Support NeoGAF

[MrAngryFace]

Haha I sorta planned it this way. a simple F-U Olimario thread would have been locked.

 

[Zaptruder]

My view
It's such a grey area and there should not be a clear cut age line. Evaluation on a case by case basis is needed. That works the other way, too. If an 18 year old isn't as developed mentally as much as the average 11 year then he shouldn't be put to death.

And by what function do we arbitrate mental development? Do we use IQ tests? psych examinations?

But if we did that, wouldn't we have smart asses acting like dumb asses in order to avoid the death penalty?

 

[MrCheez]

This thread is great. All MAF wanted to know was what to say when he calls in sick, and we get this...

Not really, look at the thread title and the first post. =P

 

[tedtropy]

This thread is great. All MAF wanted to know was what to say when he calls in sick, and we get this...

Um, I think this thread was baited to do a little more than answer that question. Just look at the topic title for Christ's sake...

 

[MrAngryFace]

Im done here, its clear Olimario has no real clue WHAT he believes.

 

[Loki]

25 years is a long time to change... people change. I used to be a dealer, and a thief... even have fired weapons at people, but now I am a teacher...Now I have a purpose in life bigger than I could ever have thought when I was 19 and doing all that crap. Not that I ever killed anyone, but damn people do change....

With all due respect, murderers should never be released from prison. Ever.


The safety of innocent civilians far outweighs whatever "rights" you may feel a guilty man still possesses. If I read of another person killed by a murderer on parole for "good behavior", or after having served a 15-20 year sentence (as I read in the paper just last week), I'll scan it in and send it to you. You can then go tell the family of the victim that the purported rights of a murderer were worth more than the actual rights of their innocent, slain loved one.


I'm sorry for the tone, but people who assert that murderers should be released from prison get me heated. What happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and another innocent ends up dead? Do you just throw your hands up and say, "hey, shit happens"? Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Hey, if we ever invent technology that we can affix to parolees which will be able to read their thoughts and detect any violent impulses, and will incapacitate them the moment they experience the impulse (i.e., before they act on it), then fine. But the fact that we can never know with certainty that a murderer we believe to be "rehabilitated" actually is rehabilitated changes the entire equation. I refuse to risk innocent life for the sake of a guilty man. And it's not like this is a random occurrence-- you read of released convicted murderers killing again every week. Sorry, that shit doesn't fly with me.


I am amenable to rehabilitation (prison time, but with rehab-- vocational training, counseling, education etc. so people are not worse off than when they went in) for every crime except for murder (due to the dilemma stated above) and pedophilia (due to the >90% recidivism rate for offenders even after extensive counseling; I'm not willing to irreparably damage a child's psyche for those odds).

 

[olimario]

And by what function do we arbitrate mental development? Do we use IQ tests? psych examinations?

But if we did that, wouldn't we have smart asses acting like dumb asses in order to avoid the death penalty?

The same way we do it currently, I suppose.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I AM TALKING ABOUT YOU GUYS WANTING TO KILL CHILDREN! Jesus, quit changing the focus

Maverick: I shall remember to use wit.

The reason its an issue is because there is an absolutely rediculous criterion on what a child exactly is. If everyone is so fucking wonderful and different, then how can we all mature at the exact same fucking age? It should come down to the court of law proving whether or not you know the difference between right and wrong, the letter of the law, and whether you act in violation of it in full disapassionate knowledge of that.

You could very well have one twisted fuck at any age between 11 and 17 commit horrific crimes. If they're twisted because they don't know what the fuck theyre doing, then they have a mental capacity that could see them repreived. If they're twisted because they're just evil sons of bitches that knew exactly what they were doing, beyond all reasonable doubt ie. a pre-meditated murder of the most depraved order... why should they have a right to life and reform more than the vast amount of people who aren't minors? This ruling gives them that advantage.

If you're going to have the death penalty at all, it should be case by case judgement.

And, while your hate fuelled posts are entertaining tidbits that truly make you worthy of your moniker... I personally think Borghe and Olimario share the views of perfectly good people.... edit: and Loki, and no doubt many others

At the very least, people who steal away human life, have no right to control the destiny of their own.

 

[borghe]

Ultimately, compassion needs to be shown, not because they (the murderers, even the truly guilty ones; lets not mention the ones that are innocent but are found guilty regardless) deserve it, but because it's what we need to do to stop degrading ourselves into a spiral of bloodlust.

I disagree with this entirely. I am a firm believer that the ability to kill is not something we are desensitized into (necessarily) but is truly (at least partially) a genetic disposition. my one brush with violence, hitting a bird with a ball intentionally when I was umm.. like 4 or 5.. I did not feel guilt, I did not feel sorrow.. I felt pain. it was beyond emotion to almost a physical illness for what I had done. from that point on I knew that I could never bring myself to kill something in cold blood.

mind you I should clarify that I don't think all "killers" should be killed. I should have corrected that. manslaughter is a hard one to give the death penalty to I suppose or any kind of accident. avenging an innocent is another place I would have a hard time. killing another criminal, etc. there are instances where death is involved and I probably wouldn't see the death penalty as appropriate. However, there are PLENTY of cases out there where I would actually be happy to see someone die.

as for kids (to not stray)... hmmm.... kids 16 and older should be treated like adults and sentenced like adults imho. they know what is going on and have enough knowledge of the world to know what they are doing is wrong long before they do it. kids under 16..... it really depends on the nature of the crime. again I think it would go back to my stance on the death penalty in general. if it is manslaughter, it was an accident, then know obviously the kid shouldn't be killed... but if this kid... even a 11 year old, physically "hunted" somebody and knowingly killed them in cold blood..... well, I wouldn't shed a tear for them in the electric chair, not even at 11.

and if you are really going to imprison an 11 year old for the rest of his life, then I think it needs to strongly be looked at why you feel the need to keep him out of society for the rest of his life but find it inhumane to kill him.

 

[Zelda-Bitch]

With all due respect, murderers should never be released from prison. Ever.


The safety of innocent civilians far outweighs whatever "rights" you may feel a guilty man still possesses. If I read of another person killed by a murderer on parole for "good behavior", or after having served a 15-20 year sentence (as I read in the paper just last week), I'll scan it in and send it to you. You can then go tell the family of the victim that the purported rights of a murderer were worth more than the actual rights of their innocent, slain loved one.


I'm sorry for the tone, but people who assert that murderers should be released from prison get me heated. What happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and another innocent ends up dead? Do you just throw your hands up and say, "hey, shit happens"? Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Hey, if we ever invent technology that we can affix to parolees which will be able to read their thoughts and be able to detect any violent impulses, and will incapacitate them the moment they experience the thought (i.e., before they act on it), then fine. But the fact that we can never know with certainty that a murderer we believe to be "rehabilitated" actually is rehabilitated changes the entire equation. I refuse to risk innocent life for the sake of a guilty man. And it's not like this is a random occurrence-- you read of released convicted murderers killing again every week. Sorry, that shit doesn't fly with me.


I am amenable to rehabilitation (prison time, but with rehab-- vocational training, counseling, education etc. so people are not worse off than when they went in) for every crime except for murder (due to the dilemma stated above) and pedophilia (due to the >90% recidivism rate for offenders even after extensive counseling; I'm not willing to irreparably damage a child's psyche for those odds).

We're talking about a child here not just any joe fuckhead that kills someone. How would you like to be put to death for something you did as a child when you really couldn't grasp
life to begin with? A child is mentally much different from an adult. A child could associate real life with a fucking comic book for chirst sake. I mean, come on. Some of you need to use your head.

 

[bjork]

:skips 98% of the thread:

When I call in sick, or when I DID, I would just say, "I'm not coming in tonight."

You don't have to explain yourself, you just say you're not going to work. Simple as that. If they ask why, you're not obligated to give an explanation.

As for death penalty, what if you have the wrong guy? Also, to me it's more of a crime to make someone want to kill you, rather than the actual killing.

 

[radioheadrule83]

We're talking about a child here not just any joe fuckhead that kills someone. How would you like to be put to death for something you did as a child when you really couldn't grasp
life to begin with? A child is mentally much different from an adult. A child could associate real life with a fucking comic book for chirst sake. I mean, come on. Some of you need to use your head.

And children aren't completely innocent and devoid of moral character until the day they turn 18. If they can tell when an adult knew full well what they were doing, and their moral disposition, they can do it for a child surely.

 

[Zelda-Bitch]

borghe, you realize not everyone is like you, right? Just because you felt bad for killing a bird as a child doesn't mean everyone should/will feel that way. It doesn't mean someone who kills is instantly a cold blooded killer either. You people make it seem so black and white.

 

[beaglebot]

Hey Borghe do you have any evidence that you can point us to that backs up your firm belief that people can be genetically predisposed "truly (at least partially)" to be killers? That's a rather exciting claim.

 

[Loki]

We're talking about a child here not just any joe fuckhead that kills someone. How would you like to be put to death for something you did as a child when you really couldn't grasp
life to begin with? A child is mentally much different from an adult. A child could associate real life with a fucking comic book for chirst sake. I mean, come on. Some of you need to use your head.

I was speaking of adults, as was Blackace, I would assume (he did say "age 19" in his post). But thanks for telling me to "use my head". You should learn to read, btw-- not only did I not even mention capital punishment in my post, but it's also clear that I was speaking of adult offenders, not children.

 

[borghe]

And children aren't completely innocent and devoid of moral character until the day they turn 18. If they can tell when an adult knew full well what they were doing, and their moral disposition, they can do it for a child surely.

exactly. adults are not sentenced to death of they are determined to not have the capacity to understand what they did. so you use the same process to determine if the child understands what they did.

A few years back in the area we had a mob of 20 kids (11-20 years old) slaughter (I use the word justly) a man right on the sidewalk. the 11 and 13 year old took turns with a 2x4 hitting him in the head, so violently that by their own admission they ripped one of his ears clear from his skull and crushed his eye socket in.

But hey, they probably didn't know what they were doing... they just thought it was a good time, right?

 

[borghe]

Hey Borghe do you have any evidence that you can point us to that backs up your firm belief that people can be genetically predisposed "truly (at least partially)" to be killers? That's a rather exciting claim.

no. and it isn't based on anything other than wondering for myself how so many people out there are seemingly incapable of planned violent crime, but certain ones are. Although there have been tons of studies done relating to sex offenders, and even some forms of violence with regards to physical brain development and psychology (serial killers, rapists, etc). So that is simply where it comes from. Obviously in some cases there is mental instability involved, but I wonder how much of a link there is even behind undetectable mental instability (until of course they kill). just wondering out loud is all...

 

[Minotauro]

What happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and another innocent ends up dead?

One less person in line for the drive-thru at Wendy's?

 

[Drinky Crow]

[quote="Loki']What happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and another innocent ends up dead? [/quote]

And what happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and the innocent wind up executed or imprisoned for life? What happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and man that could've been reformed is killed? You sure have a lot of faith in man's capacity for justice.

Those quick to deal in death and who refuse to acknowledge the capacity for reform are really sacrificing their essential humanity for a delight in righteousness uber alles. Rehabilitation is almost never done right, because men are lazy and prefer convenience.

True justice isn't conjured up with sweeping generalizations. I'm sorry if the fires of righteous wrath feel better than the frost of reluctant mercy, but in the end, it's not a call that can be made by mere mortals using a convenient template, and it is better to err on the side of misguided forgiveness than the side of fallible judgment as a long-term policy.

There will always be truly evil men and women, just as there will always be earthquakes, tsunamis, and wars as well -- the plight of the innocent is tragic, and bears sympathy, but we can't cast aside our responsibility to the guilty as well. We can't set the baseline for our justice on the worst case, and measure the fallen against that bar. We hafta treat each man and woman -- and especially children -- as though they have the capacity for reform, and then pursue it in earnest, not convenience. Most of you don't have the balls to do that, though; it's easier to simply kill and declare it justice, in which case you really aren't that different from the murderer at all save that you have the social advantage of going second.

Sympathy for the guilty and sympathy for the innocent are two conflicting stances not easily resolved, especially when we fear the legacy of the guilty and the wrath of the innocent. Declaring the death penalty carte blanche is nothing more than cowardice and laziness. Punishment wed to forgiveness is the most difficult path to act on, and may never be as conveniently rewarding, but it is the right one. Mercy, chumps!

 

[Zaptruder]

I disagree with this entirely. I am a firm believer that the ability to kill is not something we are desensitized into (necessarily) but is truly (at least partially) a genetic disposition. my one brush with violence, hitting a bird with a ball intentionally when I was umm.. like 4 or 5.. I did not feel guilt, I did not feel sorrow.. I felt pain. it was beyond emotion to almost a physical illness for what I had done. from that point on I knew that I could never bring myself to kill something in cold blood.

mind you I should clarify that I don't think all "killers" should be killed. I should have corrected that. manslaughter is a hard one to give the death penalty to I suppose or any kind of accident. avenging an innocent is another place I would have a hard time. killing another criminal, etc. there are instances where death is involved and I probably wouldn't see the death penalty as appropriate. However, there are PLENTY of cases out there where I would actually be happy to see someone die.

as for kids (to not stray)... hmmm.... kids 16 and older should be treated like adults and sentenced like adults imho. they know what is going on and have enough knowledge of the world to know what they are doing is wrong long before they do it. kids under 16..... it really depends on the nature of the crime. again I think it would go back to my stance on the death penalty in general. if it is manslaughter, it was an accident, then know obviously the kid shouldn't be killed... but if this kid... even a 11 year old, physically "hunted" somebody and knowingly killed them in cold blood..... well, I wouldn't shed a tear for them in the electric chair, not even at 11.

and if you are really going to imprison an 11 year old for the rest of his life, then I think it needs to strongly be looked at why you feel the need to keep him out of society for the rest of his life but find it inhumane to kill him.

It doesn't matter if it's not you doing the killing. You don't have to kill. But when you instititionalize killing, it's going to be saying to some people, it's ok to kill 'for the right reasons'. Soon those reasons become warped and twisted, and suddenly the social atmosphere condones killings that would have been condemned in a more compassioned society.
You degrade the fabric of society by condoning the death penalty; you make it so even innocent people are more willing to see/hear about people dieing.

If society killed an 11 year old, I would shed a tear, for that society.

 

[paul777]

Question for the death penalty advocates: How do you reconcile the incompetence of the government's judicial system with your desire to save innocent lives? How is it prudent to give such an error-prone entity the power to lawfully take lives?

 

[NLB2]

Ah the right when you wake up phone call haha. I got a call yesterday from an employee, said he 'must have eaten something bad'

Olimario:
Shut up you spoiled kid killer. Must be nice to have a dad who works at NASA and a girlfriend that loves you for some insane reasons. ON TOP OF THE WORLD YOU CAN PASS JUDGEMENT. Fuck you Olimario. The kids need mental help, not death. Fucker.

YOU arent even psychologically mature, but youre allowed to run around and participate in life! Who knows when you'll snap? I certainlly dont wanna be around for that.

Ahahaha, he's so jealous. MAF, you realize you just admitted to being jealous of Olimario :lol?

One last person in line for the drive-thru at Wendy's?

LMFAO
This is even funnier than when you asked for the surfer and a bunch of pompous assholes who didn't really give a shit wanted to show their moral superiority.

 

[olimario]

Question for the death penalty advocates: How do you reconcile the incompetence of the government's judicial system with your desire to save innocent lives? How is it prudent to give such an error-prone entity the power to lawfully take lives?

I would answer, but the more I learn the less I like the death penalty. The fact that innocent peopel are killed that way makes me just as upset as innoncents getting killed by released murderers.

 

[shuri]

I'm for the death penalty. I just dont care about killers or murders. Pre <12 years old kids, now maybe there's a limit, but older than that, game over. Executions should happen in the next hour too. Fuck waiting for 20 years. They send the guy in the basement, a bullet behind the head. That's it.

People are replaceble. I will not shed a tear for them

 

[MrAngryFace]

Yes, I wish my dad worked at NASA. Youve found me out.

 

[borghe]

it's going to be saying to some people, it's ok to kill 'for the right reasons'.

here is where your entire argument falls apart. what people? I support the death penalty and about the only way I could even imagine having enough, whatever, to kill someone is if they hurt my family first. and even then it could just end up being all talk.... so who is it sending this message to? could it be people who are predispositioned to commit violent crimes regardless?

we have the ability to know what is right and wrong and to see subtle (and no so subtle) differences. the average human, I would even say the below average human, is able to see that killing in cold blood and killing as punishment by a government are two different things. if they are not able to see that and feel justified in their criminal act regardless, there is a LOT more to it than them feeling justified through the death penalty.

their are violent crimes in every country of the world. in every city of the world. even countries without a death penalty.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm for the death penalty. I just dont care about killers or murders. Pre <12 years old kids, now maybe there's a limit, but older than that, game over. Executions should happen in the next hour too. Fuck waiting for 20 years. They send the guy in the basement, a bullet behind the head. That's it.

People are replaceble. I will not shed a tear for them

Ah screw due process! Lets embrace the totalitarian virtues that have made China such a great country!

Oh wait...

 

[Zelda-Bitch]

And children aren't completely innocent and devoid of moral character until the day they turn 18. If they can tell when an adult knew full well what they were doing, and their moral disposition, they can do it for a child surely.

That is true. I never implied that children are innocent. I implied that they do not have the same mental understanding as an adult. Think back to when you were 12 for example. Do you think the same way? Lets say you killed someone when you were 12. Are you saying your that same 12 year old?


When I was 13, I wanted to kill my step dad because he always beat my mom and I thought she was gonna end up seriously hurt or dead. Then I would see these things on tv about abuse and all the bad stuff that happens. I fantasized of beating my step dad to death with my baseball bat. How I'd be a hero and save my mom and everyone would be so proud of me. The only reason why I didn't do it at the time is because I was too chicken shit to pull it off. Now, I'm 28 years old and thinking back on it, I'm really glad I didn't do it. I'm not that kid anymore. I think things through differently. I would take different actions to get things resolved.

If I did kill my step dad I should've been put to death or in jail forever though, huh?? I can sure as hell tell you that I don't think anything like the way I did as a child. I'm not a cold blooded killer. As a matter of fact I'm a pretty damn good person.

Some of you guys act like you fucking know everything. Crawl out of the little bubble you live in and see the real world. In the meantime, just STFU. Seriously.

 

[borghe]

Question for the death penalty advocates: How do you reconcile the incompetence of the government's judicial system with your desire to save innocent lives? How is it prudent to give such an error-prone entity the power to lawfully take lives?

acceptable losses. I also never said I was for taking the sentenced out back right after the trial and taking care of business. There should certainly be time for appeals and for the wrongly accused to try and make things right... but no legal system is without flaw.. it is something a civilized society has to accept to have order. though the liberals should be countered at every point with the fact that the wrongly imprisoned are a miniscule minority. even the most nutty liberals say that the number of wrongly accused inmates numbers as a fraction of a percent of total inmates.

 

[Zaptruder]

here is where your entire argument falls apart. what people? I support the death penalty and about the only way I could even imagine having enough, whatever, to kill someone is if they hurt my family first. and even then it could just end up being all talk.... so who is it sending this message to? could it be people who are predispositioned to commit violent crimes regardless?

we have the ability to know what is right and wrong and to see subtle (and no so subtle) differences. the average human, I would even say the below average human, is able to see that killing in cold blood and killing as punishment by a government are two different things. if they are not able to see that and feel justified in their criminal act regardless, there is a LOT more to it than them feeling justified through the death penalty.

their are violent crimes in every country of the world. in every city of the world. even countries without a death penalty.

In a more conservative country, it might seem right to stone a girl to death for having an affair with a married man. After all, an affair is a social corruption, that leads to family breakdown, and much pain and suffering for all involved, innocent or not.

 

[MrAngryFace]

acceptable losses? freaking robots.

 

[Zaptruder]

acceptable losses. I also never said I was for taking the sentenced out back right after the trial and taking care of business. There should certainly be time for appeals and for the wrongly accused to try and make things right... but no legal system is without flaw.. it is something a civilized society has to accept to have order. though the liberals should be countered at every point with the fact that the wrongly imprisoned are a miniscule minority. even the most nutty liberals say that the number of wrongly accused inmates numbers as a fraction of a percent of total inmates.

it's going to be saying to some people, it's ok to kill 'for the right reasons'.

Borghe: It's ok to kill an innocent man... because he's been found guilty of murder!

 

[borghe]

If I did kill my step dad I should've been put to death though, huh? I can sure as hell tell you that I don't think anything like the way I did as a child. I'm not a cold blooded killer. As a matter of fact I'm a pretty damn good person.

the point here you are failing to highlight is that you made the concious decision not to kill him. whether chicken or calling yourself a chicken is just an excuse for not having it in you to kill someone, you made the choice to not kill him.

had you made the choice to kill him, something tells me you wouldn't be here talking about it because you would without question be an entirely different person than you actually are.

but, to your point in general, no, I wouldn't have even found you guilty. case by case. everything has to be looked at case by case.

 

[Minotauro]

LMFAO
This is even funnier than when you asked for the surfer and a bunch of pompous assholes who didn't really give a shit wanted to show their moral superiority.

Haha! What really pissed me off about that was how I had a lengthy response typed up and the thread was closed before I was able to fire back. I sent the other two posters private messages but it's hardly the same thing.

As a postscript, my cousin (also the creator of Mario Hat Hitler), actually went to the trouble of doing the Photoshop. I considered posting it but decided that it wasn't worth the possible banning and all the bullshit I would have to endure.

 

[borghe]

Borghe: It's ok to kill an innocent man... because he's been found guilty of murder!

ah... but now you fall into a problem. how does someone know that the killed person is innnocent? surely if they were found innocent before the execution they wouldn't be executed. and the number of people found innocent after execution.. well, it probably wouldn't even fill up 3 notebook pages..

not to mention you forgot to address that the typical person knows there is a difference between the government carrying out a sentence and killing on your own. You show me someone who kills "because the government does it" and I'll show you a person who would kill no matter what society he lives in.

the amount of apology going on here and not making killers take responsibility for their own actions....

 

[Drinky Crow]

Say, what's the Seventh Deadly Sin again?

Oh yeah: WRATH, bitches.

(Really, the rest are just flavors of pride; wrath is unique because even the humble can be moved to violence in the name of false justice. Perhaps it's a sort of pride that leads you to think that you have become more than fallible, though, and that the violence you dispense in the name of retribution has no meaningful negative impact on society and other individuals as well as yourself. Can you truly claim to know who can and can't be reformed without at LEAST giving them a chance?)

 

[Zelda-Bitch]

I was speaking of adults, as was Blackace, I would assume (he did say "age 19" in his post). But thanks for telling me to "use my head". You should learn to read, btw-- not only did I not even mention capital punishment in my post, but it's also clear that I was speaking of adult offenders, not children.

"With all due respect, murderers should never be released from prison. Ever."

that's what you said in the first sentance. Which tells me you don't give a crap how old someone is. I have a problem with that.
Everything else I said was not directed at you specifically, so I appologize.

 

[Drinky Crow]

the amount of apology going on here and not making killers take responsibility for their own actions....

Total strawman. Just because a punishment isn't as extreme as death (didn't you suggest stoning and then hanging?) doesn't mean that a killer won't be called to account for his crimes. Your distinct measure of what's appropriate "responsibility" given human fallibility is what we have a problem with, here.

Real rehabilitation isn't easy, because the rehabilitator must give up a lot if he or she hopes to succeed in many cases. Few people have the guts to do so, and so we have carte blanche compromises the like the death penalty. It doesn't make these blanket solutions RIGHT, though; it just makes us victims of our own laziness and desire for convenience.

 

[borghe]

Say, what's the Seventh Deadly Sin again?

Oh yeah: WRATH, bitches.

(Really, the rest are just flavors of pride; wrath is unique because even the humble can be moved to violence in the name of false justice. Perhaps it's a sort of pride that leads you to think that you have become more than fallible, though, and that the violence you dispense in the name of retribution has no meaningful negative impact on society and other individuals as well as yourself. Can you truly claim to know who can and can't be reformed without at LEAST giving them a chance?)

but what is wrath? surely wrath is just not death. it could then be argued that any punishment against another man is unjust. who am I to say that someone deserves punishment? maybe they learned their lesson right after they were found guilty?

society to function needs laws and laws are useless without consequence. so wrath as a deadly sin pretty much goes out the fucking window. their must be punishment for a society to work. so the question is what price do you put on life? If someone commits first degree murder. plans on taking down their wife because they want the insurance money, what price is to be put on that life? 5 years? 10 years? do we stick a man in jail for a mere 20 years when he took away someone's daughter? someone's mother? someone's sister? 20 years? 30 years? what price on life?

 

[Zaptruder]

ah... but now you fall into a problem. how does someone know that the killed person is innnocent? surely if they were found innocent before the execution they wouldn't be executed. and the number of people found innocent after execution.. well, it probably wouldn't even fill up 3 notebook pages..

not to mention you forgot to address that the typical person knows there is a difference between the government carrying out a sentence and killing on your own. You show me someone who kills "because the government does it" and I'll show you a person who would kill no matter what society he lives in.

the amount of apology going on here and not making killers take responsibility for their own actions....

You've already confirmed my points; as for the typical person knowing difference bullshit line, as I say, it doesn't matter if you don't personally kill someone. That you are more ready and willing to see an innocent person die, as part of 'acceptable losses' to see murderers get their 'come uppance' already shows the spiral of blood lust at work.

Life imprisonment without chance of parole is more than adequate method to keep high risk repeat offenders out of society to prevent them from killing; however the death penalty makes it absolute, regardless of guilt or innocence.

 

[Drinky Crow]

what is wrath

wrath ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rth, räth)
n.
Forceful, often vindictive anger. See Synonyms at anger.

Punishment or vengeance as a manifestation of anger.
Divine retribution for sin.

Bolded for emphasis.

Note the stark contrast to "punishment WITHOUT anger."

 

[borghe]

Real rehabilitation isn't easy, because the rehabilitator must give up a lot if he or she hopes to succeed in many cases. Few people have the guts to do so, and so we have carte blanche compromises the like the death penalty. It doesn't make these blanket solutions RIGHT, though; it just makes us victims of our own laziness and desire for convenience.

and at what point do you determine rehabilitation fails? after another crime is commited by the individual? is that any sort of consolation for the second victim's family? "We knew he was dangerous but wanted to see if we could rehabilitate him. Sorry he killed your daughter."

Then what do you do after he commits that second crime. To you give up on rehabilitation then? Or do you eat some more humble pie and make excuses that maybe it was you who failed and not the criminal?

 

[Unison]

I have some ingrained work ethic that keeps me from calling in most of the time that I'm sick. Once or twice in the last few years, I've called in just because I felt lazy, but that's always been on days that I knew there wouldn't be a great need for my services at the office...

 

[Zelda-Bitch]

And what happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and the innocent wind up executed or imprisoned for life? What happens when your idealism proves to be misplaced and man that could've been reformed is killed? You sure have a lot of faith in man's capacity for justice.

Those quick to deal in death and who refuse to acknowledge the capacity for reform are really sacrificing their essential humanity for a delight in righteousness uber alles. Rehabilitation is almost never done right, because men are lazy and prefer convenience.

True justice isn't conjured up with sweeping generalizations. I'm sorry if the fires of righteous wrath feel better than the frost of reluctant mercy, but in the end, it's not a call that can be made by mere mortals using a convenient template, and it is better to err on the side of misguided forgiveness than the side of fallible judgment as a long-term policy.

There will always be truly evil men and women, just as there will always be earthquakes, tsunamis, and wars as well -- the plight of the innocent is tragic, and bears sympathy, but we can't cast aside our responsibility to the guilty as well. We can't set the baseline for our justice on the worst case, and measure the fallen against that bar. We hafta treat each man and woman -- and especially children -- as though they have the capacity for reform, and then pursue it in earnest, not convenience. Most of you don't have the balls to do that, though; it's easier to simply kill and declare it justice, in which case you really aren't that different from the murderer at all save that you have the social advantage of going second.

Sympathy for the guilty and sympathy for the innocent are two conflicting stances not easily resolved, especially when we fear the legacy of the guilty and the wrath of the innocent. Declaring the death penalty carte blanche is nothing more than cowardice and laziness. Punishment wed to forgiveness is the most difficult path to act on, and may never be as conveniently rewarding, but it is the right one. Mercy, chumps!

God damn dude, I wish I could express my thoughts as well as you. Fucking awesome post.

 

[Drinky Crow]

borghe: Re-read my remarks about "sympathy for the innocent" and then re-read the definition of wrath. Consider both in relation to the notion of "justice".

There may be a quiz. This isn't an easy class, but I have faith in you.

 

[borghe]

You've already confirmed my points; as for the typical person knowing difference bullshit line, as I say, it doesn't matter if you don't personally kill someone. That you are more ready and willing to see an innocent person die, as part of 'acceptable losses' to see murderers get their 'come uppance' already shows the spiral of blood lust at work.

how does it show a spiral of bloodlust when I can't kill? you are arguing that is allows people to feel justified in their killing and I am asking you why I don't feel a justification for me to kill? You argue that it changes society, but again I ask why don't other people in this thread kill then out of that justification. It is couch theory that has no more basis in reality than saying dungeons and dragons directly causes people who play it to become violent.

Life imprisonment without chance of parole is more than adequate method to keep high risk repeat offenders out of society to prevent them from killing; however the death penalty makes it absolute, regardless of guilt or innocence.

and who pays for this. why should I pay for a serial killers remaining 45 years of life?

Bolded for emphasis.

Note the stark contrast to "punishment WITHOUT anger."

and how exactly is public sentence punishment with anger. the entire point of the judicial system is trial by facts. you are sentenced by a jury of your peers. you are given just representation. there are multiple parties involved to ensure that emotion and circumstance are removed as far as possible from the trial.. so therefore it can't be with anger. and again it comes down to we are talking about the justice system. punishment comes in many forms. time. money. death. if our courts did it with anger, than it would be wrath when you got a ticket, or when you went to jail for stealing.

Death is just anothe rpunishment in the context of the judicial system. Yes the ultimate punishment. As to who has the right to deliver that judgement, well... you put them into office, that's who. Judge's you elect. Sherrif's you elect. Police chiefs you elect. Senators and representatives who pass the laws. It is YOU who elects who has the right.

but at this point I gracefully bow out. I respect your rights to your opinions and I hope you respect mine. Because THAT is a civilized society. One that can make that choice. You don't like the death penalty? Vote for a liberal in your state who will repeal it. Just don;t begrduge me because I vote for a conservative to keep it. and don't begrudge me my opinion to keep criminals off of the street in a different manner than you.

we will just agree to disagree. You guys ask me what about the innocent who die, I ask you about the victims of criminals released back into society. Neither has a perfect answer because there isn't one. We can just work to the best of our abilities and morals and frankly it is impossible to ask for any more.

 

[NLB2]

Haha! What really pissed me off about that was how I had a lengthy response typed up and the thread was closed before I was able to fire back. I sent the other two posters private messages but it's hardly the same thing.

As a postscript, my cousin (also the creator of Mario Hat Hitler), actually went to the trouble of doing the Photoshop. I considered posting it but decided that it wasn't worth the possible banning and all the bullshit I would have to endure.

Post it man, this thread is safe. What are they gonna do? Ban you for derailing this piece of crap?

 

[MrAngryFace]

This thread is fucking immune, post away.

 

[AssMan]

I love this place. A thread about the ethics of calling in sick------->bashing Oli, as usual. :lol :lol

 

[NLB2]

I love this place. A thread about the ethics of calling in sick------->bashing Oli, as usual. :lol :lol

Yeah, I'm a bit suprised, though. MAF's jealous ramblings made it seem like he was setting himself up. I guess just that many people here are jealous of Olimario.