R.I.P. Stanley Williams

[Squinky]

This "Ghetto" Talk is crap. I lived in bad, gang ridden areas and was poor as a child, and still I never killed anyone. And if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't expect my upbringing to be a good defense. Thats the problem with these guys that you say are killing each other in the "hood", they can get away with it. If they knew they would get caught and fried for it, they wouldn't do it as much I am sure...


And I have to say a lot of you are sounding like Papa Smurf right now, with this garbage about us being just as wrong as the murderers when we execute them.

Stanley Williams murdered 4 people. Did he hold court over the course of many months, even sometimes years to "decide" to murder them? Did he appoint them attourneys and councelers and private investigators that they didn't have to pay for? Did he pay for the forensic tests and al that other garbage before he decided to kill them like some sort of demon?

No. He didn't because he isn't a lawful society. He's a murderer, regardless of whatever he's done, or whatever schemes he's cooked up to get out of trouble. That stain doesn't leave you....

[Nikolas]

I think that I should erase this fucking list of mine, but I think that I need to explain some things:

With that list (page 6), I'm not trying to to cover all posibilities. I was simply trying to "think out loud" a little bit about "pros and cons", of keeping a man alive (mostly with arguments from this forum, actually). And that list is what I came up with. That list, is not a position or an argument of somekind. It is simply a break down of things written in this thread.

Now I feel the need to clarify this:

When I say that Williams did not deserve to die, or that a goverment hasn't the right to kill, or that I'm against the death penalty (has anybody observed the 99.9% I put in most cases? Cause this is a way to avoid comments for Hitler or bullshit like that. Hitler is the 0.01%, ok?) I don't mean that Williams was an angel. Nor I mean that he should "get away with it". NO! He was a beast and deserves to be in jail forever.

I also never blamed the upbringing or education or training or circumstances alone. But they are part of what's happening. In my mind at least, it does make sense that poverty+environment+lack of education makes crime easier to go to.

I'm arguing for 8 pages if the guy had to die or not.

I'm not arguing if he was innocent! He was not!

I'm not arguing if he should get out, or get away with it! He shouldn't

I'm not  saying that it is not his fault, or that he is not responsible for what he did! He is!

After 8 pages I still can't see reason enough to kill the guy (and any guy in his case). Especially after 25 years! I'm sorry but everything you all have said. are not enough to make me want to see him dead. Again the only reason would be if he had hurt my family but that would be irrational and instict from the pain.

[Helm]

maybe an issue with your debating style is that you pressupose we're playing the 'convince Nikolas' game. We're not. This isn't about your ability or inability to find good enough reason for this man to fry, this is about the moral issues embedded in capital punishment.

[Nikolas]

first of all let me say that you are right!

I tend to "take things a little personal", sometimes, I know that...
But I try to judge things through myself. If something can convince me, it can convince others. Or the other way around. Of course it's not about me finding a reason. But I try to base what I say on examples and real life issues.

In the above post I was just clarifying everything so that there can be no misunderstanding.

[pcj]

Hitler is the 0.01%, ok?

Uh, at what point do you start saying, "OK, he didn't kill enough people to merit the death sentence, let's let him live so he can think about what he's done."?

[Helm]

Uh, at what point do you start saying, "OK, he didn't kill enough people to merit the death sentence, let's let him live so he can think about what he's done."?

What is the reason that one can murder one person and then end up being "good" but 4 is bad?

how about 2? 3? what if he shot 2 people and then broke another guy's legs? is it additive? if he breaks enough legs does it eventually equal a murder?

so yes, explain that 0.01% that is so special to hitler and his types only.

[Nikolas]

No, quite the opposite actually.

But never mind.

You all now know what I think and belive so never mind. And to think that I added that just to say that I can't be absolute in anything I say and that even though I'm against death penalty there could be cases where death could be deserved. And the percentage I give to this cases would be 0.01% (sic)  and one simple example that I could come up would be hitler.

But again never mind...

This is getting rather stupid.

I'm not the one to judge if he has killed enough people or not, and noone should be in a position to judge, in order to kill back (not as a judge to sentense an imprisonment).

So Helm, tell me, you are for or against capital punishment, because from this:

so yes, explain that 0.01% that is so special to hitler and his types only.

I understand that for you there are other types that deserve death.

[pcj]

So how can you judge Hitler's actions to be worthy of a death sentence?  What gives you the right?

[Nikolas]

If you two wish to discuss my personal thoughts PM me. This has gone far enough. This is way off-topic now.

I'm against death penalty

[big brother]

Helm, you're right about this thread in general. There are some good comments, bad comments, and everything inbetween. In my posts I tried to write more than just an opinion sentence like (oh no, another analogy) "I dislike cake". Instead I tried to base my statements on some slivers of fact and logic ("I dislike cake because its high sugar content is bad for me").

I don't think anyone is going to read this thread and totally change their view (on the scale from attitude to opinion to belief, this death penalty topic involves belief for those who overcame the volunteer response bias to actually write something).

Nik, if you're against the death penalty, don't make exceptions, it makes your opinion look weak and irrational. Hitler, Mao Zedong, Tim Allen, whoever...we're all humans.

[Helm]

I don't believe any community has the moral foundation to put people to death, nor to directly inflict pain on them or generally punish them. I believe 'rehabilitation to society' is also a joke, because it implies a 'proper' way to live. Not all for detainment either. I think exile is the best option for serious cases of illegal action.

Does this answer your question?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

On the other hand, I am 100% for the Nose-In-the-Book Penalty.

Dig the Papa Smurf reference, Squinks.

A few people at least have mentioned something that I find rather ludicrous, that they aren't trying to influence someone else's way of thinking with their opinions and views.

If no one in this thread is trying to sway or otherwise convince anyone of the validity of their beliefs then why continue after the initial statement?  The answer is, of course, because you ARE trying to influence someone else's opinions.  You reply and quote and provide counterpoints; why be bashful about it?

I have no problem, for example, boldly declaring that I believe the death penalty has a necessary place in society and that people who disagree need to wake up and think about the consequences should people not receive comeuppance for their crimes.  Am I trying to convince anyone with such a statement?  Hell yes!   Just as Nikolas is trying in his own way to sway people toward understanding of his line of thought and its merits, or Big Brother building a case for execution based on a hard-line mentality, which I happen to support 100% in this situation- though I wouldn't cite cost as a factor, personally (this is where I agree with Helm); murder provides more than an adequate impetus to eradicate an offender and sends a message that this sort of behavior is unacceptable.  It does not, as some seem to argue, send a message that murder is acceptable because governments authorize it as a penalty.  That is the sort of view a child would take (If Johnny can do it why can't I?), whereas an adult 'should' see the difference.

Some of you (and particularly Nikolas) need to bear in mind that internet forums are the ideal place to vent at faceless people and engage in an (often pointless) struggle of wills.  Just don't take any of it too seriously because none of this is worth getting upset about. 

I think I'll grab another mountain dew and listen to some 80's rock now.

[Helm]

You go do that.

There's a difference between the exchange of information on a subject -  the challenging of errors in someone's line of thinking ( not to his axiomatic beliefs, but in the argumenting from them towards a subject. Like pointing out hypocritical statements and paradoxical arguments) - the presentation of alternate viewpoints, and from directly trying to influence/change someone's opinion to match yours. There's again, a world of difference. A difference of intent.

I don't care at all if big brother or your or nikolas at the end of the day agree with me. I care that they understand my different viewpoint on the subject as I do the same for theirs and that they hopefully have eradicated, or are trying to eradicate strange leaps of logic in their own reasoning.

[big brother]

Oh, Helm, you sound so sexy when you get worked up about something. At least the way I read it, you do. 

Progz, I never said we weren't TRYING to convince someone else of our own beliefs. I only said it's unlikely for someone else to adopt them. The writers of old must have been so convincing!

[Kinoko]

Some of you say that you can't expect to change someone's point of view on this subject in a thread like this.

Well, I'm reading every opinion here rather seriously and I'm VERY open to changing my opinion.

I'm against the death penalty in theory, but I look at the world practically and I can also see the arguments for it.

What I want is to be the devil's advocate. I want to take the argument of every single person arguing against the death penalty and make you convince me of it's worth because I WANT to be convinced otherwise. I WANT to find a solution that works. I want people to discuss how we can get to a point where we don't need the death penalty. Is that even possible? What do we consider acceptable in the long period of time it will take us to get to that point?

I want all the this arguing (as long as it stays on topic and doesn't just because insults) because this is how we flesh out our own ideas and come to find solutions. I think a certain way now, but I might not have considered a lot of things. I should have to answer for my opinion... I want people to question what I think so I have to give a reason for it, if I can. If not, then I need to start questioning whether it's really the right way to think.

So, that was a convoluted way of saying that don't think this is pointless I'm really enjoying this discussion and I hope I see some new points of view or get some new ideas from it, or at least that I know a little more about the validity of my own opinion.

[esper]

Oh, man, I missed a good one. At least most of it.

I have a good idea.... How about from now on, we just kick people in the nuts as hard as we can. The degree of the crime equals how hard the kick is. And for women criminals, we kick a man that is closely related to them in the nuts, and that man would probably beat the hell out of the woman. Either way, I bet there would be a hell of a lot less crimes.

About the crackerjack at hand... He should have been kicked four times in the nuts at maximum strength. If this was not enough to make him cough up blood for a month, one or two more would have been acceptable for good measure.

Now, in some degree of seriousness, let me just say, once again using my "regardless of what you believe" argument... It doesn't matter what you believe about redemption, it matters what "Tookie" believed (Tookie? This guy was the boss of the crips?). If he supposedly began believing in the Bible and God and redemption and salvation, he would also have understood the fact that he got what was coming to him. I'm not saying, and I'm not going to say, whether or not he was right or wrong in this belief... But it WAS his belief... So if he had a problem dying, he had a problem with what he believed. He obviously didn't believe it very well.

And here's one for you guys... Do YOU believe the govornment was wrong to kill him? Well, he was wrong to kill the people. If you're going to forgive "Tookie," forgive the govornment, too...

Or, you could go kick Arnold in the nuts, once, really hard, for letting Mr. Tookmeister die. An eye for an eye, a nut for a life...

...But I doubt Arnie would feel it.

[Helm]

If he believed in god eventually, this means he believed the state had the right to take his life? Please explain.

[Gregjazz]

Oh, man, I missed a good one. At least most of it.

I have a good idea.... How about from now on, we just kick people in the nuts as hard as we can. The degree of the crime equals how hard the kick is. And for women criminals, we kick a man that is closely related to them in the nuts, and that man would probably beat the hell out of the woman. Either way, I bet there would be a hell of a lot less crimes.

About the crackerjack at hand... He should have been kicked four times in the nuts at maximum strength. If this was not enough to make him cough up blood for a month, one or two more would have been acceptable for good measure.

Now, in some degree of seriousness, let me just say, once again using my "regardless of what you believe" argument... It doesn't matter what you believe about redemption, it matters what "Tookie" believed (Tookie? This guy was the boss of the crips?). If he supposedly began believing in the Bible and God and redemption and salvation, he would also have understood the fact that he got what was coming to him. I'm not saying, and I'm not going to say, whether or not he was right or wrong in this belief... But it WAS his belief... So if he had a problem dying, he had a problem with what he believed. He obviously didn't believe it very well.

And here's one for you guys... Do YOU believe the govornment was wrong to kill him? Well, he was wrong to kill the people. If you're going to forgive "Tookie," forgive the govornment, too...

Or, you could go kick Arnold in the nuts, once, really hard, for letting Mr. Tookmeister die. An eye for an eye, a nut for a life...

...But I doubt Arnie would feel it.

Oh great then. Castrati singers will take over the world! :o

[TheYak]

Oh great then. Castrati singers will take over the world! :o

My reaction exactly.  News Headline: "Eunuch's Murdering Rampage, is Nut-Kicking Punishment Effective?"

The only opinion I've found that I can stand behind is Kinoko's.  Of course, since her opinion is undecided that doesn't put me on very stable ground. 

It feels morally wrong to execute a man 25 years after the crime.  If he'd been "reduced" to a life-sentence, I wouldn't feel it unfair to society at large. 

I can't argue for the extinguishing of any human life, but also have no suggestion as to how we can deal with people who have no regard for it.  The only way I could support the death penalty would be under a re-definition of what murder entails: 

If humanity is distinguished from the rest of the animal kingdom by our capacity to analyze abstract concepts like mercy, compassion, empathy and forgiveness, then does a lack of these things remove the qualifier of "human"?  If a being is not human, is this murder?  We (at least a large portion of society) do not refer to the butchering of cattle as murder, or "putting down" a rabid dog.   Williams, under this recategorization, would've been an animal that had attacked and killed people - at least as long as he was in a state that caused him to have a disregard for human life.  Since I value human life above that of an animal's, it's an easy decision to make.  However, since his incarceration, he seems to have reacquainted himself with humanity and at this point his execution returns to being a state of murder.   

Since I have difficulty assigning an animal label to a human-being regardless my dislike for them, I can't justify their execution.  However, doesn't this make those who have a capacity for execution and seemingly arbitrary rules for behavior quite a lot more powerful than a peaceful citizen?  At work, I'm fairly accessible and defenseless should somebody with a gun approach me.  Knowing that I don't condone murder or violence and my opponent is someone who doesn't sweat either act, the odds against my surviving that encounter are rather high. 

How then, do we dissuade people from committing murder? How can we treat human life as a sacred thing without a severe punishment for those who willingly violate it? 

[esper]

The majority of Christians that I know that believe in a "conversion" experience involving one specific moment in time in which one becomes "born again" or "saved" are of conservative Protestant denominations, primarily Baptists and Pentecostals, etc... These two groups also believe in following both Old and New Testament, not as being a step to salvation but because it is "the right thing to do." The Old Testament says that people can and should be put to death by the govornment, and the New Testament says to be submissive to the government (although it really is talking about being subversive)... Thus, if he believed according to one of the popular Fundamentalist denominations, which it seems he might have, he would believe the government had the right to put him to death.

And seriously... Kicking people in the nuts would be so successful. Williams would have wound up being chair-ridden for 25 years, and upon being able to get up, he'd'a been all, "I be damned if I ever start a gang and kill people again after that, muhfuggah!"