• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

This is why murderers, rapists and other violent criminals need to be dealt with in a permanent manner

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,926
4,168
730

So this guy gets only 20 years for murdering his wife, then is released because "he's too old to be a threat" and then he goes and kills a mother in front of her kids. Reading shit like this triggers me big time. I fucking can't stand it. People that released him should be held accountable, at the very least civilly.

If your boat springs a leak and you grab a bucket to scoop out the water coming in, you need to throw the water overboard to stay afloat, throwing it back in the boat makes no sense and will only lead to your demise.
 
Last edited:

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,926
4,168
730
As someone who is for the death penalty, it's a hard line to toe, as innocent people do get put in prison. If we executed all people convicted of murder, innocent people would get put to death.
When I said "permanent" I didn't necessarily mean execution, life in prison without the possibility of parole works too although it does cost taxpayer money that could be put to better use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mayl3

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
226
307
280
Republic of Val Verde
Yeah typically murderers are young guys and it drops off from there. But sometimes you get guys like that. From what I read about the case he was obsessed with the woman he murdered.
 

Riven326

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,045
1,066
395
United States
I've always said they should be hanged on the same day as their sentencing. Saves the tax payers from having to support their asses while they sit on death row for 30 years.
 

Grinchy

Member
Aug 3, 2010
21,825
4,603
1,025
In a cave outside of Whooville.
As someone who is for the death penalty, it's a hard line to toe, as innocent people do get put in prison. If we executed all people convicted of murder, innocent people would get put to death.
Yeah, I don't know what the solution is. We can't even really say that any time there's video evidence of someone killing another person that we can go ahead and just ram hot pokers into their eye sockets since we're entering a new age of video doctoring.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
5,431
6,588
615
i think we are past the need for violent, and often pointless, retribution. there was a time when you could get in trouble for threatening the king. if someone overheard you in a tavern, or simply claimed to, you could be executed, drawn and quartered, your remains placed on London Bridge as a warning to others to not even think about joking about that shit.

some people are extremely dangerous. prison seems like a more human way for them to live at least some kind of a life. i am not a fan of supporting the state use of lethal violence TBH. it seems like a dangerous road to go down. given the flaws of our justice system, I think it better to entertain alternatives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette
Oct 26, 2018
4,176
3,330
440
I've always been a big supporter of anyone doing a serious crime to be done with. Capital punishment is fine with me, though there's always that chance the guy might be innocent.

So allow capital punishment only for those cases where it's 100% verifiable...... not some claim like "according to DNA tests on 40 year old dirt samples, forensic scientists says it's likely him".

Never understood why government give lowlifes second and third chances.

Then again, that's the western world way! We are self proclaimed civilized people. Not barbarians. So we are super supportive of murderers and bank robbers getting another chance! /S

Waste of time and money supporting losers in prison. They get a free roof over their head, free food, I think even free schooling. A good natured broke dude working minimum wage struggles, and a moron in jail gets freebies. That sure makes sense.
 
Last edited:

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
I'm all for execution, the amount of innocent people who end up in prison are few and far between(a mere 4% estimate of innocents on Death Row, this will become lesser in the future thanks to technology).
Given the genetic component of criminality, if you want a safer world tomorrow, you start executing your criminals today and hoping they didn't have children.

The other benefit is our taxes aren't going to pay for these people to live full lives as they are a drain on society in every sense. They take away or damage productive people through crime and then are paid for to be housed and fed by Taxpayers. Execute, execute, execute.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
4,303
4,754
785
I'm all for execution, the amount of innocent people who end up in prison are few and far between(a mere 4% estimate of innocents on Death Row, this will become lesser in the future thanks to technology).
Given the genetic component of criminality, if you want a safer world tomorrow, you start executing your criminals today and hoping they didn't have children.

The other benefit is our taxes aren't going to pay for these people to live full lives as they are a drain on society in every sense. They take away or damage productive people through crime and then are paid for to be housed and fed by Taxpayers. Execute, execute, execute.
I mean I’m a fan of the death penalty too, but I think one innocent death is too many. In cases of solid video evidence I don’t believe in appeal and once found guilty to the wood chipper with ya; but human witnesses lie.
 

slugbahr

Gold Member
Jan 4, 2019
1,157
1,525
510
The edge of a circle
This kind of shit seems to be happening in my area a lot recently - Melbourne, Australia.
Assholes getting light sentences and then violently reoffending.

The 'justice' system has become a joke ever since the softly, softly approach took hold. Fuck that shit.
It should be about justice for the victims, punishment for the criminal scumbags, protection for the rest of society.

An eye for an eye might leave the whole world blind (it actually won't), but turning the other cheek will result in dirtbags setting it on fire.
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
I mean I’m a fan of the death penalty too, but I think one innocent death is too many.
I'm a greater good sort of fellow.
More innocent people suffer at the hands of violent offenders released from prison than the amount of innocents who would be killed on death row under a zero tolerance violent crime policy.
Do the benefits of executing all extremely violent criminals outweigh the rare collateral?
I'd bet yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,163
1,333
415
Never understood why government give lowlifes second and third chances.
Because those are democratic votes, and we want every one of them. So we will use every whataboutism like the left does for everything. There absolutely are people that are 100% guilty and deserve to die.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
1,752
2,146
410
I think I'd take it a step further and hold the judge or parole board who lets them out accountable. You feel this guy isn't a threat to society? It's your fucking ass if he is. I've seen too many accounts where some asshole judge or parole board lets off someone who is obviously a piece of shit and they turn around and do the same thing again. Same thing with pedos, I mean... if you feel you have to watch them and notify the public at large that they are living amongst them, can you really say with a straight face that they should be released?

I'm all for holding the bad guys to account, but I also want the bad guys in power who are supposed to be looking out for the public to be held to account as well.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: slugbahr

Gargus

Member
Oct 1, 2018
148
142
220
But how many commit a crime and released never to do it again? You cant throw everyone under the jail for what some do. Everyone deserves a second chance (well most do). You cant just put everyone in for life because one thing they do, even if it is murder, unless it's some kind of truly heinous murder.

Now repeat offenders, that's a whole other ballgame. But you cant just blindly start going for the harshest punishment right out of the gate across the board.
 

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,926
4,168
730
But how many commit a crime and released never to do it again? You cant throw everyone under the jail for what some do. Everyone deserves a second chance (well most do). You cant just put everyone in for life because one thing they do, even if it is murder, unless it's some kind of truly heinous murder.

Now repeat offenders, that's a whole other ballgame. But you cant just blindly start going for the harshest punishment right out of the gate across the board.
Fuck no, murderers don't deserve a second chance. If you kill somebody, that person won't have a second chance, so why should you? You rape kids, you don't deserve a second chance either. If you behave like a rabid animal, you have no place in society, ever.

So in your book another innocent person has to die needlessly for the criminal to be punished adequately?

Second chances? Sure, for non-violent offenders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,387
1,340
imagine they don't actually kill you but put you to sleep and take you to the pentagon for ultra violence experiments
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,138
1,123
375
OP, I totally agree with you. Blame leftists and their misplaced compassion which has led to early releases and weak on crime policies.
In some cases, leftists reward criminals and punish the victims.
 
  • Love
Reactions: slugbahr

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,753
488
790
OP, I totally agree with you. Blame leftists and their misplaced compassion which has led to early releases and weak on crime policies.
In some cases, leftists reward criminals and punish the victims.
Not acquiescing to Abrahimic sensibilities of justice whereupon society quickly and violently slaughters does not make one soft, or necessarily liberal. It's the fundamental belief in the sancitity of life that is supposed to be the bedrock foundation of conservatism - shared with liberalism - that ideally elevates us above animals and predecessor societies destabilized with the streets running red with blood.

Retributive justice - specifically capital punishment - has been shown to not act as more of a deterrent to violent crime than long sentences. One life isn't worth that currency to society, nevermind 4 percent of all people the state puts to death.
 

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,138
1,123
375
Not acquiescing to Abrahimic sensibilities of justice whereupon society quickly and violently slaughters does not make one soft, or necessarily liberal. It's the fundamental belief in the sancitity of life that is supposed to be the bedrock foundation of conservatism - shared with liberalism - that ideally elevates us above animals and predecessor societies destabilized with the streets running red with blood.

Retributive justice - specifically capital punishment - has been shown to not act as more of a deterrent to violent crime than long sentences. One life isn't worth that currency to society, nevermind 4 percent of all people the state puts to death.
I wasn’t clear on my position.
I am totally against the death penalty. Mistakenly killing just one innocent person is worse than the acquittal of 1000 guilty people. Hence, I believe longer sentences and extremely tough prison conditions is the best way. Right now, prison is a revolving door due to short sentences and easy prison conditions.
 

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,138
1,123
375
What will you say to the families of all the victims of the 1000 guilty killers you set free ?
Of course it’s awful but the death of an innocent person is worse than any other thing.

What I’m saying is, because there is a probability of mistakenly killing an innocent person, it’s best not to practice the death penalty.
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
What's wrong with a dimly lit 8x8 with no bed or windows for 75 years?
I'm still paying for them.
People have brought up the concern about innocent people several times, remember that these innocent people are already serving, of which there are very few, what is probably a substantial amount of time in Prison, possibly their entire lives before being acquitted. They still lost their life regardless of whether they were killed or not.

The moral argument is lost on me when criminal execution could only be a net positive thing when considering costs of Housing criminals and the two-fold risk they present both physically through their criminality and through their genes which could be passed on if ever released.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WindomURL
Jun 25, 2018
587
300
480
Instead of talking about punishment you should instead ask why people got to that point in there lives that they commit murder.
If you find the answer to that perhaps... we could stop punishment of innocent and criminals a like.
In any case we are all going to die pretty soon. so this is really not a interesting discussion to me.
As we have all been served the death penalty by the Elite people on this globe.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: Ornlu

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,753
488
790
I'm still paying for them.
People have brought up the concern about innocent people several times, remember that these innocent people are already serving, of which there are very few, what is probably a substantial amount of time in Prison, possibly their entire lives before being acquitted. They still lost their life regardless of whether they were killed or not.

The moral argument is lost on me when criminal execution could only be a net positive thing when considering costs of Housing criminals and the two-fold risk they present both physically through their criminality and through their genes which could be passed on if ever released.
Your only moral anchor is "cost," which you cannot attach an objective value onto the loss of an innocent life (and you clearly don't care to), nor do you probably know how much it costs to rigorously prove at the highest evidential burden if a person is guilty or not before killing them off.

You aren't even offering collateral cost considerations relative to the recidivism rate of individuals with violent crimes on their ledger - it's simply and crassly "just kill them as cheaply as possible."
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
487
300
285
How is having the government execute someone on your behalf self-defense?
You said " the State is the only power that can decide to kill someone." I just said that is wrong.

In the case of self defense an individual not only has the power but the right to do so.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
533
552
310
You said " the State is the only power that can decide to kill someone." I just said that is wrong.

In the case of self defense an individual not only has the power but the right to do so.
That's the State granting you the right to defend yourself in your own home/your own person. That's fine, but not what I was quoting in the first place.

You said you want victims' families to determine sentences on the people convicted for killing their loved ones. That's what I was quoting.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
487
300
285
That's the State granting you the right to defend yourself in your own home/your own person. That's fine, but not what I was quoting in the first place.

You said you want victims' families to determine sentences on the people convicted for killing their loved ones. That's what I was quoting.
Natural law and rights are not granted by a human authority. Self defense is an innaliable right of being a living creature. The government and its agents do not grant rights.

And I was just saying that I disagree with the government being the deciding factor on what happens to these sorts of criminals. I think if a family wants reparations they should be allowed to get them. Instead of having to pay to keep the person alive through state constructs like prison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blood Borne

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
533
552
310
Natural law and rights are not granted by a human authority. Self defense is an innaliable right of being a living creature. The government and its agents do not grant rights.

And I was just saying that I disagree with the government being the deciding factor on what happens to these sorts of criminals. I think if a family wants reparations they should be allowed to get them. Instead of having to pay to keep the person alive through state constructs like prison.
We can agree to disagree!

I think having a standard set of punishments for a crime avoids going down a very dark road.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
487
300
285
We can agree to disagree!

I think having a standard set of punishments for a crime avoids going down a very dark road.
I think that is a dark road. Standard punishment no questions asked or nuance seems like some will get off easy and other screwed over.
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
Your only moral anchor is "cost," which you cannot attach an objective value onto the loss of an innocent life (and you clearly don't care to)
The value is not just in monetary costs, but cost measured in lives as well.
Violent offenders are particularly stupid in society, an average of 10IQ points lower than the National Average. They often have particular traits about them that make them dangerous, like impulsiveness and little self-control, sensible given they think less and notice fewer patterns due to their relative lack of intelligence. Currently, through Gene Association studies, scientists are discovering that there are SNPs which are positively correlated with violent or aggressive behavior. Effectively what I'm saying is that if we want a less violent society tomorrow, these people musn't breed. This will have an unmeasurable effect for many generations though.

The cost that can easily be measured is the amount of lives lost at the hands of violent offenders who are released from Prison. This can be compared and contrasted to the amount of innocent people put in prison(about 2.3-5%, if we assume this applies to murderers in prison[166,000~] then that's about 8300 innocents)
If the amount of people saved by executing murderers, instead of releasing or simply holding indefinitely, is greater than the innocents(of the crime they were convicted at least, consider they were likely suspects for related offenses) in prison who would be executed then it is easily justifiable.
What's the moral superiority in holding convicted murderers indefinitely in a cage using taxpayer money?

Watch these for your consideration as both talk about the effects of culling violent criminals:
 
Last edited:

manfestival

Member
Nov 12, 2009
10,681
1,297
885
Was reading an article earlier today about how in Cusco the Police is cutting off the hands of thieves. Pretty severe punishment that is akin to the olden days. There was a picture of a bag of hands and some other stuff with the people that had plastic bags put on their arms in the place of their hands.
 

CeroFrio996

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2019
184
108
345
extremely tough prison conditions is the best way.
No death penalty I agree on, but here I can not agree less. This kind of thought process is why America has a ridiculously high rate of recidivism. Criminals aren't going to take into account the lengthy prison sentences or rough conditions, because few of them are capable of that much foresight. They are either mentally unstable, addicted, impoverished, or otherwise intellectually impaired. Criminals should serve their time in prison learning how to reintegrate and acquiring useful skills. Even violent criminals in some cases.

This tough on crime thing has been tried in America time and time again, and it's only filled up our jails and created the private prison monster, which feeds off repeat offenders and occupancy quotas.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,387
1,340
we should move away from punitive justice

i understand why it's still a thing but we need to do better, strive to not only rehabilitate but reintegrate as freedom is both privilege and right and one buoys off the other
 
  • Like
Reactions: daveonezero

GreenAlien

Member
Jun 11, 2016
208
155
330
I agree.. Some people keep saying we should not seek revenge or punishment.. But I don't think it's about that at all. It's about protecting the innocent from dangerous people. Recidivism rates are so high (everywhere, even 20% are way to much of a risk), it's not worth it to let them out and give them a chance ruin someones life again. (limited to violent crime ofc)
 

CeroFrio996

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2019
184
108
345
I agree.. Some people keep saying we should not seek revenge or punishment.. But I don't think it's about that at all. It's about protecting the innocent from dangerous people. Recidivism rates are so high (everywhere, even 20% are way to much of a risk), it's not worth it to let them out and give them a chance ruin someones life again. (limited to violent crime ofc)
Do you even stop to wonder WHY recidivism is so high in the US, and they to tackle those issues instead? Maybe criminals have trouble reintegrating even after they get out because that's how it's designed to work? Felons can't find jobs (a requirement of parole) and haven't be given any skills during their time in jail. How exactly are they supposed to live?
 

GreenAlien

Member
Jun 11, 2016
208
155
330
Do you even stop to wonder WHY recidivism is so high in the US.
Like I said, I consider 20% to still be a very high rate (The US has like 60+ or something). Not finding jobs or learning skills isn't a problem if you never get out again. Or course, if you don't have the conviction to do that, reducing recidivism is better than doing nothing and benefits non-violent criminals as well.
 
Last edited:

CeroFrio996

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2019
184
108
345
Like I said, I consider 20% to still be a very high rate (The US has like 60+ or something). Not finding jobs or learning skills isn't a problem if you never get out again. Or course, if you don't have the conviction to do that, reducing recidivism is better than doing nothing and benefits non-violent criminals as well.
Because there are no other problems that arise from mass incarceration.

My convictions lay in creating a country with less crime, not in locking everyone up and throwing away the key.