The execution of a Georgia man who murdered a cop on the side of the road in 1998 has been scheduled

[mastfire]

im watching hardtimes on netflix about prison life in georgia

[Soret]

Would be easier to spend one bullet at a time in their head then these "injections".

[Matrix374]

[QUOTE=wauterboi;46872466]Oh, no, I'm trying to make the case that I actually want people to live and want to make a productive life for them and out of them.[/QUOTE]

Oh I got what you mean but I'm just pointing out that you can still do a lot of what you've said in the earlier parts of your post and still kill the guy

[Dah]

I think the focus of a lot of this discussion is the punishment. Have we not rose above the death penalty? As it's been said countless times in this thread, keeping someone for life is cheaper than the death penalty. I believe the main purpose of a prison is to rehabilitate. There could be some mental issues there that could have caused him to act that way. He went from dancing in the street prodding the officer to shoot him to brutally murdering him in less than 5 minutes. The man was a Vietnam vet and clearly has some anger issues. If he can get his illness/disorder controlled (if he has one), then he could be allowed back into society. If not (or if an illness/disorder is not present) then the purpose of the prison should be to seclude him from the rest of society. He doesn't need to "rot in prison," he would just have to live the rest of his days out in seclusion.

[AxeI]

[QUOTE=valkery;46871758]And arguing, as you are, about the "needless loss of life" involved in carrying out an execution like this, it's important to realize that it's a loss of life regardless of the time in which the life is lost, and it should be far more efficient/practical/painless to cause it to cease now than it would be to wait forty years.[/QUOTE]
This is extremely retarded: According to that logic, we might as well kill off people in retirement houses because they're gonna die eventually.
[QUOTE]Not that it actually is better in reality, or that all cases involving the death penalty end up with the proper person dying, but in a more practical world, we wouldn't get worked up over some murdering bastard getting a few inches taken off the top.[/QUOTE]
In a more practical world, we wouldn't have the death penalty in the first place because it serves absolutely no practical purpose.
[QUOTE]Sometimes it's important to understand why someone did something and work with them to prevent it happening again, and other times it's better just to go "you murdered a cop, you were on videotape, you admitted to the crime, you can't be rehabilitated, let's just kill you and move on."[/QUOTE]
For what purpose other than your psychopathic bloodlust?
[QUOTE]None of this is to say that I agree with the use of the death penalty in any but the most clear-cut, open/closed cases that exist. This one would be a prime example, and it's probably one of the very few where I would advocate killing the perp. Anything other than a case like this and it becomes "what if the guy we're going to kill didn't actually do anything," and in a case with any degree of uncertainty, execution should not be on the table.[/QUOTE]
That's ignoring the very important factor of [B]why the fuck do we have to kill perps in the first place.[/B]

[wauterboi]

[QUOTE=Matrix374;46874199]Oh I got what you mean but I'm just pointing out that you can still do a lot of what you've said in the earlier parts of your post and still kill the guy[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I don't think all life is valuable. I'm very glad some people are dead, honestly. I don't think that everyone has a guaranteed right to life.

I think I may have misconstrued myself when I said that I don't trust our government to decide whether someone lives or dies. What I should have said is I don't really trust anyone to make that decision, with the exception of defense. I tend to disagree with capital punishment because it brings up the problem of deciding where to draw the line. What should be punishable by death? What shouldn't be punishable by death? Who makes the call? Can I trust them? I especially don't trust our legal system which is corrupt beyond belief and favors those with money, but even on a good day I'm not sure if I would feel comfortable giving that power to the government. It's just far too much.

I have genuine heart-crushing empathy for the insane, as I have explained before, and I wish that we could make them something positive and productive towards prevention - prevention of pedophilia, prevention of murder, positive societal influence towards mental health, etc. However, when you take all of that away, as in the case of this Georgia man, I see no point of them living. He's a danger to everyone around him so long as he is alive and mentally unkempt - and that includes prison guards. No one is going to go the extra mile to actually care for him, so I think it would be the most humane to end his life. There is nothing after jail, and our prison system does not foster people for the better. I look at capital punishment as something [I]for[/I] the prisoner seeing as we, as a society, have failed our society with our prison system.

That probably sounds hypocritical, right? I'm a big bag of bones and conflicted thoughts, and I've always been open to what others have to say so long as I am not insulted as I try to learn and understand. I cannot reach a resolution on the issue. I wish [I]not[/I] for death, but at our current state of society, it's probably the better option in some cases.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46875476]This is extremely retarded[/QUOTE]

Please try your best not to be the cancer that has taken over Sensationalist Headlines. State your opinion, but don't be a condescending jerk to people you disagree with.

[AxeI]

[QUOTE=wauterboi;46875604]Honestly, I don't think all life is valuable. I'm very glad some people are dead, honestly. I don't think that everyone has a guaranteed right to life.

I think I may have misconstrued myself when I said that I don't trust our government to decide whether someone lives or dies. What I should have said is I don't really trust anyone to make that decision, with the exception of defense. I tend to disagree with capital punishment because it brings up the problem of deciding where to draw the line. What should be punishable by death? What shouldn't be punishable by death? Who makes the call? Can I trust them? I especially don't trust our legal system which is corrupt beyond belief and favors those with money, but even on a good day I'm not sure if I would feel comfortable giving that power to the government. It's just far too much.

I have genuine heart-crushing empathy for the insane, as I have explained before, and I wish that we could make them something positive and productive towards prevention - prevention of pedophilia, prevention of murder, positive societal influence towards mental health, etc. However, when you take all of that away, as in the case of this Georgia man, I see no point of them living. He's a danger to everyone around him so long as he is alive and mentally unkempt - and that includes prison guards. No one is going to go the extra mile to actually care for him, so I think it would be the most humane to end his life. There is nothing after jail, and our prison system does not foster people for the better. I look at capital punishment as something [I]for[/I] the prisoner seeing as we, as a society, have failed our society with our prison system.

That probably sounds hypocritical, right? I'm a big bag of bones and conflicted thoughts, and I've always been open to what others have to say so long as I am not insulted as I try to learn and understand. I cannot reach a resolution on the issue. I wish [I]not[/I] for death, but at our current state of society, it's probably the better option in some cases.[/QUOTE]
I think the biggest problem with that reasoning is that you ask yourself "What should be punishable by death?" rather than "In what case would capital punishment serve a purpose?". So far I haven't seen any justification for that other than simple desire of revenge or issues that can as easily be solved with a life sentence.
You may see no reason for them to live, but there's no reason for them to die either. That you construe it as some kind of mercy kill is especially concerning to me. If dying is an easier way out for them, [B]give them the actual choice of being euthanized[/B] rather than sentence them to death as an arbitrary punishment.

[valkery]

[QUOTE=_Axel;46875476]This is extremely retarded: According to that logic, we might as well kill off people in retirement houses because they're gonna die eventually.

In a more practical world, we wouldn't have the death penalty in the first place because it serves absolutely no practical purpose.

For what purpose other than your psychopathic bloodlust?

That's ignoring the very important factor of [B]why the fuck do we have to kill perps in the first place.[/B][/QUOTE]

First point: not the same. Not even close. I'm talking about people who are without question either multiple homicide murderers, serial rapists, cannibals, or single time murderers who have the potential to do it again and are impossible to reform

Second point: you don't understand the word practical.

Third point: it's not psychopathic bloodlust, it's impartial recourse for a set of actions taken on by one individual against others. In cases like this one, where the perp was clearly a violent murderer, and unlikely, if not impossible to reform, the death sentence is a means to an end that cuts out what amounts to a lifetime of psychological torture in a correctional facility, and hassle on the part of the guards.

Fourth point: The rest of my posts explain why I believe we should have it around for only the most deviant and clearly guilty of perpetrators. In no way do I condone the use of the death penalty for anything but the most open/shut cases and the most violent of perpetrators.

[AxeI]

[QUOTE=valkery;46876443]First point: not the same. Not even close. I'm talking about people who are without question either multiple homicide murderers, serial rapists, cannibals, or single time murderers who have the potential to do it again and are impossible to reform[/QUOTE]
But using the logic displayed in your argument we can apply that to innocent people too. That it only applies to murderers is an arbitrary decision on your part.
[QUOTE]Second point: you don't understand the word practical.
[/QUOTE]
How so?
[QUOTE]
Third point: it's not psychopathic bloodlust, it's impartial recourse for a set of actions taken on by one individual against others. In cases like this one, where the perp was clearly a violent murderer, and unlikely, if not impossible to reform, the death sentence is a means to an end that cuts out what amounts to a lifetime of psychological torture in a correctional facility, and hassle on the part of the guards.
[/QUOTE]
If it really is psychological torture to him why not simply give him the choice of dying instead of imposing it on him?
[QUOTE]
Fourth point: The rest of my posts explain why I believe we should have it around for only the most deviant and clearly guilty of perpetrators. In no way do I condone the use of the death penalty for anything but the most open/shut cases and the most violent of perpetrators.[/QUOTE]
I may have missed these posts so I won't say anything about that yet.

[RoboChimp2]

[QUOTE=valkery;46876443]First point: not the same. Not even close. I'm talking about people who are without question either multiple homicide murderers, serial rapists, cannibals, or single time murderers who have the potential to do it again and are impossible to reform

Second point: you don't understand the word practical.

Third point: it's not psychopathic bloodlust, it's impartial recourse for a set of actions taken on by one individual against others. In cases like this one, where the perp was clearly a violent murderer, and unlikely, if not impossible to reform, the death sentence is a means to an end that cuts out what amounts to a lifetime of psychological torture in a correctional facility, and hassle on the part of the guards.

Fourth point: The rest of my posts explain why I believe we should have it around for only the most deviant and clearly guilty of perpetrators. In no way do I condone the use of the death penalty for anything but the most open/shut cases and the most violent of perpetrators.[/QUOTE]There is no excuse for capital punishment. Those who have no issues with it tend to be sociopathic them selves in some way. No one wants the blood thirsty psychopaths gone more than me, but capital punishment is not the answer.

[AxeI]

[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46876608]Those who have no issues with it tend to be sociopathic them selves in some way.[/QUOTE]
Let's not needlessly generalize that demographic though. I realize I may have been overly sour towards Valkery by categorizing him as bloodthirsty. While I think his logic is flawed, I doubt it stems from bad intent.

[editline]7th January 2015[/editline]

[QUOTE=valkery;46876443]Fourth point: The rest of my posts explain why I believe we should have it around for only the most deviant and clearly guilty of perpetrators. In no way do I condone the use of the death penalty for anything but the most open/shut cases and the most violent of perpetrators.[/QUOTE]
I've gone through your recent posts and the only other one I see in this thread is the one I originally quoted. Are you sure you're not thinking about an other thread?