The death penalty

[Trixiestan]

...just so the privileged masses...

Everyone?

Being protected from crime shouldn't be considered a 'privilege'.

Yeah, because everyone totally gave a shit when Peter Sutcliffe was only killing prostitutes and not students. Or when gang members stab each other in the streets. Or when a criminal gets shanked in prison.

...can sleep better at night knowing that those nasty, wasty people on crime watch won't come and get them in the night?

Ignoring the silliness... are you actually suggesting you find fault with the idea of keeping violent criminals away from the sleeping populace?

Yeah, I didn't say that and I'm fairly sure even you know that I didn't imply anything of that sort.

"Why waste tax payer money on human scum which only serve to leech of society? Those who have nothing to contribute nor contributed anything should be culled from our society, to reduce the burden on the country. INSERT MINORITY HERE have proven themselves to be unworthy of being functioning members of society and as such must be treated as the thrash and subhuman scum that they are. I despise every last one of them."

What does a minority have anything to do with this? A criminal can be from any background.

Because criminals are a minority you big silly :3

[Alyakia]

you see ted bundy is a lot like william wallace and jesu

[Drackonisa]

people who are fine with harming a minority (for example, by executing innocent people or tortuing innocent people because criminals are scum) should immediately become part of that minority

since i apparently hate the rich this would be pretty sweet for me while ya'll learn important life lessons

so...your saying prison guards should be treated as criminals as well?

[Grave_n_idle]

Show me one crime Ted Bundy committed after 7:16 a.m. Eastern time, on the 24th of January, 1989.

Just one.

Sure, I can find you many crimes committed in Ted Bundy's name after his death. I might direct you to a larger phenomena than one psychotic serial killer's legacy, effects a bit longer reaching, of a man's execution that sparked far more than he could have accomplished in life.

So... no, then.

[Alyakia]

people who are fine with harming a minority (for example, by executing innocent people or tortuing innocent people because criminals are scum) should immediately become part of that minority

since i apparently hate the rich this would be pretty sweet for me while ya'll learn important life lessons

so...your saying prison guards should be treated as criminals as well?

No, where did you get that from?

I'm saying that since you are fine with innocent people getting treated like shit in prison, you should be found guilty of a crime you are not guilty of and treated like shit and hopefully you'll come out with a better understanding of why what you said was bad.

Or you'll beg them to you and the other scum harder.

[Drackonisa]

Everyone?

Being protected from crime shouldn't be considered a 'privilege'.

Yeah, because everyone totally gave a shit when Peter Sutcliffe was only killing prostitutes and not students. Or when gang members stab each other in the streets. Or when a criminal gets shanked in prison.

Ignoring the silliness... are you actually suggesting you find fault with the idea of keeping violent criminals away from the sleeping populace?

Yeah, I didn't say that and I'm fairly sure even you know that I didn't imply anything of that sort.

What does a minority have anything to do with this? A criminal can be from any background.

Because criminals are a minority you big silly :3

I just felt the 'insert minority here' meant he wanted to insert a particular race or religious minority in. Criminals are a minority yes, but a utterly despicable one at that with no redeemable qualities and should be dealt with accordingly.

[Alyakia]

Yeah, because everyone totally gave a shit when Peter Sutcliffe was only killing prostitutes and not students. Or when gang members stab each other in the streets. Or when a criminal gets shanked in prison.


Yeah, I didn't say that and I'm fairly sure even you know that I didn't imply anything of that sort.


Because criminals are a minority you big silly :3

I just felt the 'insert minority here' meant he wanted to insert a particular race or religious minority in. Criminals are a minority yes, but a utterly despicable one at that with no redeemable qualities and should be dealt with accordingly.

Will you be going after white collar criminals with your little policies too?

[Vexpold]

I think that a government killing people, especially it's own people, is terribly wrong and unjust. It seems that sitting in jail for life would be more of a punishment than death, anyway. Ban capital punishment!

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, because everyone totally gave a shit when Peter Sutcliffe was only killing prostitutes and not students. Or when gang members stab each other in the streets. Or when a criminal gets shanked in prison.

You're saying it should be a privilege?

Yeah, I didn't say that and I'm fairly sure even you know that I didn't imply anything of that sort.

Wait - you're arguing that "...knowing that those nasty, wasty people on crime watch won't come and get them in the night?" is not implying anything even remotely like "...the idea of keeping violent criminals away from the sleeping populace?"

[Grave_n_idle]

I think that a government killing people, especially it's own people, is terribly wrong and unjust. It seems that sitting in jail for life would be more of a punishment than death, anyway.

What if the goal isn't maximising 'punishment'?

[JJ Place]

Sure, I can find you many crimes committed in Ted Bundy's name after his death. I might direct you to a larger phenomena than one psychotic serial killer's legacy, effects a bit longer reaching, of a man's execution that sparked far more than he could have accomplished in life.

So... no, then.

Psychology, my dear friend, provides your examples. Tell me, why did Ted Bundy commit any crimes, in the first place?

[Alyakia]

There are probably hundreds of posts that I don't reply to. Either because they are unattributed, I don't see them, I don't think they are important, or I just don't care to.

Your question isn't honest. I'm not talking about volunteering people up for sacrifice. I'm talking about accepting risk.

Am I willing to accept that risk, myself? Absolutely.

Well, you did literally use the word sacrifice in one of your posts. That might confuse people.

If you were on the table, about to be killed, woud you turn to the executioner and say "thank you for protecting me"?

Again,a dishonest misrepresentation. The choices aren't 'kill everyone' or 'kill no one'.

A quick reminder that a large part of your argument of risk is hinged on setting up the illusion that the choice is "have the death penalty" or "have murderers roaming the streets".

I thought I was pretty clear. Sentence, transport to place of execution. Execute.

And before the trial? Where do they go? Do you intend to pull a trial, complete with forumlated defences and prosecutions, out of your arse?

You don't bring in a mass murderer. You bring in a man or woman ACCUSED of being a mass murderer.

Ahahahahahahhaha holy fucking shit, after everything you've posted in this goddamned thread, you seriously had the goddamned audicity to say that to me?

So, uh, do you put this accussed mass murderer in with the rest of the population? To possibly kill people or be killed?

Maybe. That doesn't impact the question of whether it should.

If you can't stop it happening and all you can do is say "well it shouldn't!" I see no reason to pretend it's not going to happen for the sake of your argument.

So, you're going to take the longer pre-trial phase, etc. from the death penalty and apply them to all cases? Will we have a huge pre-trial phase for parking tickets?

mister idleeeeee ):

[Drackonisa]

so...your saying prison guards should be treated as criminals as well?

No, where did you get that from?

I'm saying that since you are fine with innocent people getting treated like shit in prison, you should be found guilty of a crime you are not guilty of and treated like shit and hopefully you'll come out with a better understanding of why what you said was bad.

Or you'll beg them to you and the other scum harder.

Sacrifices must be made to ensure the stability and security of society. That is all there is to it. Criminals must be dealt with harshly and without mercy to set an example to the rest. Surely you understand. If you treat a criminal leniently, it only emboldens him and other criminals like him to act even more boldly than before.

The part about innocent people being convicted is an unfortunate but albeit, necessary sacrifice. While criminal convictions are not always foolproof, innocents being convicted are still very, very rare. I find your morbid fascination with killing/torturing innocent people frankly, quite disturbing.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have no idea what the purpose of this post was... it seems like you're complaining that I don't make the arguments you wish I had.

?

You love to talk about how murderers will never commit another crime after being executed.

It's not that I 'love it'.

It's just true.

[Drackonisa]

I just felt the 'insert minority here' meant he wanted to insert a particular race or religious minority in. Criminals are a minority yes, but a utterly despicable one at that with no redeemable qualities and should be dealt with accordingly.

Will you be going after white collar criminals with your little policies too?

Of course, no one should be held above the law.

[Drackonisa]

You love to talk about how murderers will never commit another crime after being executed.

It's not that I 'love it'.

It's just true.

Agreed, how does a criminal come back to life to commit crimes after being executed?

[Grave_n_idle]

So... no, then.

Psychology, my dear friend, provides your examples.

You can't bullshit your way out of this one.

Bundy committed no more crimes. His recidivism rate plateaued at 0.

[Alyakia]

You love to talk about how murderers will never commit another crime after being executed.

It's not that I 'love it'.

It's just true.

And boy do you love talking about it!

And you also don't like to talk about how innocent people won't be realeased/revived after they're executed. You even cut it out of the post you were quoting. kawaii~ :3

[Angoila]

It will reduce crime

Torture reduces crime. Just like torture reduces terrorism.

Owait...

Orly?

[Angoila]

It will reduce crime

Torture reduces crime. Just like torture reduces terrorism.

Owait...

Orly?

[Trixiestan]

It's not that I 'love it'.

It's just true.

And boy do you love talking about it!

And you also don't like to talk about how innocent people won't be realeased/revived after they're executed. You even cut it out of the post you were quoting. kawaii~ :3

"No! I must kill the criminals" he shouted
The radio said "No, Grave_n_idle. You are the criminals"
And then Grave_n_idle was Ted Bundy.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, you did literally use the word sacrifice in one of your posts. That might confuse people.

I also have 'literally' used the word 'recidivism'. And the word 'the', come to think of it.

I expect people to be able to accommodate their understanding to the context.

If you were on the table, about to be killed, woud you turn to the executioner and say "thank you for protecting me"?

Unlikely. It's not the sort of phrase I'd tend to use, and the situation seems a little contrived.

A quick reminder that a large part of your argument of risk is hinged on setting up the illusion that the choice is "have the death penalty" or "have murderers roaming the streets".

No, the large part of my argument is that there is only one method that absolutely guarantees 0% recidivism, and that the choices are either a guaranteed 0% recidivism, or no guarantee.

And before the trial? Where do they go? Do you intend to pull a trial, complete with forumlated defences and prosecutions, out of your arse?

Ahahahahahahhaha holy fucking shit, after everything you've posted in this goddamned thread, you seriously had the goddamned audicity to say that to me?

Audacity has nothing to do with it. Innocent until proven guilty.

So, uh, do you put this accussed mass murderer in with the rest of the population? To possibly kill people or be killed?

Not my decision. I imagine that decision would rest with whoever was accommodating the accused - they'd be better suited to judge the specific risks of the specific situation.

If you can't stop it happening and all you can do is say "well it shouldn't!" I see no reason to pretend it's not going to happen for the sake of your argument.

Read the OP. The OP isn't asking us to blandly report the situation as it is, it's asking for input on what we think. In this context, 'should' is actually more valid than 'is'.

So, you're going to take the longer pre-trial phase, etc. from the death penalty and apply them to all cases? Will we have a huge pre-trial phase for parking tickets?

I imagine that pre-trial phase duration would be determined by the scope and complexity of the evidence.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's not that I 'love it'.

It's just true.

And boy do you love talking about it!

No.

It is, however, the guiding principle that lies behind my argument.

So... when we defend or explain our arguments, it's key.

And you also don't like to talk about how innocent people won't be realeased/revived after they're executed. You even cut it out of the post you were quoting.

Because it's irrelevant.

I'm not talking about the innocent. They shouldn't be being found guilty.

[Alyakia]

I also have 'literally' used the word 'recidivism'. And the word 'the', come to think of it.

I expect people to be able to accommodate their understanding to the context..

"Although, to make sure you get all the bad guys, you might have to sacrifice one or two others."

Do explain!

No, the large part of my argument is that there is only one method that absolutely guarantees 0% recidivism, and that the choices are either a guaranteed 0% recidivism, or no guarantee.

Come on. Talk about how using this method on innocent people guarantees a 0% chance that their life can be undestroyed. You know you want to.

Read the OP. The OP isn't asking us to blandly report the situation as it is, it's asking for input on what we think. In this context, 'should' is actually more valid than 'is'.

[Trixiestan]

And boy do you love talking about it!

No.

It is, however, the guiding principle that lies behind my argument.

So... when we defend or explain our arguments, it's key.

And you also don't like to talk about how innocent people won't be realeased/revived after they're executed. You even cut it out of the post you were quoting.

Because it's irrelevant.

I'm not talking about the innocent. They shouldn't be being found guilty.

But people will inevitable fall through the gaps and be killed because of a justice system which doesn't give a shit about anything except slaughtering people enmasse. What would you do then? How would you explain to the victim's family "sorry, we may have cocked up a bit"?