The bottom line... this life is the only thing we are sure of. Sure, religions tell us about after lives and milk and honey... but realistically... we don't know for sure. We may BELIEVE in afterlife... but belief and truth are not the same thing.
So... you don't need religion or God in order to be a moral person. I know many non-religious people who are loving, caring and giving... and have heard of many instances where religious people are the ones who send out death threats to those whom commit blasphemy in their eyes. And I'm sure there are awful aethists and I know there are wonderful religious people out there.
I believe that our morality comes from our humanity... not our religious beliefs.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
In a nut shell the best argument against the death penalty as a punishment.
The only other real argument is as a deterrent but the threat of execution does not cut murder rates anywhere it is applied for one simple reason. Most criminals don't think they will be caught.
Thanks but I'm not really trying to convince anybody else or argue with them or for my point of view. It's really just my take on the matter and could be the worst kind of thinking. I'm really not sure. My views on the death penalty have changed over the years and it's a really difficult issue to negotiate in my mind. I think because much of what we think about it is so emotionally based. I can see that my reasoning is flawed. If I'm so against state sanctioned killing why is it that I would want Martin Bryant to suffer slowly going insane? It's probably not a great way to look at it but if I'm honest I do want him to have to think about what he did. I don't think he can be rehabilitated, I think death is too easy a release for him and I don't think he can redeem himself. I can't imagine that there is ANYTHING that he could do that would make up or change the horrific nature of his crimes. And his strange and tragic childhood really doesn't cut any slack with me either. Me wanting him to suffer mental and emotional torture for the rest of his natural life, well that's probably equally as bad as people that would support the death penalty. So I don't know.
I will explain further, came off a little wrong. I'm not particularly religious. I'm more of the Deist/spiritual type. I'm just saying that if I didn't believe there was some greater meaning or afterlife, I wouldn't care about anything but my own survival, and thats if I cared about anything at all. If I cease to exist after death, than my life is pointless, and so is everyone else's. Whats the harm in ushering others off into nonexistence? We are just water filled fleshbags.
I'm not saying thats what all atheists believe, but from a logical standpoint, I would have to agree with Stalin if I were a true atheist. I mean, lets face it, the man lived a happy, rich life, and since he doesnt exist after death and there is no big karma/hell/cosmic justice or whatever, sounds to me he had the right idea, since everyone he "killed" were just a random collection of matter with no real purpose. Live life for the maximum amount of pleasure, because we all cease to exist after life. My caring for other life would pretty much end with me and my close friends and family. Everybody else could go fuck themselves.
Why do you as an atheist believe in the sanctity of life? Seems to me that the only reason is fear of punishment, just like religious people. Don't be so high and mighty. We're all slaves to Pain and Pleasure. I would also argue that your "empathy" is just something modern society impressed on you, but then again so is my belief in some kind of payback when one dies i guess.
I'm not flaming, just wondering aloud. Its interesting to me. People can think whatever they want, as long as they dont get in my face with it.
Glad you believe in life after death, then.
I'm an atheists and most of my friends are too. We figured out that when you are nice to people, they are nice to you too. Call it karma, whatever, this doesn't have anything to do with something spiritual or anything, it's just what people do. We also figured out when you're an asshole, which you would be oddly enough, people won't like you, you won't have a lot of friends etc.
What does this have to do with fearing punishment? Most people don't want to become dictator and kill millions and are happy with a normal life which they share with their friends and family...
Anyway, we're nice, friendly people.
And like the other posters said, do you think empathy is something only the bible can teach you?
you know tis not the criminal we defend but the human life. sure laws are broken but that doesnt mean we should take it upon ourselves as a society and break the biggest rule of all. we say we are above the animals but when we kill our own kind in anger and revenge, we are not. state sanctioned murder is still murder. warehousing people in jails does not address the issues we have to confront as a society. but it sure is convenient to have them out of the way where we dont have to be confronted with our shortcomings as a society and theirs as fellow human beings. i find it interesting that there are times when we 'worship' the agressor and others where we do not. if we trully valued human life as we say we do then the societies in which we live would be vastly different places.
the life of a criminal is not worth MORE than that of a so called innocent. it has equal value. if you do wrong yes you should be punished. but execution only hardens a society and diminishes the worth of all life.
that is one fucker of a post
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Thanks but I'm not really trying to convince anybody else or argue with them or for my point of view. It's really just my take on the matter and could be the worst kind of thinking. I'm really not sure. My views on the death penalty have changed over the years and it's a really difficult issue to negotiate in my mind. I think because much of what we think about it is so emotionally based. I can see that my reasoning is flawed. If I'm so against state sanctioned killing why is it that I would want Martin Bryant to suffer slowly going insane? It's probably not a great way to look at it but if I'm honest I do want him to have to think about what he did. I don't think he can be rehabilitated, I think death is too easy a release for him and I don't think he can redeem himself. I can't imagine that there is ANYTHING that he could do that would make up or change the horrific nature of his crimes. And his strange and tragic childhood really doesn't cut any slack with me either. Me wanting him to suffer mental and emotional torture for the rest of his natural life, well that's probably equally as bad as people that would support the death penalty. So I don't know.
Fair enough but I still think it's a good argument against those who think capital punishment is a viable solution. Why should the most vicious members of our society be issued with a relatively easy way out purely to appease a soundbite cultures need for quick solutions? Couple this with the criminal justice system's tendancy to get things wrong from time to time. It can't be trusted to be 100% just so absolute punishments should not even be on the agenda.
Capital punishment erodes a society's morality and devalues human life while having no clear cut benefits other than reducing the overheads of housing prisoners for life sentences.
I found your post fairly insulting and it got my back up so I'm sorry if it it came across as a being a bit "arsey" or hostile. I'm honestly not flaming either.
So to answer your question...
Obviously the society we live in helps to shape our moral values but that doesn't mean we take them all at face value. We all choose to adhere to what we believe is right, disagree with what we don't and disregard what we think we can get away with. In the end it's our own moral code that dictates.
I have no fear of retribution in the afterlife so that doesn't dictate to me what I should or shouldn't do. Fear of going to prison (or not wanting to take the risk) probably stops me from doing any number of petty crimes which I could choose to think of as victimless if I wanted to if I'm completely honest. However I know for a fact that if I wanted to I could commit a random act of violence and get away with it, I have seen it done many times. I have also been a victim of this kind of crime and know full well the impact it can have on someone. I couldn't bring myself to inflict this on another human being knowing what it did to me. I have never really understood the thinking of the people who do it.
I also couldn't bring myself to kill another for the simple fact that I'm not all that keen on the idea of dying so what gives me the right to decide some else's life should end? They no doubt have people who love them who would feel a very real pain if I chose to commit this act. I understand this pain and would not wish to cause it to anyone else.
Stalin was a sociopath as was Hitler. Unfortunately there are many of these kind of people out there who don't really give a fuck about other human beings. I'm glad that I'm not one of them.
wow, at last... two intelligent scotsmen on the forum... me and that Duggro blokey guy.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Fair enough but I still think it's a good argument against those who think capital punishment is a viable solution. Why should the most vicious members of our society be issued with a relatively easy way out purely to appease a soundbite cultures need for quick solutions? Couple this with the criminal justice system's tendancy to get things wrong from time to time. It can't be trusted to be 100% just so absolute punishments should not even be on the agenda.
Capital punishment erodes a society's morality and devalues human life while having no clear cut benefits other than reducing the overheads of housing prisoners for life sentences.
I would agree with all of that. I'm just musing I guess that to me my motivations against the death penalty aren't always altruistic or any better than those that would call for it in some cases.
I mean think about it. Me wanting him to be kept alive simply because I want him not to be able to have relief from his own mind, me being prepared to fund him being locked up for the rest of his natural life, with limited human contact, me holding any opinion about what should happen in his life at all, isn't that me being judgemental and inflicting my thoughts and feelings on him anyway? I kinda think it's comparable to those that would want him dead because he's not redeemable and as retribution for what he did. Me wanting him alive is pretty much motivated by the same reasoning. I'm not so sure that either option will help us to understand WHY he did what he did or more importantly, how to ensure it doesn't happen again.
It sure isn't going to bring back those beautiful little girls he hunted down or their mother or all the other people that he killed, maimed or scarred for life emotionally.
i dont have any moral problem with killing a murderer. A murderer forfeits his own rights to life. I think we will just have to agree to disagree, as either you believe one way or another and thats it.
that said, the execution system is a joke. its expensive (as it exists now), doesn't prevent crime, may be cruel and unusual in some forms, and too many mistakes are made. So I'm fine with getting rid of it. makes no difference to me.
Personally, life imprisonment is far worse than death anyway. Thats my own personal idea of hell. if i ever got convicted just kill me so i can get on with whatever is on the other side.
i dont have any moral problem with killing a murderer. A murderer forfeits his own rights to life. I think we will just have to agree to disagree, as either you believe one way or another and thats it.
that said, the execution system is a joke. its expensive (as it exists now), doesn't prevent crime, may be cruel and unusual in some forms, and too many mistakes are made. So I'm fine with getting rid of it. makes no difference to me.
Personally, life imprisonment is far worse than death anyway. Thats my own personal idea of hell. if i ever got convicted just kill me so i can get on with whatever is on the other side.
...
You got that right. Prison is Hell on Earth. Anyone that thinks prison is a cake walk... 3 square meals a day, cable t.v., recreation center... they can have it. If they don't mind the cornholeing and having to suck Big Dick Black on a nightly basis... that's on them. I'd choose 'Suicide By Cop' before i'd ever go to any damn prison.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
i dont have any moral problem with killing a murderer. A murderer forfeits his own rights to life. I think we will just have to agree to disagree, as either you believe one way or another and thats it.
that said, the execution system is a joke. its expensive (as it exists now), doesn't prevent crime, may be cruel and unusual in some forms, and too many mistakes are made. So I'm fine with getting rid of it. makes no difference to me.
Personally, life imprisonment is far worse than death anyway. Thats my own personal idea of hell. if i ever got convicted just kill me so i can get on with whatever is on the other side.
Ok, cool that's how you see it but can I ask a question please?
Would you be able to do it? Kill the murderer? Supposing you were a prison guard and you knew these prisoners on death row. Would you be able to execute them?
I only ask because I don't see me being able to do it. And therefore I don't expect anyone else to do it for me. The only circumstances I could see myself ending the life of another is if I was fighting for my own life or that of a loved one and we were in unspeakable danger and the death of someone was the only option to stop the situation. OR if someone I loved was suffering or could potentially suffer and they wanted my help to assist them to die. Or if I accidently killed someone.
Ok, cool that's how you see it but can I ask a question please?
Would you be able to do it? Kill the murderer? Supposing you were a prison guard and you knew these prisoners on death row. Would you be able to execute them?
I only ask because I don't see me being able to do it. And therefore I don't expect anyone else to do it for me. The only circumstances I could see myself ending the life of another is if I was fighting for my own life or that of a loved one and we were in unspeakable danger and the death of someone was the only option to stop the situation. OR if someone I loved was suffering or could potentially suffer and they wanted my help to assist them to die. Or if I accidently killed someone.
I dunno. I suppose i could, but I'd have to be damn sure he was guilty, i wouldnt do it otherwise. I probably wouldn't want to unless i was personally affected, honestly (which is why i never majored in executing). I don't have a problem with people who are affected wanting execution, or others carrying it out.
i wonder why this board is so fast to defend criminals without knowing any background. why so many are against the death penalty for those who cannot be permitted in society; be it our society or the prison society. what good do we do keeping these people alive? if death is the end; and all we can offer these criminals is solitary confinement; we've ended all quality of life anyway. what is the purpose of prolonging the biological aspects of that life?
also; why doesn't anyone consider the innocent victims? in all the threads over many years; the innocent victims are never mentioned.
i'm trying to understand. i would gladly give my life for several people i know. and i'd take the life of a criminal to save an innocent life.
can someone explain why the life of someone that cannot function is society is worth more than someone who can?
Think you need to look at society first before you can answer that. not everyone fits in this society-and some people dont' realize that and act...in ways that we consider criminal. Who are we to execute them?
first; i need to explain. robbers caught in the act do deserve another chance. robbers caught in the act AND INTENT ON DOING BODILY HARM OR DEATH to those inside the house; give up that right. maybe it's better explained by saying that if you try to kill me or do bodily harm to me; YOU give me the right to defend myself.
as to being out of character; i post very often that i will take the extreeme side to get the debate heated. when the debate gets heated; we learn much more about peoples feelings. for example; the horn thread. if it didn't get heated; there'd be a dozen posts saying he was wrong and it's a shame about the 2 dead guys. because it did get heated; it went on 12 plus pages and i learned a lot about the people here and how they really feel. i think horn was wrong and i posted that early in the thread.
I see. Well, I completely misunderstood you. Of course the use of violence in self-defense is a whole other issue, and I agree with you there.
And thanks for all the explanation
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
I dunno. I suppose i could, but I'd have to be damn sure he was guilty, i wouldnt do it otherwise. I probably wouldn't want to unless i was personally affected, honestly(which is why a never majored in executing). I don't have a problem with people who are affected wanting execution, or others carrying it out.
haha! Can anyone actually major in executing?
Fair enough. I mean obviously there are folk that agree with you because we still have execution, and obviously executioners.
I'm not so sure that grieving families are the best people to judge whether or not there should be execution. I can understand them wanting it, but I'm not sure what they feel it will give them. I doubt it would be peace of mind.
Life is precious because it's a mystery. Until we understand what fully constitutes a human being - which I believe we never will - then we have no business extinguishing the life of one, including the life of someone who has erred in someway, be it murder, or otherwise.
i wonder why this board is so fast to defend criminals without knowing any background. why so many are against the death penalty for those who cannot be permitted in society; be it our society or the prison society. what good do we do keeping these people alive? if death is the end; and all we can offer these criminals is solitary confinement; we've ended all quality of life anyway. what is the purpose of prolonging the biological aspects of that life?
also; why doesn't anyone consider the innocent victims? in all the threads over many years; the innocent victims are never mentioned.
i'm trying to understand. i would gladly give my life for several people i know. and i'd take the life of a criminal to save an innocent life.
can someone explain why the life of someone that cannot function is society is worth more than someone who can?
......i guess my question to you is why is property and material items more important to you than a humans life? what was accomplished by mr. horn killing those 2 burglars? sure they aren't gonna burgle again but does that equate taking their lives? and who were the victims in this case? in the end, it's mr horn.....because of his and your attitude toward frontier justice, he has to live with the fact that he took 2 lives.....and regardless of how you like to twist it, his life was never in danger nor would it ever had been if he had simply called the police and given them as much information as he could.....vigilantism will not solve crime.....you know ols i used to think much the way you do.....but having watch on of my best friends die of brian tumor, another friend whom i had lost contact with kill herself and watching my mother be diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, i realized that all the bullshit that made me think the way i was thinking was just that...bullshit.....i'm not gonna get all pissed because some kid tagged my wall the other day....it's wasted energy....i've reported it and will do something to see that it doesn't happen again.....now as for the person that killed the co-owner of the sushi restaurant not more than an 1/8th of a mile from my house.....i'd like to see him in a 6x9 cell for the rest of his life with only one hour of the day to for showering, etc......to me that's better than getting the easy way out which is the death penalty.....
life is precious because it's all one has and it's a temporary item.....
Life is precious until one shows blatant disregard for it, then life becomes lessened and in jeopardy, and rightly so.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
An odd query, I think, Mr. Onelongsong. It has a tone of boredom to it.
In my own history in this country I'm well aware of the death penalty in a chronological sort of way beginning with seeing Truman Capote's In Cold Blood on TV as a nine-year-old. A few years later Gary Gilmore gave up the ghost by firing squad in Utah as the first man executed in America in something like 10 years. Since capital punishment was reinstated in the US in 1977, or so... more than 200 DEATH ROW inmates have had convictions overturned. Most of these have come in the last 10 years through the technological advance of DNA evidence.
Britain influenced America's use of the death penalty more than any other country. When European settlers came to the new world, they brought the practice of capital punishment. The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. In 1612, Virginia Governor Sir Thomas Dale enacted the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, which provided the death penalty for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians.
Laws regarding the death penalty varied from colony to colony. The Massachusetts Bay Colony held its first execution in 1630, even though the Capital Laws of New England did not go into effect until years later. The New York Colony instituted the Duke's Laws of 1665. Under these laws, offenses such as striking one's mother or father, or denying the "true God," were punishable by death...
As in the case of say Martin Bryant (Australian mass murderer) WHY should he be allowed the release of death? I'm quite sure that what he did must drive him to the edge of despair some days and I think that's a good thing. Call me mercenary, I don't care, the man did appalling things for no apparent reason, he is not able to be rehabilitated, the death penalty would have ended his suffering and I think he should have a nice long life so that he can think every day about those poor poor people that he hunted down and killed. ESPECIALLY the Mikac family. He can rot in jail for all I care. He can spend EVERY single day from that one to the end of his life going completely mad for all I care.
Is this what happens in reality or what you like to think happens to feel better.
As in murderers will feel the guilt of their crimes. Somehow I feel the majority of murderers do not feel the guilt. That is the main explanation I have when it comes to "its easier to kill the second time".
Thanks but I'm not really trying to convince anybody else or argue with them or for my point of view. It's really just my take on the matter and could be the worst kind of thinking. I'm really not sure. My views on the death penalty have changed over the years and it's a really difficult issue to negotiate in my mind. I think because much of what we think about it is so emotionally based. I can see that my reasoning is flawed. If I'm so against state sanctioned killing why is it that I would want Martin Bryant to suffer slowly going insane? It's probably not a great way to look at it but if I'm honest I do want him to have to think about what he did. I don't think he can be rehabilitated, I think death is too easy a release for him and I don't think he can redeem himself. I can't imagine that there is ANYTHING that he could do that would make up or change the horrific nature of his crimes. And his strange and tragic childhood really doesn't cut any slack with me either. Me wanting him to suffer mental and emotional torture for the rest of his natural life, well that's probably equally as bad as people that would support the death penalty. So I don't know.
i don't think he can be rehabilitated either jeanie. besides, he killed 35 people and injured 37, he does not deserve to be rehabilitated ever. why should he have even the slightest bit of enjoyment/comfort with the life he has left.
it may seem harsh to some, but for me, any slight bit of sympathy for him goes out the window when i think of him hunting down alannah and madeline mikac and their mom and the 32 other people he killed that day :(
More than 50 killers have been released from NSW jails this year. Last week a man was allegedly shot dead by his neighbour, who had previously served time for manslaughter. Matthew Benns and Eamonn Duff investigate calls for the establishment of a register of released killers.
A FATAL shooting, allegedly by a man who had been jailed for manslaughter, has led to calls for a register of all convicted killers living in the community. On average, 50 people a year leave NSW jails after completing sentences for murder or manslaughter.
Last week one of those freed killers, Stanley Maguire, allegedly shot dead father-of-four Stephen Holmes after he knocked on the convicted killer's door and asked him to turn down his music.
Now the son of Maguire's first victim has joined a call by a victims' support group for the names of all convicted killers released back into the community to be placed on a public register.
"It just might stop this kind of thing happening again," said David Vickers, whose father John, was struck by a car driven by Maguire, and then shot, after an argument in an RSL club bar.
"Detectives told us back in 1994 that when the day eventually arrived and Maguire was set free, our family would be notified. That never happened. The first we knew of his release was when we learned he had killed again."
Maguire, who is still on the run, hit Mr Vickers with a truck outside Doyalson RSL on the Central Coast in 1993 and then shot him while he lay on the ground. He was jailed for manslaughter, after the jury debated whether the gun fired accidentally, and released in 2002.
"There should be a register of convicted murderers," Mr Vickers said. "But I want measures that go even further than that. If a convicted murderer, someone that dangerous, has moved in next door, it should be the Government's responsibility to inform neighbours. If a system like that had been in place, [Stephen Holmes] might still be alive. I'm sick of hearing people say that when you've served your sentence for murder, that's it. Because clearly it's not."
Peter Rolfe, president of the Homicide Survivors Support After Murder Group, said his members were unanimously in favour of a register.
He said it should be a family's "basic right" to know if a convicted murderer was living nearby. "It is an absolute disgrace that nearly all of the 27 murderers convicted in 1997 are now back on the streets," he said.
The mother of a 13-year-old boy who was killed in 1979 backed calls for a register. But Nola Fisher said it would not alter the fact that her son's killer, Stephen Bush, who bashed the boy with a piece of concrete, was allowed to live just 300 metres from her home in country NSW.
"I see Darren's killer on the street at least once a fortnight. I've even stepped aside so he can pass me on a pedestrian crossing and it's wrong. I shouldn't have to live like this," she said. "Murder should mean life in jail. I got life when he murdered my boy. Yet he gets to stroll round town and nobody's any wiser to the fact he's a convicted child killer."
But NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said those who had finished their sentences were entitled to a fresh start.
He said a register would not have prevented a killer like Stanley Maguire striking again. "These are cases where something has happened on the spur of the moment, so even if there is a register in place there is nothing you can do to stop a random act."
Mr Murphy also warned that a register might encourage unwanted vigilante-style justice. "Look at the UK, where a newspaper printed a list of known pedophiles and a mob attacked and killed an innocent man," he said.
Figures from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics show about 50 people are jailed for murder or manslaughter each year. The average manslaughter sentence is four to five years. For murder, the average sentence is 10 to 15 years.
The statistics show that most of the 27 people jailed for murder in 1997 are now back living in the community. Many of the 23 people jailed for manslaughter in 2003 are now free.
As part of the 1990 truth-in-sentencing legislation, those jailed for life stay inside forever. But four killers have been released on permanent parole. These include John Lewthwaite, who served 25 years in prison for the 1974 murder of five-year-old Nicole Hanns, and who has been hounded since his release.
The others on lifetime parole are Alan Robinson, who killed Caroline Horton and her son Frank in 1980; Paul Fenech, brother of boxer Jeff, who killed Anthony Robertson in 1986; and Victorian Glenn Butcher.
Is this what happens in reality or what you like to think happens to feel better.
As in murderers will feel the guilt of their crimes. Somehow I feel the majority of murderers do not feel the guilt. That is the main explanation I have when it comes to "its easier to kill the second time".
I'm basing the theory of Bryant feeling remorse or being haunted on the fact that he's attempted to take his life on several occassions. Of course he may just hate being caged. Who knows?
I'm quite sure that a lot of killers kill and feel absolutely no remorse whatsoever. And I'm well aware that many killers get pleasure from their killing and will never not kill unless the opportunity to do so is removed.
i don't think he can be rehabilitated either jeanie. besides, he killed 35 people and injured 37, he does not deserve to be rehabilitated ever. why should he have even the slightest bit of enjoyment/comfort with the life he has left.
it may seem harsh to some, but for me, any slight bit of sympathy for him goes out the window when i think of him hunting down alannah and madeline mikac and their mom and the 32 other people he killed that day :(
That's it isn't it? I've tried to come to some kind of consensus and clear thought in my head about him and his actions and I simply cannot.
I don't like to think that anyone is beyond redeeming themselves but the truth of it is that some people simply are not. Their brains work very differently to the general population. So where that is not a danger to the rest of us, then I figure who am I to judge? But as in Bryant's case, I simply cannot see at this point in time that there will ever be anyway that he could redeem himself for hunting down those little girls and killing them and all the others that he murdered on that day and probably those that he quite possibly killed before that day. I get no inkling that he is remorseful other than he wants to die because he keeps attempting it, and I cannot know whether that is because what he did haunts him or if it's simply that he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in confinement. I've pretty much left it up to the universe to decide his fate. He should NEVER be released and I'm certain that the Australian population will make sure that never happens. EVEN if he does live to a ripe old age, I'm sure there are people, I would be one of them if I'm still around, that will make sure that he dies in prison. But should he manage to take himself out OR if someone in the general population manages to take him out, it's probably not very charitable of me and does feed into that whole mentality, BUT I would not be sad to see him die. I just don't want to see him be exectuted by the state. I want him to live, caged and alone. Endless life in a box. Even that to me doesn't seem enough.
But I must acknowledge that my thinking on this is flawed. There shouldn't be one set of rules and punishments for one and not others because then we get into a whole other can of worms. I really think Bryant is the most difficult of offenders to view objectively and probably the only other that I can think of that fits that mold here in Australia is Milat.
I'm basing the theory of Bryant feeling remorse or being haunted on the fact that he's attempted to take his life on several occassions. Of course he may just hate being caged. Who knows?
I'm quite sure that a lot of killers kill and feel absolutely no remorse whatsoever. And I'm well aware that many killers get pleasure from their killing and will never not kill unless the opportunity to do so is removed.
I feel he commits suicide because he was mentally fucked up to begin with and locking him up in a cage is getting to him. It's not the guilt of the murders.
Did you read the article I posted how the average person convicted of manslaughter gets parole in 6 years and the one of murder gets parole by 10 years.. now thats what i call pathetic.
Edit: Just re-read it.. its not even parole its the average full sentence
I feel he commits suicide because he was mentally fucked up to begin with and locking him up in a cage is getting to him. It's not the guilt of the murders.
Did you read the article I posted how the average person convicted of manslaughter gets parole in 6 years and the one of murder gets parole by 10 years.. now thats what i call pathetic.
Edit: Just re-read it.. its not even parole its the average full sentence
Well I'm not inside his head so I can't know for sure. That's why I make allowances for either possibility. Most of what I've read about him tends to indicate that he doesn't feel any remorse, but then one would have to ask the question if he isn't capable of the usual thoughts and feelings of a human being why is that AND how did it slip past people prior to the Port Arthur Massacre AND more importantly how do we as a society recognize this type of mental process BEFORE it is able to be manifested? It's well documented that he had "issues" prior to what he did. And nobody seemed to do much about it. Not that I'm blaming anyone. But we as a society keep seeing this stuff go on and I think we all want it to stop, the system that we have now doesn't seem to be doing that.
And yes, I did read the article, thanks Nok. I'm still having a think about what I think about it.
Comments
So... you don't need religion or God in order to be a moral person. I know many non-religious people who are loving, caring and giving... and have heard of many instances where religious people are the ones who send out death threats to those whom commit blasphemy in their eyes. And I'm sure there are awful aethists and I know there are wonderful religious people out there.
I believe that our morality comes from our humanity... not our religious beliefs.
Hail, Hail!!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Glad you believe in life after death, then.
I'm an atheists and most of my friends are too. We figured out that when you are nice to people, they are nice to you too. Call it karma, whatever, this doesn't have anything to do with something spiritual or anything, it's just what people do. We also figured out when you're an asshole, which you would be oddly enough, people won't like you, you won't have a lot of friends etc.
What does this have to do with fearing punishment? Most people don't want to become dictator and kill millions and are happy with a normal life which they share with their friends and family...
Anyway, we're nice, friendly people.
And like the other posters said, do you think empathy is something only the bible can teach you?
naděje umírá poslední
that is one fucker of a post
Fair enough but I still think it's a good argument against those who think capital punishment is a viable solution. Why should the most vicious members of our society be issued with a relatively easy way out purely to appease a soundbite cultures need for quick solutions? Couple this with the criminal justice system's tendancy to get things wrong from time to time. It can't be trusted to be 100% just so absolute punishments should not even be on the agenda.
Capital punishment erodes a society's morality and devalues human life while having no clear cut benefits other than reducing the overheads of housing prisoners for life sentences.
http://www.myspace.com/hollowpointuk
wow, at last... two intelligent scotsmen on the forum... me and that Duggro blokey guy.
I would agree with all of that.
I mean think about it. Me wanting him to be kept alive simply because I want him not to be able to have relief from his own mind, me being prepared to fund him being locked up for the rest of his natural life, with limited human contact, me holding any opinion about what should happen in his life at all, isn't that me being judgemental and inflicting my thoughts and feelings on him anyway? I kinda think it's comparable to those that would want him dead because he's not redeemable and as retribution for what he did. Me wanting him alive is pretty much motivated by the same reasoning. I'm not so sure that either option will help us to understand WHY he did what he did or more importantly, how to ensure it doesn't happen again.
It sure isn't going to bring back those beautiful little girls he hunted down or their mother or all the other people that he killed, maimed or scarred for life emotionally.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I don't think it's about revenge killing but rather keeping people out of 'our' society.
So I'd rather my taxes go to feed these people, than to put them to death.
I just cannot believe that us humans have the right to say who should die and who shouldn't.
If someone doesn't want to abide by our rules, fair enough, but they should be punished. Not by death though. That's no ones right.
They should be sent to a foreign island to fend for themselves. heheh.
I think that deal you guys had going with Australia is all finished now MCKB!
Any other island you got in mind?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
HAHAHA! Where did you spring from!?!
I stil think a deserted island would be a good idea!
We'd not exist as a nation if it hadn't been done before.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
that said, the execution system is a joke. its expensive (as it exists now), doesn't prevent crime, may be cruel and unusual in some forms, and too many mistakes are made. So I'm fine with getting rid of it. makes no difference to me.
Personally, life imprisonment is far worse than death anyway. Thats my own personal idea of hell. if i ever got convicted just kill me so i can get on with whatever is on the other side.
You got that right. Prison is Hell on Earth. Anyone that thinks prison is a cake walk... 3 square meals a day, cable t.v., recreation center... they can have it. If they don't mind the cornholeing and having to suck Big Dick Black on a nightly basis... that's on them. I'd choose 'Suicide By Cop' before i'd ever go to any damn prison.
Hail, Hail!!!
Ok, cool that's how you see it but can I ask a question please?
Would you be able to do it? Kill the murderer? Supposing you were a prison guard and you knew these prisoners on death row. Would you be able to execute them?
I only ask because I don't see me being able to do it. And therefore I don't expect anyone else to do it for me. The only circumstances I could see myself ending the life of another is if I was fighting for my own life or that of a loved one and we were in unspeakable danger and the death of someone was the only option to stop the situation. OR if someone I loved was suffering or could potentially suffer and they wanted my help to assist them to die. Or if I accidently killed someone.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I dunno. I suppose i could, but I'd have to be damn sure he was guilty, i wouldnt do it otherwise. I probably wouldn't want to unless i was personally affected, honestly (which is why i never majored in executing). I don't have a problem with people who are affected wanting execution, or others carrying it out.
Think you need to look at society first before you can answer that. not everyone fits in this society-and some people dont' realize that and act...in ways that we consider criminal. Who are we to execute them?
I see. Well, I completely misunderstood you. Of course the use of violence in self-defense is a whole other issue, and I agree with you there.
And thanks for all the explanation
haha!
Fair enough. I mean obviously there are folk that agree with you because we still have execution, and obviously executioners.
I'm not so sure that grieving families are the best people to judge whether or not there should be execution. I can understand them wanting it, but I'm not sure what they feel it will give them. I doubt it would be peace of mind.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
......i guess my question to you is why is property and material items more important to you than a humans life? what was accomplished by mr. horn killing those 2 burglars? sure they aren't gonna burgle again but does that equate taking their lives? and who were the victims in this case? in the end, it's mr horn.....because of his and your attitude toward frontier justice, he has to live with the fact that he took 2 lives.....and regardless of how you like to twist it, his life was never in danger nor would it ever had been if he had simply called the police and given them as much information as he could.....vigilantism will not solve crime.....you know ols i used to think much the way you do.....but having watch on of my best friends die of brian tumor, another friend whom i had lost contact with kill herself and watching my mother be diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, i realized that all the bullshit that made me think the way i was thinking was just that...bullshit.....i'm not gonna get all pissed because some kid tagged my wall the other day....it's wasted energy....i've reported it and will do something to see that it doesn't happen again.....now as for the person that killed the co-owner of the sushi restaurant not more than an 1/8th of a mile from my house.....i'd like to see him in a 6x9 cell for the rest of his life with only one hour of the day to for showering, etc......to me that's better than getting the easy way out which is the death penalty.....
life is precious because it's all one has and it's a temporary item.....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
In my own history in this country I'm well aware of the death penalty in a chronological sort of way beginning with seeing Truman Capote's In Cold Blood on TV as a nine-year-old. A few years later Gary Gilmore gave up the ghost by firing squad in Utah as the first man executed in America in something like 10 years. Since capital punishment was reinstated in the US in 1977, or so... more than 200 DEATH ROW inmates have had convictions overturned. Most of these have come in the last 10 years through the technological advance of DNA evidence.
Here's an interesting link concerning the history of capital punishment in America.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=15&did=410#TheDeathPenaltyinAmerica
Britain influenced America's use of the death penalty more than any other country. When European settlers came to the new world, they brought the practice of capital punishment. The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. In 1612, Virginia Governor Sir Thomas Dale enacted the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, which provided the death penalty for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians.
Laws regarding the death penalty varied from colony to colony. The Massachusetts Bay Colony held its first execution in 1630, even though the Capital Laws of New England did not go into effect until years later. The New York Colony instituted the Duke's Laws of 1665. Under these laws, offenses such as striking one's mother or father, or denying the "true God," were punishable by death...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Is this what happens in reality or what you like to think happens to feel better.
As in murderers will feel the guilt of their crimes. Somehow I feel the majority of murderers do not feel the guilt. That is the main explanation I have when it comes to "its easier to kill the second time".
i don't think he can be rehabilitated either jeanie. besides, he killed 35 people and injured 37, he does not deserve to be rehabilitated ever. why should he have even the slightest bit of enjoyment/comfort with the life he has left.
it may seem harsh to some, but for me, any slight bit of sympathy for him goes out the window when i think of him hunting down alannah and madeline mikac and their mom and the 32 other people he killed that day :(
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-killers-who-walk-among-us/2007/12/01/1196394682242.html
More than 50 killers have been released from NSW jails this year. Last week a man was allegedly shot dead by his neighbour, who had previously served time for manslaughter. Matthew Benns and Eamonn Duff investigate calls for the establishment of a register of released killers.
A FATAL shooting, allegedly by a man who had been jailed for manslaughter, has led to calls for a register of all convicted killers living in the community. On average, 50 people a year leave NSW jails after completing sentences for murder or manslaughter.
Last week one of those freed killers, Stanley Maguire, allegedly shot dead father-of-four Stephen Holmes after he knocked on the convicted killer's door and asked him to turn down his music.
Now the son of Maguire's first victim has joined a call by a victims' support group for the names of all convicted killers released back into the community to be placed on a public register.
"It just might stop this kind of thing happening again," said David Vickers, whose father John, was struck by a car driven by Maguire, and then shot, after an argument in an RSL club bar.
"Detectives told us back in 1994 that when the day eventually arrived and Maguire was set free, our family would be notified. That never happened. The first we knew of his release was when we learned he had killed again."
Maguire, who is still on the run, hit Mr Vickers with a truck outside Doyalson RSL on the Central Coast in 1993 and then shot him while he lay on the ground. He was jailed for manslaughter, after the jury debated whether the gun fired accidentally, and released in 2002.
"There should be a register of convicted murderers," Mr Vickers said. "But I want measures that go even further than that. If a convicted murderer, someone that dangerous, has moved in next door, it should be the Government's responsibility to inform neighbours. If a system like that had been in place, [Stephen Holmes] might still be alive. I'm sick of hearing people say that when you've served your sentence for murder, that's it. Because clearly it's not."
Peter Rolfe, president of the Homicide Survivors Support After Murder Group, said his members were unanimously in favour of a register.
He said it should be a family's "basic right" to know if a convicted murderer was living nearby. "It is an absolute disgrace that nearly all of the 27 murderers convicted in 1997 are now back on the streets," he said.
The mother of a 13-year-old boy who was killed in 1979 backed calls for a register. But Nola Fisher said it would not alter the fact that her son's killer, Stephen Bush, who bashed the boy with a piece of concrete, was allowed to live just 300 metres from her home in country NSW.
"I see Darren's killer on the street at least once a fortnight. I've even stepped aside so he can pass me on a pedestrian crossing and it's wrong. I shouldn't have to live like this," she said. "Murder should mean life in jail. I got life when he murdered my boy. Yet he gets to stroll round town and nobody's any wiser to the fact he's a convicted child killer."
But NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said those who had finished their sentences were entitled to a fresh start.
He said a register would not have prevented a killer like Stanley Maguire striking again. "These are cases where something has happened on the spur of the moment, so even if there is a register in place there is nothing you can do to stop a random act."
Mr Murphy also warned that a register might encourage unwanted vigilante-style justice. "Look at the UK, where a newspaper printed a list of known pedophiles and a mob attacked and killed an innocent man," he said.
Figures from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics show about 50 people are jailed for murder or manslaughter each year. The average manslaughter sentence is four to five years. For murder, the average sentence is 10 to 15 years.
The statistics show that most of the 27 people jailed for murder in 1997 are now back living in the community. Many of the 23 people jailed for manslaughter in 2003 are now free.
As part of the 1990 truth-in-sentencing legislation, those jailed for life stay inside forever. But four killers have been released on permanent parole. These include John Lewthwaite, who served 25 years in prison for the 1974 murder of five-year-old Nicole Hanns, and who has been hounded since his release.
The others on lifetime parole are Alan Robinson, who killed Caroline Horton and her son Frank in 1980; Paul Fenech, brother of boxer Jeff, who killed Anthony Robertson in 1986; and Victorian Glenn Butcher.
I'm basing the theory of Bryant feeling remorse or being haunted on the fact that he's attempted to take his life on several occassions. Of course he may just hate being caged. Who knows?
I'm quite sure that a lot of killers kill and feel absolutely no remorse whatsoever. And I'm well aware that many killers get pleasure from their killing and will never not kill unless the opportunity to do so is removed.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
That's it isn't it? I've tried to come to some kind of consensus and clear thought in my head about him and his actions and I simply cannot.
I don't like to think that anyone is beyond redeeming themselves but the truth of it is that some people simply are not. Their brains work very differently to the general population. So where that is not a danger to the rest of us, then I figure who am I to judge? But as in Bryant's case, I simply cannot see at this point in time that there will ever be anyway that he could redeem himself for hunting down those little girls and killing them and all the others that he murdered on that day and probably those that he quite possibly killed before that day. I get no inkling that he is remorseful other than he wants to die because he keeps attempting it, and I cannot know whether that is because what he did haunts him or if it's simply that he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in confinement. I've pretty much left it up to the universe to decide his fate. He should NEVER be released and I'm certain that the Australian population will make sure that never happens. EVEN if he does live to a ripe old age, I'm sure there are people, I would be one of them if I'm still around, that will make sure that he dies in prison. But should he manage to take himself out OR if someone in the general population manages to take him out, it's probably not very charitable of me and does feed into that whole mentality, BUT I would not be sad to see him die. I just don't want to see him be exectuted by the state. I want him to live, caged and alone. Endless life in a box. Even that to me doesn't seem enough.
But I must acknowledge that my thinking on this is flawed. There shouldn't be one set of rules and punishments for one and not others because then we get into a whole other can of worms. I really think Bryant is the most difficult of offenders to view objectively and probably the only other that I can think of that fits that mold here in Australia is Milat.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I feel he commits suicide because he was mentally fucked up to begin with and locking him up in a cage is getting to him. It's not the guilt of the murders.
Did you read the article I posted how the average person convicted of manslaughter gets parole in 6 years and the one of murder gets parole by 10 years.. now thats what i call pathetic.
Edit: Just re-read it.. its not even parole its the average full sentence
Well I'm not inside his head so I can't know for sure. That's why I make allowances for either possibility. Most of what I've read about him tends to indicate that he doesn't feel any remorse, but then one would have to ask the question if he isn't capable of the usual thoughts and feelings of a human being why is that AND how did it slip past people prior to the Port Arthur Massacre AND more importantly how do we as a society recognize this type of mental process BEFORE it is able to be manifested? It's well documented that he had "issues" prior to what he did. And nobody seemed to do much about it. Not that I'm blaming anyone. But we as a society keep seeing this stuff go on and I think we all want it to stop, the system that we have now doesn't seem to be doing that.
And yes, I did read the article, thanks Nok.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift