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

[QUOTE=ghosevil;46860604]You think American soldiers weren't yelling anything but the worst profanity at their enemies when they were trading bullets in Europe? Or Vietnam?? Or Afghanistan??? " SORRY fucker! " screamed no one ever when they killed someone in combat.[/QUOTE] You aren't supposed to execute incapacitated combatants unless roe allows it, what most of the time it doesn't. Him saying some mean words only cements that he was fully aware and showed no regret in what he did. Real servicemen and women yell swears because enemy combatants are actively trying to kill them, not trying to pull them over and talk to them.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860808]"Staying alive regardless of actions" has never been a basic human right. Access to a fair trail and a just decision, however, is one. Whether or not killing a man for heinous crimes is right or not falls upon the society's justice system and doesn't fall upon the general conception of human rights. Besides, life sentence and death sentence accomplish the same goal and exist for the same purpose, at least on an ideal standpoint. You take an individual that has proven to be an absolute unsolvable threat to society and you put him away so he doesn't pose a bigger threat. At this point it stops being punishment and it starts being containment. Whether you decide to execute the individual to just get rid of him or keep him around in a cell until he dies is up to you and your conception of what's the most moral thing to do (some would argue that keeping a psychopath that can't be treated locked in a cell 24/7 until he dies is a worse fate than just killing him outright).[/QUOTE] Are you really saying that staying alive is and should not be a human right?

[QUOTE=Killuah;46860876]Are you really saying that staying alive is and should not be a human right?[/QUOTE] Last time I checked when someone kills a dude he's sentenced for murder, not violation of human rights. There are several lists of human rights made in various declarations and none of them mention "staying alive".

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860884]Last time I checked when someone kills a dude he's sentenced for murder, not violation of human rights.[/QUOTE] Yeah we could argue semantics but I won't do that.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46860892]Yeah we could argue semantics but I won't do that.[/QUOTE] Or we could argue about the fact not a single declaration of human rights ever made mentions the right to outright stay alive under any circumstance including immunity to death penalty or getting killed in warfare. You can look it up wherever you want, there's no mention of a "right to not be killed" as an inalienable human right in any declaration of human rights, recent or old, or anything that comes even remotely close to that. If you're going to invoke a very frequently used notion to back your argument up at least make sure you're actually not contradicting yourself or just making things up.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;46860507]To answer your question simply, I believe Anders Breivik should be dead for murdering 77 people and injuring over 100 more, after going on a rampage with firearms and blowing up a building. Rather than allowing him to continue his meaningless existence in a cell that more closely resembles a dorm room than a prison cell. Breiviks death wouldn't be an eye for an eye, it would be an eye for 77 pairs of eyes that will never see again.[/QUOTE] oh so does execution only become justifiable when it's more than one person? Is it justifiable for 2 or does the number need to be greater? Is the minimum for execution at 50 or 75, or just whatever the judge is feelin' that day?

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46860916]oh so does execution only become justifiable when it's more than one person? Is it justifiable for 2 or does the number need to be greater? Is the minimum for execution at 50 or 75, or just whatever the judge is feelin' that day?[/QUOTE] In my honest opinion the death penalty should be kept for situations where the convicted individual is : - Undeniably guilty of the actions he's sentenced for - Mentally unstable beyond any possibility of rehabilitation or successful treatment - Not showing or expressing any will to live a normal crime-less life, and/or is being extremely aggressive in a restricted environment. If these requirements are met, then you're no longer punishing an individual for a criminal act and you're instead containing an individual who's outright unfit for society, from which point in my opinion it becomes more humane to just terminate them than to keep them around in a cell for the rest of their life.

wait this video was actually a widespread thing? i thought i just found it randomly when i was young and never found it again holy shit videos like this never get to me but this one always horrifies me with the cops screams, it's so awful. glad the guy was caught and sentenced, i was worried he got away

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860899]Or we could argue about the fact not a single declaration of human rights ever made mentions the right to outright stay alive under any circumstance including immunity to death penalty or getting killed in warfare. You can look it up wherever you want, there's no mention of a "right to not be killed" as an inalienable human right in any declaration of human rights, recent or old, or anything that comes even remotely close to that. If you're going to invoke a very frequently used notion to back your argument up at least make sure you're actually not contradicting yourself or just making things up.[/QUOTE] The problem is that what constitutes a right is subjective. Human rights declarations don't matter shit because what is a right varies from one person's mind to the next. No declaration in history could mention freedom from being tortured as a human right, but that doesn't mean I agree.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860899]Or we could argue about the fact not a single declaration of human rights ever made mentions the right to outright stay alive under any circumstance including immunity to death penalty or getting killed in warfare. You can look it up wherever you want, there's no mention of a "right to not be killed" as an inalienable human right in any declaration of human rights, recent or old, or anything that comes even remotely close to that. If you're going to invoke a very frequently used notion to back your argument up at least make sure you're actually not contradicting yourself or just making things up.[/QUOTE] I don't know man you gotta explain your interpretation of "the right to life" to me if you say this.

Again, I fail to see what's the issue with what I'm suggesting. One side wants this guy executed for all kinds of reasons and the other side thinks that human rights get in the way. Then people get into semantics about the cost of resources for keeping him alive or killing him, etc. What is wrong with studying his behavior and using him as a tool for academic progress? It gives a reason for this man to be alive outside of moral standards. No one's talking about how we're going to prevent something like this from happening again. No one knows why this guy lashed out like he did. How about we actually change something for once rather than bickering about whether he should be dead or alive? Squeeze some value out of his life and use him to learn. The fact that legality gets in the way of that is depressing.

Wow holy shit, I remember that video, I had no idea this dragged on for so long.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860937]If these requirements are met, then you're no longer punishing an individual for a criminal act and you're instead containing an individual who's outright unfit for society, from which point in my opinion it becomes more humane to just terminate them than to keep them around in a cell for the rest of their life.[/QUOTE] That is your opinion. I think a human can lead a life in prison that is better than death. Killing potentially healthy living people because you believe it's more humane to do so is kinda disturbing.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46860944]I don't know man you gotta explain your interpretation of "the right to life" to me if you say this.[/QUOTE] "Right to life" extends to "you can't be executed by a superior authority for directly opposing them on a political level" and that's about it. A right to not get murdered is common sense in every society. The human right to life essentially extends this to a right to not get murdered by any government for political opposition. In the universal declaration of human rights, the only mention of right to life is among the following sentence : [quote]Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.[/quote] Which essentially boils down to "everyone should be able to feel safe wherever they go and not fear the king/local lord/president/police/army gunning them down in the street for no reason and without a fair trial". [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46860958]That is your opinion. I think a human can lead a life in prison that is better than death. Killing potentially healthy living people because you believe it's more humane to do so is kinda disturbing.[/QUOTE] If someone is suffering from heavy psychopathy then their life in of itself is a hazard to everyone unless you restrict their movement and actions down to the most basic level at which point you're essentially locking someone up in a box waiting for him to drop dead. If I somehow turned up to suffer from heavy murderous impulse and ended up killing a dozen people one after the other until I was finally caught, I would much rather die and be done being a threat to society and everyone around me than stay in a box for the rest of my life. See the story of that Belgian rapist who demanded and obtained right to be killed to finish his life sentence.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;46860951]Again, I fail to see what's the issue with what I'm suggesting. One side wants this guy executed for all kinds of reasons and the other side thinks that human rights get in the way. Then people get into semantics about the cost of resources for keeping him alive or killing him, etc. What is wrong with studying his behavior and using him as a tool for academic progress? It gives a reason for this man to be alive outside of moral standards. No one's talking about how we're going to prevent something like this from happening again. No one knows why this guy lashed out like he did. How about we actually change something for once rather than bickering about whether he should be dead or alive? Squeeze some value out of his life and use him to learn. The fact that legality gets in the way of that is depressing.[/QUOTE] We already have extensive knowledge and research about the pathology of PTSD an Mental Illness, we don't have to dissect this guys fucking brain to study it. It's like it's so hard for you people to comprehend that "Wow, you can be a fucking sociopath and have PTSD??? Whoda thunk it???"

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860961]If someone is suffering from heavy psychopathy then their life in of itself is a hazard to everyone unless you restrict their movement and actions down to the most basic level at which point you're essentially locking someone up in a box waiting for him to drop dead.[/QUOTE] So? This is again a matter of opinion. It reads like you going, "Ugh, that looks so boring. We should just kill him instead." Reading, writing, art, exercise, spirituality, there are things you can do to make your life fulfilling without being able to go anywhere. Whether or not the US prison system really allows those is a different issue, though. [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860961]If I somehow turned up to suffer from heavy murderous impulse and ended up killing a dozen people one after the other until I was finally caught, I would much rather die and be done being a threat to society and everyone around me than stay in a box for the rest of my life. See the story of that Belgian rapist who demanded and obtained right to be killed to finish his life sentence.[/QUOTE] That's a different issue though. I absolutely believe you should have the right to end your life. What you should also have is freedom from others ending it for you. And you can argue that he forfeited this right after he took it from someone else, but I don't agree. The right to life is the last and most important right. It is the right from which all other rights follow. Rights have no meaning once you're dead. That's why I don't think it should be in the hands of the government to take it, ever. The only circumstance when it should be permissible is when it is in [I]immediate[/I] defense of another's right to life, which the death penalty is not.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46860971]We already have extensive knowledge and research about the pathology of PTSD an Mental Illness, we don't have to dissect this guys fucking brain to study it. It's like it's so hard for you people to comprehend that "Wow, you can be a fucking sociopath and have PTSD??? Whoda thunk it???"[/QUOTE] Wow, man! You cracked the code on this one! I'm sure we won't ever have to do research on other people ever again from now on, because all you need to do is look at face value and never research the causes, the downward spiral, or possibly learn about how this might be prevented in the future. Regardless of the fact that we pay to have this guy live or killed, he's just gotta be hands-off for researchers because we already know of some conditions he has. Good job explaining the what, now explain the why.

I watched this video when I went to basic at Ft Benning. I'll always remember the cop's screams and it bothered me for a good week or so after watching the video, and I'll never forget the cop's name. I didn't know if the suspect was caught and I'm just glad knowing he's been rotting in prison ever since that day. Imo I'd rather him sit in a cell to live through punishment and suffer for the rest of his natural life. Giving him the death sentence would be a more humane option and he doesn't deserve it.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46860979]So? This is again a matter of opinion. It reads like you going, "Ugh, that looks so boring. We should just kill him instead." Reading, writing, art, exercise, spirituality, there are things you can do to make your life fulfilling without being able to go anywhere.[/QUOTE] Hence why one of the ideal criteria I mentioned is extreme aggressiveness in a prison environment. IE if you're actually fully unable to maintain someone in a cell without them setting the mattress on fire and assaulting the guards on sight. There's also the problem of some psychopaths being manipulative and pretending to feel better or pretending to want rehabilitation so they can leave and kill more. It doesn't work often because typically psychiatrists are qualified enough to see through this shit, but when it works as it did a few years back in France then the results are disastrous. As for the case in France, here's the full thing. In 2010, a 17-something years old guy raped a girl. The act was premeditated, heavily planned in advance (he brought her near a tree on which he had preemptively tied some laces to bind her, threatened her with a weapon and then raped her) but he got arrested on the evening because the victim immediately went to the police. Four months later, the guy gets through four consecutive psychiatric examinations and succeeds at each of them. He's considered rehabilitated and joins some other school to start his studies again. Late 2011, he rapes a 13 years old girl, kills her and burns the body. He's one of the only persons in French legal history who's been sentenced to life for a crime committed while underage. There are some people who will just keep committing atrocities one after the other until they're put away for good. These specific people are not salvageable and keeping them around in a cell will do no good.

Why does any of this matter? He's going to be executed whether a group of people on Facepunch disagree with it or not. I think it's better that he's being executed and if you guys aren't, then it sucks to be you because it's going to happen anyway.

[QUOTE=Cypher_09;46861081]Why does any of this matter? He's going to be executed whether a group of people on Facepunch disagree with it or not. I think it's better that he's being executed and if you guys aren't, then it sucks to be you because it's going to happen anyway.[/QUOTE] Just because it's going to happen doesn't mean it is necessarily the right thing to do. The latter is being discussed, not the primary.

idk man if anyone heard their dad or husband/wife was shot and executed bleeding out in the dirt after screaming out ghastly death screams for him to please stop for something as trivial as a traffic stop i think they'd change meaning about death sentence imo [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] the fact the killer taunts him while the officer screams at him "please no" before executing him is a little infuriating to say the least

[QUOTE=Cypher_09;46861081]Why does any of this matter? He's going to be executed whether a group of people on Facepunch disagree with it or not. I think it's better that he's being executed and if you guys aren't, then it sucks to be you because it's going to happen anyway.[/QUOTE] Why does this post matter? This discussion is going to carry on whether Cypher_09 approves or not. I think it's better that we are able to discuss real-world issues on Facepunch and if you don't, then it sucks to be you because it's going to happen anyway.

I honestly can't believe you guys even care this much, like this is the first criminal to be executed in the US. Is it his Vietnam service that makes everyone so angsty? Or is it because of the video?

[QUOTE=En-Guage;46861121]I honestly can't believe you guys even care this much, like this is the first criminal to be executed in the US. Is it his Vietnam service that makes everyone so angsty? Or is it because of the video?[/QUOTE] its mostly how inhumane and disgusting way he did it but it isn't any different then other crimes that has been commited i guess

[QUOTE=En-Guage;46861121]I honestly can't believe you guys even care this much, like this is the first criminal to be executed in the US. Is it his Vietnam service that makes everyone so angsty? Or is it because of the video?[/QUOTE] Who says anyone really cares that much? I love to talk about things but that doesn't mean that it's my life story, man. I'm going to go to bed and wake up just the same, and enjoy my life just the same - expressing disagreement with other people doesn't automatically mean you care too much.

[QUOTE=Captain James;46858967]I am of the belief you have a right to life until you take it from someone else, he gets no sympathy from me.[/QUOTE] not really much of a right then

[QUOTE=wauterboi;46861131]Who says anyone really cares that much? I love to talk about things but that doesn't mean that it's my life story, man. I'm going to go to bed and wake up just the same, and enjoy my life just the same - expressing disagreement with other people doesn't automatically mean you care too much.[/QUOTE] Some people ITT are getting real worked up over it, meanwhile criminals have been and will be executed in the US for years to come. Seems like a non issue to me when you are debating the morality of something which has been happening for ages

[QUOTE=En-Guage;46861180]Some people ITT are getting real worked up over it, meanwhile criminals have been and will be executed in the US for years to come. Seems like a non issue to me when you are debating the morality of something which has been happening for ages[/QUOTE] Uh, racism was a big deal that occurred for ages. Saying we shouldn't debate something because of age is silly. I'm pretty sure debating things like ending a person's life is totally fine. People can get a bit worked up because it's literally about death and human rights.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860937]In my honest opinion the death penalty should be kept for situations where the convicted individual is : - Undeniably guilty of the actions he's sentenced for - Mentally unstable beyond any possibility of rehabilitation or successful treatment - Not showing or expressing any will to live a normal crime-less life, and/or is being extremely aggressive in a restricted environment. If these requirements are met, then you're no longer punishing an individual for a criminal act and you're instead containing an individual who's outright unfit for society, from which point in my opinion it becomes more humane to just terminate them than to keep them around in a cell for the rest of their life.[/QUOTE] Undeniably guilty is a basic princible and goal to every law. Who decides mentally unstable? Case in point: Breivik. By your opinion he would have been executed after the first expertise and not executed after the second one. With accepting capital punishment you're opening up the debate for al kinds of crooked argumentation. [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860961]"Right to life" extends to "you can't be executed by a superior authority for directly opposing them on a political level" and that's about it. A right to not get murdered is common sense in every society. The human right to life essentially extends this to a right to not get murdered by any government for political opposition. In the universal declaration of human rights, the only mention of right to life is among the following sentence : Which essentially boils down to "everyone should be able to feel safe wherever they go and not fear the king/local lord/president/police/army gunning them down in the street for no reason and without a fair trial". [/QUOTE] No that's your interpretation of it. And then [quote]A right to not get murdered is common sense in every society.[/quote] what is capital punishment? It's state mandated murder. If anything these debates that don't lead to a definite answer and that's the first reason not to do it. Not the benefit of doubt about the crime done but the benefit of doubt of the moral background, principles and signals of state mandated killing. And even if your limited interpretation of the right to live were right, would it hurt anybody to still not execute people despite of your supposed lack of right? I think not. Again. Nothing is accomplished by killing someone. [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;46861043]Hence why one of the ideal criteria I mentioned is extreme aggressiveness in a prison environment. IE if you're actually fully unable to maintain someone in a cell without them setting the mattress on fire and assaulting the guards on sight. There's also the problem of some psychopaths being manipulative and pretending to feel better or pretending to want rehabilitation so they can leave and kill more. It doesn't work often because typically psychiatrists are qualified enough to see through this shit, but when it works as it did a few years back in France then the results are disastrous. As for the case in France, here's the full thing. In 2010, a 17-something years old guy raped a girl. The act was premeditated, heavily planned in advance (he brought her near a tree on which he had preemptively tied some laces to bind her, threatened her with a weapon and then raped her) but he got arrested on the evening because the victim immediately went to the police. Four months later, the guy gets through four consecutive psychiatric examinations and succeeds at each of them. He's considered rehabilitated and joins some other school to start his studies again. Late 2011, he rapes a 13 years old girl, kills her and burns the body. He's one of the only persons in French legal history who's been sentenced to life for a crime committed while underage. There are some people who will just keep committing atrocities one after the other until they're put away for good. These specific people are not salvageable and keeping them around in a cell will do no good.[/QUOTE] Yeah but as gunfox mentioned the guy got unbelievably fucked by his military service, a guy isn't "just evil", there's always an incredibly complex story behind it and you're not only "punishing" him for his own wrong doings but also for the stuff that happened to him. The fault in your example is not the dude not getting executed, it's the doctors diagnosing him wrongly so he could get free again. Go advocate a better tests and laws for that instead of killing people, that would be a lot lot more proactive.