I would think that if you can confirm that their victim was indeed a commiter of a heinous crime, then so be it. Perhaps a fine, but ultimately they killed a criminal, and criminals are less than cockroaches
Do you agree with capital punishment?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
I would think that if you can confirm that their victim was indeed a commiter of a heinous crime, then so be it. Perhaps a fine, but ultimately they killed a criminal, and criminals are less than cockroaches
There cannot be two trials, especially since the victim is dead. What then?
Secondarily, what is a criminal? Can someone commit a crime and then change in later life?
Secondarily, what is a criminal? Can someone commit a crime and then change in later life?
No, but you can still confirm that the victim was the commiter of a heinous crime, and therefore justify or at least lessen the punishment for the vigilante.
A criminal is a commiter of a crime. And sure they can change, but the people they murdered and tortured and raped won't. And besides, they are going to hell anyway.
A criminal is a commiter of a crime. And sure they can change, but the people they murdered and tortured and raped won't. And besides, they are going to hell anyway.
I'd give a lot of leeway, but it would depend on the exact circumstances.
Say some guy got off for murdering a family member on a technicality, but it was obvious the guy was guilty. Maybe it was ruled that when the murderer was pulled over and the dead body was found in his car, the cop didn't have probable cause for the search. So, even though the guy was caught with your family member's mutilated body in his car, that evidence was inadmissible.
So then the father/husband or whatever shoots the murderer in the head, right there in the courtroom.
If I were on a jury in such a case, I would vote to acquit . I would hold out against all the other jurors, if necesary, because I'd see what the aggrieved family member did as justice.
But the facts would have to be crystal clear. If there was any doubt, the guy would be in trouble.
Madanthonywayne said:
You would really pretend that life and death are the same?
Additionally, if you're not going to pay attention to the topic, that's fine. How many times should we all repeat ourselves for homicide advocates for whom a little bit of sincere effort is too much to ask?
Besides, the ignorant savagery of your post speaks for itself. If you ever wonder why people think so little of political conservatives, don't: your post is a perfect example.
Execution isn't murder, you simply must understand that.
Life and death are not the same, and when a murderer takes the life of an innocent person, WHY SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO LIVE? Quite simple.
Also, as you say, we should help the criminal. And criminals love their crimes, so they'll have a blast being tortured or murdered if that's what they did.
Life and death are not the same, and when a murderer takes the life of an innocent person, WHY SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO LIVE? Quite simple.
Also, as you say, we should help the criminal. And criminals love their crimes, so they'll have a blast being tortured or murdered if that's what they did.
Norsefire, I don't disagree that some murderers deserve death. It's just that our faith in the prosecutors and police cannot be absolute. They are human too, and make mistakes. If no innocent people have ever been executed (in the US), my position might be different.
That is another stupid argument. Analogy: Let's say the State is attacked by a foreign force. By deffending itself the State would also engage in a most likely brutal war not to mention lowering itself to the attacker's level.
What is wrong with giving back the same (plus a little extra for punishment) to the offenders? If it doesn't do that the State will lose one of its primary objective, protecting its citizens. meaning protecting their rights, their rights to justice...
I just LOVE that criminals can have all the rights and protections, and victims are fucked.
P.S.: By the way dear Tiassa, you can stop respondnig to my posts, because you have been on manual Ignore since a week ago, for lack of making sense.... But I still wish Jeffrey would visit you....
Mod Note: Here's a piece of advice I wouldn't ignore if I was you, Syz: stop with the Dahmer wishes. See #211 below. Oh, right ... you're ignoring me.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree.
Quite accidentally, ysterday I watched an old movie with Micheal Douglas as a judge, called Star Chamber (they are planning to remake it).
In it 9 judges who are fed up with the system's faults make a secret tribunal and review cases where most likely guilty people got off on technicality and they rejudge them. If they find them guilty there is an executioner.
The movie has a twist, where they rejudge 2 dudes for murdering young boys they actually end up being innocent. So Michael Dougles has a moral problem. Nevertheless the 2 dudes are guilty of other crimes although lesser degree. (robbery, making drugs) So the death sentence is not completely off target....
OK, so the thread has our #4 turnover, thank you....
By the way I would give death sentence for other crimes too, not just for murder. Here is a quick list coming to my mind:
- any president who takes the country to unnecessery war on false premises
- serial rapist, if raped more than 5 different persons (see, I am human and up to 4, I consider it a mistake)
- treason, specially in wartime or if human loss occured because of it
- spying, specially in wartime or if human loss occured because of it
- serious security breach or providing dangerous technology to outsiders without permission (let's say selling a mininuke)
- CEOs who violate their oath and knowingly cause huge losses to the company (stupidity is no excuse!) including employees' 401K (Kenny boy, here you go)
- for those who comit henious crimes not resulting in death, but where the value of loss extend a person's life (let's say an arsonist got 5 people burnt really badly)
- damage to infrastructure where the damages are very high (blowing up a dam, arsonist burning down a town, etc.)
I am sure I missed a few. The point is that there are way more capital offenses than just murder....
Oh yes, and if you premeditatedly kill more than 2, you automatically get the chair...
Evil Islamic terrorists started the war in '79. Our POTUS at the time was too impotent to do anything about it. When evil Islamic terrorists attacked during Clinton's reign, he was too busy being an alley cat in heat to fight back. This last time when the evil Islamic terrorists attacked us (911) we had a POTUS with balls. He chose to fight back. We are making major progress in Iraq. We will win. We always do. Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rummy are heroes. They deserve medals for fighting back against these slime.:yay:
What else isn't it? I always thought it was an arbitrary authorisation to kill someone (for whatever reason). It makes the executioners look effective, and it removes the burden of a human life from the planet.Norsefire said:
Very simple. Even simplistic. Straight from Deuteronomy by the look. WHY SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED...(to die, to "do" anything at all henceforth? Why should someone be ALLOWED to execute them even?)Norsefire said:
Love is subjective. You appear to be in love with the idea of retribution. And torture, i.e. punishment which "fits" (your worldview of "good guys", and "bad guys"--about as philosophical as five-year olds playing cops and robbers).Norsefire said:
You know all this. I can see you must have studied all this quite a bit, so it can't be just a simplistic or naive opinion, surely?sandy said:
Evil is another (religious) idea that belongs back in the millenia B.C. where it should have stayed.
Define evil for us (think you can?). Then define good, and show us all the difference. Or not?
Last edited:
Please elaborate. I'd love to hear more.
No, because there is a purpose behind each. Murder can be in cold blood for pleasure, or as a punishment
Please clarify, I do not understand you.
Tell me, progress in WHAT? Rebuilding a country for them? How is this helping our own country?
They are alternative sentences for the crime of murder. Each with a long history of being imposed for the crime of murder. Each is legal in the US.
If you ever wonder why people think so little of you, you might consider cutting back on your over the top ad homs. Such as "ignorant savagery". That was really a good one. It even made my son laugh when he read it.
So what? Sometimes that's the only kind of justice available. As you've said, we can't bring the victims back. All we can do is make the criminal pay the blood debt with his own blood.
What's the difference between taxation and theft? Or between being forced to pay a fine to avoid losing your license and extortion? Or between incarceration and kidnapping?
If you can't see the difference between execution and murder, you shouldn't see a difference between any of those others either.