalk a family while they camped in one of our nearby parks. To make a long story short... he shot the adults, enslaved the two young daughters for a few days and had his way with them... then finished them off. I wonder if those pain-filled days for those girls equal the months leading to the guillotine for the murderous fiend, Camus? After the public learned of the heinous crime- I was a pre-teen then- we were outraged... and sad. It was not nice.
The RCMP spent a year solidifying their case- even though they knew who it was. They couldn't risk 'botching' the case in court for not crossing a 'tee'. After finally arresting and convicting, the man went to prison- we don't have the death penalty. But man do we need it. He needed death. He needed death because the remaining family members and community for that matter have been subjected to his parole hearings that are entertaining the notion of releasing this man. Shortly after he was sentenced, some loser married the guy while he was in prison. I guess there wasn't enough guys outside of prison? He changed his name and now wants a fresh start- a mulligan if you will. Rumour has it that he's close to achieving these ends. He insists he's a 'changed man'. There are some do-gooders that think he is a changed man. The survivors insisting he remains in prison have become somewhat of a nuisance for these do-gooders ("Just get over it already. Come on now. Geez, talk about vindictive. Holy crap!"). The majority of us see him for what he is. Some crimes are inexcusable. This one is one of them.
The survivors deserve better than to keep fighting to hold this monster in prison.
About 30 years ago, we had a fellow stalk a family while they camped in one of our nearby parks. To make a long story short... he shot the adults, enslaved the two young daughters for a few days and had his way with them... then finished them off. I wonder if those pain-filled days for those girls equal the months leading to the guillotine for the murderous fiend, Camus? After the public learned of the heinous crime- I was a pre-teen then- we were outraged... and sad. It was not nice.
The RCMP spent a year solidifying their case- even though they knew who it was. They couldn't risk 'botching' the case in court for not crossing a 'tee'. After finally arresting and convicting, the man went to prison- we don't have the death penalty. But man do we need it. He needed death. He needed death because the remaining family members and community for that matter have been subjected to his parole hearings that are entertaining the notion of releasing this man. Shortly after he was sentenced, some loser married the guy while he was in prison. I guess there wasn't enough guys outside of prison? He changed his name and now wants a fresh start- a mulligan if you will. Rumour has it that he's close to achieving these ends. He insists he's a 'changed man'. There are some do-gooders that think he is a changed man. The survivors insisting he remains in prison have become somewhat of a nuisance for these do-gooders ("Just get over it already. Come on now. Geez, talk about vindictive. Holy crap!"). The majority of us see him for what he is. Some crimes are inexcusable. This one is one of them.
The survivors deserve better than to keep fighting to hold this monster in prison.
I'm a big supporter of our justice system becoming WAY less lenient, especially when it comes to parole (I live in Winnipeg, and I'm sick and tired of the crime here-especially when you read that the perp is a multiple offender with little to no consequences). your last statement is absolutely correct, the survivors do NOT deserve that. That is one thing I like about the conservatives, they at least try to paint the picture that they are tough on crime. What they say and do are two different things, but if it were up to the liberals, we'd just give em a hug and a lollipop and send them on their way.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i agree with you,that seems not fair punishment prison,for someone do horrible crimes,
believe me ,im with the good guys and not with the ones do crimes..
i dont have any interest to support them.as u said,the system of laws,not only isnt perfect,my opinion is that sucks/..i believe this need to fixed,and not just say,..:
what this guy did?he kill someone,?ok,kill him too..
when someone come to your house and threat u is different to protect your self..we are talking for someone do a crime and he gotr arrested..
as u understand we arent in wild west anymore,we have courts,we dont do public trials,in 2 min,anfd put a rope in someone throat..
we need to do seperate things than monsters..
monsters do crimes,humans need to do different..
we need to control our instincts,we arent a jungle..we are a society..
the bigger part of me agrees with you but it just makes me so angry that a person can kill and go on living with out feeling the pain they have created in the friends and family of the loved ones that are left to feel the loss of a friend or loved one but I also realize that the judgment of life is in Gods hands.
I see both sides of the debate and understand them both but as I said the bottom line is in Gods hands and not a desission that I could never make,the crime of murder just make me very angry.
Godfather.
and continue our thoughts,ofcourse ,we are doing a conversation, calm,without be the ones did the crime,or we are friends or family of the victim..
sure the criminal and family has ,lets say,not only the opposite opinion what must be the punishment,
but cant think logically ,but with emotion..
thats why proffecional,as judge,court ,etc suppose to be the right ones to take this decitions...
if we go personal on this,im pretty sure any relative,any friend,lost their loves ones want the criminal,dead..
we all get angry with the crime..i know its safe when do the conversation without feel the pain of the loss..
but i believe we need to do different than those fuckin monsters.
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
He insists he's a 'changed man'. There are some do-gooders that think he is a changed man.
changed or not, this person does not deserve a second chance. For people like this, rehabilitation should not even be part of the parole equation. look at what he did. premeditated murder (without mental illness), confinement, rape, and more murder equals prison until death. no exceptions.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm a big supporter of our justice system becoming WAY less lenient, especially when it comes to parole (I live in Winnipeg, and I'm sick and tired of the crime here-especially when you read that the perp is a multiple offender with little to no consequences). your last statement is absolutely correct, the survivors do NOT deserve that. That is one thing I like about the conservatives, they at least try to paint the picture that they are tough on crime. What they say and do are two different things, but if it were up to the liberals, we'd just give em a hug and a lollipop and send them on their way.
Well said.
Although I'm opposed to the death penalty, I'm also abhorred by the leniency shown by our system in Canada. No real consideration is paid to the devastation experienced by the victims or the families. If you commit a pre-meditated homicide, there's no way you should be granted mercy for your actions. Where was the killer's mercy when he committed his crime? A life sentence should mean life; no parole and no pardons.
I'm still strongly opposed to the death penalty if only because mistakes will be made. Our legal system is not infallible so it stands to reason that there will be innocent lives lost. The loss of one innocent life can't be justified. The execution of a wrongly convicted person is murder. It is no different than somebody shooting an innocent victim in cold blood. The fact is, you can never undo such an act and as such it becomes a question of whether the state has the right to murder innocents in pursuit of justice. Personally, I think the answer is no. Of course I understand that other people feel differently on the matter.
He insists he's a 'changed man'. There are some do-gooders that think he is a changed man.
changed or not, this person does not deserve a second chance. For people like this, rehabilitation should not even be part of the parole equation. look at what he did. premeditated murder (without mental illness), confinement, rape, and more murder equals prison until death. no exceptions.
I know you take a hard stance on crime and I feel awful for the direction Winnipeg has taken. I am not hearing good things of your community- from people with ties to it. Scary.
When I hear 'life in prison' (prison until death)... could an argument be made that life in prison is ultimately a death sentence as well? We don't get our hands dirty, but in effect... does a life sentence equal death by confinement?
If this argument could be made, then might one change their opinion on the methodology or timing for execution?
I'm a big supporter of our justice system becoming WAY less lenient, especially when it comes to parole (I live in Winnipeg, and I'm sick and tired of the crime here-especially when you read that the perp is a multiple offender with little to no consequences). your last statement is absolutely correct, the survivors do NOT deserve that. That is one thing I like about the conservatives, they at least try to paint the picture that they are tough on crime. What they say and do are two different things, but if it were up to the liberals, we'd just give em a hug and a lollipop and send them on their way.
Well said.
Although I'm opposed to the death penalty, I'm also abhorred by the leniency shown by our system in Canada. No real consideration is paid to the devastation experienced by the victims or the families. If you commit a pre-meditated homicide, there's no way you should be granted mercy for your actions. Where was the killer's mercy when he committed his crime? A life sentence should mean life; no parole and no pardons.
I'm still strongly opposed to the death penalty if only because mistakes will be made. Our legal system is not infallible so it stands to reason that there will be innocent lives lost. The loss of one innocent life can't be justified. The execution of a wrongly convicted person is murder. It is no different than somebody shooting an innocent victim in cold blood. The fact is, you can never undo such an act and as such it becomes a question of whether the state has the right to murder innocents in pursuit of justice. Personally, I think the answer is no. Of course I understand that other people feel differently on the matter.
I understand the argument that mistakes have been made and that innocent people have paid the price for these mistakes.
From my perspective, the death penalty should not be an automatic sentence. It should be used only when appropriate- those 'special' cases where the crime reeks of brutality.
If the proper checks and balances were in place to ensure no mistakes were made... could you see fit to adopting such a policy? In other words, is your current personal position one where you approve of the death penalty in principle... but not in practice given the shortcomings attached to proving someone guilty beyond a doubt?
He insists he's a 'changed man'. There are some do-gooders that think he is a changed man.
changed or not, this person does not deserve a second chance. For people like this, rehabilitation should not even be part of the parole equation. look at what he did. premeditated murder (without mental illness), confinement, rape, and more murder equals prison until death. no exceptions.
I know you take a hard stance on crime and I feel awful for the direction Winnipeg has taken. I am not hearing good things of your community- from people with ties to it. Scary.
When I hear 'life in prison' (prison until death)... could an argument be made that life in prison is ultimately a death sentence as well? We don't get our hands dirty, but in effect... does a life sentence equal death by confinement?
If this argument could be made, then might one change their opinion on the methodology or timing for execution?
for some...many that do "life sentances" they become instuntionalized and can not adapt to life on the "outside" and if or when they are released they end up commiting a crime just so they can go "home" where they are somebody that has a "jacket" that the other inmates rtespect or they feel comfortable.
if you see them on t.v talking about how horrible it is just wait till they get out ..most can't deal with the responsibalitys of normal life (a job,rent and other bills) but I guess inside they can't kill anybody outside the prison walls but inside it's a whole other story, they kill to earn respect kind of like a badge of honor..to show the upper gang leaders that they will do what it takes to be somebody inside the prison system of life,
they have their own code of honor and rules so if a guy is doing life whats to stop him from killing within the prison knowing he will only get a year in the hole and another life sentense tacked on to the one he is already serving ?
When I hear 'life in prison' (prison until death)... could an argument be made that life in prison is ultimately a death sentence as well? We don't get our hands dirty, but in effect... does a life sentence equal death by confinement?
If this argument could be made, then might one change their opinion on the methodology or timing for execution?
I see what you are saying here, but I don't think we can take that leap. I mean, it is our duty to protect society by locking them up for good. But I don't feel it's necessary to kill them just because they won't get out anyway. That's not our call. And again, I think life in prison is worse than execution, so let them rot.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
There are plenty of monsters like that in private life.
Such as?
Here's a guy who deems it equally reprehensible to torture and murder an innocent as to kill he who had committed the torture and rape. Why deign to reason with that mindset, cincy?
About 30 years ago, we had a fellow stalk a family while they camped in one of our nearby parks. To make a long story short... he shot the adults, enslaved the two young daughters for a few days and had his way with them... then finished them off. I wonder if those pain-filled days for those girls equal the months leading to the guillotine for the murderous fiend, Camus? After the public learned of the heinous crime- I was a pre-teen then- we were outraged... and sad. It was not nice.
The RCMP spent a year solidifying their case- even though they knew who it was. They couldn't risk 'botching' the case in court for not crossing a 'tee'. After finally arresting and convicting, the man went to prison- we don't have the death penalty. But man do we need it. He needed death. He needed death because the remaining family members and community for that matter have been subjected to his parole hearings that are entertaining the notion of releasing this man. Shortly after he was sentenced, some loser married the guy while he was in prison. I guess there wasn't enough guys outside of prison? He changed his name and now wants a fresh start- a mulligan if you will. Rumour has it that he's close to achieving these ends. He insists he's a 'changed man'. There are some do-gooders that think he is a changed man. The survivors insisting he remains in prison have become somewhat of a nuisance for these do-gooders ("Just get over it already. Come on now. Geez, talk about vindictive. Holy crap!"). The majority of us see him for what he is. Some crimes are inexcusable. This one is one of them.
The survivors deserve better than to keep fighting to hold this monster in prison.
Your example points to a possible failing in this particular case - you haven't provided any details of the case so it's not possible for anyone reading this to check the facts. What your example doesn't do is justify state-sanctioned murder.
I wonder if those pain-filled days for those girls equal the months leading to the guillotine for the murderous fiend, Camus?
Firstly, how do you know those girls were certain that they were going to be killed?
Secondly, how does being told of the exact date of your 'execution' months, or even years beforehand, compare to a situation lasting a couple of days in which survival - escape, or rescue - is still a possibility?
In fact, your example contains a lot of drama and very little substance. "Just get over it already. Come on now. Geez, talk about vindictive. Holy crap!"
We're supposed to just accept your word for it that after a heinous murder of an entire family, that some delusional 'do-gooders' have intervened and are on the brink of succeeding in having this 'monster' released into society? That's it. A simple case of some do-gooders siding with a rapist and murderer and dismissing the feelings of the victims relatives.
Sorry, but that all just sounds a bit too convenient for me.
And who are you to say that anyone 'needs death'? That's the sort of thing that Nazi concentration guards used to say to the Jews filing into the gas chambers.
'A nineteen year-old girl [during one selection process] asked the Auschwitz camp commander, Hossler, to excuse her. He replied, "You have lived long enough. Come, my child, come."
- 'The Destruction of The European Jews' - Raul Hilberg
Here's a guy who deems it equally reprehensible to torture and murder an innocent as to kill he who had committed the torture and rape.
No, I don't deem it 'equally reprehensible'; I deem it worse.
To carry out a pre-meditated murder in the name of 'justice', and/or 'righteousness', is more twisted than any rape or murder committed spontaneously by an individual who may or may not be mentally ill.
About 30 years ago, we had a fellow stalk a family while they camped in one of our nearby parks. To make a long story short... he shot the adults, enslaved the two young daughters for a few days and had his way with them... then finished them off. I wonder if those pain-filled days for those girls equal the months leading to the guillotine for the murderous fiend, Camus? After the public learned of the heinous crime- I was a pre-teen then- we were outraged... and sad. It was not nice.
The RCMP spent a year solidifying their case- even though they knew who it was. They couldn't risk 'botching' the case in court for not crossing a 'tee'. After finally arresting and convicting, the man went to prison- we don't have the death penalty. But man do we need it. He needed death. He needed death because the remaining family members and community for that matter have been subjected to his parole hearings that are entertaining the notion of releasing this man. Shortly after he was sentenced, some loser married the guy while he was in prison. I guess there wasn't enough guys outside of prison? He changed his name and now wants a fresh start- a mulligan if you will. Rumour has it that he's close to achieving these ends. He insists he's a 'changed man'. There are some do-gooders that think he is a changed man. The survivors insisting he remains in prison have become somewhat of a nuisance for these do-gooders ("Just get over it already. Come on now. Geez, talk about vindictive. Holy crap!"). The majority of us see him for what he is. Some crimes are inexcusable. This one is one of them.
The survivors deserve better than to keep fighting to hold this monster in prison.
Your example points to a possible failing in this particular case - you haven't provided any details of the case so it's not possible for anyone reading this to check the facts. What your example doesn't do is justify state-sanctioned murder.
I wonder if those pain-filled days for those girls equal the months leading to the guillotine for the murderous fiend, Camus?
Firstly, how do you know those girls were certain that they were going to be killed?
Secondly, how does being told of the exact date of your 'execution' months, or even years beforehand, compare to a situation lasting a couple of days in which survival - escape, or rescue - is still a possibility?
In fact, your example contains a lot of drama and very little substance. "Just get over it already. Come on now. Geez, talk about vindictive. Holy crap!"
We're supposed to just accept your word for it that after a heinous murder of an entire family, that some delusional 'do-gooders' have intervened and are on the brink of succeeding in having this 'monster' released into society? That's it. A simple case of some do-gooders siding with a rapist and murderer and dismissing the feelings of the victims relatives.
Sorry, but that all just sounds a bit too convenient for me.
And who are you to say that anyone 'needs death'? That's the sort of thing that Nazi concentration guards used to say to the Jews filing into the gas chambers.
'A nineteen year-old girl [during one selection process] asked the Auschwitz camp commander, Hossler, to excuse her. He replied, "You have lived long enough. Come, my child, come."
- 'The Destruction of The European Jews' - Raul Hilberg
Sigh. Byrnzie... I guess when I speak in Pearl Jam's Moving Train forum... I'd like to feel as if I'm speaking in the pub. You want something pasted in here to prove what I say is true. Here's a fairly recent local news link:
You'll find much of what I expressed earlier is supported. You can dig around more if you like to try and 'poke some holes in what I have expressed'. Know this though... I have followed this case with interest since its origin. I also know people who had worked the case. I won't what I am talking about here. Give me some credit- I'd do the same for you.
I won't speak for very long here because I get the impression you are the type that likes to talk alot, but doesn't listen with quite the same level of enthusiasm. Regardless, your response to my post borders on offensive. No, in fact... it is offensive. To be precise, I don't appreciate the mockery of my words and the veiled comparison of myself (or my attitude) to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
I can get over your condescending, Oracle delivered response... but what really gets my blood boiling though is how you make so little of the two murdered girls' situation. How do I know the girls were certain they were going to get killed? Well, I guess I don't. They may have been to busy trying to place themselves in another dimension while repeatedly being raped; however, it's likely a safe bet they did think they were going to die given their parents and grandparents were murdered in front of them just prior to becoming captive.
Further, are you serious when you ask: how does being told of the exact date of your 'execution' months, or even years beforehand, compare to a situation lasting a couple of days in which survival - escape, or rescue - is still a possibility? Yeah. The girls were likely plotting their escape until their captor 'kicked it up a couple of notches'. You also seem to equate the plight of a convicted murderer awaiting his execution with the plight of two innocent girls. Don't you think one plight was brought upon through one's actions? Does this not make any difference to you when comparing the two situations?
You keep throwing Camus's name out there (a kind of comical intellectual name dropping of sorts). If you are getting your perspective from him and this is what he has you believing... find another guy.
I don't appreciate the mockery of my words and the veiled comparison of myself (or my attitude) to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
Why? Where's the difference in either remark with regards to adopting the position of arbiter of life and death? Where's the difference in assuming the role of the giver of the Supreme and final judgement?
what really gets my blood boiling though is how you make so little of the two murdered girls' situation. How do I know the girls were certain they were going to get killed? Well, I guess I don't. They may have been to busy trying to place themselves in another dimension while repeatedly being raped; however, it's likely a safe bet they did think they were going to die given their parents and grandparents were murdered in front of them just prior to becoming captive.
You can twist my words all you like, but unfortunately for you they're still there at the top of this page for all to see. I didn't 'make so little of the two murdered girls' situation'. I posed a question: 'How do I know the girls were certain they were going to get killed?' A perfectly legitimate question, which you now admit yourself you have no answer to. Were their deaths pre-meditated and certain? I don't know, and neither do you. And it's also possible that the murderer didn't know either before he finally killed them.
And your initial post said nothing about the girls parents being murdered in front of them.
You also seem to equate the plight of a convicted murderer awaiting his execution with the plight of two innocent girls. Don't you think one plight was brought upon through one's actions? Does this not make any difference to you when comparing the two situations?
The difference it makes to me is that I would support such a murderer spending the rest of his life behind bars. Murdering him in turn will serve no useful purpose whatsoever, and would not have the effect of bringing his victims back to life.
You keep throwing Camus's name out there (a kind of comical intellectual name dropping of sorts).
I don't keep 'throwing his name out there'. I've been posting quotations from him that are relevant to the discussion at hand. And I really couldn't care less if that bothers you.
If you are getting your perspective from him and this is what he has you believing... find another guy.
Why? Because you happen to support state-sanctioned murder, and he doesn't?
Here's some more quotes from Albert Camus' essay:
'Whoever has done me harm must suffer harm; whoever has put out my eye must lose an eye; and whoever has killed must die. This is an emotion, and a particularly violent one, not a principle. Retaliation is related to nature and instinct, not to law. Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. If murder is in the nature of man, the law is not intended to imitate or reproduce that nature. It is intended to correct it. Now, retaliation does no more than ratify and confer the status of a law on a pure impulse of nature.'
'But, let me repeat, I do not believe, nonetheless, that there is no responsibility in this world and that we must give way to that modern tendency to absolve everything, victim and murderer, in the same confusion. Such purely sentimental confusion is made up of cowardice rather than of generosity and eventually justifies whatever is worst in this world....To any who feel, on the other hand, that hard labor is too mild a penalty, we can answer first that they lack imagination, and secondly, that privation of freedom seems to them a slight punishment only insofar as contemporary society has taught us to despise freedom.'
I don't appreciate the mockery of my words and the veiled comparison of myself (or my attitude) to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
Why? Where's the difference in either remark with regards to adopting the position of arbiter of life and death? Where's the difference in assuming the role of the giver of the Supreme and final judgement?
what really gets my blood boiling though is how you make so little of the two murdered girls' situation. How do I know the girls were certain they were going to get killed? Well, I guess I don't. They may have been to busy trying to place themselves in another dimension while repeatedly being raped; however, it's likely a safe bet they did think they were going to die given their parents and grandparents were murdered in front of them just prior to becoming captive.
You can twist my words all you like, but unfortunately for you they're still there at the top of this page for all to see. I didn't 'make so little of the two murdered girls' situation'. I posed a question: 'How do I know the girls were certain they were going to get killed?' A perfectly legitimate question, which you now admit yourself you have no answer to. Were their deaths pre-meditated and certain? I don't know, and neither do you. And it's also possible that the murderer didn't know either before he finally killed them.
And your initial post said nothing about the girls parents being murdered in front of them.
You also seem to equate the plight of a convicted murderer awaiting his execution with the plight of two innocent girls. Don't you think one plight was brought upon through one's actions? Does this not make any difference to you when comparing the two situations?
The difference it makes to me is that I would support such a murderer spending the rest of his life behind bars. Murdering him in turn will serve no useful purpose whatsoever, and would not have the effect of bringing his victims back to life.
You keep throwing Camus's name out there (a kind of comical intellectual name dropping of sorts).
I don't keep 'throwing his name out there'. I've been posting quotations from him that are relevant to the discussion at hand. And I really couldn't care less if that bothers you.
If you are getting your perspective from him and this is what he has you believing... find another guy.
Why? Because you happen to support state-sanctioned murder, and he doesn't?
Here's some more quotes from Albert Camus' essay:
'Whoever has done me harm must suffer harm; whoever has put out my eye must lose an eye; and whoever has killed must die. This is an emotion, and a particularly violent one, not a principle. Retaliation is related to nature and instinct, not to law. Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. If murder is in the nature of man, the law is not intended to imitate or reproduce that nature. It is intended to correct it. Now, retaliation does no more than ratify and confer the status of a law on a pure impulse of nature.'
'But, let me repeat, I do not believe, nonetheless, that there is no responsibility in this world and that we must give way to that modern tendency to absolve everything, victim and murderer, in the same confusion. Such purely sentimental confusion is made up of cowardice rather than of generosity and eventually justifies whatever is worst in this world....To any who feel, on the other hand, that hard labor is too mild a penalty, we can answer first that they lack imagination, and secondly, that privation of freedom seems to them a slight punishment only insofar as contemporary society has taught us to despise freedom.'
My drink is empty in the MT pub and I'm going home on this one, Byrnzie. You have offered nothing to make me change my mind on how I stand on this issue. It's not for a weak effort though- barring some new divine argument... the Dalai Lama couldn't either. In my opinion, the position you support is not noble or profound. It's warm, it's fuzzy, and it certainly appears 'enlightened'... but it doesn't address the severity or nature of the crime. It doesn't serve the needs of survivors or the victims. Whether right or wrong... I seem to be more concerned with this than you though after you suggested: Murdering him in turn will serve no useful purpose whatsoever, and would not have the effect of bringing his victims back to life.
I have suggested that the death penalty has very useful purposes. It places closure on an ugly event for grieving survivors and communities. I'm okay with the Ted Bundy case closing as it did. At the very least, if 'vengeance' serves to assist grieving people... then so be it. Hugh, who sides with you, stated he'd want the death of any bastard that harmed his daughter. He proceeded to say it would be wrong... but that's how he'd feel. Camus' last quote echoed the same sentiments citing instinctual behaviour and the need for law to preside over such common instincts. To that end, I say let survivors have this form of justice given such a brutal scenario ever sadly becoming a reality. Faced with a life of grief, if the death of some bastard such as the one in the case I provided gives any solace at all... then provide it.
People surviving horrific crimes such as these should not be burdened with the task of ensuring these types of criminals at least remain behind bars. 25 years after the crime I detailed, if you read the piece I provided you, 9,000 signatures on a petition were ascertained protesting the possibility of parole when DS became eligible in 2008. That same year, people were shocked to hear that a release was given to him so that he could spend the day with his wife. Lovely. People in 2012 needed to summon their efforts again to protest the possibility of him getting paroled.
I'm okay with you feeling the way you do, Byrnzie. It doesn't make me think any less of you... but we'll have to agree to disagree.
the position you support is not noble or profound. It's warm, it's fuzzy, and it certainly appears 'enlightened'... but it doesn't address the severity or nature of the crime. It doesn't serve the needs of survivors or the victims. Whether right or wrong... I seem to be more concerned with this than you though after you suggested: Murdering him in turn will serve no useful purpose whatsoever, and would not have the effect of bringing his victims back to life.
I wonder if anyone serving time in a U.S prison would describe their situation as 'warm, and fuzzy'? I very much doubt it.
As for serving the needs of survivors or the victims, I don't see how committing another murder - an act of pure vengeance - serves any useful purpose at all.
I have suggested that the death penalty has very useful purposes. It places closure on an ugly event for grieving survivors and communities. Faced with a life of grief, if the death of some bastard such as the one in the case I provided gives any solace at all... then provide it.
Not all survivors or the families of the victims support the death penalty. Many such people are vehemently opposed to it, and have even found it in themselves to forgive those responsible. Though I take it you believe any murderer, such as the one you mentioned above, is beyond redemption, as though, once again, you feel that you're in a position to make such a call. Personally, I don't think that you, or anybody else, has the power of omniscience, and the right to pass final judgement on anybody.
What I do think is that there is more than likely a correlation between the rate of violence in America, and the fact that you are taught that murder is a solution to any problem.
People surviving horrific crimes such as these should not be burdened with the task of ensuring these types of criminals at least remain behind bars.
If by 'burden' you're referring to taxes here, then keep in mind that 80% of your taxes goes to the Pentagon and the military. Again, the fact that the U.S is so heavily tilted towards violence as a solution to everything may be related to the high rate of violent crime in your country.
Firstly, how do you know those girls were certain that they were going to be killed?
Secondly, how does being told of the exact date of your 'execution' months, or even years beforehand, compare to a situation lasting a couple of days in which survival - escape, or rescue - is still a possibility?
Really? This is what you are going with? That the murderer has to deal with such a painful experience of waiting to die and it's worse than what he did to the 2 kidnapped girls?
Wow, I get that you are 100% against the death penalty. I can respect that. But I cannot respect that post at all.
I'm still in favor of having a death penalty. I think it should be rare, but it should be an option. But in reality, while I do enjoy discussing it, it's not really a high priority issue with me. If the death penalty was outlawed, it's not likely to change my world. And if we do away with any chance of parole for certain crimes, it wouldn't be a terrible travesty.
Really? This is what you are going with? That the murderer has to deal with such a painful experience of waiting to die and it's worse than what he did to the 2 kidnapped girls?
Yeah, that's the only thing I've said in 18 pages of this thread. :roll:
Really? This is what you are going with? That the murderer has to deal with such a painful experience of waiting to die and it's worse than what he did to the 2 kidnapped girls?
Yeah, that's the only thing I've said in 18 pages of this thread. :roll:
Almost, mostly you just quote others. But you said it and you said it is part of your justification for you position.
After re-reading that comment you made, do you really believe that?
Comments
at some countries,people stealing some bread they cut their arm..sound fair???no..
did they stop stealing??no..
i dont know..killing someone will not solve the problem..we need and we can do different than criminals..we need to do and go the other way of the one they choose..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
the bigger part of me agrees with you but it just makes me so angry that a person can kill and go on living with out feeling the pain they have created in the friends and family of the loved ones that are left to feel the loss of a friend or loved one but I also realize that the judgment of life is in Gods hands.
I see both sides of the debate and understand them both but as I said the bottom line is in Gods hands and not a desission that I could never make,the crime of murder just make me very angry.
Godfather.
it's not hard to understand, it's just hard for me to agree with. believe me, I used to actually hold that same stance. I'm not saying I had some sort of "epiphany" or anything, or that I'm more moral than you, not at all, I just hold a different position. I understand that people who are pro DP want to protect society, and get justice for the victims. I totally get that. I just personally don't think it is necessary. How many mass murderers escape prison? My guess would be zero. And even families of victims, as I've stated before, many of them disagree with the death penalty. They think it's getting off easy. I agree with them. I'd rather the piece of shit rot in prison for life. You think prison life is cushy, just because they get a few cable channels and 3 squares? Think again. Their conditions are usually piss poor.
I'd rather be dead than in jail for 30 years. Think about that for a second. THIRTY YEARS. Or more. Now think about being locked in your room as a kid for being bad for 20 minutes. Didn't it drive you insane? Multiply that by a million. I don't think they get off easy at all.
yes, our (western) justice system sucks when it comes to letting criminals out too quickly, most of them who will probably offend again.But honestly, these aren't the people we are talking about. No one who is on death row in one state is getting paroled in another. You're talking apples and oranges here.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I would rather dispose of them than to pay for them to live in prison. If we are not going to "rehabiltate" them why pay for them to live? Lost causes deserve no more money spent. A few shots and they go bye bye.
I can't argue with you man, I know a few people that have done 5 years 20 years even 30 years and the story is always the same "it sucks" and I can honestly say it changed a few of them if not all of them and not for the better every time.
and I can't argue that killing for punishment is wrong either...I do sometimes but it's more anger than clear thinking.
Godfather.
I love that attempt at making the murderer some kind of a victim.
And obviously this idiot isn't aware of what some of these monsters have done. There are plenty of monsters like that in private life.
I used profound to talk of the complexity of the subject at hand. Maybe I should have used difficult. The topic isn't as complex as what I think you are trying to suggest here.
And, no... I'm only mildly interested (at best) in reading what Camus has to say. As 'elaborate' as he paints his viewpoint in the quotes you have provided... he's ultimately saying the same thing as most 'common folk' with regards to this topic. Did I miss something new or fresh with regards to ideology as it pertains to condemning the death penalty?
About 30 years ago, we had a fellow stalk a family while they camped in one of our nearby parks. To make a long story short... he shot the adults, enslaved the two young daughters for a few days and had his way with them... then finished them off. I wonder if those pain-filled days for those girls equal the months leading to the guillotine for the murderous fiend, Camus? After the public learned of the heinous crime- I was a pre-teen then- we were outraged... and sad. It was not nice.
The RCMP spent a year solidifying their case- even though they knew who it was. They couldn't risk 'botching' the case in court for not crossing a 'tee'. After finally arresting and convicting, the man went to prison- we don't have the death penalty. But man do we need it. He needed death. He needed death because the remaining family members and community for that matter have been subjected to his parole hearings that are entertaining the notion of releasing this man. Shortly after he was sentenced, some loser married the guy while he was in prison. I guess there wasn't enough guys outside of prison? He changed his name and now wants a fresh start- a mulligan if you will. Rumour has it that he's close to achieving these ends. He insists he's a 'changed man'. There are some do-gooders that think he is a changed man. The survivors insisting he remains in prison have become somewhat of a nuisance for these do-gooders ("Just get over it already. Come on now. Geez, talk about vindictive. Holy crap!"). The majority of us see him for what he is. Some crimes are inexcusable. This one is one of them.
The survivors deserve better than to keep fighting to hold this monster in prison.
I'm a big supporter of our justice system becoming WAY less lenient, especially when it comes to parole (I live in Winnipeg, and I'm sick and tired of the crime here-especially when you read that the perp is a multiple offender with little to no consequences). your last statement is absolutely correct, the survivors do NOT deserve that. That is one thing I like about the conservatives, they at least try to paint the picture that they are tough on crime. What they say and do are two different things, but if it were up to the liberals, we'd just give em a hug and a lollipop and send them on their way.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
sure the criminal and family has ,lets say,not only the opposite opinion what must be the punishment,
but cant think logically ,but with emotion..
thats why proffecional,as judge,court ,etc suppose to be the right ones to take this decitions...
if we go personal on this,im pretty sure any relative,any friend,lost their loves ones want the criminal,dead..
we all get angry with the crime..i know its safe when do the conversation without feel the pain of the loss..
but i believe we need to do different than those fuckin monsters.
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
changed or not, this person does not deserve a second chance. For people like this, rehabilitation should not even be part of the parole equation. look at what he did. premeditated murder (without mental illness), confinement, rape, and more murder equals prison until death. no exceptions.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Well said.
Although I'm opposed to the death penalty, I'm also abhorred by the leniency shown by our system in Canada. No real consideration is paid to the devastation experienced by the victims or the families. If you commit a pre-meditated homicide, there's no way you should be granted mercy for your actions. Where was the killer's mercy when he committed his crime? A life sentence should mean life; no parole and no pardons.
I'm still strongly opposed to the death penalty if only because mistakes will be made. Our legal system is not infallible so it stands to reason that there will be innocent lives lost. The loss of one innocent life can't be justified. The execution of a wrongly convicted person is murder. It is no different than somebody shooting an innocent victim in cold blood. The fact is, you can never undo such an act and as such it becomes a question of whether the state has the right to murder innocents in pursuit of justice. Personally, I think the answer is no. Of course I understand that other people feel differently on the matter.
I know you take a hard stance on crime and I feel awful for the direction Winnipeg has taken. I am not hearing good things of your community- from people with ties to it. Scary.
When I hear 'life in prison' (prison until death)... could an argument be made that life in prison is ultimately a death sentence as well? We don't get our hands dirty, but in effect... does a life sentence equal death by confinement?
If this argument could be made, then might one change their opinion on the methodology or timing for execution?
I understand the argument that mistakes have been made and that innocent people have paid the price for these mistakes.
From my perspective, the death penalty should not be an automatic sentence. It should be used only when appropriate- those 'special' cases where the crime reeks of brutality.
If the proper checks and balances were in place to ensure no mistakes were made... could you see fit to adopting such a policy? In other words, is your current personal position one where you approve of the death penalty in principle... but not in practice given the shortcomings attached to proving someone guilty beyond a doubt?
for some...many that do "life sentances" they become instuntionalized and can not adapt to life on the "outside" and if or when they are released they end up commiting a crime just so they can go "home" where they are somebody that has a "jacket" that the other inmates rtespect or they feel comfortable.
if you see them on t.v talking about how horrible it is just wait till they get out ..most can't deal with the responsibalitys of normal life (a job,rent and other bills) but I guess inside they can't kill anybody outside the prison walls but inside it's a whole other story, they kill to earn respect kind of like a badge of honor..to show the upper gang leaders that they will do what it takes to be somebody inside the prison system of life,
they have their own code of honor and rules so if a guy is doing life whats to stop him from killing within the prison knowing he will only get a year in the hole and another life sentense tacked on to the one he is already serving ?
Godfather.
I see what you are saying here, but I don't think we can take that leap. I mean, it is our duty to protect society by locking them up for good. But I don't feel it's necessary to kill them just because they won't get out anyway. That's not our call. And again, I think life in prison is worse than execution, so let them rot.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Because someone who's been condemned to death is not a victim?
Albert Camus is an idiot is he? I take it you know nothing about him and have read none of his books.
Such as?
Your example points to a possible failing in this particular case - you haven't provided any details of the case so it's not possible for anyone reading this to check the facts. What your example doesn't do is justify state-sanctioned murder.
Firstly, how do you know those girls were certain that they were going to be killed?
Secondly, how does being told of the exact date of your 'execution' months, or even years beforehand, compare to a situation lasting a couple of days in which survival - escape, or rescue - is still a possibility?
In fact, your example contains a lot of drama and very little substance. "Just get over it already. Come on now. Geez, talk about vindictive. Holy crap!"
We're supposed to just accept your word for it that after a heinous murder of an entire family, that some delusional 'do-gooders' have intervened and are on the brink of succeeding in having this 'monster' released into society? That's it. A simple case of some do-gooders siding with a rapist and murderer and dismissing the feelings of the victims relatives.
Sorry, but that all just sounds a bit too convenient for me.
And who are you to say that anyone 'needs death'? That's the sort of thing that Nazi concentration guards used to say to the Jews filing into the gas chambers.
'A nineteen year-old girl [during one selection process] asked the Auschwitz camp commander, Hossler, to excuse her. He replied, "You have lived long enough. Come, my child, come."
- 'The Destruction of The European Jews' - Raul Hilberg
No, I don't deem it 'equally reprehensible'; I deem it worse.
To carry out a pre-meditated murder in the name of 'justice', and/or 'righteousness', is more twisted than any rape or murder committed spontaneously by an individual who may or may not be mentally ill.
An idiot who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature the same year this essay was published.
Reflections on The Guillotine: http://www.deakinphilosophicalsociety.c ... ctions.pdf
Sigh. Byrnzie... I guess when I speak in Pearl Jam's Moving Train forum... I'd like to feel as if I'm speaking in the pub. You want something pasted in here to prove what I say is true. Here's a fairly recent local news link:
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/arti ... -september
You'll find much of what I expressed earlier is supported. You can dig around more if you like to try and 'poke some holes in what I have expressed'. Know this though... I have followed this case with interest since its origin. I also know people who had worked the case. I won't what I am talking about here. Give me some credit- I'd do the same for you.
I won't speak for very long here because I get the impression you are the type that likes to talk alot, but doesn't listen with quite the same level of enthusiasm. Regardless, your response to my post borders on offensive. No, in fact... it is offensive. To be precise, I don't appreciate the mockery of my words and the veiled comparison of myself (or my attitude) to a Nazi concentration camp guard.
I can get over your condescending, Oracle delivered response... but what really gets my blood boiling though is how you make so little of the two murdered girls' situation. How do I know the girls were certain they were going to get killed? Well, I guess I don't. They may have been to busy trying to place themselves in another dimension while repeatedly being raped; however, it's likely a safe bet they did think they were going to die given their parents and grandparents were murdered in front of them just prior to becoming captive.
Further, are you serious when you ask: how does being told of the exact date of your 'execution' months, or even years beforehand, compare to a situation lasting a couple of days in which survival - escape, or rescue - is still a possibility? Yeah. The girls were likely plotting their escape until their captor 'kicked it up a couple of notches'. You also seem to equate the plight of a convicted murderer awaiting his execution with the plight of two innocent girls. Don't you think one plight was brought upon through one's actions? Does this not make any difference to you when comparing the two situations?
You keep throwing Camus's name out there (a kind of comical intellectual name dropping of sorts). If you are getting your perspective from him and this is what he has you believing... find another guy.
Why? Where's the difference in either remark with regards to adopting the position of arbiter of life and death? Where's the difference in assuming the role of the giver of the Supreme and final judgement?
You can twist my words all you like, but unfortunately for you they're still there at the top of this page for all to see. I didn't 'make so little of the two murdered girls' situation'. I posed a question: 'How do I know the girls were certain they were going to get killed?' A perfectly legitimate question, which you now admit yourself you have no answer to. Were their deaths pre-meditated and certain? I don't know, and neither do you. And it's also possible that the murderer didn't know either before he finally killed them.
And your initial post said nothing about the girls parents being murdered in front of them.
The difference it makes to me is that I would support such a murderer spending the rest of his life behind bars. Murdering him in turn will serve no useful purpose whatsoever, and would not have the effect of bringing his victims back to life.
I don't keep 'throwing his name out there'. I've been posting quotations from him that are relevant to the discussion at hand. And I really couldn't care less if that bothers you.
Why? Because you happen to support state-sanctioned murder, and he doesn't?
Here's some more quotes from Albert Camus' essay:
'Whoever has done me harm must suffer harm; whoever has put out my eye must lose an eye; and whoever has killed must die. This is an emotion, and a particularly violent one, not a principle. Retaliation is related to nature and instinct, not to law. Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. If murder is in the nature of man, the law is not intended to imitate or reproduce that nature. It is intended to correct it. Now, retaliation does no more than ratify and confer the status of a law on a pure impulse of nature.'
'But, let me repeat, I do not believe, nonetheless, that there is no responsibility in this world and that we must give way to that modern tendency to absolve everything, victim and murderer, in the same confusion. Such purely sentimental confusion is made up of cowardice rather than of generosity and eventually justifies whatever is worst in this world....To any who feel, on the other hand, that hard labor is too mild a penalty, we can answer first that they lack imagination, and secondly, that privation of freedom seems to them a slight punishment only insofar as contemporary society has taught us to despise freedom.'
My drink is empty in the MT pub and I'm going home on this one, Byrnzie. You have offered nothing to make me change my mind on how I stand on this issue. It's not for a weak effort though- barring some new divine argument... the Dalai Lama couldn't either. In my opinion, the position you support is not noble or profound. It's warm, it's fuzzy, and it certainly appears 'enlightened'... but it doesn't address the severity or nature of the crime. It doesn't serve the needs of survivors or the victims. Whether right or wrong... I seem to be more concerned with this than you though after you suggested: Murdering him in turn will serve no useful purpose whatsoever, and would not have the effect of bringing his victims back to life.
I have suggested that the death penalty has very useful purposes. It places closure on an ugly event for grieving survivors and communities. I'm okay with the Ted Bundy case closing as it did. At the very least, if 'vengeance' serves to assist grieving people... then so be it. Hugh, who sides with you, stated he'd want the death of any bastard that harmed his daughter. He proceeded to say it would be wrong... but that's how he'd feel. Camus' last quote echoed the same sentiments citing instinctual behaviour and the need for law to preside over such common instincts. To that end, I say let survivors have this form of justice given such a brutal scenario ever sadly becoming a reality. Faced with a life of grief, if the death of some bastard such as the one in the case I provided gives any solace at all... then provide it.
People surviving horrific crimes such as these should not be burdened with the task of ensuring these types of criminals at least remain behind bars. 25 years after the crime I detailed, if you read the piece I provided you, 9,000 signatures on a petition were ascertained protesting the possibility of parole when DS became eligible in 2008. That same year, people were shocked to hear that a release was given to him so that he could spend the day with his wife. Lovely. People in 2012 needed to summon their efforts again to protest the possibility of him getting paroled.
I'm okay with you feeling the way you do, Byrnzie. It doesn't make me think any less of you... but we'll have to agree to disagree.
I wonder if anyone serving time in a U.S prison would describe their situation as 'warm, and fuzzy'? I very much doubt it.
As for serving the needs of survivors or the victims, I don't see how committing another murder - an act of pure vengeance - serves any useful purpose at all.
Not all survivors or the families of the victims support the death penalty. Many such people are vehemently opposed to it, and have even found it in themselves to forgive those responsible. Though I take it you believe any murderer, such as the one you mentioned above, is beyond redemption, as though, once again, you feel that you're in a position to make such a call. Personally, I don't think that you, or anybody else, has the power of omniscience, and the right to pass final judgement on anybody.
What I do think is that there is more than likely a correlation between the rate of violence in America, and the fact that you are taught that murder is a solution to any problem.
If by 'burden' you're referring to taxes here, then keep in mind that 80% of your taxes goes to the Pentagon and the military. Again, the fact that the U.S is so heavily tilted towards violence as a solution to everything may be related to the high rate of violent crime in your country.
O.k, fair enough.
Really? This is what you are going with? That the murderer has to deal with such a painful experience of waiting to die and it's worse than what he did to the 2 kidnapped girls?
Wow, I get that you are 100% against the death penalty. I can respect that. But I cannot respect that post at all.
I'm still in favor of having a death penalty. I think it should be rare, but it should be an option. But in reality, while I do enjoy discussing it, it's not really a high priority issue with me. If the death penalty was outlawed, it's not likely to change my world. And if we do away with any chance of parole for certain crimes, it wouldn't be a terrible travesty.
Yeah, that's the only thing I've said in 18 pages of this thread. :roll:
Almost, mostly you just quote others. But you said it and you said it is part of your justification for you position.
After re-reading that comment you made, do you really believe that?
Yeah, I do. I wouldn't have said it otherwise.
Well then I think you are batshit crazy on this topic.