So you want evidence?

[Syzygys]

Life in prison is not the sadist argument.

Sure it is, see later on...

It's reversible in cases of proven innocence,

From the sadism point of you, irrelevant. By the way we are talking about the guilty...

It doesn't require actively hurting anyone,

Neither does letting you starving you to death... So instead of actively executing you, we could just leave you alone for 2 weeks without food and water....

And, if the sentence is never reversed, it happens to be very good punishment, if that's all you are after.

I agree, if we are after hurting someone, also see sadism.

Being punished for life is worse than some temporary deal.

Again, we agree. Also it is sadism.

No single case will make me reverse my opinion on capital punishment.

That is not an argument, but an opinion, or an irrelvant fact.

Also, after this sentence, no more discussion is required.

By comparison, very few people are executed.

We should change that.

Being able to escape is a problem we can solve.

With execution, yes. Otherwise no. Or you have to take that I can guarantee, that no innocent person will be ever executed.

It's not self defense if the guy is in maximum security prison.

Prisoners escape from such prisons too and they can kill in such prisons and they can order to kill from such prisons...

Escapees can be captured, but an innocent person executed cannot be reversed.

[crying] We already agreed, that we are talking here about the guilty.

I am dissappointed by your non-arguments....

Man, I am going to challenge MYSELF to a debate.

 

[Tiassa]

Bloodlust and justice

Man, I am going to challenge MYSELF to a debate.

Try this topic: Is it justice without a corpse to piss on?

 

[Carcano]

His organs and body can be valuable for medical and scientific studies.

When serial killer John Wayne Gacy was executed his brain was removed and studied for abnormalities.

They found nothing...his brain was perfectly normal.

He killed boys as an act of revenge against his own homosexuality.

 

[Syzygys]

When serial killer John Wayne Gacy was executed his brain was removed and studied for abnormalities.

I would like to point out that while alive, such studies are rather difficult to do so, although technology is improving...

Anyway, here is how things should be done:

1. Fair trial.
2. Even fairer retrial.
3. A few weeks for study.
4. A few weeks for torture. (for the sake of anti-CP people, otherwise optional).
5. Quick execution.

He killed boys as an act of revenge against his own homosexuality.

Oh, it also worked as getting ride of evidence.

 

[DeepThought]

I believe he should be set free.

 

[Carcano]

Oh, it also worked as getting ride of evidence.

Burying the bodies in the crawlspace under his house turned out to be a rather unsuccessful method of hiding evidence.

 

[Syzygys]

Burying the bodies in the crawlspace under his house turned out to be a rather unsuccessful method of hiding evidence.

Or not:

"No suspicion fell on Gacy until December 12, 1978, " That is 6 years AFTER he started his business of killing boys. Not to mention the original search of the house didn't find the bodies although the smell was noticable.

So it seems to me it was a rather good hiding place....

 

[Norsefire]

It seems to me that people who are anti-CP are more focused on criminal rights than victim rights; well, guess what? When you abuse the rights of others, you forfeit your own.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Is it justice without a corpse to piss on?

Nice quote Tiassa

His organs aren't what we want to know about. It's his brain, his childhood, his experiences. The FBI routinely interviews people like this to find out what make them tic and to help solve crimes. There is no reason to kill him.

What makes you think he's going to tell the people studying him the truth?

KILL THE MOTHERFUCKER!

 

[spidergoat]

We already agreed, that we are talking here about the guilty.

You are talking about the guilty, because in this one case, there is compelling evidence. If you support the death penalty, it applies to all serious cases, not just one. A similar argument is used with gun control, they use the few cases where it's clear a gun would protect someone and extend that to all cases, many of which are not so clear.

Keeping someone alive isn't sadism, it's humane. In the long term, if their case is never challenged, they happen to suffer from the lack of freedom and lack of hope of ever being free. That is their punishment, and although it's bad, if someone is later shown to be innocent, it can be ended. It is the most humane way to keep society free from a dangerous person.

 

[spidergoat]

It seems to me that people who are anti-CP are more focused on criminal rights than victim rights; well, guess what? When you abuse the rights of others, you forfeit your own.

The victims are not on trial. They do not get to sentance a person, because they cannot be impartial. That's why we have a jury.

 

[Pandaemoni]

In my mind what matters in this case is what the victim's parents want. Not every parent *wants* the death penalty (though DP-supporters tend to assume they do). If they do, then I have no issue with it this case. If they don't, then I tend to agree that studying his case could yield valuable insights that may prevent the next serial killer from rising, or at least help us catch him sooner.

I do not believe that Justice is based entirely on "revenge," but rather think that it arises from the desire for "fairness." Revenge arises from the same source; it is the desire of the victim for fairness in light of the uncompensated harm suffered. The aggrieved party, however, because he or she is not disinterested, is often biased in favor of taking the punishment to a level beyond what a disinterested observer would consider fair. That's the difference between the concepts of "revenge" and "retribution," the latter is always fair by definition and the former is often not.

I think the death penalty can serve a retributive purpose, and the desire for retribution is a basic drive in our culture. If the victims want that barnd of justice, I see no reason to deny it to them and society gains the advantage of (most likely) making them feel at least somewhat less aggreived than they'd otherwise feel. If they are opposed to it, on the fence, or one wants to kill him and the other is opposed, then spider's right that there are benefits to be had in keeping him alive and talking.

 

[Orleander]

In my mind what matters in this case is what the victim's parents want. Not every parent *wants* the death penalty (though DP-supporters tend to assume they do). If they do, then I have no issue with it this case. If they don't, then I tend to agree that studying his case could yield valuable insights that may prevent the next serial killer from rising, or at least help us catch him sooner.....

I hear about best friends who have a falling out and one kills the other. I know the families of my children's friends. I would be more hesitant to take their child away from them. Especially since I know that child almost as well as my own.
If that scenario ever happened, I'm not sure I would want the death penalty.

 

[Norsefire]

The victims are not on trial. They do not get to sentance a person, because they cannot be impartial. That's why we have a jury.

Victims' rights.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. If you support the former, you MUST support the latter. And I frankly don't care if criminals are chopped up, hanged, strung, or tortured all day and all night. They aren't human, and they deserve it.

Also, as Syz said, we don't have to kill him directly; we could starve him:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

If you can be sure who's a criminal, which is rare. The USSR declared many people criminals, did they all deserve the Gulag?

 

[Norsefire]

If you can be sure who's a criminal, which is rare. The USSR declared many people criminals, did they all deserve the Gulag?

Obviously mistakes can be made, but prison also makes mistakes. And you cannot say "it's not the same", because it may as well be the same. It's still either entirely unacceptable, OR you accept that mistakes can be made. And criminals must receive their proper punishment, and victims' must receive justice.

 

[spidergoat]

Our justice system is not for the victims. It's to uphold the law. Because we make mistakes, we must not make the punishment irreversible.

 

[Norsefire]

Our justice system is not for the victims. It's to uphold the law. Because we make mistakes, we must not make the punishment irreversible.

To punish those who break it, and for the victims. Victims' rights. What we must do, is make sure the criminal is punished appropriately, and instead no emphasis is sacrificed merely for the small possibility of a mistake.

 

[scott3x]

To punish those who break it, and for the victims. Victims' rights. What we must do, is make sure the criminal is punished appropriately, and instead no emphasis is sacrificed merely for the small possibility of a mistake.

I think you'd feel differently about the waiving that 'small possibility of a mistake' if you were the one on trial .

 

[SheWolf]

from his blog

"To be more specific, I am scared, alone, and confused, and my reaction is to strike out toward the perceived source of my misery, society. My intent is to harm society as much as I can, then die."

Some people just aren't that concerned about death. I think it would be worse of rhim to stay in jail forever without parole.

And Norse, ffs, you sound scarier by the day.