Batman Killer, EG That massive cunt, appears in Court. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36905188]Only because of appeals.[/QUOTE] There's a good reason for that.

If the prosecution and jury decide on the death penalty, that's what he's going to get. No amount of bickering on an internet forum is going to change that.

[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;36905230]If the prosecution and jury decide on the death penalty, that's what he's going to get. No amount of bickering on an internet forum is going to change that.[/QUOTE] It certainly isn't going to do any favors for what is globally considered one of the most barbaric prison systems in any 1st world country.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36905113]Neat, you agree that an extremely costly barbaric system of revenge that serves no purpose be inserted into a system of justice all so you can satisfy your revenge fantasies. So what about the innocent people who have ended up being wrongfully executed? Because a system like this has to be run by humans, and humans make mistakes every now and then. What are you going to tell an innocent who ends up caught in your system of torture if he is to ever be exonerated? "Sorry about all that torture but we NEED this system because it makes me feel better."[/QUOTE] The fact that it's costly isn't inherent to the punishment, but to the system that delivers it. The same argument can be made regarding prison sentence vs simply releasing everybody. The same applies to your argument of innocent people being executed: what do you say to an innocent man after he has been imprisoned for 30 years? So by your logic prison sentences need to be abolished because they are both costly and have the risk of affecting innocent individuals. Also you seem to keep forgetting that I am not American. I'm not advocating the widespread use of death penalties, I'm simply stating that people who have without a doubt committed terrible crimes (murder without motive, severe forms of rape/paedophilia,...) and show no regret cannot be rehabilitated into society and should therefore be removed from it Perhaps another anecdote: In Belgium we have a notorious gangster who has during his incarceration severly wounded several prison guards. Therefore he needs to be constantly rotated between the belgian prisons because the guards can't handle the stress of his constant violence and aggression. Do you honestly believe that society need to continue investing money in this person even though there is no chance of rehabilitation and he's threatening the lives of eveyone around him?

[QUOTE=D33f;36905281]The same applies to your argument of innocent people being executed: what do you say to an innocent man after he has been imprisoned for 30 years? So by your logic prison sentences need to be abolished because they are both costly and have the risk of affecting innocent individuals.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry but this is just an incredibly stupid post. I fully understand the need for prison sentences and understand the risk of innocents being imprisoned. It's part of what happens when you have so many people being run through the justice system that it practically becomes a factory line. But how on earth do you come up with the idea of comparing this to innocents ending up on death row or in your super reasonable torture facilities? What purpose would either of these two things serve that is even remotely worth the risk of a single innocent person being put into it? [editline]23rd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=D33f;36905281] Also you seem to keep forgetting that I am not American. I'm not advocating the widespread use of death penalties, I'm simply stating that people who have without a doubt committed terrible crimes (murder without motive, severe forms of rape/paedophilia,...) and show no regret cannot be rehabilitated into society and should therefore be removed from it[/QUOTE] This is exactly what the appeals process is for, and yet mistakes are still made.

[QUOTE=EzioAuditore;36901992]Just so you know mods, he edited in the photo after they had quoted him.[/QUOTE] It doesn't work that way. What you quote is what you quote, nothing can be popped into it unless by you.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36905337]I'm sorry but this is just an incredibly stupid post. I fully understand the need for prison sentences and understand the risk of innocents being imprisoned. It's part of what happens when you have so many people being run through the justice system that it practically becomes a factory line. But how on earth do you come up with the idea of comparing this to innocents ending up on death row or in your super reasonable torture facilities? What purpose would either of these two things serve that is even remotely worth the risk of a single innocent person being put into it? [editline]23rd July 2012[/editline] This is exactly what the appeals process is for, and yet mistakes are still made.[/QUOTE] Often the most stupid people are the ones that accuse others of being so. We are having a difference of opinion, there is no objective way of telling which of us is right so please refrain from calling my opinions stupid as I will refrain from judging yours So you are willing to accept that someone gets innocently jailed for 30 years in a shitty prison cell but not that someone gets innocently executed? While I understand that there is a difference between the two you seem to be ok with the first while thinking the second is the most inhumane thing that could ever happen. Also you cannot deny that there is a certain percentage of criminals that are guilty without any doubt. If these people have committed horrible crimes and show no regret then in my opinion they deserve death or worse And lastly the purpose of this would be that it would give the descendants of the victims comfort knowing that the criminal is paying dearly for his crimes. It would also send a message that if you do bad things, bad tthings happen to you. (once again, this should only be applied to crimes without motive and no doubt of guilt) You seem the call this thirst for revenge barbaric but imagine this: your witnessed your mother be brutally killed/raped/tortured by a criminal. This man is guilty without any doubt. Due to a technological advancement they can now hook the criminal up to a machine that makes him require no maintenance whatsoever. In this machine however, the criminal spends the rest of his life in some sort of illusion of eternal bliss. Would you consider this an acceptable crime for the murderer of your mother?

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;36905574]It doesn't work that way. What you quote is what you quote, nothing can be popped into it unless by you.[/QUOTE] I think that he hosted these pics on his host, and then simply replaced the image

Can't wait to see him behind bars. What a waste of life and potential. In the title, you (OP) wrote E.G (exempli gratia), do you mean I.E.?

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36905337]But how on earth do you come up with the idea of comparing this to innocents ending up on death row or in your super reasonable torture facilities? What purpose would either of these two things serve that is even remotely worth the risk of a single innocent person being put into it?[/QUOTE] I don't advocate torture, but the Death Penalty actually does serve a purpose. They may be few and far between, but there are people whose very existence poses a threat to society (like, say, serial killers, sociopaths who have no remorse or no hope of being redeemed or rehabilitated). They need to be removed from said society by any means necessary. I agree that the death penalty needs to be heavily restructured to the point where the rate of executions is ALMOST zero, but as long as people like these exist I don't think it should be completely abolished.

[QUOTE=D33f;36905588]So you are willing to accept that someone gets innocently jailed for 30 years in a shitty prison cell but not that someone gets innocently executed? While I understand that there is a difference between the two [B]you seem to be ok with the first while thinking the second is the most inhumane thing that could ever happen.[/B][/quote] It's not that think an innocent going to prison is ok. It's that I think it's an acceptable risk given what our system is capable of. Killing people when it serves absolutely no purpose is not ok, especially when there is a risk of an innocent being killed. [QUOTE=D33f;36905588] Also you cannot deny that there is a certain percentage of criminals that are guilty without any doubt. If these people have committed horrible crimes and show no regret then in my opinion they deserve death or worse[/quote] Whether some people deserve to die or not is no reason to have a death penalty. [QUOTE=D33f;36905588] And lastly the purpose of this would be that it would give the descendants of the victims comfort knowing that the criminal is paying dearly for his crimes. It would also send a message that if you do bad things, bad tthings happen to you. (once again, this should only be applied to crimes without motive and no doubt of guilt)[/quote] The death penalty serves no purpose for deterrence of crime. Just look at homicide rates in states that have the death penalty compared to those that don't and you can easily tell that there is no connection. [QUOTE=D33f;36905588] You seem the call this thirst for revenge barbaric but imagine this: your witnessed your mother be brutally killed/raped/tortured by a criminal. This man is guilty without any doubt. Due to a technological advancement they can now hook the criminal up to a machine that makes him require no maintenance whatsoever. In this machine however, the criminal spends the rest of his life in some sort of illusion of eternal bliss. Would you consider this an acceptable crime for the murderer of your mother?[/QUOTE] First of all justice should be blind. This is why a judge and a jury sentence a criminal and not the victim. It wouldn't matter how much I hate a criminal in a proper justice system. And the reason I called your post stupid was you said that the concept of the risk of innocent life applied to being wrongfully imprisoned as well. The death penalty is far more severe than wrongful imprisonment and the two really can't be compared in such a way.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;36902247]Also, I don't know why people would call for his execution. 23 hours of lockdown with virtually no human interaction for the rest of your life is a far far worse punishment than any easy out via lethal injection.[/QUOTE] As long as he and many other prisoners like him remain, he is a waste of tax money and space. There is also the unlikely chance of him escaping or somehow causing more harm. I support the death penalty for specific cases, this being one of them. Stuff like this doesn't happen in Germany often, but unfortunately even if it did we have abolished capital punishment.

[QUOTE=Nexosz;36905628]I think that he hosted these pics on his host, and then simply replaced the image[/QUOTE] Hopefully this won't count as leaking content, but he essentially admitted to working with the person spamming, and taunted Craptastic by posting Goatse in the RC. At any rate, he did it 15 times, which should be evidence enough that it was fully intended.

[QUOTE=G3rman;36906127]As long as he and many other prisoners like him remain, he is a waste of tax money and space. There is also the unlikely chance of him escaping or somehow causing more harm. I support the death penalty for specific cases, this being one of them. Stuff like this doesn't happen in Germany often, but unfortunately even if it did we have abolished capital punishment.[/QUOTE] The death penalty is an even bigger waste of tax money considering it costs much more to carry out the death penalty than to just keep them locked up, implying that money should even be a factor on why the death penalty should be abolished. And I imagine the chance of a high profile criminal escaping is quite a bit lower than an innocent ending up in death row.

The death penalty? That's FP's favourite circular discussion!

[QUOTE=G3rman;36906127]As long as he and many other prisoners like him remain, he is a waste of tax money and space. There is also the unlikely chance of him escaping or somehow causing more harm.[/QUOTE] Extremely unlikely he'd even be able to escape from the cell block let alone the prison complex if he's to be housed in a max sec/PC tier. However there is the chance for him to cause harm to the staff regardless of his security status. That being said, a scrawny neuroscience student is highly unlikely to injure the type of correction officer that is assigned to deal with max security prisoners.

I would've hated to defend him in that court room.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36906264]The death penalty is an even bigger waste of tax money considering it costs much more to carry out the death penalty than to just keep them locked up, implying that money should even be a factor on why the death penalty should be abolished. And I imagine the chance of a high profile criminal escaping is quite a bit lower than an innocent ending up in death row.[/QUOTE] According to [URL="http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000"]this website[/URL], there is argument either way. You say it so certainly yet it is clear that there is still another side to the argument. I don't care about your talk of innocents ending up on death row, I am talking about convicted criminals of heinous crimes against other humans. Whether they acted on twisted logic or emotional entanglement, a government and judicial system should look at with a more cold, calculating eye (i.e expenses and money). I also don't care about chance, as long as they are alive they can do harm again. But my opinion is way over here and the case is happening way over there.

He shouldn't get the death sentence, he should be in Prison for life, 20 years without parole imo

[QUOTE=G3rman;36906392]According to [URL="http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000"]this website[/URL], there is argument either way. You say it so certainly yet it is clear that there is still another side to the argument. I don't care about your talk of innocents ending up on death row, I am talking about convicted criminals of heinous crimes against other humans. Whether they acted on twisted logic or emotional entanglement, a government and judicial system should look at with a more cold, calculating eye (i.e expenses and money). I also don't care about chance, as long as they are alive they can do harm again. But my opinion is way over here and the case is happening way over there.[/QUOTE] Oh god I cannot take your source seriously when the first thing I see is: [quote]Chris Clem, JD, Attorney at Samples, Jennings, Ray & Clem, PLLC, in a Jan. 31, 2002 statement in response to a press release about the cost of capital cases as reported by the Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing, stated: "Executions do not have to cost that much. We could hang them and re-use the rope. No cost! Or we could use firing squads and ask for volunteer firing squad members who would provide their own guns and ammunition. Again, no cost."[/quote] Also I do like this part of your post. [quote]I also don't care about chance, as long as they are alive they can do harm again.[/quote] "I don't care about chance, but I care about chance."

[QUOTE=Scar;36901986]So, the punishment for murder is being murdered?[/QUOTE] I guess that would depend on the murder case. So many different reasons and motives for killing people, so many different circumstances, so many different people being involved in different things. This case however is pretty much insane. There is absolutely no reason to ruin a film-night like that, unless you have an "important" message you want publicity for. And even then the murders will matter more and that justice is served, in court anyway. Much like with Breivik, the judge had to interrupt him for when his bat-shit manifesto didn't have anything to do with the actual handling of the murders in court. Except in this Batman's case, the shooter doesn't even want to speak up. The lawyers suggesting him not to probably has something to do with it but anyway.. Hell I don't know what to else to say.. 11 people are needlessly/pointlessly/senselessly dead, and more people hurt.

These largely publicized cases don't usually end well for the guilty party. I just read that Colorado separates their crimes into different classes with one being the most serious and the minimum sentence for a class 1 felony is life while the maximum sentence is death. If murdering 12 people and seriously injuring even more isn't a class 1 felony I don't know what would be, if it is then its not going to look too good for him.

[QUOTE=D33f;36905588]So you are willing to accept that someone gets innocently jailed for 30 years in a shitty prison cell but not that someone gets innocently executed? While I understand that there is a difference between the two you seem to be ok with the first while thinking the second is the most inhumane thing that could ever happen.[/quote] Well, the major difference is you can keep on appealing if you're prison - it's somewhat harder to appeal against a death sentence after you've been killed. It also (shock horror) allows for the person to repent for their crimes, and have a shot at rehabilitation. [quote]It would also send a message that if you do bad things, bad tthings happen to you. (once again, this should only be applied to crimes without motive and no doubt of guilt)[/QUOTE] Because the death sentence worked so well here in preventing murder. [URL="http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence"]In fact, it's worse then not having a death penalty at deterring serious crime.[/URL] And as I mentioned in another thread, how can you condemn someone for making the decision to end another person's life by doing the same yourself, without being a massive hypocrite.

Just read another report on Daily Mail, I personally don't trust the Daily Mail and hate the paper nearly as much as The Sun. [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177982/Dark-Knight-Rises-shooting-Aurora-Colorado-James-Holmes-rejected-women-dating-website.html?ito=feeds-newsxml[/url] It mentions he was 'addicted to role playing games'. Once again games will probably be scrutinised, and blamed.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36906538]Well, the major difference is you can keep on appealing if you're prison - it's somewhat harder to appeal against a death sentence after you've been killed. It also (shock horror) allows for the person to repent for their crimes, [B]and have a shot at rehabilitation.[/B][/QUOTE] woah now this is America

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36906494]Oh god I cannot take your source seriously when the first thing I see is: [B]Yet you do not post any sources for yourself to back up your obviously strong opinion.[/B] Also I do like this part of your post. "I don't care about chance, but I care about chance." [B]Bad english, I was referring to your part of 'imagining' there is less chance of criminals doing harm or escaping in prison than innocents in death row. Why take a chance with a dangerous criminal by keeping them alive?[/B][/QUOTE]

Surely the consequences are not the reason why people do heinous acts in the first place. But surely the consequences, like the death penalty, might just be a little part of the whole, bigger problem.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;36906693]Surely the consequences are not the reason why people do heinous acts in the first place. But surely the consequences, like the death penalty, might just be a little part of the whole, bigger problem.[/QUOTE] And that problem is? If you are referring to crime, no amount or level of punishment will eliminate it. I am firmly in belief that, regardless if it affects crime statistics or whatnot, the death penalty still has a place in individual cases of heinous crimes.

[QUOTE=G3rman;36906678]Yet you do not post any sources for yourself to back up your obviously strong opinion.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty[/url] [url]http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3[/url] If you compare the two sources it costs about 137,000 per year to house a death row inmate as opposed to about 47,000 per year for a prison inmate. And then these two particular points. "The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year." "The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year." [QUOTE=G3rman;36906678]Bad english, I was referring to your part of 'imagining' there is less chance of criminals doing harm or escaping in prison than innocents in death row. Why take a chance with a dangerous criminal by keeping them alive?[/QUOTE]Why take the chance with innocent life by allowing a dangerous system to exist?

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36906886][url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty[/url] [url]http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3[/url] If you compare the two sources it costs about 137,000 per year to house a death row inmate as opposed to about 47,000 per year for a prison inmate. And then these two particular points. "The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year." "The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year." Why take the chance with innocent life by allowing a dangerous system to exist?[/QUOTE] I'll leave it up to you with those sources because we are arguing the American system. I still have doubts though. Why take chances of letting bad people live to do more bad things? You aren't saving them for anything, rarely are they rehabilitated. They are just wasting away, using resources and space.