Baby P - Me me me!

[Neil]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8196143.stm


"There's certainly a section of the public that think that they should be in jail for life and if they come out they should not receive any protection at taxpayers' expense whatsoever."
Me! Me! Me!

[capncnut]

I'm raising my hand with you, Neil. It's not as if these people were mentally unbalanced or suffered from any illness. They knew what they we're doing and should face the music when they come out. Why the f**k should I, or anyone else, pay for these monsters?

[MinionZombie]

I'm raising my hand with you, Neil. It's not as if these people were mentally unbalanced or suffered from any illness. They knew what they we're doing and should face the music when they come out. Why the f**k should I, or anyone else, pay for these monsters?
It's for that reason you sometimes think, maybe the death penalty is a good idea afterall - for these 100% proven monsters - do away with them, and spend the money that would have been wasted keeping them alive and sat in a room watching telly, and give it to charities that deal with the victims of the sorts of crimes that have been committed (and some to the victim(s) themselves too).

[BillyRay]

I'm inclined to agree with you about the Death Penalty; as long as you can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the accused committed the crime and is beyond rehabilitation.

But that's the problem, innit? The burden of proof is on the accuser, on the state. If you can hire a good enough lawyer, you can walk away scott-free. (look at the OJ trial)

However, if like most of us, you can't afford a good lawyer (or are stuck with the public defender) you're pretty much screwed. Like the bumper sticker sez: Capital Punishment = those without the capital get the punishment.

[MinionZombie]

I'm inclined to agree with you about the Death Penalty; as long as you can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the accused committed the crime and is beyond rehabilitation.

But that's the problem, innit? The burden of proof is on the accuser, on the state. If you can hire a good enough lawyer, you can walk away scott-free. (look at the OJ trial)

However, if like most of us, you can't afford a good lawyer (or are stuck with the public defender) you're pretty much screwed. Like the bumper sticker sez: Capital Punishment = those without the capital get the punishment.
Therein lies the rub.

In my world, the death penalty would be used for the air tight, open and close, 100% no two ways about it, proven cases - such as these scumbags who did these ghastly things to this kid.

[Chic Freak]

Me! Me! Me!

Me too. It would be like me asking the taxpayers to pay for a salon appointment because I regret dying my hair a certain colour. Some might say that's a ridiculous comparison because I didn't commit premeditated cold-blooded abuse and murder; I say it's a less ridiculous and much fairer idea for that very reason!

[SymphonicX]

I'm against the death penalty. Not for their protection, but for the protection of my moral code.

However, paying 1m for them to have cosy lives? I think not.

But I still wholeheartedly disagree with the "villagers" and their torches marching through the town...that mentality is pretty abhorrent to me. It's bordering on retarded, imo.

As for these murdering freaks? I dunno....I don't want them living cosily at my expense, but I also don't want to join the procession of backwoods monkeys who systematically call for us all to hang, draw and quater people who've done sick things. The trouble is, another murdering psycho will kill these people if they're released, which I'm not overly bothered about from their perspective (fuck 'em) but it kinda depresses me that the cycle just starts over and over and over.

[Chic Freak]

The trouble is, another murdering psycho will kill these people if they're released, which I'm not overly bothered about from their perspective (fuck 'em) but it kinda depresses me that the cycle just starts over and over and over.

Very true.

[SymphonicX]

I'm against the death penalty. Not for their protection, but for the protection of my moral code.

However, paying 1m for them to have cosy lives? I think not.

But I still wholeheartedly disagree with the "villagers" and their torches marching through the town...that mentality is pretty abhorrent to me. It's bordering on retarded, imo.

As for these murdering freaks? I dunno....I don't want them living cosily at my expense, but I also don't want to join the procession of backwoods monkeys who systematically call for us all to hang, draw and quater people who've done sick things. The trouble is, another murdering psycho will kill these people if they're released, which I'm not overly bothered about from their perspective (fuck 'em) but it kinda depresses me that the cycle just starts over and over and over.


I was thinking about the post in this quote last night while driving home....and compared it to the other quote I made in the thread about the guy who found his friend in bed with his kid....

and they totally conflict....

It made me think about our emotional responses to situations and how really, there is a barbarian in all of us - and when someone crosses that line it is easy to initiate. When its aimed at your immediate family, or when you have a suffficient amount of empathy to respond to a situation like Baby P, rational judgment just goes out the window!!!!

[RustyHicks]

New identities, how nice:mad::mad:It sickens me when people like this
get treated in such a way. Why should they be protected when they are
released, and why should the taxpayers pay for them. It's sick sick sick:rant::rant::rant::rant:

[capncnut]

And now this walking whore's tampon is claiming that he's a good dad.

Click (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2599500/Baby-P-stepdad-Steven-Barker-insists-he-was-a-caring-father-figure.html) for article.

I got nothing to say really but :lol:

[Chic Freak]

And now this walking whore's tampon is claiming that he's a good dad.

Click (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2599500/Baby-P-stepdad-Steven-Barker-insists-he-was-a-caring-father-figure.html) for article.

I got nothing to say really but :lol:

Good grief.

"It was all going well until I raped her and murdered him."

How can he possibly think a court is going to buy this? :rockbrow:

[MinionZombie]

Good grief.

"It was all going well until I raped her and murdered him."

How can he possibly think a court is going to buy this? :rockbrow:
All the more reason, in my view, to just pop a cap in both their heads and be done with them. Toss 'em in an unmarked grave, and bury the sickening evil that is embodied by these two scumbags.

I'd much prefer the time, effort, and money being spent on these fuckers to go to good causes and people in need.

[Andy]

"There's certainly a section of the public that think that they should be in jail for life and if they come out they should not receive any protection at taxpayers' expense whatsoever."

I Would of been far, far, far happier with my tax money going to protecting that baby.

My biggest fear about when i join the police, and possibly the only job i would have a issue with being assigned to, would be if i was tasked to protect these people. i dont think i could do it, i dont have it in me.

[capncnut]

Steven Barker, the monster who dished out Baby P's 50 injuries, including a broken spine, was knocked out in jail by a revenge attacker.


Lifer Barker is 6ft 4in and weighs 18st but his assailant - described as "quite small" - had no difficulty in bringing him down in the ambush at Wakefield Prison, West Yorks.

The hardman attacker felled hulking Barker, 33, with a single, savage blow.

Click (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2769143/Baby-P-beast-Steven-Barker-battered-in-jail.html) for article.

Good, I hope someone else gets him. Breaks a few bones and disfigures him for life. In fact, I hope he gets AIDS and cancer at the same time, so it all comes on top and really gives him a nasty exit. And slow.

[JDFP]

Good, I hope someone else gets him. Breaks a few bones and disfigures him for life. In fact, I hope he gets AIDS and cancer at the same time, so it all comes on top and really gives him a nasty exit. And slow.

Right, because vengeance begets justice, and though I agree he should be locked away from society, it's okay because of the horrible things he's done as well to break our own moral reasoning in this case? Let's take it another step, we should also blame children for the transgressions of their parents (after all, according to the Old Testament the sin of the fathers will be carried into the children for generations) - and history proves that the acts of the generation before us will seek us out in our lives.

Ireland for example. The Sinn Fein / IRA did some horrendous things against the oppressive British. But, that's different, the British brought it on themselves because they raped their Irish grandparents, they took their lands, and so the British deserve to have their lives taken for what they did. The British open up fire in the 20s against the Irish, and the Irish strike back, and keep striking back. Vengeance begets justice. Serbia for example, Milosevic did some terrible things, but that wasn't against "Normal" people that he and his minions were doing it. They were striking back against the horrors committed during WWII when it was they who were murdered, pillaged, and wiped away. You see where I'm going with this. I don't agree with it, but it's molded within people. Vengeance begets justice. Where does it stop?

We destroy a man or woman, or even a culture for that matter, we wipe them off the map, and 20 years from now children they may have decide: "I'm going to get back at those bastards who killed my father/mother, those people who destroyed my culture." Vengeance begets justice. The cycle continues. Where does it stop?

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that people who do terrible things should be punished for their crimes, but it has to be done in a legal and legitimate way. Otherwise, it's an extremely slippery slope that can lead to chaos and destruction which won't lead to justice, but to greater bloodshed and destruction -- and that's the last possible thing that we need.

j.p.

[SymphonicX]

Right, because vengeance begets justice, and though I agree he should be locked away from society, it's okay because of the horrible things he's done as well to break our own moral reasoning in this case? Let's take it another step, we should also blame children for the transgressions of their parents (after all, according to the Old Testament the sin of the fathers will be carried into the children for generations) - and history proves that the acts of the generation before us will seek us out in our lives.

Ireland for example. The Sinn Fein / IRA did some horrendous things against the oppressive British. But, that's different, the British brought it on themselves because they raped their Irish grandparents, they took their lands, and so the British deserve to have their lives taken for what they did. The British open up fire in the 20s against the Irish, and the Irish strike back, and keep striking back. Vengeance begets justice. Serbia for example, Milosevic did some terrible things, but that wasn't against "Normal" people that he and his minions were doing it. They were striking back against the horrors committed during WWII when it was they who were murdered, pillaged, and wiped away. You see where I'm going with this. I don't agree with it, but it's molded within people. Vengeance begets justice. Where does it stop?

We destroy a man or woman, or even a culture for that matter, we wipe them off the map, and 20 years from now children they may have decide: "I'm going to get back at those bastards who killed my father/mother, those people who destroyed my culture." Vengeance begets justice. The cycle continues. Where does it stop?

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that people who do terrible things should be punished for their crimes, but it has to be done in a legal and legitimate way. Otherwise, it's an extremely slippery slope that can lead to chaos and destruction which won't lead to justice, but to greater bloodshed and destruction -- and that's the last possible thing that we need.

j.p.


Awesome post man, great read and I agree definitely...

I said a very basic version of this in another thread - if we held a murderer culpable for his crime and killed that person, then the executioner is culpable for that murder and so he has to be killed....so we continue the cycle til the last human is left alive, poor fucker.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------


I'm raising my hand with you, Neil. It's not as if these people were mentally unbalanced or suffered from any illness. They knew what they we're doing and should face the music when they come out. Why the f**k should I, or anyone else, pay for these monsters?

Personally, I'd say if you beat a 2 year old to death, you're pretty mentally ill.

[Danny]

Right, because vengeance begets justice, and though I agree he should be locked away from society, it's okay because of the horrible things he's done as well to break our own moral reasoning in this case? Let's take it another step, we should also blame children for the transgressions of their parents (after all, according to the Old Testament the sin of the fathers will be carried into the children for generations) - and history proves that the acts of the generation before us will seek us out in our lives.

Ireland for example. The Sinn Fein / IRA did some horrendous things against the oppressive British. But, that's different, the British brought it on themselves because they raped their Irish grandparents, they took their lands, and so the British deserve to have their lives taken for what they did. The British open up fire in the 20s against the Irish, and the Irish strike back, and keep striking back. Vengeance begets justice. Serbia for example, Milosevic did some terrible things, but that wasn't against "Normal" people that he and his minions were doing it. They were striking back against the horrors committed during WWII when it was they who were murdered, pillaged, and wiped away. You see where I'm going with this. I don't agree with it, but it's molded within people. Vengeance begets justice. Where does it stop?

We destroy a man or woman, or even a culture for that matter, we wipe them off the map, and 20 years from now children they may have decide: "I'm going to get back at those bastards who killed my father/mother, those people who destroyed my culture." Vengeance begets justice. The cycle continues. Where does it stop?

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that people who do terrible things should be punished for their crimes, but it has to be done in a legal and legitimate way. Otherwise, it's an extremely slippery slope that can lead to chaos and destruction which won't lead to justice, but to greater bloodshed and destruction -- and that's the last possible thing that we need.

j.p.

i agree, revenge is like a game of hot potato, you just keep passing it back and forth between two groups or familys over time instead of distance.

[Mike70]

i don't find the idea that these fools ought to be executed for they've done to be a knee jerk reaction nor do i feel that such feelings are "barbaric."

every society has the absolute right to protect itself and to declare that certain actions are verboten and come with severe penalties, up to and including death.

execution is a fitting and relevant punishment for someone who has done really, really horrible things to other people.

the old and very fucking tired argument of "what right is it of ours to kill someone judicially, blah, blah, blah, holds no water to me at all and isn't something befitting the mind of a 4 year old. you can extend that bit of weak reasoning to anything until it becomes "what right do we have to lock someone up for life" or worse, "what right do we even have to judge others criminal." weak, weak, weak position. like i said above, every society has an absolute right to protect itself, to declare certain actions prohibited, and to set penalties for said actions.

[SymphonicX]

i don't find the idea that these fools ought to be executed for they've done to be a knee jerk reaction nor do i feel that such feelings are "barbaric."

every society has the absolute right to protect itself and to declare that certain actions are verboten and come with severe penalties, up to and including death.

execution is a fitting and relevant punishment for someone who has done really, really horrible things to other people.

the old and very fucking tired argument of "what right is it of ours to kill someone judicially, blah, blah, blah, holds no water to me at all and isn't something befitting the mind of a 4 year old. you can extend that bit of weak reasoning to anything until it becomes "what right do we have to lock someone up for life" or worse, "what right do we even have to judge others criminal." weak, weak, weak position. like i said above, every society has an absolute right to protect itself, to declare certain actions prohibited, and to set penalties for said actions.


I actually thought about something similar the other night - but I still don't agree with your point of view. However I do see the argument for drawing a very thick line. I don't think social and moral code would allow us in either country to say a murderer should go free because we'd all hate that idea - I don't think anyone would be comfortable with letting a guilty person or someone who's a danger to society out on the street.

But it's not as black and white as dividing attitudes between a pro-death pentalty stance and a stance of "let all the crims go free" - there's a LOT of grey in there.

The death pentaty isn't a form of justice, it's a form of revenge. The popular belief amongst the anti-death penalty crowd is that a justice system needs to be fair and prompt and not vengeful or hateful. Crime is a very VERY emotional thing, which causes people to act in ways they never would normally, a death penalty in a justice system reflects an emotional response and not a clinical one.

That's OK if the population are emotionally charged (by and large) - but not if the population tends to sway towards more measured responses.

From my point of view, I see it as a case of - if I rejoice in the death of another person, I'm just as bad as them. I'd rather have them locked in a cage for their whole life, and suffer it that way. Also, why give these people an easy out? They are going to go through far more fear and worry if they are alive than if they're dead...

(I wrote this over a period of about 6 hours because of work issues...so forgive any idiocies)

[MoonSylver]

The death pentaty isn't a form of justice, it's a form of revenge.

Not necessarily. How is it just to allow some one to live that had perpetrated horrible brutalities on others, including taking their lives?

By execution you have inflicted the ultimate punishment on someone. You have taken from the the last thing you CAN take from them, the thing they hold most precious above all else, even their freedom, which is their own lives.

And in some cases I think that is ENTIRELY just. Anything less, honestly, I see as an INjustice to those who were victims of such perpetrators.

[SymphonicX]

Not necessarily. How is it just to allow some one to live that had perpetrated horrible brutalities on others, including taking their lives?

As I said, it fits those who respond emotionally to these things. I just don't believe that the law should reflect that too much. It has to reflect social outrage and public decency but at the same time it can't meet crime with another crime. I see your kind of response and opinion to be very childish - but I'm sure at the same level you think that of mine - which is cool, I know what you're saying is valid to our societies, and I respect it. But I would personally never live in a country that had the death penalty.

I also think it propogates a certain response from the public - back to gladatorial days of public executions and baying for blood, and the idealist inside me believes that's a bad thing. Theres nothing sadder and more pathetic than seeing a crowd of people gathered to celebrate an execution, regardless of the situation involved, it just takes society back 300 years.

Mind you - this is where I bend a little - if someone murdered my kid, I know I'd be out there baying for the same blood...why? Because it's a natural human response, as is your point of view...so I do get where you're coming from, and it is a bit of an issue when you put yourself directly in the shoes of those who have been wronged.

But I still have to stick to my guns on it, but I won't for a second say that your or anyone elses opinion on this isn't justified in some way, we all know it is...I just can't sleep at night if I think like this...it's confusing.

[MoonSylver]

I see your kind of response and opinion to be very childish

:rockbrow:

Childish to want justice to be served? The guilty punished? I don't think so.


- but I'm sure at the same level you think that of mine -

Not at all. I recognize the moral, ethical & philosophical implications to object to. I just don't agree with them. I glad that you can respect (?) my views as I shall respect yours. But there's no need to couch them in vaguely condescending terms though.:)

[strayrider]

I said a very basic version of this in another thread - if we held a murderer culpable for his crime and killed that person, then the executioner is culpable for that murder and so he has to be killed....so we continue the cycle til the last human is left alive, poor fucker.

The problem with this argument is that the murderer is a murderer, the executioner is not. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful taking of another person's life. If the death penalty is legal (as it is here in America), then the person who performs the execution is guilty of no crime. Why should he or she be killed?

:D

-stray-

[JDFP]

The problem with this argument is that the murderer is a murderer, the executioner is not. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful taking of another person's life. If the death penalty is legal (as it is here in America), then the person who performs the execution is guilty of no crime. Why should he or she be killed?

:D

-stray-

This is going to be a rather lengthy response...

So why then were the "executioners" of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, etc. etc. held against crimes against humanity and then charged for following their legal orders per the command of their State? The concentration camps and the execution of the "undesirables" in extermination camps were perfectly legal in Nazi-driven society. The men and women who ran these camps, according to the tenants of their State, were following orders in being executioners, not murderers, by said reasoning. If you prescribe to your statement above, these S.S. men and women should have never been charged with crimes against humanity but should have been given a medal in honor of their service to the German state in doing a damn fine job in following their prescribed, albeit nasty, job within society as executioners.

I have several issues with the death penalty. First being the executioner. However "noble" their prescribed action by the State, I still believe an executioner to be guilty of the crime they commit in taking a life. Hiding behind the veil of the State does not protect you from the commission you make as an individual. The executioner, the man or woman who kill in self-defense, and the murderer, we must consider the intention, motive, and cause within their activity, for all of these. Yes, it does make a difference within action, but all must be responsible first and foremost to themselves before any grand notion of a "State". If an American executioner who pulls the lever to the electric chair for a State-convicted criminal takes pleasure in doing this, I firmly believe that executioner is just as guilty as a man or woman from the S.S. dropping a Zyklon-B canister at Auschwitz.

I believe there is one crime, and one crime only, in which the death penalty should be instituted in a first-world society, and that is in cases of well-documented and supported cases of treason. A traitor deserves death. This is the only exception I believe that should be followed in first-world societies. Even then it is an issue of debate. The State should not have the power over life and death. The State DOES have a responsibility in protecting the citizens within society. If the State has the ability to protect society from a criminal by keeping the criminal from ever possibly interfering within society again, the State has acted accordingly and has succeeded. Why take another step to execute the subjected criminal when it is above what is necessary to protect the State? Well, that's simple, vengeance, power, and because the State has the ultimate ability to wield life and death. How comforting for the executioner to know that he/she is not doing the action him/herself, but is merely prescribing the action of the State. "I was merely following orders." -- sound familiar, anybody?

I think a case for Capital Punishment can be made in societies that do not have the ability to keep prisoners from interfering in society. I am not necessarily against the death penalty, but I am against the death penalty in societies where it is not necessary to protect society as a whole. Take for example third-world countries where prisoners cannot be safely held at bay from society, a solid case can then be made for Capital Punishment. In first-world countries criminals can and should be held captive by the State for the protection of society, but taking the next step in execution is just not necessary by any means.

As a Catholic, I do have theological reasons as to why I believe Capital Punishment to be wrong, but these theological reasons do not enter into the equation in a matter of public matters since the State is not, nor should not, be run by any religious understandings. However, the State having the ability over life and death is thus making itself into a Ultimate power, a secular God of decisions inflicting existence over the subjects within the realm of the State. I do not believe the State should have this power, unless the State is incapable of protecting citizens as the expense of criminals.

I respect the argument of Capital Punishment when necessary to protect society if there is no alternative to protection of the subjects within said State. However, there is no reasonable and attainable evidence that executing people by the State will "deter" other individuals from committing a similar crime. If anything, it will cause others who commit a similar crime to be wiser about going about it "not to get caught".

Likewise, where does one draw the line in stating the State's ability to enforce Capital Punishment (this goes back to the discussion of the Nazi's, as well as the Soviets, the Chinese under Chairman Mao and it's current brand of Communism, and many other world regimes of past and present). If the State decides that execution should be enforced for any illegal activity within said State under the tenants of that State, then the executioner is not guilty of the actions he/she commits. Period. The same also applies if the State decides that execution is necessary for breaking laws placed into the books of the State such as actively practicing Judaism, praying in public, or any other laws deemed necessary by the "Ultimate Authority" of the State. Thus, the S.S. were, indeed, following orders, and were not guilty of any crime.

Of course, those who disagree with me will state that America is a "moral" State and Nazi-ran Germany was an "immoral" State. Well, we have already taken our theological views out of secular Statehood, so how is it that we determine the distinction between a moral and immoral State? By what moral secular ideology of "righteousness" do we prescribe? Who is to subjectively decide upon moral recourse? It just does not add up, and this is why on a very secular level I believe the State should not, nor should ever, impose itself as an "Authority" over law within the ability to make decisions over execution.

Laws should be based upon the protection of citizens with State to the necessary means of protecting society as a whole, anything above this recourse then the State has set itself aside as a decider of Moral/Religious judgment and has broken itself away from a secular entity into a Moral/Religious entity.

I'm going back to getting drunk now...

j.p.

[deadpunk]

So why then were the "executioners" of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, etc. etc. held against crimes against humanity and then charged for following their legal orders per the command of their State? The concentration camps and the execution of the "undesirables" in extermination camps were perfectly legal in Nazi-driven society. The men and women who ran these camps, according to the tenants of their State, were following orders in being executioners, not murderers, by said reasoning. If you prescribe to your statement above, these S.S. men and women should have never been charged with crimes against humanity but should have been given a medal in honor of their service to the German state in doing a damn fine job in following their prescribed, albeit nasty, job within society as executioners.


Seriously? :rockbrow:

You're comparing genocide to capital punishment. Hardly the same thing, sir.

[JDFP]

Seriously? :rockbrow:

You're comparing genocide to capital punishment. Hardly the same thing, sir.

Really? How is it different?

In Nazi-ran Germany the Jewish / Romani / Homosexual / Communist / etc. people had broken the laws of the tenants of the State. Thus, they were accordingly convicted of said crimes by the laws of the State, de jure, and accordingly executed, all under the mandate and laws of the State. Our emotions play no part in it, it's a legal matter that under the tenants of the State was very clear. Our agreement or disagreement (and for the record, I do strongly and 100% agree that it was genocide, as you do), play no part in it, since it was the laws of the State at the time.

Capital Punishment is a matter for the State to decide what is a capital offense and what is not, and in situations where the State take on this Moral law unto themselves they do act proportionately / accordingly to said law.

I welcome you to read the rest of my lengthy response. I know it was lengthy, but I clearly outlined my thoughts and opinions on the matter. I'm not saying my thoughts/opinions are right, but they are my thoughts/opinions on the matter. I respect people who disagree with me, it's part of what makes us human, but where one society sees "genocide" another society, under the precepts of their enforcement as a legal entity of a State, will see justice as being rightfully served. It doesn't make it right (and I don't think it's right), but it is what it is. Again, it leads to the same thing, what right the State has in deciding what should be ordained as a Capital offense and not. Ipse Dixit, the State has the ability, and the state enforces it, and thus it is based upon said society.

j.p.

[deadpunk]

I welcome you to read the rest of my lengthy response.


I read it. I only quoted the part that perplexed me.

[strayrider]

Really? How is it different? j.p.

One is a crime (against humanity); the other, a punishment for a crime.

Your use of the Nazi comparison is really quite a red herring -- if not outright hyperbole.

:D

-stray-

[JDFP]

One is a crime (against humanity); the other, a punishment for a crime.
:D

-stray-

One State says genocide, another State says it's justice being served. Both State's that make laws under penalty of death are taking it upon themselves a Moral judgment (or lack thereof) in deciding what is righteousness under the laws of the State.

j.p.

[Mike70]

there are times i wish i'd never written a response and this is one of them. of all the tired and pointless discussions that we engage in on here, death penalty debates rate right up there with the big 4: gun control, obama, yawn 04 hate/love, and the grand daddy of them all, the timeline debate.

apologies if i started us down this road. i have no real desire to argue about things there isn't any real reason to argue over. none of us will change the mind of another through internet posts and it is a pointless waste of time to try. personally, i don't care what any of you want, think or feel about capital punishment. my mind is made up on the matter and it is an absolute waste of time to write anything else about it.

i'm gonna add this to the list of thread topics that i try very hard not to participate in.

[JDFP]

there are times i wish i'd never written a response and this is one of them. of all the tired and pointless discussions that we engage in on here, death penalty debates rate right up there with the big 4: gun control, obama, yawn 04 hate/love, and the grand daddy of them all, the timeline debate.

Mike, don't forget the Land V. Diary debate as well. But, I 100% agree with you. We're never going to change our opinions on what we believe based on a message board. I'm going to take this opportunity to also bow out of this discussion on Capital Punishment as well. I've expressed my views on it as others here have also expressed their views and opinions on it, no need to hang a dead horse (haha, distateful pun intended).

Let's find something more fun to argue about. :D

j.p.

[DjfunkmasterG]

They killed the baby, broke his back and ribs and get 5-12 years?

Man your justice system sucks. Here they would have gotten the death penalty or at least life without parole.

I am all for the death penalty... One of the few left leaning independents who believe in it.


Death Penalty or or at least Life w/o parole for these offences:

Any case of Murder that is deliberate (1st or 2nd degree - Auto death penalty by Electric chair only)
Child Rape (Death penalty)
Child Assault that leads to death (Death penalty)
Child Assualt that leads to physical handicaps for life (Life or Death)
Drunk Driving that causes death or perm injury (Life for injury and Death for death)
Kidnapping (Life)


I have no use for people who are scum and can't abide by simple rules.

Children should not be molested, beaten, assaulted or raped
You do not take a life (Although on occassion I could see an exception to the rule, but the circumstances would have been extremely warranted, as in defending your own life or someone elses)

I had a friend... and I mean HAD, who was recently caught soliciting sex from a 14 yr old online, and this fucker had the balls to write me from Jail... I wrote him back and said, you are one sick puppy preying on kids, DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN.

I have zero tolerance for people who prey on children.

[SymphonicX]

:rockbrow:

Childish to want justice to be served? The guilty punished? I don't think so.



Not at all. I recognize the moral, ethical & philosophical implications to object to. I just don't agree with them. I glad that you can respect (?) my views as I shall respect yours. But there's no need to couch them in vaguely condescending terms though.:)

Sorry I used the word childish - there is another, better word for it, maybe "unevolved" or something, but it wasn't meant in a nasty way bro.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 AM ----------


The problem with this argument is that the murderer is a murderer, the executioner is not. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful taking of another person's life. If the death penalty is legal (as it is here in America), then the person who performs the execution is guilty of no crime. Why should he or she be killed?

:D

-stray-

ahh you and your law and definition and all that stuff! over rated I tell ya!

[strayrider]

One State says genocide, another State says it's justice being served. Both State's that make laws under penalty of death are taking it upon themselves a Moral judgment (or lack thereof) in deciding what is righteousness under the laws of the State.

j.p.

Regardless. When it comes to debating the death penalty (in the United States, today) we could go round and round until we're both as dizzy as Dean Martin. However, even if we disagree on this issue, I believe that we both should find common ground when we consider the actions of the Nazis during WW2.

One is a subjective opinion; the other, non-subjective (if you believe that not all moral value judgments are subjective, that is).

Agreed?

:D

-stray-