Mickmeister
Registered Senior Member
That would be a great justice too. Although I don't like the middle east, I do agree with their justice systems. They have the right ideas in public executions and losing body parts.
DC sniper Muhammad set to die by lethal injection
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
That would be a great justice too. Although I don't like the middle east, I do agree with their justice systems. They have the right ideas in public executions and losing body parts.
I have a great idea! Let's God (of your choice) do the work. Let's take the client to New Mexico in the summer, gently push him into a 15 feet deep hole, from where he can not get out and leave him there WITHOUT water or food. After 3-4 weeks (I haven't decided yet) we would visit him again and if the client is still alive, that must be God's way of telling us that he was innocent.
And if he is dead, well, whose fault is it? Certainly not ours....Nature just quietly taking its course....
By the way I must have missed it, has anyone told yet why Muhammed should have lived? (I mean beside the sadistic argument)
And if he is dead, well, whose fault is it? Certainly not ours....Nature just quietly taking its course....
By the way I must have missed it, has anyone told yet why Muhammed should have lived? (I mean beside the sadistic argument)
This guy isn't exactly the best candidate to rally around to bring an end to the death penalty. But it'd be a bit hypocritical of me to oppose it in principal, but make an exception for this guy. But I'm a strong believer in a transformative justice system, not a retributive one. I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right as a child, and I've never had any reason to question that.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The 19th century was the Century of Chemistry, the 20th century was the Century of Physics, and the 21st century is expected to be the Century of Biology. Perhaps the 22nd will be the Century of Psychology. Once we have the technology to map individual neurons and the electrochemical signals between them, and to correlate them with behavior, who know what we'll figure out. Maybe psychology will yet turn into a "hard science."
Well yes, and that illustrates my one exception to my opposition to capital punishment, as a reasonable libertarian rather than an unqualified Buddhist-flavored pacifist. When putting a man (and they're so overwhelmingly men, aren't they?) in jail is likely to result in more harm to civilization than killing him, the only rational decision is to kill him. The usual example is members of terrorist organizations. If you put one in jail, his buddies will kidnap two dozen of your people and threaten to kill them if you don't let him out. So if you keep him, 24 people die, and if you let him go he'll go back to being a terrorist and probably kill more than 24 people over the remainder of his life. This turns the old aphorism around: 'Tis better to kill one guilty man than to let two dozen innocent men die.
But despite the validity of this example it's an unusual situation. Normally all we gain by killing a convicted murderer who is safely locked away being butt-fucked every night is the pleasant feeling of our enemy's blood on our hands. In other words, the emotions of a caveman, not those of a member of a great civilization.
He's hardly the poster boy for the anti-death penalty movement, that's for sure. But then which convicted felon is in the heat of the moment? It's only a generation later when new technology proves he was innocent that our children regret our intemperate action, in a rather dispassionate statistical sort of way. Or two generations later when you notice that his grandchildren seem to be suspected in an inordinate number of murders of the grandchildren of the witness who lied and was responsible for his execution.
I have plenty of pressing crusades to fight, like getting American business to stop requiring its employees to "go to work" every day, wasting 25% of our petroleum consumption directly on commuting, when they all have computers and telephones at home. So the campaign against the death penalty is not one of my priorities. I only rise to the occasion when I see people being taken over by their Inner Caveman shaking their fists and yelling, "Me angry at that guy! Let's kill him!"
Especially since the involuntary servitude known as "the draft" ended a generation ago and all of those people knowingly volunteered to be killers. I used to have sympathy for soldiers because there but for fortune (a poorly healed broken bone) might have gone I; now I just wonder what makes them tick. I don't like being around people who think violence is sometimes the best way to settle an argument, since I have a habit of arguing.
Does that include clitorises? It's a package deal. Primitive is primitive.
That was the alleged "reasoning" behind the dunking of accused witches, except they got it backwards. Only witches could swim, so if they didn't drown, they pulled them out and executed them.
There was a tremendous religiously-inspired aversion to immersion in water during the Dark Ages. People didn't even bathe, which was one of the reasons for the spread of the Plague. Jewish culture put a high value on cleanliness so the shtetls were not as hard hit by the epidemics, reinforcing the belief that Jews were in collusion with the devil.
Because no civilized purpose was served by killing him. (Putting aside the rather convincing argument that letting him live might propagate Islamic terrorism.) Revenge is an uncivilized emotion which should not be coddled. Put him on a chain gang building roads, use him for medical research, experiment with promising new types of rehabilitation methods.
At the very least, harvest his organs!
You summed up my argument much more succinctly. Can I hire you as my editor?
I do not advocate their slaughter but only demonstrate what a policy of allowing killing for any other reason than self-defense often leads to. And in any case it's not because they "don't believe what I believe." It's because the monotheistic religions--especially the two evangelical ones--teach their people that they are superior to everyone else, who are dismissed as "heathens." This inspires their communities to rise up en masse every few generations and launch orgies of killing, even genocide. On the balance, Christianity and Islam are each responsible for more evil on this planet than any other motif in human history. For example, they obliterated three of our species' six precious, irreplaceable civilizations with all of their history, culture and ideas. That is a "sin" for which they can never atone if they survive for two thousand more years. (What a depressing thought!) They show no signs of reforming and becoming more civilized and right at this moment they are on the verge of plunging the world into a planet-wide war using nuclear weapons.madanthonywayne said:
As I said, religious people always have, still do, and apparently always will be a net destructive force against civilization. A hypothetical person who believes there is ever a valid reason to kill someone who is not standing over his daughter with a knife could easily believe that preemptive slaughter is justified in such a dire circumstance as this.
Fortunately I don't. I just hope that eventually civilization finds a way to reckon with them before they destroy it and achieve their goal of reversion to the Stone Age.
You would have felt right at home in the old south. Assuming you're white; might have ended up on the wrong side of the rope if you aren't.
The Middle East juridical system is corrupt and a mess .
For instance the Royals in Saudi Arabia get all the billions they want from the kingdom, break any laws and the poor sheeple get lashed, killed.....etc by the court . Also bribes and favouritism are the norm .
1. No dead man killed again.
2. Yes, the organ harvest was my idea long time ago and we should do it and of course, it would be a very civilized and useful purpose.
And please forget about the R word... So I take you didn't offer any good answer to my question, thus you must agree with the execution.
Life is sometimes so easy...
Mohammed should not be killed because in some states murder is illegal and carries a mandatory death penalty. Er, state sanctioned killing is not murder it's revenge. Revenge killings in some states carry a mandatory death sentence. Unless you are wearing a military uniform and then the killing is sanctioned by the state. Unless you kill your own soldiers who are wearing military uniforms because that carries a mandatory death sentence. Lets save his life so that we can illustrate that he's as mad as a hatter and then kill him....killing the mentally ill is regarded as murder and in some states murder carries a mandatory death sentence....
oh oh oh it's all so confusing :bawl:
Isn't it?
oh oh oh it's all so confusing :bawl:
Isn't it?
Mickmeister
Registered Senior Member
Yep, that is exactly what I am talking about that we should have today. Public, televised executions would be great! Not just televised, but out in the public.
Maybe Muhammad should not have been executed because it is just too darned expensive a business.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/home
I would be a bit more worried about this implication from the same source:
"Lyn Entzeroth focuses on whether mentally ill defendants should be excluded from the death penalty, and asks whether states should be allowed to forcibly medicate mentally ill defendants in order to make them competent for execution."
Could somebody clarify: are the mentally ill not already excluded from the death penalty?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/home
I would be a bit more worried about this implication from the same source:
"Lyn Entzeroth focuses on whether mentally ill defendants should be excluded from the death penalty, and asks whether states should be allowed to forcibly medicate mentally ill defendants in order to make them competent for execution."
Could somebody clarify: are the mentally ill not already excluded from the death penalty?
Does the above in bold strike you as the thought processes and actions of a sane man?
"My dear wife take me back or I will lethally shoot ten people to prove what a bad ass I am and thus will persuade you to take me back with open arms."
Hmm can any or everyone spot the glaring flaw in his plan?
It isn't confusing, you just have to learn a bit more...
Excuse me, was it really an argument? It wasn't. He was executed in a state where death penalty is in the books, end of story.
This isn't an argument either. It implies that there is something wrong with revenge, and clearly, there isn't. Also if I call it payback, would that make you happy?
So 2 tries 2 misses. Care to play again?
Excuse me, was it really an argument? It wasn't. He was executed in a state where death penalty is in the books, end of story.
This isn't an argument either. It implies that there is something wrong with revenge, and clearly, there isn't. Also if I call it payback, would that make you happy?
So 2 tries 2 misses. Care to play again?
I see, you like to play so let's see what you got:
Very bad argument if I might say so because:
1. Can you put a price on justice?
2. It shouldn't be this expensive really. We should work on making it cheaper, not abolishing it. (also only in America)
3. With the same logic you could argue for reducing everyone/anyone's sentence by 80% to save 80% of the cost..
So although I appreciate your trying, as I said there isn't really a good argument except the "more suffering when he is alive" sadist one....
Very bad argument if I might say so because:
1. Can you put a price on justice?
2. It shouldn't be this expensive really. We should work on making it cheaper, not abolishing it. (also only in America)
3. With the same logic you could argue for reducing everyone/anyone's sentence by 80% to save 80% of the cost..
So although I appreciate your trying, as I said there isn't really a good argument except the "more suffering when he is alive" sadist one....
Do you have something against playing?
It's not my argument it is an argument quoted from the website. Don't suppose you read dat, huh?
A lot of US states that have the death penalty appear to be worrying about the high dollar cost of execution. Care to argue that point with certain American states....? It is a consideration, though isn't it? I mean just imagine a state that spent $10 million on executions that could have been spent on, say, building a hospital. Some voters might have something to say about that if they are any good at maths.
The execution (LOL!) of justice in any country has a cost. Care to look at state and federal budgets of the US to see what that is?
Might also be cheaper to execute all your prisoners....instead of keeping them in jail.....
Who is we? No death penalty where I live.
Why yes, yes you could..... presumably though there would be costs attached to doing that.....?
My argument against executing Mohammed would be that he was obviously mentally ill and that mentally ill people should not be executed for murder.
My other argement is that state sanctioned murder is murder. Can you prove otherwise?
My other concern is that Mohammed may have been executed because of his name and the implications of it. I wonder what such a state of affairs may suggest about his executioners.
Not at all. As long as we all play by the same rules, meaning using facts and logic. And real arguments.
Not really. We don't need to keep the average executed on death row for 13 years and we don't need high lawyer and court costs.
Silly argument because we can take it further, eliminating ALL prisons.
Sure. The point is that it shouldn't be much more than keeping the guy in prison for 4-5 decades.
Finally a decent argument, although in this particular case it isn't valid. The court decided he wasn't. Also what is the social value of keeping a mentally ill criminal for decades in prison? If he kills later, who is going to be blamed?
I can prove that it is a meaningless statement, not an argument. It implies that something is wrong with murder, when according to the criminal there clearly nothing is.
I am sure 13 people dead has nothing to do with it...
Are you saying that this report containing the views of US police chiefs is not a logical argument?
DPIC Releases New Report on Costs of the Death Penalty and Police Chiefs' Views
The Death Penalty Information Center has released its latest report, "Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis." The report combines an analysis of the costs of the death penalty with a newly released national poll of police chiefs who put capital punishment at the bottom of their law enforcement priorities.
source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/home
I guess here you are assuming that it costs more to keep someone in prison for life. Care to use some facts and figures to illustrate your point?
Is that an argument?
And 'courts' are qualified psychologists? And courts are never wrong?
Presumabely if person is in prison for life said person is not 'free' to kill later.
So what is the social value of executing a mentally ill person?
If the state says that it is illegal to kill someone that to kill someone is murder and that murder is a criminal act and then the state kills someone; what does that make the state?
What have 13 dead people to do with the death penalty? Is it a numbers thing or is it the act itself that carries the sentence?
Mickmeister
Registered Senior Member
The other thing about having a public execution is that the state could recoup some of the money they spent on the prisoner by televising it and profiting off of the publicity.
And you would be presumably WRONG.
Never heard of murder in jail or ordering a murder from jail? Hell, Dahmer ESCAPED TWICE from jail...
Gotta run, you don't really present any good arguments and why should we care what policechiefs think?
About the organ harvest: Executing Malvo now, who is young and healthy we could help easily 10+ people's lifes by donating his organs. Just think about it:
Helping 10 decent people vs. keeping him in prison for 6 decades (forever) (yeah I know, a hard choice)