This topic is locked from further discussion.
You guys do realize that most criminals arn't rehabilitated when they get out of prison. 90% end up back in prison again.
This is especially true for pedophiles. Say a pedophile rapes and kills your child or you little sister, are you still against the death penalty? I higly doubt it. Most of you who are against the death penality either have never been or never known a victem of such a heinous crime. After you experience something like that then you can way in.
[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"][QUOTE="bsman00"] Hypothetical question... someone kidnaps and rapes and kills your mom... what should be the punishment?bsman00I already argued that people who are close to the victims, or are the victims themselves should never decide what punishment is best suited. Why?
Justice has to be fair, unbiased. Do you think a person who lost his wife to a gunman would be able to keep his cool when deciding how he's going to respond?
[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"][QUOTE="bsman00"] Hypothetical question... someone kidnaps and rapes and kills your mom... what should be the punishment?bsman00I already argued that people who are close to the victims, or are the victims themselves should never decide what punishment is best suited. Why? It's pretty obvious why. We need someone who can approach the case objectively.
You have a good point but i say if you take someones life on purpose, for no reason then yours should be taken. An eye for an eye as they say.TheFragcatWhat a bad argument.. This isn't the dark ages, an eye for an eye usually never gives justice.. Furthermore it does not act as a deterrent what so ever to heinous crimes, it actually COSTS MORE than housing the prisoner for their entire life.. There is absolutely no reason to have the death penalty in this age.
[QUOTE="bsman00"][QUOTE="BrainScramble05"] Maybe I do, if the victim is already dead. Criminals can be terribly unfortunate people.BrainScramble05
What?!?
There are cases in which it is possible to feel sorry for a murderer more than the victim, at least if you get to know the murderer.Depends on the murder i guess... in crimes of passion maybe... but if you have ever felt sorry or compassion for a child murder or rapist i.... your sick
[QUOTE="bsman00"][QUOTE="BrainScramble05"] I already argued that people who are close to the victims, or are the victims themselves should never decide what punishment is best suited.BrainScramble05Why? It's pretty obvious why. We need someone who can approach the case objectively. yes of course to get the facts straight
You guys do realize that most criminals arn't rehabilitated when they get out of prison. 90% end up back in prison again.
This is especially true for pedophiles. Say a pedophile rapes and kills your child or you little sister, are you still against the death penalty? I higly doubt it. Most of you who are against the death penality either have never been or never known a victem of such a heinous crime. After you experience something like that then you can way in.
That is clouded judgement and they are not fit to judge.. House them for their natural lives if they must, it actually costs less than the death penalty in this age.. And the death penalty does not work as a deterrent.. Ok so it doesn't act as a deterrent, and its actually more expensive than housing them in prison for life.. The death penalty is some sick form of retribution.. No matter how many times you kill that person it will not bring back that victim nor will things get better or worse if that person is dead rather than in prison for life.[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] ...for what? :?AirGuitarist87For not being able to protect the prisoners, doh. Then you've agreed that prisons aren't a safe place to put people who're a danger to society. So what do we do with them? They're not always a safe place, at least. I couldn't tell. I don't know, raise security? There will always be incidents.
What?!?
There are cases in which it is possible to feel sorry for a murderer more than the victim, at least if you get to know the murderer.Depends on the murder i guess... in crimes of passion maybe... but if you have ever felt sorry or compassion for a child murder or rapist i.... your sick
Just because the crime is extremely heinous, it does not mean you should some how "exclude" that person from fair judgement.. Yet again the death penalty is useless, and it lowers our values as a nation.. It is a empty threat of retribution that solves nothing, and is actually very expensive.[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"][QUOTE="BrainScramble05"] For not being able to protect the prisoners, doh.BrainScramble05Then you've agreed that prisons aren't a safe place to put people who're a danger to society. So what do we do with them? They're not always a safe place, at least. I couldn't tell. I don't know, raise security? There will always be incidents. They already do.. People like Charlie Manson are already in solitary confinement with extreme security for life.. And to be honest its more for HIS safety than the rest of peoples.. People of extreme heinous crimes usually arn't put in prison population because the other inmates may attack him, considering it justice.
[QUOTE="bsman00"][QUOTE="BrainScramble05"] There are cases in which it is possible to feel sorry for a murderer more than the victim, at least if you get to know the murderer.sSubZerOo
Depends on the murder i guess... in crimes of passion maybe... but if you have ever felt sorry or compassion for a child murder or rapist i.... your sick
Just because the crime is extremely heinous, it does not mean you should some how "exclude" that person from fair judgement.. Yet again the death penalty is useless, and it lowers our values as a nation.. It is a empty threat of retribution that solves nothing, and is actually very expensive.Solves nothing? it keeps people from doing there crimes again permanently with no worries
[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"][QUOTE="BrainScramble05"] For not being able to protect the prisoners, doh.BrainScramble05Then you've agreed that prisons aren't a safe place to put people who're a danger to society. So what do we do with them? They're not always a safe place, at least. I couldn't tell. I don't know, raise security? There will always be incidents. With that regard, why put them in prison at all if they're just going to kill there?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="bsman00"]Just because the crime is extremely heinous, it does not mean you should some how "exclude" that person from fair judgement.. Yet again the death penalty is useless, and it lowers our values as a nation.. It is a empty threat of retribution that solves nothing, and is actually very expensive.Depends on the murder i guess... in crimes of passion maybe... but if you have ever felt sorry or compassion for a child murder or rapist i.... your sick
bsman00
Solves nothing? it keeps people from doing there crimes again permanently with no worries
Life in prisonment does the exact same thing in high security.. Its also cheaper to do, and not draconian... Yeah people like Charlie Manson did heinous things when he was released.. Oh wait a minute he is still in prison in a maximum security area, in solitary confinement. And it awfully sounds like you want to expand the death penalty to crimes that normally would not get it.. Maybe you should move to China, or Saudia Arabia, they must have pretty "progressive" justice systems when it comes to death penalties in your mind.Shouldn't the law be focusing on rehabilitating criminals instead? C'mon, it's barbaric. Is it wise to teach people not to kill... by killing them? I can't speak with raw facts on my side, but I don't think that the capital punishment lowers crime rates in general. It's a society's simplistic way of correcting its own problems, I say! BrainScramble05
Agreed. But I think it should be done away with altogether. Seriously, how many innocent people have been wrongly accused and died? I call murder on that.
[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"]Shouldn't the law be focusing on rehabilitating criminals instead? C'mon, it's barbaric. Is it wise to teach people not to kill... by killing them? I can't speak with raw facts on my side, but I don't think that the capital punishment lowers crime rates in general. It's a society's simplistic way of correcting its own problems, I say! ZZsharpshooter
Agreed. But I think it should be done away with altogether. Seriously, how many innocent people have been wrongly accused and died? I call murder on that.
Unfortantely I have read that our prison systems are awful.. Where something like 50% of the prisoners have undiagnosed mental problems, that they never bother to identify and treat.[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] Then you've agreed that prisons aren't a safe place to put people who're a danger to society. So what do we do with them?AirGuitarist87They're not always a safe place, at least. I couldn't tell. I don't know, raise security? There will always be incidents. With that regard, why put them in prison at all if they're just going to kill there? Most prisoners don't kill in prison, I would like to hope. It's unfortunate, but the only good way right now of handling criminals is to put them together and isolate them from the rest of the world.
[QUOTE="bsman00"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Just because the crime is extremely heinous, it does not mean you should some how "exclude" that person from fair judgement.. Yet again the death penalty is useless, and it lowers our values as a nation.. It is a empty threat of retribution that solves nothing, and is actually very expensive.sSubZerOo
Solves nothing? it keeps people from doing there crimes again permanently with no worries
Life in prisonment does the exact same thing in high security.. Its also cheaper to do, and not draconian... Yeah people like Charlie Manson did heinous things when he was released.. Oh wait a minute he is still in prison in a maximum security area, in solitary confinement. And it awfully sounds like you want to expand the death penalty to crimes that normally would not get it.. Maybe you should move to China, or Saudia Arabia, they must have pretty "progressive" justice systems when it comes to death penalties in your mind.No i dont really im just saying that some criminals deserve death.... and the only ones i think should always get death is people who kill and or rape children
In all honesty, I don't whole-heartedly support the death penalty. However, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a serial killer or a serial rapist, the same should be done to them. If they raped and then dismembered their victims while they were still alive, that person should receive the same (with a different instrument) and should slowly be dismembered. Not all cases of homicide should result in the DS, as not all homicides are intentional, or if they are, they might not necessarily be heinous. And, to stop the question, no. Killing serial killers/rapists does not make me as bad as them. It is an adapted form of the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. It makes me a representative of justice, and I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep over killing a murderer. Ironically (or maybe logically) I love the show Dexter. That guy doesn't have to worry about the legal system. He proves beyond a doubt that the individual in question is a murderer, and then dispatches them from the world. It saves the world that much more suffering. Additionally, it's not about what is cheaper, but justice. Serial killers should not have the luxuries that many prisons now contain.muthsera666Wait so you think its a good idea that if a guy did a heinous crime such as dismemberment/torture. We should do the same to him.. LETS have you do it than, afterall we are violating human rights, and numerous other things.. Just because that person did something horrible, does not give one the excuse to break the values, ideals and laws set fourth to prevent something like that. It is also making it "ok" that murder, torture, and dismemberment are fine when backed by the state..
Solves nothing? it keeps people from doing there crimes again permanently with no worries
Life in prisonment does the exact same thing in high security.. Its also cheaper to do, and not draconian... Yeah people like Charlie Manson did heinous things when he was released.. Oh wait a minute he is still in prison in a maximum security area, in solitary confinement. And it awfully sounds like you want to expand the death penalty to crimes that normally would not get it.. Maybe you should move to China, or Saudia Arabia, they must have pretty "progressive" justice systems when it comes to death penalties in your mind.No i dont really im just saying that some criminals deserve death.... and the only ones i think should always get death is people who kill and or rape children
Who are you to say who and who does not deserve death? Justice is about harmony, balance, and overall order.. It is not about making YOU feel better. Just because that person did a awful thing, does not give us the right to put that person to death.. It does not solve anything, not to mention it costs MUCH MORE than housing them for life.. There is absolutely no reason to have the death penalty.. It costs more, it violates human rights, it does not act as a deterrent.. And its simply there to appease a angry mob.In all honesty, I don't whole-heartedly support the death penalty. However, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a serial killer or a serial rapist, the same should be done to them. If they raped and then dismembered their victims while they were still alive, that person should receive the same (with a different instrument) and should slowly be dismembered. Not all cases of homicide should result in the DS, as not all homicides are intentional, or if they are, they might not necessarily be heinous. And, to stop the question, no. Killing serial killers/rapists does not make me as bad as them. It is an adapted form of the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. It makes me a representative of justice, and I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep over killing a murderer. Ironically (or maybe logically) I love the show Dexter. That guy doesn't have to worry about the legal system. He proves beyond a doubt that the individual in question is a murderer, and then dispatches them from the world. It saves the world that much more suffering. Additionally, it's not about what is cheaper, but justice. Serial killers should not have the luxuries that many prisons now contain.muthsera666That's gross. To be honest, I wouldn't say that slowly dismembering a psycho would make you much better than him. The eye-for-an-eye philosphy is stupid and primitive. Anyway, innocents get caught in the death penalty in the end. You have to ask yourself, even if they're in the minority; is it worth it?
[QUOTE="muthsera666"]In all honesty, I don't whole-heartedly support the death penalty. However, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a serial killer or a serial rapist, the same should be done to them. If they raped and then dismembered their victims while they were still alive, that person should receive the same (with a different instrument) and should slowly be dismembered. Not all cases of homicide should result in the DS, as not all homicides are intentional, or if they are, they might not necessarily be heinous. And, to stop the question, no. Killing serial killers/rapists does not make me as bad as them. It is an adapted form of the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. It makes me a representative of justice, and I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep over killing a murderer. Ironically (or maybe logically) I love the show Dexter. That guy doesn't have to worry about the legal system. He proves beyond a doubt that the individual in question is a murderer, and then dispatches them from the world. It saves the world that much more suffering. Additionally, it's not about what is cheaper, but justice. Serial killers should not have the luxuries that many prisons now contain.sSubZerOoWait so you think its a good idea that if a guy did a heinous crime such as dismemberment/torture. We should do the same to him.. LETS have you do it than, afterall we are violating human rights, and numerous other things.. Just because that person did something horrible, does not give one the excuse to break the values, ideals and laws set fourth to prevent something like that. It is also making it "ok" that murder, torture, and dismemberment are fine when backed by the state.. I'll do it, that's fine. It's not violating human rights. A serial killer forgoes his "right to life" when he commits his crimes. And it's not saying that those actions are acceptable on the whole, merely in certain situations.
SIMPLE - some people don't deserve to live.
people who rape children
people who rape period
people who murder others without a reasonable cause, like self defense (reasonable cause)
serial killers
people who torture other people for (unconsented) pleasure
people who torture animals
poeple who commit unspeakable acts of the above combined.
some people are not meant to live.(period)
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="muthsera666"]In all honesty, I don't whole-heartedly support the death penalty. However, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a serial killer or a serial rapist, the same should be done to them. If they raped and then dismembered their victims while they were still alive, that person should receive the same (with a different instrument) and should slowly be dismembered. Not all cases of homicide should result in the DS, as not all homicides are intentional, or if they are, they might not necessarily be heinous. And, to stop the question, no. Killing serial killers/rapists does not make me as bad as them. It is an adapted form of the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. It makes me a representative of justice, and I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep over killing a murderer. Ironically (or maybe logically) I love the show Dexter. That guy doesn't have to worry about the legal system. He proves beyond a doubt that the individual in question is a murderer, and then dispatches them from the world. It saves the world that much more suffering. Additionally, it's not about what is cheaper, but justice. Serial killers should not have the luxuries that many prisons now contain.muthsera666Wait so you think its a good idea that if a guy did a heinous crime such as dismemberment/torture. We should do the same to him.. LETS have you do it than, afterall we are violating human rights, and numerous other things.. Just because that person did something horrible, does not give one the excuse to break the values, ideals and laws set fourth to prevent something like that. It is also making it "ok" that murder, torture, and dismemberment are fine when backed by the state.. I'll do it, that's fine. It's not violating human rights. A serial killer forgoes his "right to life" when he commits his crimes. And it's not saying that those actions are acceptable on the whole, merely in certain situations. Actually they do inless decided by a judge/jury.. Furthermore TORTURE is a no no.. They do not torture ever, your as sick as the serial killer.. Your basically trying to justfiy a sick act by torturing and dismembering them, your no better than they are.
[QUOTE="muthsera666"]In all honesty, I don't whole-heartedly support the death penalty. However, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a serial killer or a serial rapist, the same should be done to them. If they raped and then dismembered their victims while they were still alive, that person should receive the same (with a different instrument) and should slowly be dismembered. Not all cases of homicide should result in the DS, as not all homicides are intentional, or if they are, they might not necessarily be heinous. And, to stop the question, no. Killing serial killers/rapists does not make me as bad as them. It is an adapted form of the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. It makes me a representative of justice, and I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep over killing a murderer. Ironically (or maybe logically) I love the show Dexter. That guy doesn't have to worry about the legal system. He proves beyond a doubt that the individual in question is a murderer, and then dispatches them from the world. It saves the world that much more suffering. Additionally, it's not about what is cheaper, but justice. Serial killers should not have the luxuries that many prisons now contain.BrainScramble05That's gross. To be honest, I wouldn't say that slowly dismembering a psycho would make you much better than him. The eye-for-an-eye philosphy is stupid and primitive. Anyway, innocents get caught in the death penalty in the end. You have to ask yourself, even if they're in the minority; is it worth it? Eye-for-an-eye is not stupid, though I don't know if I would argue against primitive. It is also justice. Justice isn't pretty or set up for the 11 o'clock news. Justice is the repayment for ones crimes, considering intent and the act itself. I will admit there is a chance for the innocent to be caught up in the prosecution, however, the cases I am detailing for consideration for the DS (not all homicide) are those extreme enough to warrant a thorough investigation and the jury must be convinced, knowing full well, what the consequences of the verdict would be.
[QUOTE="bsman00"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Life in prisonment does the exact same thing in high security.. Its also cheaper to do, and not draconian... Yeah people like Charlie Manson did heinous things when he was released.. Oh wait a minute he is still in prison in a maximum security area, in solitary confinement. And it awfully sounds like you want to expand the death penalty to crimes that normally would not get it.. Maybe you should move to China, or Saudia Arabia, they must have pretty "progressive" justice systems when it comes to death penalties in your mind.sSubZerOo
No i dont really im just saying that some criminals deserve death.... and the only ones i think should always get death is people who kill and or rape children
Who are you to say who and who does not deserve death? Justice is about harmony, balance, and overall order.. It is not about making YOU feel better. Just because that person did a awful thing, does not give us the right to put that person to death.. It does not solve anything, not to mention it costs MUCH MORE than housing them for life.. There is absolutely no reason to have the death penalty.. It costs more, it violates human rights, it does not act as a deterrent.. And its simply there to appease a angry mob. I dont see how it could cost more if some rapes and kills some one @ age 22... they get life in prison... and say they live to be 65 so for 43 years we the tax payers pay for his housing and clothes... but if we kill him say he sits there for 3 - 4 years then after he is dead we dont have to pay for him any more...No i dont really im just saying that some criminals deserve death.... and the only ones i think should always get death is people who kill and or rape children
Who are you to say who and who does not deserve death? Justice is about harmony, balance, and overall order.. It is not about making YOU feel better. Just because that person did a awful thing, does not give us the right to put that person to death.. It does not solve anything, not to mention it costs MUCH MORE than housing them for life.. There is absolutely no reason to have the death penalty.. It costs more, it violates human rights, it does not act as a deterrent.. And its simply there to appease a angry mob. I dont see how it could cost more if some rapes and kills some one @ age 22... they get life in prison... and say they live to be 65 so for 43 years we the tax payers pay for his housing and clothes... but if we kill him say he sits there for 3 - 4 years then after he is dead we dont have to pay for him any more... Maybe you should actually RESEARCH the subject.. Because when you factor in the tons of appeals that all people who get the death penalty due, it costs many times more than if they were in prison. And 3-4 years is extremely fast usually alot of cases take 10 to 15.[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Wait so you think its a good idea that if a guy did a heinous crime such as dismemberment/torture. We should do the same to him.. LETS have you do it than, afterall we are violating human rights, and numerous other things.. Just because that person did something horrible, does not give one the excuse to break the values, ideals and laws set fourth to prevent something like that. It is also making it "ok" that murder, torture, and dismemberment are fine when backed by the state.. sSubZerOoI'll do it, that's fine. It's not violating human rights. A serial killer forgoes his "right to life" when he commits his crimes. And it's not saying that those actions are acceptable on the whole, merely in certain situations. Actually they do inless decided by a judge/jury.. Furthermore TORTURE is a no no.. They do not torture ever, your as sick as the serial killer.. Your basically trying to justfiy a sick act by torturing and dismembering them, your no better than they are. Calling me as mentally debased as a human that repeated rapes children, or kills for fun is a lack of a successful argument on your part. Justice cares not for the perceptions of others, but that the perpetrator is made to pay for the crimes he committed. In some cases, jail is sufficient; in other cases, it's not enough to repay for the amount of pain and suffering they have inflicted. I'm not justifying torture, I'm saying it can be just in the proper situation.
SIMPLE - some people don't deserve to live.
people who rape children
people who rape period
people who murder others without a reasonable cause, like self defense (reasonable cause)
serial killers
people who torture other people for (unconsented) pleasure
people who torture animals
poeple who commit unspeakable acts of the above combined.
some people are not meant to live.(period)
Agreed[QUOTE="bsman00"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Who are you to say who and who does not deserve death? Justice is about harmony, balance, and overall order.. It is not about making YOU feel better. Just because that person did a awful thing, does not give us the right to put that person to death.. It does not solve anything, not to mention it costs MUCH MORE than housing them for life.. There is absolutely no reason to have the death penalty.. It costs more, it violates human rights, it does not act as a deterrent.. And its simply there to appease a angry mob. sSubZerOoI dont see how it could cost more if some rapes and kills some one @ age 22... they get life in prison... and say they live to be 65 so for 43 years we the tax payers pay for his housing and clothes... but if we kill him say he sits there for 3 - 4 years then after he is dead we dont have to pay for him any more... Maybe you should actually RESEARCH the subject.. Because when you factor in the tons of appeals that all people who get the death penalty due, it costs many times more than if they were in prison. And 3-4 years is extremely fast usually alot of cases take 10 to 15. I agree the process takes to long... but money dosent matter we have money... shoot we just pulled another 800 billon out our butts and we are in debt
[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"][QUOTE="muthsera666"]In all honesty, I don't whole-heartedly support the death penalty. However, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a serial killer or a serial rapist, the same should be done to them. If they raped and then dismembered their victims while they were still alive, that person should receive the same (with a different instrument) and should slowly be dismembered. Not all cases of homicide should result in the DS, as not all homicides are intentional, or if they are, they might not necessarily be heinous. And, to stop the question, no. Killing serial killers/rapists does not make me as bad as them. It is an adapted form of the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. It makes me a representative of justice, and I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep over killing a murderer. Ironically (or maybe logically) I love the show Dexter. That guy doesn't have to worry about the legal system. He proves beyond a doubt that the individual in question is a murderer, and then dispatches them from the world. It saves the world that much more suffering. Additionally, it's not about what is cheaper, but justice. Serial killers should not have the luxuries that many prisons now contain.muthsera666That's gross. To be honest, I wouldn't say that slowly dismembering a psycho would make you much better than him. The eye-for-an-eye philosphy is stupid and primitive. Anyway, innocents get caught in the death penalty in the end. You have to ask yourself, even if they're in the minority; is it worth it? Eye-for-an-eye is not stupid, though I don't know if I would argue against primitive. It is also justice. Justice isn't pretty or set up for the 11 o'clock news. Justice is the repayment for ones crimes, considering intent and the act itself. I will admit there is a chance for the innocent to be caught up in the prosecution, however, the cases I am detailing for consideration for the DS (not all homicide) are those extreme enough to warrant a thorough investigation and the jury must be convinced, knowing full well, what the consequences of the verdict would be. Thank god you don't run the society.. Yes an eye for an eye is stupid, all it is, is retribution.. And other for the death penalty, an eye for an eye doesn't take in effect.. It solves nothing and all it does is justify more violence.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="bsman00"] I dont see how it could cost more if some rapes and kills some one @ age 22... they get life in prison... and say they live to be 65 so for 43 years we the tax payers pay for his housing and clothes... but if we kill him say he sits there for 3 - 4 years then after he is dead we dont have to pay for him any more... bsman00Maybe you should actually RESEARCH the subject.. Because when you factor in the tons of appeals that all people who get the death penalty due, it costs many times more than if they were in prison. And 3-4 years is extremely fast usually alot of cases take 10 to 15. I agree the process takes to long... but money dosent matter we have money... shoot we just pulled another 800 billon out our butts and we are in debt No the justice system IS fine for that, its there so we don't kill or imprison innocents.. And the second part makes you hypocritical.. First you make a side for money, than you act like it doesn't mean anything.. If you hadn't noticed we are in recession, and we are close to 60 trillion dollars in debt when you factor in the social security crisis... So basically you still want it? When it doesn't act as a deterrent, it costs tons of money.. The two main reasons why people thought it was a good idea are not there.
[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="BrainScramble05"] That's gross. To be honest, I wouldn't say that slowly dismembering a psycho would make you much better than him. The eye-for-an-eye philosphy is stupid and primitive. Anyway, innocents get caught in the death penalty in the end. You have to ask yourself, even if they're in the minority; is it worth it?sSubZerOoEye-for-an-eye is not stupid, though I don't know if I would argue against primitive. It is also justice. Justice isn't pretty or set up for the 11 o'clock news. Justice is the repayment for ones crimes, considering intent and the act itself. I will admit there is a chance for the innocent to be caught up in the prosecution, however, the cases I am detailing for consideration for the DS (not all homicide) are those extreme enough to warrant a thorough investigation and the jury must be convinced, knowing full well, what the consequences of the verdict would be. Thank god you don't run the society.. Yes an eye for an eye is stupid, all it is, is retribution.. And other for the death penalty, an eye for an eye doesn't take in effect.. It solves nothing and all it does is justify more violence. You're right; it's a good thing I don't run the society. I don't allow for weakness. Not retribution, justice. The elimination of a serial killer/rapist serves multiple issues. (1) The crimes will no longer be perpetrated by that individual ever again; even prisons have escapes. (2) It serves as a lesson to others that think to do the same. (3) It lets the family/friends know that the person who caused the suffering and visited harm upon the victim has received his/her just reward.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] I'll do it, that's fine. It's not violating human rights. A serial killer forgoes his "right to life" when he commits his crimes. And it's not saying that those actions are acceptable on the whole, merely in certain situations.muthsera666Actually they do inless decided by a judge/jury.. Furthermore TORTURE is a no no.. They do not torture ever, your as sick as the serial killer.. Your basically trying to justfiy a sick act by torturing and dismembering them, your no better than they are. Calling me as mentally debased as a human that repeated rapes children, or kills for fun is a lack of a successful argument on your part. Justice cares not for the perceptions of others, but that the perpetrator is made to pay for the crimes he committed. In some cases, jail is sufficient; in other cases, it's not enough to repay for the amount of pain and suffering they have inflicted. I'm not justifying torture, I'm saying it can be just in the proper situation. I see so the end justify the means? Yeah you are.. You just said that you would dismember a heinous person for "justice" that is justifiying torture.. And yes you are mentally debased if you will troture a guy like a serial killer would.. Lets have you do this, go track down a guy and torture and murde rhim.. Lets go see how hte law sees you than. lol.
[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"][QUOTE="muthsera666"]In all honesty, I don't whole-heartedly support the death penalty. However, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was a serial killer or a serial rapist, the same should be done to them. If they raped and then dismembered their victims while they were still alive, that person should receive the same (with a different instrument) and should slowly be dismembered. Not all cases of homicide should result in the DS, as not all homicides are intentional, or if they are, they might not necessarily be heinous. And, to stop the question, no. Killing serial killers/rapists does not make me as bad as them. It is an adapted form of the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. It makes me a representative of justice, and I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep over killing a murderer. Ironically (or maybe logically) I love the show Dexter. That guy doesn't have to worry about the legal system. He proves beyond a doubt that the individual in question is a murderer, and then dispatches them from the world. It saves the world that much more suffering. Additionally, it's not about what is cheaper, but justice. Serial killers should not have the luxuries that many prisons now contain.muthsera666That's gross. To be honest, I wouldn't say that slowly dismembering a psycho would make you much better than him. The eye-for-an-eye philosphy is stupid and primitive. Anyway, innocents get caught in the death penalty in the end. You have to ask yourself, even if they're in the minority; is it worth it? Eye-for-an-eye is not stupid, though I don't know if I would argue against primitive. It is also justice. Justice isn't pretty or set up for the 11 o'clock news. Justice is the repayment for ones crimes, considering intent and the act itself. I will admit there is a chance for the innocent to be caught up in the prosecution, however, the cases I am detailing for consideration for the DS (not all homicide) are those extreme enough to warrant a thorough investigation and the jury must be convinced, knowing full well, what the consequences of the verdict would be. What did Yoda say? "Be careful when you stare at the Dark Side, for it stares back at you." or something like that. If you were to equally repay every criminal for the crimes he committed, you'd degrade yourself. There's no reason to kill prisoners, especially if it only serves to fulfill your expectations of the legal system. Jedi never kill their prisoners. I see people here that support the death penalty seem to do so out of impulse; they don't seem to take into account any other practical implication and insist that this is the only true form of justice.
[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Actually they do inless decided by a judge/jury.. Furthermore TORTURE is a no no.. They do not torture ever, your as sick as the serial killer.. Your basically trying to justfiy a sick act by torturing and dismembering them, your no better than they are.sSubZerOoCalling me as mentally debased as a human that repeated rapes children, or kills for fun is a lack of a successful argument on your part. Justice cares not for the perceptions of others, but that the perpetrator is made to pay for the crimes he committed. In some cases, jail is sufficient; in other cases, it's not enough to repay for the amount of pain and suffering they have inflicted. I'm not justifying torture, I'm saying it can be just in the proper situation. I see so the end justify the means? Yeah you are.. You just said that you would dismember a heinous person for "justice" that is justifiying torture.. And yes you are mentally debased if you will troture a guy like a serial killer would.. Lets have you do this, go track down a guy and torture and murde rhim.. Lets go see how hte law sees you than. lol. The ends do justify the means in certain cases. I would dismember a person for duty and justice who dismembered others for fun. If I tracked down a random guy to do this, it would violate what I already said. Only once a court of law has determined that the individual is guilty of the crimes. It almost seems as though you aren't paying attention to what I write...
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] Eye-for-an-eye is not stupid, though I don't know if I would argue against primitive. It is also justice. Justice isn't pretty or set up for the 11 o'clock news. Justice is the repayment for ones crimes, considering intent and the act itself. I will admit there is a chance for the innocent to be caught up in the prosecution, however, the cases I am detailing for consideration for the DS (not all homicide) are those extreme enough to warrant a thorough investigation and the jury must be convinced, knowing full well, what the consequences of the verdict would be.muthsera666Thank god you don't run the society.. Yes an eye for an eye is stupid, all it is, is retribution.. And other for the death penalty, an eye for an eye doesn't take in effect.. It solves nothing and all it does is justify more violence. You're right; it's a good thing I don't run the society. I don't allow for weakness. Not retribution, justice. The elimination of a serial killer/rapist serves multiple issues. (1) The crimes will no longer be perpetrated by that individual ever again; even prisons have escapes. (2) It serves as a lesson to others that think to do the same. (3) It lets the family/friends know that the person who caused the suffering and visited harm upon the victim has received his/her just reward. 1) Maximum security makes it niegh impossible to escape from.. People like Charlie Manson are in maximum security and in solitary confinement for his entire life... 2) No it does not, your a tyrant.. Maybe you should move to China or Saudi Arabia they have quite "progressive" justice systems in your mind.. The death penalty has never been a deterrent ever.. 3) That is sick appeasement,, That isn't justice, that is just another justification to committ murder.. Killing will not make things better, and it further slips the values of our nation.. Strong you say? I think death penalty is that for a WEAK society.. A society that will bend its values and ideals from the slightest sign of turbulence.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] Calling me as mentally debased as a human that repeated rapes children, or kills for fun is a lack of a successful argument on your part. Justice cares not for the perceptions of others, but that the perpetrator is made to pay for the crimes he committed. In some cases, jail is sufficient; in other cases, it's not enough to repay for the amount of pain and suffering they have inflicted. I'm not justifying torture, I'm saying it can be just in the proper situation.muthsera666I see so the end justify the means? Yeah you are.. You just said that you would dismember a heinous person for "justice" that is justifiying torture.. And yes you are mentally debased if you will troture a guy like a serial killer would.. Lets have you do this, go track down a guy and torture and murde rhim.. Lets go see how hte law sees you than. lol. The ends do justify the means in certain cases. I would dismember a person for duty and justice who dismembered others for fun. If I tracked down a random guy to do this, it would violate what I already said. Only once a court of law has determined that the individual is guilty of the crimes. It almost seems as though you aren't paying attention to what I write... What justice does torturing a person give? You do know the nations that do this right? Places like China and Saudi Arabia.. And we all know they are so "progressive" and advanced. Thank god a court would never pass ths sick twisted act, perhapes you should have lived in the dark ages, rather than the modern age.
[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="BrainScramble05"] That's gross. To be honest, I wouldn't say that slowly dismembering a psycho would make you much better than him. The eye-for-an-eye philosphy is stupid and primitive. Anyway, innocents get caught in the death penalty in the end. You have to ask yourself, even if they're in the minority; is it worth it?BrainScramble05Eye-for-an-eye is not stupid, though I don't know if I would argue against primitive. It is also justice. Justice isn't pretty or set up for the 11 o'clock news. Justice is the repayment for ones crimes, considering intent and the act itself. I will admit there is a chance for the innocent to be caught up in the prosecution, however, the cases I am detailing for consideration for the DS (not all homicide) are those extreme enough to warrant a thorough investigation and the jury must be convinced, knowing full well, what the consequences of the verdict would be. What did Yoda say? "Be careful when you stare at the Dark Side, for it stares back at you." or something like that. If you were to equally repay every criminal for the crimes he committed, you'd degrade yourself. There's no reason to kill prisoners, especially if it only serves to fulfill your expectations of the legal system. Jedi never kill their prisoners. I see people here that support the death penalty seem to do so out of impulse; they don't seem to take into account any other practical implication and insist that this is the only true form of justice. Or Nietzsche "If you stare into Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you." I didn't say to repay every criminal in the exact same way. As I already said, prison for some is justice served. And guess what. The Jedi were wiped out by the Sith. And I don't support the DS out of impulse. It is a conclusion I have reached after careful consideration on several occasions. There are several kinds of people who forfeit their right to live among humans.
[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] Eye-for-an-eye is not stupid, though I don't know if I would argue against primitive. It is also justice. Justice isn't pretty or set up for the 11 o'clock news. Justice is the repayment for ones crimes, considering intent and the act itself. I will admit there is a chance for the innocent to be caught up in the prosecution, however, the cases I am detailing for consideration for the DS (not all homicide) are those extreme enough to warrant a thorough investigation and the jury must be convinced, knowing full well, what the consequences of the verdict would be.muthsera666What did Yoda say? "Be careful when you stare at the Dark Side, for it stares back at you." or something like that. If you were to equally repay every criminal for the crimes he committed, you'd degrade yourself. There's no reason to kill prisoners, especially if it only serves to fulfill your expectations of the legal system. Jedi never kill their prisoners. I see people here that support the death penalty seem to do so out of impulse; they don't seem to take into account any other practical implication and insist that this is the only true form of justice. Or Nietzsche "If you stare into Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you." I didn't say to repay every criminal in the exact same way. As I already said, prison for some is justice served. And guess what. The Jedi were wiped out by the Sith. And I don't support the DS out of impulse. It is a conclusion I have reached after careful consideration on several occasions. There are several kinds of people who forfeit their right to live among humans. And you become that person when you commit those acts on them.. If you were a vigilante and caught a heinous person and committed the crime he/she committed on several others.. You would be tried for murder and other numerous things.. Furthermore every one around you would not trust you what so ever any more, that you were capable of doing that to a human being.. you are like "Hey its ok! He did some horrible things so I was jusified by it".. Yeah right, people would think you just as sick as the guy you murdered.
[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Thank god you don't run the society.. Yes an eye for an eye is stupid, all it is, is retribution.. And other for the death penalty, an eye for an eye doesn't take in effect.. It solves nothing and all it does is justify more violence.sSubZerOoYou're right; it's a good thing I don't run the society. I don't allow for weakness. Not retribution, justice. The elimination of a serial killer/rapist serves multiple issues. (1) The crimes will no longer be perpetrated by that individual ever again; even prisons have escapes. (2) It serves as a lesson to others that think to do the same. (3) It lets the family/friends know that the person who caused the suffering and visited harm upon the victim has received his/her just reward. 1) Maximum security makes it niegh impossible to escape from.. People like Charlie Manson are in maximum security and in solitary confinement for his entire life... 2) No it does not, your a tyrant.. Maybe you should move to China or Saudi Arabia they have quite "progressive" justice systems in your mind.. The death penalty has never been a deterrent ever.. 3) That is sick appeasement,, That isn't justice, that is just another justification to committ murder.. Killing will not make things better, and it further slips the values of our nation.. Strong you say? I think death penalty is that for a WEAK society.. A society that will bend its values and ideals from the slightest sign of turbulence. (1) Nevertheless, escape remains possible. Guards can be bribed, security bypassed. The only guarantee is the death of the individual in question. (2) I'm not a tyrant, though perhaps I believe in justice, unlike others. And maybe I like where I live. I won't make personal attacks, for they are signs of a weak intellect. (3) Repayment for your crimes is justice. Killing can make things better. The values of our nation should be that we will not tolerate the existence of this grade of human. The DS is for a strong society. An ethical society. A society wherein we stand for values that should remain even when there are those who attempt to prey upon the members who are at that point unable to defend themselves.
[QUOTE="bsman00"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Maybe you should actually RESEARCH the subject.. Because when you factor in the tons of appeals that all people who get the death penalty due, it costs many times more than if they were in prison. And 3-4 years is extremely fast usually alot of cases take 10 to 15.sSubZerOoI agree the process takes to long... but money dosent matter we have money... shoot we just pulled another 800 billon out our butts and we are in debt No the justice system IS fine for that, its there so we don't kill or imprison innocents.. And the second part makes you hypocritical.. First you make a side for money, than you act like it doesn't mean anything.. If you hadn't noticed we are in recession, and we are close to 60 trillion dollars in debt when you factor in the social security crisis... So basically you still want it? When it doesn't act as a deterrent, it costs tons of money.. The two main reasons why people thought it was a good idea are not there. What i meant about money is we can make money appear when its needed... we are in debt like you said 60 trillion dollars... so where did we get 800 biilion MORE dollars... we simple just printed more of it or just said hey we have 800 billion dollars now.... money is not even real... but thats a whole other subject... Every person who commits a crime should have trial of couse to make sure they are in fact guilty...still just saying some people, crimes deserve death as the punisment... i dont care if it cost more... they could easily make it cost less by once they find out said person is guilty and the punishment was death.. they should just go back outside the court house and hang em... it would be real cheap.... its this system that make it cost more.
[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="BrainScramble05"] What did Yoda say? "Be careful when you stare at the Dark Side, for it stares back at you." or something like that. If you were to equally repay every criminal for the crimes he committed, you'd degrade yourself. There's no reason to kill prisoners, especially if it only serves to fulfill your expectations of the legal system. Jedi never kill their prisoners. I see people here that support the death penalty seem to do so out of impulse; they don't seem to take into account any other practical implication and insist that this is the only true form of justice.sSubZerOoOr Nietzsche "If you stare into Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you." I didn't say to repay every criminal in the exact same way. As I already said, prison for some is justice served. And guess what. The Jedi were wiped out by the Sith. And I don't support the DS out of impulse. It is a conclusion I have reached after careful consideration on several occasions. There are several kinds of people who forfeit their right to live among humans. And you become that person when you commit those acts on them.. If you were a vigilante and caught a heinous person and committed the crime he/she committed on several others.. You would be tried for murder and other numerous things.. Furthermore every one around you would not trust you what so ever any more, that you were capable of doing that to a human being.. you are like "Hey its ok! He did some horrible things so I was jusified by it".. Yeah right, people would think you just as sick as the guy you murdered. Never once did I say that Vigilantism was to be praised on performed. It seems as though you really aren't reading what I write... Again, justice is not pretty, not ugly; justice is just. Some people do not have the strength that is needed to act in a just manner.
[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] Eye-for-an-eye is not stupid, though I don't know if I would argue against primitive. It is also justice. Justice isn't pretty or set up for the 11 o'clock news. Justice is the repayment for ones crimes, considering intent and the act itself. I will admit there is a chance for the innocent to be caught up in the prosecution, however, the cases I am detailing for consideration for the DS (not all homicide) are those extreme enough to warrant a thorough investigation and the jury must be convinced, knowing full well, what the consequences of the verdict would be.muthsera666What did Yoda say? "Be careful when you stare at the Dark Side, for it stares back at you." or something like that. If you were to equally repay every criminal for the crimes he committed, you'd degrade yourself. There's no reason to kill prisoners, especially if it only serves to fulfill your expectations of the legal system. Jedi never kill their prisoners. I see people here that support the death penalty seem to do so out of impulse; they don't seem to take into account any other practical implication and insist that this is the only true form of justice. Or Nietzsche "If you stare into Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you." I didn't say to repay every criminal in the exact same way. As I already said, prison for some is justice served. And guess what. The Jedi were wiped out by the Sith. And I don't support the DS out of impulse. It is a conclusion I have reached after careful consideration on several occasions. There are several kinds of people who forfeit their right to live among humans. Why the heck did this Nietzsche copy Yoda? No one can unwillingly lose their right to live unless it is taken away from them. It's a disgusting method altogether; an attempt to reduce crimes through cruelty. It is the work of tyrants and human civilizations as a whole have progressed when extreme physical punishments were no longer acceptable. It comes out of a sadistic ingenuity to inflict pain and kill. I could never see killing your own prisoners as just. That is why I advocate that people should be kind. A large part of the world doesn't need it and it can get along just fine; it just isn't necessary.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] You're right; it's a good thing I don't run the society. I don't allow for weakness. Not retribution, justice. The elimination of a serial killer/rapist serves multiple issues. (1) The crimes will no longer be perpetrated by that individual ever again; even prisons have escapes. (2) It serves as a lesson to others that think to do the same. (3) It lets the family/friends know that the person who caused the suffering and visited harm upon the victim has received his/her just reward.muthsera6661) Maximum security makes it niegh impossible to escape from.. People like Charlie Manson are in maximum security and in solitary confinement for his entire life... 2) No it does not, your a tyrant.. Maybe you should move to China or Saudi Arabia they have quite "progressive" justice systems in your mind.. The death penalty has never been a deterrent ever.. 3) That is sick appeasement,, That isn't justice, that is just another justification to committ murder.. Killing will not make things better, and it further slips the values of our nation.. Strong you say? I think death penalty is that for a WEAK society.. A society that will bend its values and ideals from the slightest sign of turbulence. (1) Nevertheless, escape remains possible. Guards can be bribed, security bypassed. The only guarantee is the death of the individual in question. (2) I'm not a tyrant, though perhaps I believe in justice, unlike others. And maybe I like where I live. I won't make personal attacks, for they are signs of a weak intellect. (3) Repayment for your crimes is justice. Killing can make things better. The values of our nation should be that we will not tolerate the existence of this grade of human. The DS is for a strong society. An ethical society. A society wherein we stand for values that should remain even when there are those who attempt to prey upon the members who are at that point unable to defend themselves.
Your ideals of justice, not the ideals of this nation.. No matter how you twist it, your ideas of justice do not represent the US's or any western nation for that matter. SO hence what you think is justice isn't really justice what so ever.. The laws pplaced in these nations are for order, security, and harmony.. Your torture fits no where in there, and infacts debase the ones before that.. Becuase what its saying is basically the government is above the law, and are able to do anythign what so ever.. And your part about the bribing and the possibility of escape is two fold.. A corrupt government can commit people to a heiouns death of torture even when they are innocent.. Ther eare lines not to cross and you want them crossed, and I honestly think its hilarious that you some how think you would have the stomach to cut some one up having them scream and cry.. Either you have no idea of what your talking about, or I question your sanity that you would be capable of doing somehting like that to another person.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] Or Nietzsche "If you stare into Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you." I didn't say to repay every criminal in the exact same way. As I already said, prison for some is justice served. And guess what. The Jedi were wiped out by the Sith. And I don't support the DS out of impulse. It is a conclusion I have reached after careful consideration on several occasions. There are several kinds of people who forfeit their right to live among humans.muthsera666And you become that person when you commit those acts on them.. If you were a vigilante and caught a heinous person and committed the crime he/she committed on several others.. You would be tried for murder and other numerous things.. Furthermore every one around you would not trust you what so ever any more, that you were capable of doing that to a human being.. you are like "Hey its ok! He did some horrible things so I was jusified by it".. Yeah right, people would think you just as sick as the guy you murdered. Never once did I say that Vigilantism was to be praised on performed. It seems as though you really aren't reading what I write... Again, justice is not pretty, not ugly; justice is just. Some people do not have the strength that is needed to act in a just manner. I find it hilarious that you keep on thinking your twisted ideals of justice is the true one.. When they do not match any first world country we know of.. Including the United States, even our death penalties considered awful are humane and usually painless.. Torturing people will not stop crime and it will only commit a double standard to a hypocritical government.. And its ironic that you suggest and eye for an eye.. A religious term, something that was in the OLD testament.. The testament were god killed all sorts of people at his/her whim even if they were innocent.. The justice of the western nations do not represent your view of justice what so ever..
[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="BrainScramble05"] What did Yoda say? "Be careful when you stare at the Dark Side, for it stares back at you." or something like that. If you were to equally repay every criminal for the crimes he committed, you'd degrade yourself. There's no reason to kill prisoners, especially if it only serves to fulfill your expectations of the legal system. Jedi never kill their prisoners. I see people here that support the death penalty seem to do so out of impulse; they don't seem to take into account any other practical implication and insist that this is the only true form of justice.BrainScramble05Or Nietzsche "If you stare into Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you." I didn't say to repay every criminal in the exact same way. As I already said, prison for some is justice served. And guess what. The Jedi were wiped out by the Sith. And I don't support the DS out of impulse. It is a conclusion I have reached after careful consideration on several occasions. There are several kinds of people who forfeit their right to live among humans. Why the heck did this Nietzsche copy Yoda? No one can unwillingly lose their right to live unless it is taken away from them. It's a disgusting method altogether; an attempt to reduce crimes through cruelty. It is the work of tyrants and human civilizations as a whole have progressed when extreme physical punishments were no longer acceptable. It comes out of a sadistic ingenuity to inflict pain and kill. I could never see killing your own prisoners as just. That is why I advocate that people should be kind. A large part of the world doesn't need it and it can get along just fine; it just isn't necessary. You're kidding about the Yoda thing, right? The right to life is contingent upon the manner by which you treat fellow humans. It is not sadism; sadism is pain for the sake of pleasure. This is in the interest of justice. I wish that these considerations were not necessary, but until fiends such as these cease to plague the species, they must be dealt with. Kindness is all well and good, and a great ideal to live toward. I would love it if the entire world could get along, and we could respect the beliefs of others. That would make me incredibly happy. Sadly, that won't happen for a while yet, so we must live in the imperfect world, where some individuals take pleasure in raping and murdering those who have not infringed upon the perpetrator. They must be punished.
[QUOTE="BrainScramble05"][QUOTE="muthsera666"] Or Nietzsche "If you stare into Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back into you." I didn't say to repay every criminal in the exact same way. As I already said, prison for some is justice served. And guess what. The Jedi were wiped out by the Sith. And I don't support the DS out of impulse. It is a conclusion I have reached after careful consideration on several occasions. There are several kinds of people who forfeit their right to live among humans.muthsera666Why the heck did this Nietzsche copy Yoda? No one can unwillingly lose their right to live unless it is taken away from them. It's a disgusting method altogether; an attempt to reduce crimes through cruelty. It is the work of tyrants and human civilizations as a whole have progressed when extreme physical punishments were no longer acceptable. It comes out of a sadistic ingenuity to inflict pain and kill. I could never see killing your own prisoners as just. That is why I advocate that people should be kind. A large part of the world doesn't need it and it can get along just fine; it just isn't necessary. You're kidding about the Yoda thing, right? The right to life is contingent upon the manner by which you treat fellow humans. It is not sadism; sadism is pain for the sake of pleasure. This is in the interest of justice. I wish that these considerations were not necessary, but until fiends such as these cease to plague the species, they must be dealt with. Kindness is all well and good, and a great ideal to live toward. I would love it if the entire world could get along, and we could respect the beliefs of others. That would make me incredibly happy. Sadly, that won't happen for a while yet, so we must live in the imperfect world, where some individuals take pleasure in raping and murdering those who have not infringed upon the perpetrator. They must be punished. Where does torture of the preson fit into justice? Justice is about order, not appeasement or retribution.. Torturing a prisoner does not solve anything in our society, and it warps are perceptions of human rights. drunk drivers who hit people arn't tied into a car or tree to hav ea car hit them, they are given time in prison.. We do not follow an eye for an eye, when we did it was dark ages.
[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] And you become that person when you commit those acts on them.. If you were a vigilante and caught a heinous person and committed the crime he/she committed on several others.. You would be tried for murder and other numerous things.. Furthermore every one around you would not trust you what so ever any more, that you were capable of doing that to a human being.. you are like "Hey its ok! He did some horrible things so I was jusified by it".. Yeah right, people would think you just as sick as the guy you murdered.sSubZerOoNever once did I say that Vigilantism was to be praised on performed. It seems as though you really aren't reading what I write... Again, justice is not pretty, not ugly; justice is just. Some people do not have the strength that is needed to act in a just manner. I find it hilarious that you keep on thinking your twisted ideals of justice is the true one.. When they do not match any first world country we know of.. Including the United States, even our death penalties considered awful are humane and usually painless.. Torturing people will not stop crime and it will only commit a double standard to a hypocritical government.. And its ironic that you suggest and eye for an eye.. A religious term, something that was in the OLD testament.. The testament were god killed all sorts of people at his/her whim even if they were innocent.. The justice of the western nations do not represent your view of justice what so ever.. Justice is what justice is. I will listen to what others interpret justice to be, but you have offered no definitions, just an emotional response that it is bad to hurt people... I do not advocate torturing people, just executing them in the manner by which they murdered. An eye-for-an-eye is not only a Christian idea. Hammurabi also developed this idea. I arrived at this conclusion completely independent of Christian theology.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment