The Death Penalty

revenge is not wrong. sure it can be done better or for worse. in many cases revenge would be a beautiful thing. there are many levels of revenge as each situation would be different. my beliefs are that well deserved violence helps keep nasty bullshit in check. it also rids decent living from evil ass dudes.

oh my, here i am talking the milder stuff.

the death penalty is not revenge at all. it is more of a cleansing the world of freaks, monsters & maniacs who have taken extreme joy in hurting, killing & destroying decent lives. this is very good, to put these dangerous souls to rest

a father or mother has the high ground & if they like, they can put a round through their child's rapist/killer. to me this makes a lot of sense. if i had a child & some nasty bastard violated my child i would without hesitation place a bullet into their stupid ass skull. i also highly doubt i'd see 13 seconds of prison time

thirty bills unpaid... you're fantastic & i enjoy your writing & beliefs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Know... you've been spouting a bit of fluff these past days. I noticed you never responded to the comment I made to the ridiculous one you posted earlier when you said violence as a response to anything is wrong. I had responded by saying that the allied response to Nazi Germany's aggression was wrong then? That tyranny and evil should have been allowed to run its course? I think you need to re-think your position- it's been really poorly formed. Unless, of course, you are a monk and really walking the walk.

Re-think this one too. You wish to feel sorry for people like Jeffrey Dahmer then go ahead. Others choose to feel sorry for Tori Stafford. The rapist and murderer of a child has no place on this earth... period. Some crimes demand a punishment that fits the nature of the crime.

Sorry - I didn't ignore it on purpose. I don't recall seeing it although I've answered that question many years ago as well.

I think there is a BIG difference between an event like Nazi Germany or even as small as an individual kidnapping occurring that it's at least somewhat justified in my mind to save people or individuals who are in harms way or in serious danger of being killed. If that means using deadly force is the only option that will work, then I can see that.

But...that's a TON different than an individual who is already apprehended, behind bars and in no danger to anyone anymore. If you kill them at that point, it is revenge murder in my mind. It serves no purpose and drags those who are looking forward to that person being executed down to a similar level.

I also never said I felt sorry for any of the killers.

chadwick said:

the death penalty is not revenge at all. it is more of a cleansing the world of freaks, monsters & maniacs who have taken extreme joy in hurting, killing & destroying decent lives. this is very good, to put these dangerous souls to rest

Chadwick: How easy and simplistic - and how mindlessly fantasist - to simply reclassify criminals as "freaks, monsters & maniacs". Means you can disingenuously convince yourself you are justified in dismissing everything without having to engage with anything so inconvenient as rational, reasonable or logical debate. Carry on, by all means, but don't imagine that you are making anything remotely like a convincing or even sensible case.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So... the implication here is what? People who seek an appropriate level of justice for raped, murdered and mutilated children are as bad as the people who have committed these acts? ...

What's my point? It should be obvious. Some people have their heads shoved squarely up their asses and are completely out of touch with reality. This guy should die. His crime is not a 'run-of-the-mill' crime- it is an obscenity to which had the effect of eroding the fabric of our society. To reflect our level of disdain for such a brutal act... we needed to respond with a punishment befitting of the crime.

And who's to say that execution is the only "appropriate level of justice" for such acts? I have yet to come across a single rationally legitimate argument for how execution is actually the "appropriate level of justice" - mainly because the "justifications" for the death penalty are usually couched in subjective, violent, highly emotional, deeply irrational language about "scum", "shitbaggers", "bleeding heart idiots" and all of the rest of it - the kind of approach that is never going to have any hope of success in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

It also illustrates a profound lack of comprehension of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge". Of course, someone like Chadwick tries to say that the distinction doesn't matter because revenge is fine but the rambling incoherence of his argument doesn't really do that case any favours.

So here's the key thing about the distinction - justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. If our (understandable and legitimate) outrage at the heinousness, brutality, obscenity of a crime becomes the deciding factor in whether someone lives or dies, then that - by the definition of "justice" - cannot be justice. It can only be revenge. And there is no "revenge" system - there is a justice system, whose business it is to make impartial, even-handed and rational pronouncements on justice. It is not its business to base its actions on our outrage or "our level of disdain for such a brutal act". Because if it is, it is redundant, it has failed to administer actual meaningful justice, and we are left with no more than a proxy for vigilantism. And that's what would really erodes the "fabric of our society."

The death penalty is a fundament failure to apply - or even understand - the meaning of justice. That is what is out of touch with reality. The reality is the death penalty does not work on any level (though I expect someone - presumably Chadwick - will bludgeon in the facetious point that "well, it worked for that dead scumbag.") - it does not reduce violent crime, it is arbitrarily administered, it does not in any meaningful way "fit the crime", it is indefensibly expensive, it creates even more bereaved families, it is administered in the most profoundly unjust ways (regardless of guilt, the poor and minorities are massively more likely to be put to death than wealthy white people for the same crimes). It can never be made infallible, and it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes. Quite simply, it contradicts every single necessary criterion of justice.

Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing remotely just about the death penalty. It is an abuse of justice.

wolfamongwolves said:

show previous quotes

chadwick said:

the death penalty is not revenge at all. it is more of a cleansing the world of freaks, monsters & maniacs who have taken extreme joy in hurting, killing & destroying decent lives. this is very good, to put these dangerous souls to rest

Chadwick: How easy and simplistic - and how mindlessly fantasist - to simply reclassify criminals as "freaks, monsters & maniacs". Means you can disingenuously convince yourself you are justified in dismissing everything without having to engage with anything so inconvenient as rational, reasonable or logical debate. Carry on, by all means, but don't imagine that you are making anything remotely like a convincing or even sensible case.

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So... the implication here is what? People who seek an appropriate level of justice for raped, murdered and mutilated children are as bad as the people who have committed these acts? ...

What's my point? It should be obvious. Some people have their heads shoved squarely up their asses and are completely out of touch with reality. This guy should die. His crime is not a 'run-of-the-mill' crime- it is an obscenity to which had the effect of eroding the fabric of our society. To reflect our level of disdain for such a brutal act... we needed to respond with a punishment befitting of the crime.

And who's to say that execution is the only "appropriate level of justice" for such acts? I have yet to come across a single rationally legitimate argument for how execution is actually the "appropriate level of justice" - mainly because the "justifications" for the death penalty are usually couched in subjective, violent, highly emotional, deeply irrational language about "scum", "shitbaggers", "bleeding heart idiots" and all of the rest of it - the kind of approach that is never going to have any hope of success in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

It also illustrates a profound lack of comprehension of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge". Of course, someone like Chadwick tries to say that the distinction doesn't matter because revenge is fine but the rambling incoherence of his argument doesn't really do that case any favours.

So here's the key thing about the distinction - justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. If our (understandable and legitimate) outrage at the heinousness, brutality, obscenity of a crime becomes the deciding factor in whether someone lives or dies, then that - by the definition of "justice" - cannot be justice. It can only be revenge. And there is no "revenge" system - there is a justice system, whose business it is to make impartial, even-handed and rational pronouncements on justice. It is not its business to base its actions on our outrage or "our level of disdain for such a brutal act". Because if it is, it is redundant, it has failed to administer actual meaningful justice, and we are left with no more than a proxy for vigilantism. And that's what would really erodes the "fabric of our society."

The death penalty is a fundament failure to apply - or even understand - the meaning of justice. That is what is out of touch with reality. The reality is the death penalty does not work on any level (though I expect someone - presumably Chadwick - will bludgeon in the facetious point that "well, it worked for that dead scumbag.") - it does not reduce violent crime, it is arbitrarily administered, it does not in any meaningful way "fit the crime", it is indefensibly expensive, it creates even more bereaved families, it is administered in the most profoundly unjust ways (regardless of guilt, the poor and minorities are massively more likely to be put to death than wealthy white people for the same crimes). It can never be made infallible, and it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes. Quite simply, it contradicts every single necessary criterion of justice.

Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing remotely just about the death penalty. It is an abuse of justice.

This is a well-written post.

I have three comments to make regarding it:

Firstly, on this forum, my posts are not designed to change anyone's minds. If someone changes their mind... then this is their doing on their terms. My posts are placed in threads to reflect my position and beliefs. You don't have to like them or my vernacular.

Second, you state: justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. Then tell me... how is the prison sentence afforded to Clifford Olson (lavish with luxuries and the best medical care we can offer a person) for raping, torturing, and murdering 11 young children exactly 'equitable'.

Third, when you state it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes, I do pause for thought.

yeah i cant believe i even posted that! very personal...i guess it was needed and i know even if i disagree vehemently with someone here, i would still want to stand next to you all at a show and enjoy the greatest band that was or will be!!! i like that we can disagree, and even get a little heated at each other and be better for it. I never found that online before!

I say irrefutable guilt is all but non-existent! And despite my precipitous walk on the high-road, my savage, bloodlusty side is satisfied knowing the guilty will be raped and beat and demeaned at every turn!
But I always must end with compassion and mourn the persecuted.

Pingfah said:

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Pingfah said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Re-think this one too. You wish to feel sorry for people like Jeffrey Dahmer then go ahead. Others choose to feel sorry for Tori Stafford.

This is absolutely disingenuous. Being against the death penalty does not imply that you "feel sorry" for criminals, and nobody you are arguing against said anything of the sort.

It completely undermines the integrity of the rest of your point when you resort to strawman arguments such as this.

No... but they said: getting revenge is wrong and I think people who seek it are no better than those who did the initial act.,

Which is nothing at all like saying you feel sorry for them.

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The 'other' post claimed: the savages though can take heart in the fact that prison is worse than death.

Which is nothing at all like saying you feel sorry for them.

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

So... try to reserve judgement on people's tactics in a manner that isn't strictly fit to suit your beliefs, Ping. You never bothered to address those posts for their weak efforts to paint DP proponents as 'less than satisfactory' (to put it mildly).

Don't try to undermine and distract from my point by criticising me for not addressing different points, that is, once again, totally disingenuous.

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

My post stands and is more than legitimate. There are people who feel sorry for these losers. I have illustrated several cases where, for example, some idiot marries some depraved murderer.

Your post does not stand, and is not legitimate because you are not arguing with those people, you are attempting to misrepresent the opinions of people right here to further your own argument. It's a shame you can't just admit to your shitty behaviour and rectify it, instead of dissembling even further.

Fair enough. If the delivery of my message has got you in a tizzy, I'll rescind what I considered a rather benign comment to Know about feeling sorry for murderers.

But as I do this... let's also acknowledge the fact that you remained very complacent with other somewhat muddied tactics on the part of the people you are now carrying the torch for: when they referred to proponents of the dp as 'savages' and 'no better than the killers'.

Hmmm. Consider the exchanges here. One side aggressively initiates a mud slinging affair by calling their opponents a 'savage' and then labelling them as 'being on the same level as a serial murderer'. The other side responds in kind to these charges by stating their opponent is 'feeling sorry for murderers'. And... Ping gets himself worked up about the retort and spins it to suggest this was 'shitty behaviour' with the ultimate design of misrepresenting the opinions of his opponents.

To my way of thinking, if a person wishes to anoint themselves as a board tactic monitor as you have seen fit to do, Ping, then they should likely do so in an unbiased manner... otherwise... their righteousness comes across as self-serving: attacking only the cheaper tactics employed by the side they disagree with.

I'll stop there, given I have enjoyed your contributions on this site immensely and hope to do so in the future.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

show previous quotes

wolfamongwolves said:

And who's to say that execution is the only "appropriate level of justice" for such acts? I have yet to come across a single rationally legitimate argument for how execution is actually the "appropriate level of justice" - mainly because the "justifications" for the death penalty are usually couched in subjective, violent, highly emotional, deeply irrational language about "scum", "shitbaggers", "bleeding heart idiots" and all of the rest of it - the kind of approach that is never going to have any hope of success in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

It also illustrates a profound lack of comprehension of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge". Of course, someone like Chadwick tries to say that the distinction doesn't matter because revenge is fine but the rambling incoherence of his argument doesn't really do that case any favours.

So here's the key thing about the distinction - justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. If our (understandable and legitimate) outrage at the heinousness, brutality, obscenity of a crime becomes the deciding factor in whether someone lives or dies, then that - by the definition of "justice" - cannot be justice. It can only be revenge. And there is no "revenge" system - there is a justice system, whose business it is to make impartial, even-handed and rational pronouncements on justice. It is not its business to base its actions on our outrage or "our level of disdain for such a brutal act". Because if it is, it is redundant, it has failed to administer actual meaningful justice, and we are left with no more than a proxy for vigilantism. And that's what would really erodes the "fabric of our society."

The death penalty is a fundament failure to apply - or even understand - the meaning of justice. That is what is out of touch with reality. The reality is the death penalty does not work on any level (though I expect someone - presumably Chadwick - will bludgeon in the facetious point that "well, it worked for that dead scumbag.") - it does not reduce violent crime, it is arbitrarily administered, it does not in any meaningful way "fit the crime", it is indefensibly expensive, it creates even more bereaved families, it is administered in the most profoundly unjust ways (regardless of guilt, the poor and minorities are massively more likely to be put to death than wealthy white people for the same crimes). It can never be made infallible, and it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes. Quite simply, it contradicts every single necessary criterion of justice.

Don't kid yourselves. There is nothing remotely just about the death penalty. It is an abuse of justice.

This is a well-written post.

I have three comments to make regarding it:

Firstly, on this forum, my posts are not designed to change anyone's minds. If someone changes their mind... then this is their doing on their terms. My posts are placed in threads to reflect my position and beliefs. You don't have to like them or my vernacular.

Second, you state: justice is by definition dispassionate, impartial and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice. Then tell me... how is the prison sentence afforded to Clifford Olson (lavish with luxuries and the best medical care we can offer a person) for raping, torturing, and murdering 11 young children exactly 'equitable'.

Third, when you state it can never be reversed in the unavoidable instance of mistakes, I do pause for thought.

Thank you.

On your first point, I can't argue with that - that's absolutely your prerogative and right, and good of you to lay it out like that.

Second: I don't know this case, and I don't know what luxuries you're talking about. Nevertheless, at no point did I say that the system as it exists now always offers the best justice. But it does not follow that execution is therefore justified. It makes no sense to say "well, if he is getting more luxuries than he deserves, then the only alternative is to kill him." So I don't really get how that has any bearing on the rights or wrongs of the death penalty. If your legal, penal, or judiciary system doesn't work, or if it is inefficient or "inequitable", then fix it. But there is no correlation and no logic in jumping to the conclusion that we can therefore justify an even more broken, even more inequitable penalty, which once administered has no chance of being reformed. As for his having healthcare, health is not a luxury - it is a human right, and human rights are not dependent on your actions - you have them by the very nature of your existence, regardless of what you have done or who you are. Also, you describe Clifford Olsen's conditions almost as if he was being rewarded for his crime. Something that people who tend to use this argument from outrage at the supposed luxuries of prison life almost always overlook is the penalty itself: the deprivation of liberty, the imprisonment itself, the removal of freedom of movement. And I think rgambs story of his brother shows the reality of that.

Third: what are you pausing for thought about? How will you ensure that the death penalty will be 100% foolproof, that there will never be an error made? Again, I point to rgambs story. How many other cases of people being exonerated after being sentenced to death have there been? Now imagine that the US capital system worked more efficiently and death row prisoners didn't languish for decades before being put to death. What if they were killed before the evidence that exonerated them came to light? There is no way to correct those errors. Can you guarantee a system in which that would never happen? If not, the risk is always there, and if the risk is always there, justice is always undermined.

Unless you can show me that the death penalty is necessary - and I mean that there is no other feasible alternative - then it will always be arbitrary. And by the very fact that some states have it and others don't, by the fact that the vast majority of countries on the planet have abolished the death penalty without their societies collapsing, without the dire predictions of DP advocates coming to pass, then I find it impossible to see how you can make a meaningful case for the death penalty being necessary. And as far as I am concerned, if it cannot be shown to be absolutely necessary to kill a human being, it can never be legitimate to kill a human being. And that goes for states as much as for individuals.

yep i'm satisfied, i'm sick and lower than low, vile and just plain fucked up. you nailed it that's me.

weaksauce