1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

peterson get death

Discussion in 'Serious' started by I'm_Not_A_Monster, 14 Dec 2004.

  1. fathazza

    fathazza Freed on Probation

    Joined:
    20 May 2002
    Posts:
    3,256
    Likes Received:
    16
    a) i never said the people in the death camps should have been there, or that they werent innocent.

    b) the fact that people other than Jews were sent ot the concentration camps seem to have slipped people by. They, sent the mentally ill, the disabled, the deaf, the blind, ethnic minorites, political dissidents, and criminals among others.
     
  2. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    The point mike was trying to make (which you so humbly missed aparently) is that the Nazis sent almost 100% INNOCENT people to those camps. Meanwhile, you're equating my views (and the views of many others) which approve of sending MURDERERS to death to the murderers who sent INNOCENT people to death. wait, let me make those bold-face you don't miss them again...
    Now does that make sense? That there is a difference there?
     
  3. fathazza

    fathazza Freed on Probation

    Joined:
    20 May 2002
    Posts:
    3,256
    Likes Received:
    16
    i never said anything about innocent people, it was initially brought up by someone else and is totally irrelevant to the argument. We are talking about murderers and the death penalty.

    The implication which you seem to have come to that i am comparing executing convicted murderers with the nazi executions of jews is completely unfounded. I never inferred any such thing, will you please stop and think before you tell me what i am saying :eyebrow:

    What i am saying and is also fairly irrelevant by this point, (i thought we had got past all this a couple of pages back) was that Nazi's also believed in capital punishment for murder (and likely lesser crimes too).

    And seriously, stop flying off the handle, and take a chill pill Winston. :hip:
     
  4. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    I wasn't trying to "fly off the handle" just trying to point out what mike was trying to get at, because aparently neither of us realized you were trying to create a blanket statement that Nazis supported the death penalty... As you said it is irrelavent, but I think it appropriate to note that almost every civilization on this Earth has supported the death penalty at some point. Including but not limited to the Brits and the French... And if we're talking humane, we dab their arm with a cutsie little alcohol swab... as opposed to swinging a 4-foot rusted sword down on one's head...

    But back toward the path of "on-topic-ness" I do wish people would stop saying murder cases are never 100%. This case is 100%. The people who plead guilty... are 100%. 100% does happen, rare or not. You can say they're only admitting to doing it to get a lesser punnishment, but what does THAT say about our society? "Yes I did it, give me a light sentence... Yes, I did it again, give me a light sentence again... Yeah, I know this is the third time, light sentence? Sweet."
    Not to mention the fact that we've already established that if an innocent person were accused of murder, they would immediately be kicking and screaming that they were innocent...
     
  5. fathazza

    fathazza Freed on Probation

    Joined:
    20 May 2002
    Posts:
    3,256
    Likes Received:
    16
    While people who plead guilty most likely are. Nothing in life is 100% certain. For instance, a mother might plead guilty to killing her husband to save one of her children who actually committed the crime. I know it is a weak example, but not unheard of....

    Or just someone who is plain nuts and wants to plead guilty...

    Besides if there wasn't some sort of clemency for someone who pleaded guilty no one would actually do it would they. So it would defeat the point of the whole process of pleading guilt or not.
     
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    Nazis also believed in good architecture and engineering, quality leather boots and jackets, a car for every ordinary Joe, and child benefits for struggling families (as long as they were Aryan, of course). My father was a small child when his country (the Netherlands) was occupied by the Germans. The first orange he ever ate was given to him by a German soldier (he got his first chocolate from Allied forces).

    Now I like good architecture and engineering, and quality leather jackets, and believe in affordable luxury for the ordinary Joe, and child benefits for struggling families. I'd give a poor child an orange. Does that make me a Nazi? Come to think of it, many governments share the same values viz a viz good architecture and engineering, child benefits and affordable, good standards of living for ordinary people. Nazis, all of them?


    :hehe:

    One of the arguments against the death penalty was that you cannot reverse mistakes, hence the emphasis on certain cases not being 100% sure.

    Few innocents would plead guilty, of course, as a compromise to a lighter punishment... but it may all depends on how hopeless they feel, and how much punishment they feel able to tollerate to defend their name.

    So OK, this particular case is cast-iron. We have several options as to what to do with/to the guy. Again: what are our motives?
     
  7. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    maybe it's just because I"m a law and order and CSI junkie, but don't cops keep back a bit of evidence from the press?

    <suspect> after i raped her i stabbed her and ran off
    <cop> do you still have the knife?
    <suspect> yes, i took it with me afterwards
    <cop> no you didn't, next!

    some people actually do admit to crimes they didn't do, they have a condition called "Social Identity Disorder" i know somebody can come up with 10 other similar disorders with bigger names and more words, but this is what "i'm feeling lucky" googleage brought up

    like nurses killing patients, they need attention.

    hope nobody reading this is in the hospital...
     
  8. belier

    belier What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2002
    Posts:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oy.

    I believe I shall just give up here. It seems that no matter how succinctly I state something, and the reasons for making said statement, the entire thing just gets redirected to prove someone elses argument. I was mainly just arguing for the sake of debate.

    Cheers everyone, thanks for the discussion. :thumb:
     
  9. RotoSequence

    RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

    Joined:
    6 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,588
    Likes Received:
    7
    Alright, Im going to try to sort this all out in a couple of sentences.

    Fathazza beleives the death penalty is wrong because they are murdering the person who murdered another, which is, in fathazza's opinion, a hypocrocy in ideologies and an unfair system

    Ubermich feels that the death penalty is just because its disposing of the biggest scum in society.

    These arguments are the heart of the international debate behind the death penalty, and its unlikely that you two will ever manage to convince each other that one of your idealogies is right. So, can we just drop the issue and let the court justices handle things themselves?
     
  10. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    It's a bit more complex than that, but that's going off-topic.

    Not quite a complete summary. People keep neatly skipping over my question, time and again: In how we sentence a murderer (whether death or life imprisonment, whether humanely or harshly): what are our motives?

    I can deduce three things from this: one, no-one is interested in this point --they are too busy arguing their own. Two, no-one quite understands the question, so they ignore it. Three: the question of our motives in all this is a bit too uncomfortable to contemplate.

    Anyway, I think I'll bow out here too.
     
  11. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    i for one didn't notice it,

    but maybe people want to know what it's like to kill someone. they can't morally kill an "innocent" person, so they find someone they deem less than human that they can kill. make any justification you want, Ubermich and others, but it's finding someone to kill thats not human enough for you to care.

    [me puts on me asbestos underwear]
     
  12. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    I did notice it, and that is another very very difficult problem, possibly worth another 6 pages of this thread... I think it's good that you ask "What are our motives" because we all have more than one motive. To avenge the death of another, to prevent history repeating itself, to make living a righteous life easier for those who may have been swayed by the virus of a mindset a killer may have had (see: Washington Sniper a year or two ago). To save lives, to give chances to proove 100% guilt, to make life comfortable for everyone.

    Again, there is no clear-cut answer. If there was a way to insure that the person would not bear more burden to society than he already has, and proove 100% guilt, and save lives, I would be all for it. However, if you keep him alive, he may get out early even if he's guilty, and he may do it again. If you give him as many appeals as he wants, he will cost taxpayers $millions. The family of the murdered may feel lost because the man who took their daughter's life is not only free, but in a comfortable job making twice as much as they do. If you kill him, on the other hand, the killer's family may want to see the same blood that the victem's family saw. He may turn up innocent, either by fluke or by a bloodthirsty jury or by a poor defense. Again, if you give him appeals time and time again until he dies he will cost taxpayers $millions.

    And again, this is why we all walk our own paths. We all have different motives. Different priorities... This is just the way things are. This is why we have democratic or republican elections (I mean those not in party-terms but in government definition terms because we use a democratic republic model in which we vote for representatives).

    So you do your thing, and I'll do mine. Alright?
     
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    There certainly isn't a clear-cut answer... All motivations have their pros and cons, good and bad. However I always think that whatever we do, we should be aware of, and be honest to ourselves about why we do it.

    Works for me. :)
     
  14. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    i agree that we should just do our own thing and leave others alone, but then if we all did that we wouldn't really have murders, would we?

    that opens so many philosophical discussions, does the murderer waive the right to freedom when they murder the murderee? can it even be waived with that? does that right even exist?

    life can be undone (life in prison, although life itself can be undone, i suppose...) but death is permanent. even if someone raped and murdered my daughter, i would want them to serve life instead of death. not only because death is an easy way out, but what if in 5 years new evidence arises and the man i watched die was innocent, he just was a really, really, really, guilty looking innocent.

    where is the justice for his family? should the prosecutor go to jail for convincing us he was guilty, or was he just carrying out orders?

    don't burn your bridges. and that my bit.
     
  15. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Even some would suggest that death isn't permanent. No one knows what happens after death... except the people who can't tell us... Granted it may not be able to be undone in the way that a life sentence or life can be, but that doesn't mean that it is permanent... according to some views ;)

    But would you want them to serve 30 years? Because that's how the system works now... You get life, you're out in 30. As you said, death is the only thing that's permanent.
     
  16. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    now we're getting into faith here, but what if the jews are right, and we all go to heaven?
     
  17. Feline

    Feline What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Dec 2004
    Posts:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being Christian (my use of foul language not withstanding), I fully support the death penalty based on the Bible and my personal feelings.

    As a taxpayer, why in hell would I want to pay for someone's food, clothing, housing, education, etc. after they've been convicted of murder? I don't want to pay, that's the bottom line. Lifers get three meals a day, access to all the books they want, use of all the excercise and gym equipment, a television, free room and board. For what? Murdering someone? And we all get to pay for it!

    As far as I'm concerned, they relinquished the right to live when they forcefully took someone else's life. I'm sick of all of the bleeding heart sympathy for murderers. Just because someone's human in physical form, doesn't necessarily mean they're human in mental and psychological form. I just can't fathom the mentality that we should be nice to murderers and rapists. The whole point of the death penalty is punishment for their crimes, as well as to teach a lesson to those that might do the same.

    Being all "nicey nicey" to murderers sends the completely wrong message to would-be criminals. That you'll get sympathy for getting locked up! What kind of message is that? Even if someone supposedly "reforms themselves" in prison, good for them, but they still did the crime, so they still need to be punished. Reforming yourself is admirable I suppose (assuming it's sincere), but that doesn't earn you a Get Out of Jail Free card.

    Having said that, I will concede that I do feel that our justice system needs to a be a bit more stringent when it comes to making sure they've got the right person. Although the amount of "wrongful murder convictions" isn't quite as high as the (mostly liberal) media would have us believe.
     
  18. dgb

    dgb What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    You do realise this has allready been covered? It costs more to kill someone than to imprison them for life.
     
  19. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    oh, yeah, thou shalt not kill and all that.

    that does sound like a good deal, give up my freedom, full access to communal showers, that nifty sink/crapper (so i can lean over my poop stench to brush my teeth), and who can forget that homestyle prison food, gauranteed to make brushing my teeth an aromatic affair.

    your saying that some people deserve to live more than others, that some people are "better" than others; you think like Pol Pot (nobodies mentioned him yet) Hitler, the KKK, *and* serial killers (they usually target a race/religion/sex/etc. to prey on)

    it shouldn't get you a get out of jail free card, but reformation of killers say something about our prison system? we also shouldn't be overly nice to convicts, but they are still human, they have the right to life just as much as you do. the more you try to justify killing murderers the more you show that you are like them. in your head you can reason a murder is OK, and thats just what Charles Manson (and many others) did/do.

    1 is too high. where is the justice for the guy who was killed?
     
  20. Feline

    Feline What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Dec 2004
    Posts:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the wording in the Ten Commandments (as per the original Hebrew) is "Thou Shalt Not Murder." There is a difference between murdering and killing someone. If someone follows me out to my car and stabs me to death, he has murdered me. He thought about it and he knew what he was doing, in a criminal manner. If someone breaks into my apartment and attacks me, and I shoot them and they happen to die as a result, I have killed them. It was not premeditated, and I was a victim of a crime defending myself. There is a small but very significant difference between "murder" and "killing."


    But the point is the person still gets to live, while their victim had no choice in the matter. I was refraining from quoting Biblical text, but based on my beliefs, here:

    Leviticus 24:17- And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

    24:18
    And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
    24:19
    And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

    24:20
    Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

    24:21
    And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.


    Everyone is equal in the sense that they have the same opportunities in life. It's what they choose to do with their life that makes them different from others. Am I better than Hitler? Of course. Am I better than Pol Pot (and yes, I am fully aware of him and what he did)? Because of my race, religion or social status? No! Because of what I choose to do with my life. I make the decisions to be a law-abiding citizen, to make the most of what I have, to not rob others of their life and free will. The argument that serial murderers and genocidal maniacs deserve to live just as much as those that they would seek out and destroy is ridiculous. Everyone deserves a chance at life, up to the point that they decide to criminally and amorally take someone else's.


    Now you're comparing me to serial murderers, homocidal maniacs, and rapists? That's a sign of someone who's letting his anger and difference towards my political and moral beliefs come before intelligent debate. Give me a break. You don't know me and know nothing about me. I'm trying to have an intelligent debate, but some people are already trying to pull some slick little attacks. I already explained the difference between murder and killing. Killing can be justified in self-defense or state-mandated punishment (as per the Bible, although God specifically says that it's up to the government to dole out punishment, not an individual. This is the basis of the Constitutional right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. Vigilantism and singular revenge are prohibited. There's a difference between vengeance and punishment.) Didn't the murderer's victim have the right to life? Obviously they did, but the murderer not only broke a basic moral law, he also broke Constitutional law "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The victim never got due process, but the murderer still gets his. He's still getting treated better than the person he cut into little bits, or bludgeoned to death or raped repeatedly and then strangled. And the statistics have shown that people that commit grievous crimes, and are released from prison, go back to a life of crime and often do not change their violent ways (although they may get better at hiding it.)

    I already made my statement on this, in that I agree that the justice system needs to be under tighter control, so this doesn't happen. You made it sound as if I said that it was okay that innocent people were put on death row, that it was some sort of acceptable collateral damage. It's not, and I've already stated that (twice, now.)

    In a perfect world, nobody would ever be murdered. But the fact of the matter is, the world is not perfect and never will be. People need to get off of their Hippie High Horse and realise that world peace, while utopian and a nice idea, is impossible. Because we have free will, we have to accept the fact that no matter how hard people push for all of that, there will always be those that have no other interest than themselves, no matter the cost. Ted Bundy just wanted to get off, with whichever girl suited him at the moment. He didn't care. Richard Ramirez never showed any kind of remorse for what he did, and even stated that "I love killing people." Unfortunate as it is, there will always be people like that, and they need to be dealt with. You know which option I believe in...
     

Share This Page