• Girl who asked for more time to play found shot dead minutes later.
    93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;39215876]That's bullcrap, death is the thing humans fear the most. And even then it's unfair for the little girl.[/QUOTE] Sometimes people want death so they are freed from the grief they feel from what they did. Because sometimes they do regret it, and wish they could die just to get away from their feelings and ridicule. How is it unfair for the little girl if he is forced to stay there and have nothing to do other than think about what he's done? [QUOTE=Djessey;39216278]Yeah so working class people can work their entire life paying taxes to feed those bastards? Yeah no thanks.[/QUOTE] Who said we had to feed them? Yeah, sure, they can die, but that way they suffer, and it's not a mostly painless execution that ALSO costs a lot of money to do. People for human rights can go fuck themselves on that term, because people who do things like this deserve to be treated as no more than dirt. Why should we treat those who have done grave wrong as the same as people who have not? On ANY level? When they reach the point of killing a sick child without remorse, over some guff they had over some person, they descend from human status to gross little worm. Perhaps I'm just too medieval on punishment. Edit: Or, just put him to work so he pays for himself. If you're still going to complain about humane-ness than that's the next best thing I guess.
I mean if you want to kill some guy for gang related activities or whatever he did.. Why bring innocent people into it? i mean why can't they just go in find the guy shoot him and not random folks.. then leave..
you guys have terrible moral standards if you simplify a murder case with simply killing the murderer with 'because he deserves it' none of you are also qualified to make this statement why do you think capital punishment was abolished in, say, the netherlands during the 19th century we don't have a 12th century-era justice system for a reason
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39216524]you guys have terrible moral standards if you simplify a murder case with simply killing the murderer with 'because he deserves it' none of you are also qualified to make this statement why do you think capital punishment was abolished in, say, the netherlands during the 19th century we don't have a 12th century-era justice system for a reason[/QUOTE] Yeah look how that turned out, The Dutch punishment system is a fucking joke, Recent example, Burglar enters house of a resident, Resident has a fight with the burglar. He then manages to restrain the burglar. Holds him for about an hour humiliating him and then calls the cops. Burglar is free after a week. House resident is currently still in jail. gg netherlands
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;39216417]Who said we had to feed them? Yeah, sure, they can die, but that way they suffer, and it's not a mostly painless execution that ALSO costs a lot of money to do. People for human rights can go fuck themselves on that term, because people who do things like this deserve to be treated as no more than dirt. Why should we treat those who have done grave wrong as the same as people who have not? On ANY level? When they reach the point of killing a sick child without remorse, over some guff they had over some person, they descend from human status to gross little worm.[/QUOTE] we don't do that because it's [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment"]illegal[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_an_adequate_standard_of_living"]as[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food"]fuck[/URL], and because it sets a really bad precedent of "hey we're the government so we can defile your human rights as it becomes convenient!" [QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;39216417]Perhaps I'm just too medieval on punishment.[/QUOTE] yeah that sounds about right [QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;39216417]Edit: Or, just put him to work so he pays for himself. If you're still going to complain about humane-ness than that's the next best thing I guess.[/QUOTE] the argument could be made that that would constitute a form of slavery, which obviously is just as illegal as all those other things listed
[QUOTE=Djessey;39216607]Yeah look how that turned out, The Dutch punishment system is a fucking joke, Recent example, Burglar enters house of a resident, Resident has a fight with the burglar. He then manages to restrain the burglar. Holds him for about an hour humiliating him and then calls the cops. Burglar is free after a week. House resident is currently still in jail. gg netherlands[/QUOTE] we aren't dicussing how the netherlands handles theft, i'm pointing to an example of a european country abolishing capital punishment for certain reasons
[QUOTE=Djessey;39216607]Yeah look how that turned out, The Dutch punishment system is a fucking joke, Recent example, Burglar enters house of a resident, Resident has a fight with the burglar. He then manages to restrain the burglar. Holds him for about an hour humiliating him and then calls the cops. Burglar is free after a week. House resident is currently still in jail. gg netherlands[/QUOTE] probably from the fact that he didn't call the cops right away and instead chose to "humiliate" the burglar? like if I caught some dude in my house, does that immediately give me the right to hold him against his will for an unnecessary period of time? what if he didn't wait an hour before calling the cops, but a day? two? this is not the kind of law that can be lax.
[QUOTE=Cone;39216668]probably from the fact that he didn't call the cops right away and instead chose to "humiliate" the burglar? like if I caught some dude in my house, does that immediately give me the right to hold him against his will for an unnecessary period of time? what if he didn't wait an hour before calling the cops, but a day? two? this is not the kind of law that can be lax.[/QUOTE] Don't want to go off topic too far but, Yes it was wrong to hold him captive for an hour. But does that really give enough reason to "let the poor criminal" walk? If you think that that's right then there's something wrong with you.
[QUOTE=Djessey;39216706]Don't want to go off topic too far but, Yes it was wrong to hold him captive for an hour. But does that really give enough reason to "let the poor criminal" walk? If you think that that's right then there's something wrong with you.[/QUOTE] depends on whether he burgled again after the week in jail. if he didn't, then the system works, and keeping him any longer than a week would have been unnecessary. if he did, then clearly the system could be improved, but also likely has a host of other factors that led him to commit the same crime again, like a lack of income, drug addiction, etc. so no, I honestly do not see the problem with letting people walk if the prison system is functional and prevents more crime than it causes. I'm sure you agree that a system that saves money and time whilst still getting the same results is a very good system indeed.
[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;39212767]an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind[/QUOTE] yes and everyone knows it's better if only the GOOD people are blind
[QUOTE=Cone;39216770]depends on whether he burgled again after the week in jail. if he didn't, then the system works, and keeping him any longer than a week would have been unnecessary. if he did, then clearly the system could be improved, but also likely has a host of other factors that led him to commit the same crime again, like a lack of income, drug addiction, etc. so no, I honestly do not see the problem with letting people walk if the prison system is functional and prevents more crime than it causes. I'm sure you agree that a system that saves money and time whilst still getting the same results is a very good system indeed.[/QUOTE] Hahahah what, So if person wont do a crime again then he should walk free? That's like saying, That the guy who murdered the little girl if he won't ever do it again. [editline]14th January 2013[/editline] The punishment system isn't just for punishing people, It's also for preventing crime. If there isn't anything stopping you from stealing a car as long as you only do it once, then why not do it?
[QUOTE=Djessey;39216938]Hahahah what, So if person wont do a crime again then he should walk free? That's like saying, That the guy who murdered the little girl if he won't ever do it again.[/QUOTE] Well it would seem that, unlike you, I don't feel the need to use a superfluous system of punishments that only serve to reinforce the self-centered viewpoint that most criminals would have if they were to commit a crime in the first place. Consider a serial killer, for instance - he can't think too much about people other than himself, or he wouldn't be hurting or killing them. Is this the kind of person who would consider going straight ever again if he were kept for several years in an unpleasant and generally quite vile facility, I wonder? Is this the kind of man who would stop and consider that he may be a bad person if it's just shouted at him with enough repetition and volume? You tell me. [QUOTE=Djessey;39216938]The punishment system isn't just for punishing people, It's also for preventing crime. If there isn't anything stopping you from stealing a car as long as you only do it once, then why not do it?[/QUOTE] Oh, there's plenty stopping you. Getting arrested, held against your will for what may be several years until you realize your issues, it would all rather be an ordeal best avoided, even if you're the kind of hellion who gets a thrill from breaking the law and stealing cars. But, once they're out, they won't have to think about it again, because the government would have looked into their problems - psychological, monetary, physical, whatever problems they may have - and tried their damndest to fix at least a few of them. It's good to keep in mind that people commit crimes because they need the money or they're crazy enough to enjoy the thrill - so if those two reasons are eliminated, then people can get on with their lives. I can guarantee you that the majority of people who have been through such a system will not be repeat offenders, simply because there wouldn't be any gain from being one.
Anyone that kills a little kid intentionally does deserve to die a very painful excruciating death like having all their fingernails and toenails pulled out and having their eyes cut out and left to die.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;39224122]Anyone that kills a little kid intentionally does deserve to die a very painful excruciating death like having all their fingernails and toenails pulled out and having their eyes cut out and left to die.[/QUOTE] "you killed someone!?" "here, i'll show you how that's wrong by killing you in an even more painful way, haha! take that [I]scum[/I]" hypocrisy.
Where did I say I killed someone? i just said that sick people who murder children deserve far worse deaths than just getting a needle in their arm.
Do you guys even read the article? The police determined she got shot in crossfire "Not targeted at her"
[QUOTE=coldroll5;39224122]Anyone that kills a little kid intentionally does [B]deserve to die[/B] a very [B]painful excruciating death[/B] like having all their fingernails and toenails pulled out and having their eyes cut out and [B]left to die[/B].[/QUOTE] your entire post is a wish for death.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;39224391]Where did I say I killed someone? i just said that sick people who murder children deserve far worse deaths than just getting a needle in their arm.[/QUOTE] That wasn't you as in you specifically, it was a general case usage.
[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;39224329]"you killed someone!?" "here, i'll show you how that's wrong by killing you in an even more painful way, haha! take that [I]scum[/I]" hypocrisy.[/QUOTE] But the difference is the person isn't innocent. I'm sorry, I'm really trying to understand why it would be bad for this punishment thing to happen. The person who does this sort of thing kind of refutes their status as a human being, to me at least.
[QUOTE=Mister B;39225020]But the difference is the person isn't innocent. I'm sorry, I'm really trying to understand why it would be bad for this punishment thing to happen. The person who does this sort of thing kind of refutes their status as a human being, to me at least.[/QUOTE] lonestriper summed it up pretty nicely. [QUOTE=Lonestriper;39214846]The only reasonable rules, ones which aren't inherently self-contradictory, for the right to life is it being absolutely, inalienably guaranteed for everyone and anyone. A right to life doesn't stay a right to life when you include provisions for acceptable contraventions of that right since you can't regain life after death. Freedom is utterly irrelevant to this right to life and how capital punishment infringes upon it, which in any sense is the only right I invoked. Even imagining a hypothetical world with a 100% perfect judicial system capital punishment is still completely morally bankrupt.[/QUOTE] so we should allow for a man to be executed because he has "refuted his human status" in your eyes? what makes you qualified to make that decision or anyone else for that matter?
[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;39224329]"you killed someone!?" "here, i'll show you how that's wrong by killing you in an even more painful way, haha! take that [I]scum[/I]" hypocrisy.[/QUOTE] It isn't hypocrisy because he wouldn't die if he didn't kill someone in the first place. There's nothing hypocritical about that, it's pure eye for an eye thing. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;39226934] so we should allow for a man to be executed because he has "refuted his human status" in your eyes? what makes you qualified to make that decision or anyone else for that matter?[/QUOTE] We should have him executed because he's danger to society and doesn't make it benefit in any way. I certainly don't want to help some murderer stay in prison using my tax money. We elect people who make those decisions (we assume majority agrees with him since he was elected in the first place). And do not forget that you're not defending innocent man here, you're defending a person who murdered a child. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] You can act that you're on high ground by being democratic all you want, but both you and I know that the world doesn't work that way.
[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;39226963]It isn't hypocrisy because he wouldn't die if he didn't kill someone in the first place. There's nothing hypocritical about that, it's pure eye for an eye thing. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] We should have him executed because he's danger to society and doesn't make it benefit in any way. I certainly don't want to help some murderer stay in prison using my tax money. We elect people who make those decisions (we assume majority agrees with him since he was elected in the first place). And do not forget that you're not defending innocent man here, you're defending a person who murdered a child.[/QUOTE] i meant hypocrisy in the sense that they way you're showing the people that murder is wrong is by committing murder yourself. i'm not defending him from prosecution, i'm defending him from being executed. it costs more money to execute a man than to keep him in jail.
Of course we will murder him since as I said before, death is the thing humans fear the most. We basically give him the taste of his own medicine. It only costs more money because it takes ridiculously long time to execute him, and because we're using some silly (well maybe not silly, but certainly damn expensive) methods. If we were to use guillotine, it would be p much swift and painless.
[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;39226963] [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] You can act that you're on high ground by being democratic all you want, but both you and I know that the world doesn't work that way.[/QUOTE] i don't even know what this means. democratic? the world doesn't work that way? [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;39227014]Of course we will murder him since as I said before, death is the thing humans fear the most. We basically give him the taste of his own medicine. It only costs more money because it takes ridiculously long time to execute him, and because we're using some silly (well maybe not silly, but certainly damn expensive) methods. If we were to use guillotine, it would be p much swift and painless.[/QUOTE] so we reverse decades of years of advancement in human rights so we can give him a taste of his own medicine.
[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;39227015]i don't even know what this means. democratic? the world doesn't work that way?[/quote] [url]http://www.sovereignlife.com/essays/democracy-a-false-god.html[/url] [quote]so we reverse decades of years of advancement in human rights so we can give him a taste of his own medicine.[/QUOTE] It's only advancement if you think it's advancement. Personally for me it's just dragging us down if we pay food and other stuff for a person that killed another human, another of our kind. Just look at the animals, if you attack one elephant the whole herd will come to defend him and beat your ass, and that's how others know that you're not supposed to mess with them. We're still animals at the core.
[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;39227014]Of course we will murder him since as I said before, death is the thing humans fear the most. We basically give him the taste of his own medicine. It only costs more money because it takes ridiculously long time to execute him, and because we're using some silly (well maybe not silly, but certainly damn expensive) methods. If we were to use guillotine, it would be p much swift and painless.[/QUOTE] it costs so much money because you need to put the investigation into overdrive to "prove" that they did indeed commit the crime. and this is not a process that can be streamlined either, or else you get innocent or undeserving people being executed just for the sake of killing a couple dudes that didn't even need to die in the first place. so like Shazzy said, are you really the kind of person who would take a step back like that?
Yeah but he argued for the sake of human rights (as in should murderer live or die), not if murderer is guilty or not. If they do find the guy who did this and make it obvious he was a murderer, then I think that warrants it enough. They shouldn't convict him of being guilty if they don't gather substantial amount of the evidence anyway.
[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;39227047]Just look at the animals, if you attack one elephant the whole herd will come to defend him and beat your ass, and that's how others know that you're not supposed to mess with them. We're still animals at the core.[/QUOTE] this would almost be a decent point if elephants had, oh I don't know, jails, a justice system, fettered morality, alternatives to beating the fuck out of people with their tusks, a civilization spanning the entire globe and beyond, the advent of ethics and philosophy, a universal declaration of rights, just little details like that. but, hey, "we're still animals at the core," right?
So you think they wouldn't murder the other elephant if he attacked one of them? And you seriously think that it's better for someone who willingly took someone's life (and that person wanted to live) to keep him alive and fed and stuff than to murder him? For Christ sake, most murderers do it because they know they will live (either in prison or outside if they manage to escape). You guys really really sound like murder apologist, but I guess that's just your opinion. [QUOTE=Retyuoligkl;39216893]yes and everyone knows it's better if only the GOOD people are blind[/QUOTE] This post sums it up great imo.
[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;39227106]So you think they wouldn't murder the other elephant if he attacked one of them?[/QUOTE] no?? I was saying that elephants aren't the globally dominating species with the sense of ethics and the human rights like we are, so we can't be compared in any way. [QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;39227106]And you seriously think that it's better for someone who willingly took someone's life (and that person wanted to live) to keep him alive and fed and stuff than to murder him? For Christ sake, most murderers do it because they know they will live (either in prison or outside if they manage to escape).[/QUOTE] yeah, criminals only exist to be dicks to other people, it's not like there's any CAUSE for this dickery like a mental illness or bad upbringing or anything like that, nah it's all just because they know they can get away with it, and there is no other reason at all for crime, it's all just people being dicks. that is, unless there actually IS such a thing as mental illness and poor upbringing, but pssh I'd totally start shooting dudes just because I knew I'd get away with it, you don't have to be crazy to kill anyone or anything like that, you just need to think that you'll be okay afterwards! [I]this is totally how the criminal mind works!![/I] so I do think that yeah, because we're not in a situation that necessitates murder. come to me if we get sent back in time to the Stone Age and I'll maybe consider giving you a listen. [QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;39227106]You guys really really sound like murder apologist, but I guess that's just your opinion.[/QUOTE] yeah you got me all figured out man, I just cannot get enough of these kiddie murders I love em so much
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.