R.I.P. Stanley Williams

[big brother]

So you propose anarchy, since one person's judgment is as good as a group's?

The founders of the American government included checks and balances and even amendments in case the populace needs to overthrow it.

If there is no absolute morality, why are humans the only animals that live for ideals (denying themselves things lower on a Maslowian hierarchy)?
If there is nothing universally perfect, why do we have ideas about improving ourselves and our society? Without an absolute measurement, the concept of measuring things becomes meaningless. (Think about this from a practical persective: without a metric system or any system of distance, everyone having her own incompatible unit of measurement defeats the purpose of measurement.)

What if I am an Islamic extremist (purely hypothetical) who sees killing infidels as a highest good? When I blow up schoolbuses full of children will you stand by and say, "It's not my right to judge his system of morality? It would be wrong to execute him even if the social majority agrees since social majorities have the potential to be wrong"?

Bullshit.

[DonB]

Well, even that terrorist wouldnt deserve a death penalty mate..

[big brother]

I like how you focus on my example and ignore the actual fucking argument, bub.

If you can't post something relative (or even something logical), don't.

"You're out of your element, Donny."

[Nacho]

Well, even that terrorist wouldnt deserve a death penalty mate..

Why?

[MrColossal]

'cause he's already dead?

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

That would be a reason why it couldn't be done, not why it shouldn't be done. 

And more importantly, schoolbusses full of children?  I say wire that bitch up!

*ahem
sorry...

[Nikolas]

So if you think that a murderer could be re-educated into being what is considered a normal member of society, does that mean a person, say Nikolas for example, a man loyal to his family with strong values, could be re-educated into murdering people?

Also, Nikolas, I am confused as to why you would only murder someone if it was in a war? And why a spy in particular?

Yes I believe this is possilbe. (refering to your first question)

And in a war values change. In self defense values change. There was a thread if anyone could pull a trigger on a spy in time of war (initiated by Shitar, again). And I had answered that yes, I would pull the trigger, as I have been trained in Military Police And I just wanted to say that times of war are different than times of peace. Simple.

And big borther, if I had the chance, I would lock the terrorists up forever. I would not kill them. Of course take into account that now we're chatting throught the net, happy, happy without having this in our lives. But still, you are the one who does not give an answer there about the islamic terrorist...

Of course it has to do with measurements and since you live in a society/community you are forced to follow the laws.

Here in AGS we have some laws, and some law enforcers (moderators!). And I think that all of use, make sure that we keep this place clean, put back into place anyone who seems to missbehave, report stuff to the moderators and generally like it as it is. Anyone who doesn't like it can very well leave us.

In the case of an Islamic terrorist, he/she is out of place, in a different country, in a different communtiy, missinformed as to what is right or wrong in the current community he/she lives in. In their community being an Islamic kamikazi is probably the greatest honour! What about that?

My problem with death penatly is this:

Why does someone deserve to die and someon else doesn't? You have a society and the goverment is there so that it can keep the society safe/clean/without bullshit, exactly like the Forums here. Consider the banning here in AGS a kind of death penalty. CJ has never "killed" anyone here, as far as I'm aware. And he has earned the right to be proud of this. And yet this community works like clockwork. Why can this work, and keep in mind, that you have members from all over the world, and it can't happen in real life. Maybe a little poor analogy, but think of the resemblences here.

Why killing a murderer (or a criminal, a baron of kokaine, or anyone who "deserves to die", by the American law) is beneficial for the society. What does the society get from killing Stanley Williams?

Alive
*A chance that he can reenter the society as a changed man (1/1000000, but still there, and actually in his case this might be true...I dunno)
*A chance that he can do something good, to change the balance after doing something bad. I imagine that with the books he cowrote this has been accomplished.
*A chance that he will reenter the society and be back with the gang, killing more innocent people. It is likely, I dunno...
*Tax money go to him in order to keep him alive and healthy. (I can't even consider this. With this argument we should probably kill all the terminally ill people. This could save us a bunch of money...)

Dead
*No chance to redeme
*No chance to help others, like he did with his books. And don't tell me that he has already written the books so why keep him alive, cause this is outragous!
*No chance to do more wrong.
*Money left for the tax payers! Yeah!

My Lord Nipper, now, what about the two "fuckhead" kids at Columbine? They killed innocent children. They had absolutely no reason to do it. Were they still alive, would they be sentenced to death? If they were left alive, would they be able, at any ppint in their life, to do any good? At least Williams proove that he did good, after all the wrong he had done in the past...

[Nacho]

'cause he's already dead?

Blowing up schoolbuses mean "Blowing up schoolbuses with a explosive belt, killing yoursef too" to you?

[Scummbuddy]

Eric, I understood your joke.

[ManicMatt]

Allow me to make some alterations...

Alive
*A chance that he can reenter the society as a changed man (1/1000000, but still there, and actually in his case this might be true...I dunno) and then reveal it was all a ploy and start killing again.
*A chance that he can do something good, to change the balance after doing something bad. (To change the balance? You mean, bring people back to life?) I imagine that with the books he cowrote this has been accomplished.
*A chance that he will reenter the society and be back with the gang, only to be assasinated by one of his many enemies. It is likely, I dunno...
*Tax money go to him in order to keep him alive and healthy. (I can't even consider this. With this argument we should probably kill all the terminally ill people. (Are you comparing a murderer to an ill person? My god!) This could save us a bunch of money...)

Dead
*No chance to redeem partially.
*No chance to help others, like he did with his books. And don't tell me that he has already written the books so why keep him alive, cause this is outragous! (I wouldn't let a child I know read his subliminal messaging books! So I don't trust him!)
*No chance to do more wrong.
*Money left for the tax payers! Yeah! (There's still the expense of cleaning up the body...)

(Nikolas, you know I like you man!)

[big brother]

Nik, you misunderstand. Re-read my post about the measurements and try to think about it in terms of the concepts, not the words. Concepts like morality... Actually you should read the post before mine, too. Or maybe more of this thread.

I did not answer the question about the terrorist because I WROTE IT to someone else. I use analogies to illustrate a concept and make it easier to understand. The analogy itself doesn't have to be flawless, so stop attacking it. I am talking about some of the most basic concepts to human nature. Living in a different society doesn't mean we aren't all humans.

To answer your question, America has a representative government (or republic). Officials elected by the mjority of people decide who deserves to be killed for their crimes.

In your comparison of William's death versus life the "*No chance to do more wrong" is a major player. You are forgetting about the deterrent concept, too. When you lighten the punishment, you lighten the risk in the rational post-behavior equation (thus biasing it towards benefit). Your list doesn't take into account the likelihood of anything. For example, if left alive Williams *could* be the first man to start a colony on the moon, but it's more likely that he will return to his conditioned environment and kill more people. Perhaps his execution will serve as an example to gangbangers everywhere.

[Nikolas]

Big brother: The post before yours starts by saying that he/she agrees with Nikolas. If you have been following the thread as closely as I have you'll see that I have numerous posts in every single page. I don't need to read more of this thread.

ManicMatt: I liek you too, and you know that. No worries...

Both: Let me rephrase my qusestion:

Don't give me all the chances about he could(n't) do. I don't really care. What I'm trying to say is this:

How is the society better by killing Stanley Williams, 25 years, after his crimes, after having done (apparently, I don't know...), so much good after that?
Why is killing him better than keeping him alive and leting him give the example to generations of young wannabe gangsters?

Is it simply to make an example? If this is the case, then I am forced to say that Americas' laws and society are based in fear. Not in logic. Not in education. Not in training. Not in criminal prevention. In fear! I don't find that particuarly good for a society.

You know in the close history of Greece we had a guy named Papadopoulos. A quite common name in Greece. Well he had a dictatorship for ten years and he ended up killing students inside the polytechnic university in 17 Nov. (This is where the terrorist group in Greece took the name from...). I think under the circumstances (considering that there was a martial law then), he should've been killed after all the damage he did. But for some reason he didn't. And I have to say tha for a lot of Greeks this guy is the equevilant of Hitler in our country. But, we didn't kill him. And actually, now after 30 years, we are starting to take all of these people out of jail! Strange... But I don't think that there is anyone in Greece now considering to have a dictatorship back on! Strange...

[big brother]

Yes, I know you've been posting (where did I say you weren't???), but it doesn't seem like you're following any of my arguments.

I mentioned a microecomonic risk/benefit associated with criminal acts TWICE and you're still harping about how executing Williams doesn't better society.

(If there's shit in the toilet, you COULD pour scented liquid soap in there, but I'd just flush it. The residents in turn will benefit, since the toilet is more clean.)

[Squinky]

The world gains nothing by his death Nik, kinda like his birth. People like that have no value to me....

What I don't get is, I'm always hearing america being referred to badly by people in other countries....but then many people in these other countries are trying to get here....

We must not be as backward and barbaric as people say.

Seriously though, I think comparing countries and there laws is not a credible way to do things. There are different issues and values between them.

Edit---

And as a past california resident, I feel pretty much the same way as Yak....

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

Nikolas, about kids that killed for no apparant reason, they were probably insane.  If it's what it sounds like (a murder suicide) then that would be my guess...

"Is it simply to make an example? If this is the case, then I am forced to say that Americas' laws and society are based in fear. Not in logic. Not in education. Not in training. Not in criminal prevention. In fear! I don't find that particuarly good for a society."

IMO most legal systems are partly based off of fear.  It's to keep them from doing something horrible again, and to punish them.  There are benefits from getting rid of him, that i can think of at the moment--
1.  He attacked guards on a regular basis.
2.  He was raping other inmates. (i know it happens in prison, but...)
3.  Taxpayers don't have to support a murderer and gang leader

I know you believe in redemption, however the person also has to want to change before they actually can.

[Nikolas]

Squinky: I know... I think that we had this discussion once before, and I have said that since I don't live in the USA, I don't feel that I have the right to judge anything. Furthermore since I'm so ill informed about lots and lots of things about America.

Don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is that it seems to me (from your posts, and anything else I know for America) that laws are based largely on the fear factor. And I find this fact not very good for a society. I could very well be wrong, please don't get me wrong... I aslo agree that compering countries is rather stupid.

Big Brother:

Re-read my post about the measurements and try to think about it in terms of the concepts, not the words. Concepts like morality... Actually you should read the post before mine, too. Or maybe more of this thread.

This is why I mentioned that I have been following this thread. I know you know...

The reason I'm sticking to whether it is good/beneficial or not, the death of someone and not the microeconomic risk is that I can't place any value to a human life.

About Nikolas: I am naive, very naive, and believe that I can be fooled very easily as a trust people very easily. I am totally democratic, which gets me into trouble as sometimes a gang/company/family/group need a leader. And with me saying all the democratic bullshit there is no way out. And I am rather romantic (as you must know by now...)

Now the toilet thing: BLAH! But anyway I don't see any way of saving the shit somehow! I don't see any way of making the shit something better! BLAH! And since I am as romantic as I sound, if you consider a human being shit, that has to be flushed, then I don't have anything to say.

Either way, after so much discussion at least I have learned some stuff and I'm ready to say that there are some people that "I would really like to kill". Like the terrorists in London, or 9/11, or anything simmilar. But fortunately I live in a country where human life is the ultimate good and noone, not even the goverment, has a right to take that away. And this very fact is from keeping me flushing everybody I consider shit in the toilet. (Which is so BLAH example... Ã, )

Lord Nipper: The problem is the word want here. I understand what you're saying but in Stanley Williams case, hadn't he provided enough proof of a changed man? Not ot take him of jail! No! Let him rot in there, but not kill him! Isn't this the problem with this particular case?

[Nacho]

Ok ok... So... Are you for or against the death of Adolf Hitler, if still alive and healthy and captured by the allies, or would you use all that arguments you are using against death penalty (the poor guy haven't really had a choice, it's natural to behave like him after the life he had, governments have no right to kill people, etc...)

I think you people have a line, but I don't still know where it is.... 6 million people is enough? Just 1 million? Or the big difference is that this people hasn't killed a person... a person who you do really care about?

When I try to determinate which position to take in an argument, I just imagine myself in the position of both people arguing... And man... I'd really like to push the button for frying that bastard if he had killed a relative of mine.

And if I were the killer in the death row, well, if I were really repentance, I think I would suicide if I were really so sorry as this Stanley Williams tryied to say. I just wouldn't be able to life with the fault.

[Gregjazz]

For the people here who are for the death penalty, you have to realize that some completely innocent people are going to be executed. What is your response? Sucks for them?

[big brother]

I never put a value on human life, Nik. You're the one with the fucking pros/cons list. I DID say that there are microeconomic consequences for not killing him. If a man can get away with murdering in cold blood not once but FOUR times, then how will other thugsters be incentivized to clean up their respective acts? Society gets what it subsidizes. As Keynes said, "Supply creates its own demand."

On a side note, if they let Williams go, the children's book market would be flooded with thinly veiled "learning" books from other condemned murderers.

"See Dick. See Dick not kill an innocent person." No shit, Sherlock. If any kid had to read a book to learn that, the parents need counseling. Pronto.

Gregor: The innocent people on death row indicates a problem with the courts, not with the penalty itself. Say the penalty was reduced to life. Those innocent people would still be in there for life. But Williams was, by his own confession, not innocent. So rather than sucks for him, I say fuck him.

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

Who deserves to die?  Except for very very very extreme cases (Hitler, is one)

There's your answer...
Even though i agree with you, i couldn't help in farlander...

This kinda reminds me of the Johnny cash song "mercy seat"...

It happens.  Innocent people go to jail and get on death row, but i think it's impossible to get a perfect system.  It happens.  It's sad, but it happens and there's no way to avoid unjustly punishing innocents.  If you're innocent, you should be unafraid to die, since your innocent.

(man, people post here fast...)

In one of my kid's books dick killed 4 people and raped someone... it was called "don't be a dick!"