Hudson family killers should live, because...
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
As the proposed "victim" I have no need to justify my position. If I decide the harm done me doesn't merit death, that is my right even though it is not legally binding on the judge, prosecutor or jury.
Also it has nothing to do with what he might or might not disserve nor its it because I feel prison a superior punishment nor is it because I am protecting the feelings of his family nor is it because I feel killing him would be immoral.
Only in the US, and who says it should be? Also money is only money, but a prisoner is using up resources in his life...
Otherwise I like your reasoning.Not very explanatory though...So basicly you think killing 3 people doesn't merit death....But how about the bombers in India?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/world/asia/31assam.html?hp
39 dead, 100 injured. I hear that CP is cheaper than life in prison in India....
Last edited:
That's only because mamby-pamby liberal bleeding-hearts allow years of legal entanglements and idiotic appeals. If the sentence was carried out after, say, two legitimate appeals, then it would be cheaper by a long sight.
Baron Max
The case against the death penalty is simple, it's better to enslave them and make them pay the victims for the rest of their life while they are enslaved in prison. However if they disagree with that arrangement, then we just stop feeding them until they work.
I think for murderers like this life can actually be easier in prison because now they dont have to work. They get a free bed and free food. The solution is to make them work in prison. Problem solved. If they don't work they don't eat, let them have the option to farm their own food, if they don't work they don't eat. This should only apply to the worst criminals, like child killers and people who kill entire families. Ordinary criminals are just usually mentally ill, and we used to put these people in institutions and now we put them in prison but it's the same people with the same mental illnesses as before.
Pedophiles as bad as they are, are mentally ill. All the rapists and serial killers are mentally ill. But then you have people who are mentally ill but non violent, and those are the ones I wont mind my taxes paying for, but if they are violent and mentally ill, I'd rather they pay their own way because I don't think they'll ever have a place in society.
Now, as far as whats going to happen to a person who kills your entire family, most people whether they agree with the state giving the death penalty or not, would still kill the person who killed their family if they could get away with it. So if it were me, the killers would be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their life, and eventually someone would reach them.
Nobody is beyond reach, especially in prison. It's not like people on the outside cannot reach into the prison the same way people inside the prison can reach the outside. They'd have to keep the killer in solitary for the rest of his life and even then he'd have to still worry about the prison guards and anyone else. And this person messed with the family of a person who has fame and power, if the killer ends up dying in some accident whether in prison or not, it wont be much of a surprise.
The point? It's bad for anyones karma to kill an entire family, in fact it's suicide. Even the people who don't believe in the death penalty, if you kill their entire family and put them in a dark room with the killer, what do you think will happen?
The reason I'm against the death penalty is because I don't like the state deciding who lives and who dies. However if you kill someones entire family it's no longer a matter of the state. That makes it personal. I'm guessing whoever killed her family was trying to commit suicide or was paid to do it.
I think for murderers like this life can actually be easier in prison because now they dont have to work. They get a free bed and free food. The solution is to make them work in prison. Problem solved. If they don't work they don't eat, let them have the option to farm their own food, if they don't work they don't eat. This should only apply to the worst criminals, like child killers and people who kill entire families. Ordinary criminals are just usually mentally ill, and we used to put these people in institutions and now we put them in prison but it's the same people with the same mental illnesses as before.
Pedophiles as bad as they are, are mentally ill. All the rapists and serial killers are mentally ill. But then you have people who are mentally ill but non violent, and those are the ones I wont mind my taxes paying for, but if they are violent and mentally ill, I'd rather they pay their own way because I don't think they'll ever have a place in society.
Now, as far as whats going to happen to a person who kills your entire family, most people whether they agree with the state giving the death penalty or not, would still kill the person who killed their family if they could get away with it. So if it were me, the killers would be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their life, and eventually someone would reach them.
Nobody is beyond reach, especially in prison. It's not like people on the outside cannot reach into the prison the same way people inside the prison can reach the outside. They'd have to keep the killer in solitary for the rest of his life and even then he'd have to still worry about the prison guards and anyone else. And this person messed with the family of a person who has fame and power, if the killer ends up dying in some accident whether in prison or not, it wont be much of a surprise.
The point? It's bad for anyones karma to kill an entire family, in fact it's suicide. Even the people who don't believe in the death penalty, if you kill their entire family and put them in a dark room with the killer, what do you think will happen?
The reason I'm against the death penalty is because I don't like the state deciding who lives and who dies. However if you kill someones entire family it's no longer a matter of the state. That makes it personal. I'm guessing whoever killed her family was trying to commit suicide or was paid to do it.
I disagree. In order to do as you suggest, the state (the taxpayers!) must build, furnish, and maintain those hugely expensive prisons, as well as pay for guards and attendants.
What you're suggesting is nothing short of punishing the entire society (the taxpayers!) for what some individuals have done to someone else. Does that seem at all fair to you?
Baron Max
I think in situations where someone kills your entire family it becomes a matter of capabilities. The laws don't apply to these situations. What this means is, if the victim of this attack is capable of murdering the killer and getting away with it, we can expect the logical and predictable response of the victim to be to murder the person who killed their family.
Why don't all victims do this? Well if I think about what would stop me, the only thing to stop me from doing it is I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in prison. Maybe we should make an exception in the law that if someone murders your entire family, while the state cannot give them the death penalty, you can. That's a law I'd support. I'm not for the STATE sanctioned death industry, but I don't think the law really is helping anyone in situations where a person murders an entire family. The law in that case does not serve justice for the victim and the murderer ultimately wins the war by killing more of the victims family.
An eye for an eye, tit for tat, it's not something you want to apply to normal situations, but in extreme situations it has to apply to deter people from deciding to simply kill off entire families simply because their family members outnumber yours. Whats to stop a crazy serial killer from looking in a phone book and killing the children of everyone who have a certain last name? They could always simply come to the logical conclusion that they (the killers), can get away with killing 5-10 people each before being caught. They could also conclude that they (the killers), have enough people to make enough kills to wipe out entire generations. There is really nothing to stop some sterile person who cannot have kids, who likes killing people, from simply making a list and randomly killing the families on the list and theres also nothing that stops teams of stalkers from doing this sorta thing. The only thing that gives people pause from doing this sorta thing is the fact that they know it's suicide, they know if they go on a killing spree they'll be killed, or the threat that the victims could put contracts on their family members in response to their family members being killed.
This is actually how wars start. Mafia wars, gang wars, and civil wars, all get started with some idiot who goes and kills an entire family, then the victims organize and kill innocent people in the killers family, then you have contracts on all the males in both families, and the result? Both families kill each other into poverty, and end up staying in the slums. This is why so many people who are gangsters or in the mafia never make it to the highest levels of power, the violence and wars aren't profitable for anyone and only really help the competition of both of them. So while it's rational for the victims family and the killers family both agree to a settlement and this would probably mean some payment of some sort, it's better to do that than to have a war.
Last edited:
I never said the prisons have to be expensive. In fact we could design the prisons to be like farms and make the prisoners build them, thats how it used to work before the government started building them.
Well, either you don't know a damned thing about prisons and prisoners, or you haven't taken even a moment to think about what you're suggesting.
You've painted a fairy tale world of nice, obedient prisoners who willingly work to grow vegatables in a quaint little garden. Geez, how nice, how very, very nice.
Now, ....take a moment to think about the realities of that quaint little prison farm.
Baron Max
I am too bored with anti-CP people to debate them, (after all one expects minimal logic) but I never understood why criminals have more rights than victims?
I didn't really understand what CM is saying but if her point is that life in prison is more punishment, that is the sadist argument. I don't have a problem with it, as long as we can categorize it as such.
Not sure if I like being called sadistic, but I think life in prison is a greater punishment than the death penalty. You don't suffer your just dead. Especially if you could have life in solitary confinement, I don't think there is anything worse than being left to one's own imagination. I guess I am sadistic. If someone close to me was brutally murdered, but all the criminal gets is to be put to sleep? That isn't exactly vengeance. Death is an easy escape, plus if it turns out they weren't guilty they can be released. (of course they might already be crazy) :shrug:
CM, I completely agree. But by definition, putting a human being for 40-60 years behind bars is sadistic. See my another thread about prison rodeo.
So we can agree that the death penalty is the more human solution. Now, if one wants them to suffer, that is alright with me, just let call things what they are. Also, there is the combined solution of torturing them first then executing them...
So we can agree that the death penalty is the more human solution. Now, if one wants them to suffer, that is alright with me, just let call things what they are. Also, there is the combined solution of torturing them first then executing them...
But by doing so, you're also punishing all of the taxpayers in the state or nation for the crimes of that one person. They have to pay for the prisons, the guards, the maintenance, the food, etc. You're not just punishing one person, you're punishing everyone! Can't you see that?
Baron Max
This man has already served a 7 yr term for attempted murder. He gets out and kills an old lady, her son, and shoots a child multiple times.
If prison is about rehabilitation, what lesson didn't he learn in prison the first time that he needs to go back to prison to learn this time?
If prison is about rehabilitation, what lesson didn't he learn in prison the first time that he needs to go back to prison to learn this time?
If they don't farm their food, what are they going to eat? They'll starve to death.
He should have had life. Why the hell would you release a person convicted of attempted murder considering the context with which he attempted the murderer was some sorta robbery situation. Proving he values money more than human life.
He has hitman potential! They released him. All people sentenced to attempted murder in a robbery context should get life.
Why do we even let out people convicted of violent offenses? What can you expect from a guy convicted of attempted murder?
And why do women date guys convicted of attempted murder? Would any of you guys date a woman convicted of attempted murder by poisioning? how about a woman who tried to kill her husband, would you date her?
and that is what this woman is dealing with. She brought that man into her family. If she had not married him, they would all still be alive.
I don't know if I could live with it.
No I don't see it. Don't taxpayers pay for all of the prisoners on death row as well? Everyone knows the death penalty is more costly than life in prison. Plus they take much better care of prisoners on death row than they do of regular prisoners. Have you been in those cells? Much nicer conditions. I guess they want to make sure you don't die from other causes before your date. Can't even starve yourself they'll feed you with an IV. I don't see the big deal as far as tax money is concerned.