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

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46860759]Did you seriously just call a brutal execution an incident Regardless of all the stuff about the death penalty and all that jazz, you just called a guy purposefully unloading a magazine onto an incapacitated police officer while taunting him an incident[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/uPtqv6i.png[/IMG] ????

well, it was an incident

[QUOTE=Killuah;46860799]Not the point. Point being you can't preach human rights while ignoring them when you see it fit.[/QUOTE] Human rights are a matter of opinion. Interpretation of what constitutes a "right to life" is a matter of opinion. I could bring up the abortion argument here, but for the sake of keeping things on-topic, I won't. Here's the moral/ethical gist: we say that you have a right to live, as do all other human beings, because your life, as a human life, has value; however, when you infringe on others' right to live-- by murdering them-- then you have forfeited your right to live and your life no longer has any value, because you refuse to uphold the same principles here which the rest of us do and indeed actively seek to destroy them. We can't allow you to go around behaving this way. Where we go from there, what we choose to do with you afterwards, that's up for debate. There is no reason to keep this man alive for what he did though. None. There is no doubt of his guilt, he is clearly a danger to everyone around him, and he is so fucking crazy he cannot be "rehabilitated"; even assuming there was a magic fix for his mental illnesses, what would be the point? For what reason should we waste our time and money on this individual when he has demonstrated that he has no regard for human life? If he's willing to kill somebody, a cop no less, why should we naively assume he wouldn't have such a callous disregard for our lives as well? This high-minded, halo-polishing idealism about it not being acceptable to ever kill anyone is ridiculous. It's ridiculous when it comes to the issues of criminal justice and law enforcement, and it's especially ridiculous when it comes to war-- which is another topic where I see it more and more these days. There are people in this world who are too fucked up to function in it alongside the rest of us, and who have no reason to live. This guy is one of them. There are milder cases which are still severe enough which warrant whatever happens as the situation unfolds; people who are still shitty that wind up dead for their actions do not deserve remorse. You need to face the realism of this fact and deal with it. He will be executed for what he did and for being the shitty/insane/dangerous person he is, and that's all there is to it. Be happy about it or be utterly indifferent to it, one or the other. You should not, however, feel bad or upset about this kind of human being dying.

but how do you lose human rights to begin with? if you can unnecessarily get rid of them then that completely defeats the purpose of them being intrinsic and inalienable. reducing people down to vague suggestions fundamentally ruins the entire concept of humanism

[QUOTE=Govna;46861654] Here's the moral/ethical gist: we say that you have a right to live, as do all other human beings, because your life, as a human life, has value; however, when you infringe on others' right to live-- by murdering them-- then you have forfeited your right to live and your life no longer has any value, because you refuse to uphold the same principles here which the rest of us do and indeed actively seek to destroy them. [/QUOTE] This is where you are wrong. Human Rights can't be forfeited. You are born with them. This is where society tries to get better, by upholding the ideals where others try to destroy them. You acknowledge that infringing others peoples rights is wrong. If this is true(and it is) there is no exception, any exception transforms it from an absolute principle to a debatable, objective principle, aka no principle at all. That's where all of the scummy excuses for wrongdoings come from.

[QUOTE=Govna;46861654]Here's the moral/ethical gist: we say that you have a right to live, as do all other human beings, because your life, as a human life, has value; however, when you infringe on others' right to live-- by murdering them-- then you have forfeited your right to live and your life no longer has any value, because you refuse to uphold the same principles here which the rest of us do and indeed actively seek to destroy them. We can't allow you to go around behaving this way.[/QUOTE] but that's a completely empty statement. everyone always says they value human life until the slightest hint that it might start to seriously matter that they do. oh yeah we're all so dedicated to upholding our principles that we completely cave on them the first time we have to actually prove it. it's what you do when you have no reason to preserve something that determines how deeply you value it, not any of these false line-in-the-sand standards you can big up and go then back on.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;46862116]An argument could be made that this man willfully forfeited his right to life through his own actions.[/QUOTE] if he wants to die then maybe someone should ask him about it

you guys know there is no right answer to this right? You can argue till the cows come home but it is all down to interpretation

[QUOTE=En-Guage;46862175]you guys know there is no right answer to this right? You can argue till the cows come home but it is all down to interpretation[/QUOTE] The point is that it's not because if it was it wouldn't be a right or principle or even something to cherish.

If you do not have at least a small amount of experience regarding the various philosophical arguments for and against the death penalty, familiarize yourself with them. Your opinion is unlikely to stay the same if you expand your knowledge of the topic. IMO, anything short of death wouldn't be just for something this depraved.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;46864547]All of you need to read some discussions on the topic of execution. Quit throwing around stuff like "right" and "wrong" when they are completely fucking subjective terms. IMO, the only just thing is to execute this person.[/QUOTE] Based on what? What makes this execution right? What would make the execution wrong?

[QUOTE=Cone;46861811]but how do you lose human rights to begin with? if you can unnecessarily get rid of them then that completely defeats the purpose of them being intrinsic and inalienable. reducing people down to vague suggestions fundamentally ruins the entire concept of humanism[/QUOTE] By violating them in the first place. That's how you lose them. And it's a sensible approach to construct a system this way; it establishes moral/ethical boundaries within what is acceptable and what isn't and establishes consequences for violating these boundaries. "You have a right to life until you take someone else's life and violate their right to life; if you do that, then you have no respect for the moral/ethical system which we choose to operate by and you cannot function within it and are a danger to the rest of us-- so you're going to have to face the consequences." And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but that's all these systems are: suggestions and matters of opinionated interpretation. Isms come down to being a matter of attitude and how you choose to view the world. The "right to life" means nothing by itself; it's an absurdly vague phrase that sounds nice but is otherwise open to debate-- who has the right to life, who doesn't, what does this right encompass exactly? Etc. While we're on the subject, what's your views on abortion (since this is another topic where controversy over the "right to life" comes into play)? [QUOTE=Killuah;46861840]This is where you are wrong. Human Rights can't be forfeited. You are born with them. This is where society tries to get better, by upholding the ideals where others try to destroy them. You acknowledge that infringing others peoples rights is wrong. If this is true(and it is) there is no exception, any exception transforms it from an absolute principle to a debatable, objective principle, aka no principle at all. That's where all of the scummy excuses for wrongdoings come from.[/QUOTE] Human rights [i]can[/i] be forfeited, because we say they can be. There [i]are[/i] exceptions, because we say there are. Also, you need to understand how ideals work. They just provide a framework to operate of and to create a society out of; "This is how things are going to operate and how people are going to live, and this is why-- for better or for worse". Common-shared interpretations and opinions are what establish our ideals and their precedents. We say that this man has forfeited his right to life because of his immoral/unethical actions that cost another human being, who was moral and ethical and simply doing his job, his life in a particularly brutal and heinous way for no justified reason. This man is clearly very dangerous and mentally unstable. That's how simple it is. The state of Georgia agrees, and they are going to execute this man for the crime he is guilty of (and he is guilty of it), and that's the end of the matter. Why is it that people feel sorry for this guy exactly? You should not feel bad that this kind of a human being is going to die. Look at what he did, look at his lack of remorse. You think he'd feel any more pity or mercy for you if you were in Dinkheller's situation? Of course not. Feeling bad for him doesn't make you a better person, it makes you an unrealistic idiot who doesn't understand and appreciate just how screwed up and worthless he is for what he did and why it's important to maintain that this type of unjustified murder is not acceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint. Again, I do not give a shit at this point about people who have a problem with this. That's how it is, plain and simple. This guy's going to be executed for ruthlessly gunning down a cop who had a wife and two kids (one of which was born after he died), he's guilty, that's all there is to it. You can't stop it. It's not wrong and it's not scummy; he did what he did, and now he will face the consequences.

[QUOTE=Cone;46861137]not really much of a right then[/QUOTE] here we FUCKING go People have a right not to be detained or restrained against their will: That is, they have a right to freedom. Unless they commit a crime. Then they go to fucking prison where that right is revoked as punishment by the state for their offense against it. If that is your argument then you must be against the existence of prisons too. This is one of the most depraved and evil things I have ever witnessed in my long history on this internet, and I fully support that the right being taken away to punish this man be his life.

[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] A person's "right to life" shouldn't be something for their government to dictate and revoke at will. If you want to throw them in prison or rehabilitate them or whatever thats fine and dandy and all but a person's government deciding to straight up kill someone is some shit pulled right out of the dark ages.

Exactly what purpose does this serve other than fulfilling people's revenge fantasies. The guy can't do anything in prison,what's the point of giving him the death sentence. If he wants to kill himself so bad I'm sure there's multiple ways to do so,especially in US Prisons

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;46864651]here we FUCKING go People have a right not to be detained or restrained against their will: That is, they have a right to freedom. Unless they commit a crime. Then they go to fucking prison where that right is revoked as punishment by the state for their offense against it. If that is your argument then you must be against the existence of prisons too. This is one of the most depraved and evil things I have ever witnessed in my long history on this internet, and I fully support that the right being taken away to punish this man be his life.[/QUOTE] you take away their freedom cos they're dangerous to everyone else and someone will eventually get hurt otherwise. everyone has to admit that the only option is to restrain their freedoms if it means protecting everyone else (and not having to execute anyone, nudge nudge) - which is why another one of your rights is freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, for when government control over your freedoms stops being necessary. do you see where i'm going with this? [editline]6th January[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;46864579]By violating them in the first place. That's how you lose them. And it's a sensible approach to construct a system this way; it establishes moral/ethical boundaries within what is acceptable and what isn't and establishes consequences for violating these boundaries. "You have a right to life until you take someone else's life and violate their right to life; if you do that, then you have no respect for the moral/ethical system which we choose to operate by and you cannot function within it and are a danger to the rest of us-- so you're going to have to face the consequences." And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but that's all these systems are: suggestions and matters of opinionated interpretation. Isms come down to being a matter of attitude and how you choose to view the world. The "right to life" means nothing by itself; it's an absurdly vague phrase that sounds nice but is otherwise open to debate-- who has the right to life, who doesn't, what does this right encompass exactly? Etc. While we're on the subject, what's your views on abortion (since this is another topic where controversy over the "right to life" comes into play)?[/QUOTE] human rights apply to everyone, and it means you don't kill people unless there is definitely no alternative. what's so tough to get about this? what's so difficult to understand about sticking to the boundaries you yourself keep saying that society sticks to? how can you possible say that society values life when the only reason this thread exists is because they completely fail to prove it when someone's life is actually on the line? they're blatantly not "boundaries" at all if you cross them at the first thing. all those statements are just so completely hollow i am pro-choice. i don't think you need me to spell out the difference between an underdeveloped three month old fetus and an elderly Vietnam veteran but i'll be more than happy to oblige if you have any trouble

everything Nebukadnezzer and Govna have said is 100% accurate you are grasping at straws [I]"what is the rule of law"[/I]

[QUOTE=Cone;46861137]not really much of a right then[/QUOTE] Then you don't have any right whatsoever to privacy, freedom of travel, freedom of work, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or [I]anything[/I] we commonly call a 'right', because [I]every single one of those[/I] can be taken away subject to rule of law. Generally principles that we hold to be inalienable are considered human rights, as in, you deserve them because you're human. Principles we consider good, but revocable, are legal rights, as in, you deserve them as long as you're a functional member of society. Which a psychopathic fucking murderer is not.

Every single thread where a man gets scheduled for execution is dumb spammed to the point where its in the 300s. Anyone who agree with it gets dumbed to oblivion. Facepunch actually sees the video and suddenly views switch. Selective with our morals aren't we?

[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;46865996]Every single thread where a man gets scheduled for execution is dumb spammed to the point where its in the 300s. Anyone who agree with it gets dumbed to oblivion. Facepunch actually sees the video and suddenly views switch. Selective with our morals aren't we?[/QUOTE] Except I watched the whole video with sound and I still think executing him is wrong. You're making yourself a strawman.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46866074]Except I watched the whole video with sound and I still think executing him is wrong. You're making yourself a strawman.[/QUOTE] How? I'm clearly aware not every patron in Facepunch is part of the hivemind. And if you're not that's good for you but the point still stands.

[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;46866081]How? I'm clearly aware not every patron in Facepunch is part of the hivemind. And if you're not that's good for you but the point still stands.[/QUOTE] Then what was the point of the post? Yes, some people hold inconsistent views and will change them when they watch a video that disturbs them. It's not really any kind of substantial argument. [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] Argue against arguments, not a specific class of people who make them. Or else you're not really accomplishing anything.

The problem I have with executions is that the government handles it, and I don't trust the government or our justice system. That's the only reason why I don't care for capital punishment.

I hate death penalty threads because my view on it is so hard to convey. I've done a lot of research on it and have some experience with the likes of Kant and other philosophical arguments for and against it. But if I had a button that let me stop his execution and save his life, no way I'd press it. Morally, I can't exactly oppose his execution then. What I can do is argue against terrible anti-execution arguments until one that is strong enough to completely convince me arises.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;46866762]I hate death penalty threads because my view on it is so hard to convey. I've done a lot of research on it and have some experience with the likes of Kant and other philosophical arguments for and against it. But if I had a button that let me stop his execution and save his life, no way I'd press it. Morally, I can't exactly oppose his execution then. What I can do is argue against terrible anti-execution arguments until one that is strong enough to completely convince me arises.[/QUOTE] There's no real purpose to giving a death sentence to someone who's already not a threat to society. At least when you're alive there's a chance for you to heal when we get a better understanding of psychology and achieve breakthroughs in technology and medicine. When you're dead you can't get any of that. I also believe it's unfair to kill people who have mental illnesses since well,you usually have to get by some fucked up shit to get that or was born like that to begin with. If they hate prison life so much,give them the choice to kill themselves after talking through it with the proper people like doctors and such. I very much disagree that the State should be killing people who are not an immediate threat to society

All that has happened in this thread is the two discussions: 1. "This man is a monster!" 2. Is the death penalty justifiable. It has always disturbed me that no one wants to learn more about the causes. No one has brought up healthcare for veterans or express any want to prevent stuff like this from happening in the future. The reason why I like the idea of getting some psychologists in there with the "monster" is because that monster is still human. Humans are pretty capable of some heinous shit when they are pushed over the edge, and I have always felt a great deal of empathy for everyone in the world who has snapped. For those who are nurtured into becoming something monstrous, they have to [I]become[/I] that person, and isn't that depressing? And isn't it depressing that all that will ever come of this news report and his execution is simply defining him with cruel names? It's so much easier to push people like this into the dark, and make them subhuman. The reason why I want him to be studied is it's a productive way to protect him from execution and possibly show some insight as to what pushed him over the edge. Those studies can be put to work when dealing with veterans or those who are traumatized. Those studies can delve into possible rehabilitation methods. Just shoving this guy into prison isn't going to do anything. Do you want him to live forever, rotting away in a cell? Give him the benefits of living, allow him to get the best out of being imprisoned (i.e. education), and get some legalized studying going so we can create a positive environment for him and further the potential for psychological breakthroughs. Add some value to his life, which has already been tarnished by his breakdown. Turn the murder of a cop into something more, instead of just another execution.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;46867940]All that has happened in this thread is the two discussions: 1. "This man is a monster!" 2. Is the death penalty justifiable. It has always disturbed me that no one wants to learn more about the causes. No one has brought up healthcare for veterans or express any want to prevent stuff like this from happening in the future. The reason why I like the idea of getting some psychologists in there with the "monster" is because that monster is still human. Humans are pretty capable of some heinous shit when they are pushed over the edge, and I have always felt a great deal of empathy for everyone in the world who has snapped. For those who are nurtured into becoming something monstrous, they have to [I]become[/I] that person, and isn't that depressing? And isn't it depressing that all that will ever come of this news report and his execution is simply defining him with cruel names? It's so much easier to push people like this into the dark, and make them subhuman. The reason why I want him to be studied is it's a productive way to protect him from execution and possibly show some insight as to what pushed him over the edge. Those studies can be put to work when dealing with veterans or those who are traumatized. Those studies can delve into possible rehabilitation methods. Just shoving this guy into prison isn't going to do anything. Do you want him to live forever, rotting away in a cell? Give him the benefits of living, allow him to get the best out of being imprisoned (i.e. education), and get some legalized studying going so we can create a positive environment for him and further the potential for psychological breakthroughs. Add some value to his life, which has already been tarnished by his breakdown. Turn the murder of a cop into something more, instead of just another execution.[/QUOTE] Well you can't learn anything from a guy if he's dead can you. You could argue that they can do the research and still kill off the guy though since it's a really long time before you actually get executed.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46853519]A good reason to be against the death penalty is that it costs an absurd amount of money to execute someone. All those court proceedings and appeal costs are insanely high. For example, in [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/20/california-death-penalty-execution-costs"]Californa it costs more than $300M per execution[/URL]. It's probably less in Georgia, but the point still remains. It costs less for life imprisonment than it does for an execution. Conservatives complain about the high cost of welfare and such, what about the insane cost of executing people? Literally just pissing money away.[/QUOTE] Well maybe if the ACLU didn't keep delaying executions they would be significantly more efficient

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;46868869]If they didn't keep delaying executions those articles about people being exonerated from death row would have much unhappier endings.[/QUOTE] And what about cases like this one where it's glaringly obvious that the person is guilty

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46868924]And what about cases like this one where it's glaringly obvious that the person is guilty[/QUOTE] You're still entitled to the appeals process. No matter who you are. If you're in a normal prison the same rules that apply to everybody else apply to you. Law is meant to be fair, not retributive and biased.