Adventure Game Studio

F*ck American justice.

I'm confused...

Sorry if im completely off here... But who is this Stanley Williams? And what has that got to do with american justice?

I could be mistake, but isn't he the black guy who was sentenced to death and was executed today in California, by lovely Mr. Muscle?

Is it American justise, or is it the death penatly?
And anyway he was guilty of killing people, right?

For the record, I am against death penalty, no matter what he/she did! And being in hor blooded situation, where you are the father./mother/family of a muredered child, it my provoce killing instinct, but still it is not justice!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aVyT7vELrcWM&refer=us

Sorry, I know very little on the this topic, but what i can see from a brief google visit is that this guy was on death row, but people didn't want him to be executed for his anti-crime campaigns, conviently forgetting that he's a murderer. Correct me if i'm wrong.

I don't see what the big deal is? Is it because he is black?

Or because he has (according to the article) suddenly started "good-works" within the last 5 years? Hmmm, a little suspicous if you ask me.

He killed a lot of people in cold blood according to that article, I'd be more saddned by the victims of his violent crimes than by his death.

Also, the supreme court unanimously turned down his habeas corpus appeal, meaning not one member saw any reason to stay the execution....

Maybe you should read his books first?

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Tue 13/12/2005 22:05:11
Maybe you should read his books first you ignorant piece of shit.

Okay......

So how about this: (and this is hypothetical and in no means meant to be threatening) If I came over there and murdered your family, got the death penalty, was in prison for most of my life and then suddenly starting writing books called "Why you shouldn't Kill Shitars family" it would be cool then? It's kinda like how everybody finds religion in jail, then when they get out they suddenly forget it.

And really kid, grow up before posting on these forums....

And no, I won't read his books. Just like I won't watch any movies about serial killers and read their books either. America has a way of trying to glorify murderers and horrible criminals, I will reserve my time and respect for other things.

I think that this is not a nice thing to say Shitar.

Squinky: I think that America is one of the last countries that have death penalties. Do you find this right or wrong? I mean death is the end. Nothing to do! Nothing to be sorry about. Nothing to redeem. And you say that some people deserve to die? Of course I find it suspicious too that he started writting books 5 years ago (of course I haven't googled anything, but I will. For now I base everything I say to the information here.), but still, nobody deserves to die. No matter what they did. Because this way you prevent them the 1/1000000 (maybe less maybe more, but there is at leat that), opportunity to say and feel sorry for what they did. Either way, locked up in a prison cell, means that they are not a danegr to the community, so why kill them? So we can satisfie the family of the victims? Will this bring them back? (<-A little Hollywood here...)

Quote from: Squinky on Tue 13/12/2005 22:10:14

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Tue 13/12/2005 22:05:11
Maybe you should read his books first you ignorant piece of shit.

Okay......

So how about this: (and this is hypothetical and in no means meant to be threatening) If I came over there and murdered your family, got the death penalty, was in prison for most of my life and then suddenly starting writing books called "Why you shouldn't Kill Shitars family" it would be cool then? It's kinda like how everybody finds religion in jail, then when they get out they suddenly forget it.

And really kid, grow up before posting on these forums....

Have you read his books?

Maybe we should read books wrote by people in death row...

But then, after that, we should work in where Squinky does, so we would have the two versions, the two sides of the coin.

After that, we might not agree with Squinky, but we'll surelly be sympathetic enough with people working in prisons to respect his opinions and not calling then "Ignorant piece of shit".

And we might learn to develope threads, as well... "F*ck american justice" is not ok, realise people had to post 4 times before realising what were you talking about... Ã, :P

I really don't see how the american justice system did any wrong here.  The man was a gang founder and leader.  He killed four people, which was proven in a court of law.  It seems to me like capital punishment, in this case, was (to paraphrase george washington) a "grim necessity".

And shitar, I haven't read his books and (i'm guessing) squinky didn't either.  But it looks to me like Arrested Development from this point of view:  the criminal father goes to jail, becomes extremely religeous and makes all kinds of books and videos.  The second he gets out, he's the same old bastard he was before.  Except in this case, the man committed crimes far worse.

Quote from: Squinky on Tue 13/12/2005 22:10:14


And no, I won't read his books. Just like I won't watch any movies about serial killers and read their books either. America has a way of trying to glorify murderers and horrible criminals, I will reserve my time and respect for other things.

Ã,  Ã, Okay, than don't act like you understand the mind of every criminal in the world. He was given the death penalty for a crime he did 25 years ago. He was given death because they believed his mindset could not be changed for good to humanity TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO. They should have killed him on the spot, that would have been justice because he would have been killed in his criminal state. Instead he lived for 25 more years, 6 in solitary confinement, and I do believe 25 years (especially 6 in solitary confinement) is enough to turn your way of thinking around.

Ã,  Ã, Another reason you are ignorant is in believing he's only been writing for 5 years. He's been NOMINATED since 2001 for a Nobel Peace Prize because of his literature but he had been doing it even before then. Mainly after his confinement. But Im sure none of this matters to you because you have taken the American Justice Never Fails 101 class. Wonder what would have happened if he killed 25 people and pleaded insanity. He would probably have a boat right now.

 I consider at times a death sentense can be merciful. bear with me ok? think about it, life and i mean LIFE in jail, or death by lethel injection. your "dead" anyway if you get life, so it might be considered more merciful to die then to live the rest of your days in hell. I'm undecided on the issue my self, but i thought i'd just play devils advocate. Ã, btw "f*ck american justice" is more immature then that Ã, bush/hitler poster, so if we want a discussion and debate lets debate, but unclear staitments just to get posts is rather rude..

I honestly agree with you Shitar, but I still can't believe the way you post in here. Don't you think that a better way of posting will "earn you" more points. First of all it's not Squinkys fault. Second Squinky and everybody else have a right to their opinion. You can argue but not patronise.

I find it completly idiotic to kill somebody after 25 years, or for something he did 25 years ago, while you have kept him for 25 years in jail, including 6 in solidary confinement. There is no use there except terrorism.

Yes the word is in bold! I mean the only reason I can think of, for killing anyone, is to make an example, to show that "if you do that you'll get caught and killed". And further I see every fortnight some show called "Americas wildests police chase". Stupid! Trying to terrify anyone they can.

It seems that American system is based on fear and not on right vs wrong. IMO! IMHO! I'm not American and don't know a lot about that, but this is the impression I'm getting!

Now, Squinky do you work in a prison? This is what I understand from Farlanders post.

shitar- had they killed him on the spot, he would have never written those wonderful books about butterflies and antigangery!

So, anyway.  When is his next book coming out?

Oh.  Wait.  Er..

I don't act like I understand the minds of any Criminals, and I don't care to. Seriously, I don't care if he's turned into the frigging pope in there, there are some things which can't be undone, no matter how many times you say sorry.

I can't argue for either sides of the death penalty issue, and I can't argue for incarceration of anyone. First off with the death penalty there are major issues with cost, but then again confining someone to life in prison is damned expensive....You know what the first thing a lot of folks say when they are going to prison for a few years? They laugh at the fact that the State is going to have to pay for their medical expenses, seriously. A large chunk of America's tax revenue goes straight to fixing up meth addicts rotten teeth and all the health issues that come with way over-doing drugs.....

And I don't believe incarcerationg someone works either, on any but a few people. Career criminals think of jail time as a vacation, they are so instituitionalized that some of them even prefer being locked up. It's a big waste of everyones time.

But thats not the issue here. The issue I see here is someone trying to play the race card and get out of his punishment (which I can't blame him for, I wouldn't want to die, especially in those circumstances. But then again, his victims didn't want to either...)
and to show how he suddenly has become this great guy and some sort of martyr because of this. He would never have written those books (in my opinion) if he hadn't gone to prision and been told to do so by his defense attourney.


Edit---

And yes, I was a supervisor in a Detention facility for about 5 years. I quit that job recently though. I never adopted the "cop" attitude if thats what you are thinking, though it's hard not to notice many sad aspects of humanity. I try to be liberal about my views, but they may be colored by having to deal with many of the worst behaved people on this planet.

QuoteBut Im sure none of this matters to you because you have taken the American Justice Never Fails 101 class.

And no one ever said it never fails.  I find myself happier believing that i'm protected by it, but such is not the case.  Many innocent people go to jail unjustly, but many more guilty people do their time.

QuoteWonder what would have happened if he killed 25 people and pleaded insanity

He'd be in a rubber room for the rest of his life being fed meals with happy pills hidden in them and a syringe up his butt...

QuoteI do believe 25 years (especially 6 in solitary confinement) is enough to turn your way of thinking around.

Sometimes, that's not the case.  It's hard to just change your way of life, and completely change your actions just because of a damp hole you're locked in... especially if you know that if you play your cards right you can get out.
He shotgunned 4 people.  He tried to kill jail guards, and threw chemicals at them.  He wasn't some kind old guy feeding cornbread to "Mr. Jingles".

Quotet seems that American system is based on fear and not on right vs wrong.

Somewhat true, actually.  A bad man both instills fear, and should be kept away from respectful citizens, but should also be punished.  Half and half, really....

You don't believe in redemption, then?

Relax... hey! Make a mental exercise! Imagine the guy was a croatian who killed 4 serbians! I am not trying to upset you or start a flame war, I am just trying to put you in the emotional situation of someone who is seeing a guy who hates in the death row. Would you mind if him does write some books or something? I think no.

And don't reply me saying that I should apply that to me, and imagine me in the death row or something. Ã, :P I understand you, and I tryied to put me in your place. I still feel more sympathetic with the position of the relatives of the people who has been murdered, sorry.

For me, seeing the guy who has killed my girfriend, mom, dad and brother, fryed, or receiving a killing dose, should be terrific. I am not saying I agree with the death penalty. I am just saying that, man, if I were in the position of the families, I'd really like to see the guy fryed!

Fortunatelly, I am not, and I hope not to be in that position, never.

Sorry for being like this... But human being is imperfect. (If it was perfect, there shouldn't be bastards killing 4 people in first place...) Ã, :)

Bravo Squinky!

It's my understanding that Willams was the co-author, which means that someone else probably wrote the book and put Williams' name on it for publicity or as a mans of getting published.    Also Williams was the founder of the "Crips" a violent youth gang that continue to comitt murders and other violent crimes.   While in prison Willams maintained relationships with the organization he founded and has never renounced or helped authorities to break-up that organization.   Also while in prison and co-authoring the children's books he planned on killing a number of people to escape.  During this same time in prison, when he was supposedly reformed,  he commited numerous violent crimes including sexual assult of fellow prisioners and physical attacks on guards and prisioners alike.  I say GOOD RIDANCE to Mr. Williams.


P.S. Be nice to Suinky or else he'll F'ya, and as everyone down at the Pirate Guild knows, he has a steel pirate hook on the end of his schlong.   := 

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Tue 13/12/2005 22:45:01
You don't believe in redemption, then?

I never said that.  I said it was hard for people to change their way of life.  Many prisoners have redeemed themselves, i just don't believe this is the case.

Yes, I believe in redemption. I also believe in Santa Clause and the Care Bears.

This guy didn't light burning poop on my doorstep, and I'm not gonna call and have a talk with his mother. He murdered 4 people, and had a horrible effect on the world in general by starting an infamous gang of criminals.
I may not be able to say my opinion of the death penalty for sure, but this guy "reaped what he sowed"

In my opinion it takes extremely severe circumstances for someone to be killed by a government.

Also in my opinion as a moderator, starting a thread with three words and just assuming everyone knows what you're talking about or making them figure it out for themselves isn't correct.

also:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051213/ap_on_re_eu/europe_williams_execution_1

I normally stay out of "heated" discussions like this ... but this one pisses me off too much, so I'm throwin' my hat in the ring:

I too believe in redemption ... if you steal a car, or beat somebody up.  This scumbag killed 4 people in cold blood just to prove that he was bad-ass.  He was the founder of a gang that is now responsible for the deaths of thousands.  He ran up that debt, and last night he paid it.

There should be no discussion here, by my way of thinking.  He should have been convicted, taken out behind the court-yard, and had a "short drop with a sudden stop" 25 years ago..  The real sadness here is that he had the time to write books.  He should have died long ago.  Instead we pay for him to live on Death Row and write books.

I don't deny that he might have been a "changed man" and no, I haven't read his books.  That's neither here nor there to me ... he killed 4 innocent people (that we know about) and he should (and did) die for it.

Rest in Peace?  Maybe ... if you can while burning in hell.

In that news article link that was posted earlier it appears as if whether Stanley Williams had murdered those 4 people is still in question...

Here's an interesting fact: In the last four years, 17 death row inmates in the nation were found innocent and freed.

That's partly why I'm against the death penalty. If you are executed, that's it. If you are in prison for life there is still possibility of admonishment.

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/deathpen.html

Wait a minute here Darth.

Where is the line then. A scumbag that kills one should be killed by the goverment? One who rapes 100 women/children?

You mean to say that death deserves death and that's the end to it. This in Italy (and Greece), is simply called vendetta and the goverment can very well stay out of this. If this is the case, really then let's just take the law in our hands and start killing the killers, thus becoming killers ourselves, who will be killed in return for killing etc...

Who deserves to die?  Except for very very very extreme cases (Hitler, is one), I don't know anyone else who deserves to die. With your thinking there are 1000s of murderers, who deserve to die...

Not to mention education and the educational problem + racism problem everywhere in the world which turns people into gangs! And what about Columbia (for example). There you have to be a murderer in order to stay alive. Should we kill those too?

That is part of my reasoning for not having a concrete stance on the death penalty. Cases can be overturned because of new technoligy pretty often, in my opinion though (there I said it) most of those people found "innocent" are usaully OJ simpson innocent....

That article (like all the others) is a biased article in my opinion. It is simply not credible to call the murders "Alleged" when the man has been found guilty and had his apeal by the supreme court dismissed. You only get one habeus corpus anyway, so he was screwed unless the terminator spoke up....

QuoteWhere is the line then. A scumbag that kills one should be killed by the goverment? One who rapes 100 women/children?

It doesn't quite work like that...

First of all, someone who kills another person is not automatically put on death row.  It takes an extremely large crime to get the chair-something this man committed.  He started a gang, and shotgunned four people.  That's pretty damned big, if you ask me.  In trial, the judge decides what punishment this guy deserves.  THEN they're put on death row, and have chance for parole.  It's not just "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Tue 13/12/2005 22:45:01
You don't believe in redemption, then?

No.. eye for an eye , tooth for a tooth.
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Hope he burns in hell.

I'm sorry:

This post is here just to say that I don't agree to "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", actually no matter what (99.9%, that is).

I think that this is uncivilized and instinct taking over.

I have spent hours dwelling on the right and wrong of capital punishment ...

Is the government's killing of Williams really any different than him killing his victims?

Yes it is.  Quite different.

He was put to death, by the government, for crimes he committed.

His victims were put to death because a psychotic thug (who was a piece of shit and didn't deserve to draw breath anyway) decided he would show just how tough he was by killing innocent people.

But he wrote some books!?!?!  He was redeemed!!?!?!

Give me a break.

If you intentionally murder somebody (like Williams did) then you should pay for it with your own life.  If you take the gift of life from somebody else, you don't deserve to have the gift yourself.  He earned his death.  I don't want to hear that there was some question of his quilt/innocence.  If, after 25 years of appeals and bullshit wrangling, they couldn't prove his innocence then I'm convinced of his guilt.

Stanley Williams committed multiple, cold-blooded, murders.

The government carried out justice.

There needs to be SERIOUS penalties for scumbags who commit murder.  If every person knows they can commit murder, spend 20 years in prison, make millions by claiming "redemption" and writing a few books ... I can't even imagine how many more murders there'd be.

Wow, all this discussion about his books almost makes me want to cry.  I mean, low-profile people that are good writers and haven't killed anyone have a tough time getting published.  What if Ted Bundy had started writing childrens' books and claiming he was reformed?  Would that justify his freedom from 40-100 murders?  Or do numbers matter?  If so, Williams killed more people than Gein did.

One murder is enough to warrant a person losing their right to freedom or life.  Why, you ask?  Because they have irrevocably removed the right of others from experiencing freedom and life.  Justice was served.

Quote from: GBC on Tue 13/12/2005 23:27:22

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Tue 13/12/2005 22:45:01
You don't believe in redemption, then?

No.. eye for an eye , tooth for a tooth.
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Hope he burns in hell.

You do know there's a New Testament where Jesus says "What you do to the least of my brothers, that you do to me." (Matt. 25:40)

Right?

Few things to say about Stanley Williams: he was sent to jail in 1981 and for over a decade was involved in many fights with other prisoners as well as some escape attempts. After he got out of solitary in 1993, we started his anti-violence crusade. So, for a start, it wasn't just an overnight transformatin after his conviction to start writing anti-violence books with the glimmer of a hope they'd release him for becoming a good guy.

He even posted an apology on his website in 1997 that said the following:

Twenty-five years ago when I created the Crips youth gang with Raymond Lee Washington in South Central Los Angeles, I never imagined Crips membership would one day spread throughout California, would spread to much of the rest of the nation and to cities in South Africa, where Crips copycat gangs have formed. I also didn't expect the Crips to end up ruining the lives of so many young people, especially young black men who have hurt other young black men. Raymond was murdered in 1979. But if he were here, I believe he would be as troubled as I am by the Crips legacy.

So today I apologize to you all -- the children of America and South Africa -- who must cope every day with dangerous street gangs. I no longer participate in the so-called gangster lifestyle, and I deeply regret that I ever did.

As a contribution to the struggle to end child-on-child brutality and black-on-black brutality, I have written the Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence children's book series. My goal is to reach as many young minds as possible to warn you about the perils of a gang lifestyle.

I am no longer "dys-educated" (disease educated). I am no longer part of the problem. Thanks to the Almighty, I am no longer sleepwalking through life.

I pray that one day my apology will be accepted. I also pray that your suffering, caused by gang violence, will soon come to an end as more gang members wake up and stop hurting themselves and others.

I vow to spend the rest of my life working toward solutions.

Amani (Peace),

Stanley "Tookie" Williams, Surviving Crips Co-Founder, April 13, 1997

Let me ask, has anyone here ever made a mistake? You know, something really stupid that you look back in, say, a year or two and think, "That was fucking stupid... I am really, really sorry."

I know I have.

Forget this eye for an eye bullshit. We can rise above petty vengence.

I don't know much about Williams. I haven't read his books and I only know what I read about him website and in newspapers. I am against the death penalty. I think what Williams did was wrong. But he made a mistake that he admits to. And he tried to make amends.

Hasn't anyone else here made a mistake? Haven't we all tried to make amends at one stage? Is everyone infallible but Williams?

Of course not.

So I think people here should quit their "eye for an eye" petty vengence shit.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 13/12/2005 23:56:30Is the government's killing of Williams really any different than him killing his victims?

Yes it is. Quite different.

He was put to death, by the government, for crimes he committed.

His victims were put to death because a psychotic thug (who was a piece of shit and didn't deserve to draw breath anyway) decided he would show just how tough he was by killing innocent people.

But he wrote some books!?!?! He was redeemed!!?!?

Hey do you remember that war in Iraq the US federal government started and haven't quite finished yet but has resulted in several thousand casualties and yet the government has not apologised for starting what several ex-White House staffers call "a mistake"?

Yeah, that war.

My point is this: I wouldn't hold any government up as some infallible entity, especially since governments and politicans rarely apologise for their mistakes.Ã,  At least Willaims apologised for his. I give him credit for that.

A few random thoughts on the matter (since everyone's joining in).

If there is no death penalty, then the American taxpayers bear the burden of keeping every menace alive in prison for the rest of his life. You get what you subsidize.

On a colder angle, tit-for-tat (eye for an eye, as mentioned earlier) is the MOST sucessful long term game theory model. In this case, it both discourages murder (by increasing the risks to outweigh the benefits, acting on the assumption of rationality, like all microeconomics) and prevents the recurrence of the crime from the same person. Like I said, it's cold, but the law has to be based on absolutes, not emotions.

If they ever outlaw the death penalty, I hope they force every murderer to spend the rest of his life working for the families of the people he killed. At least then the families get something firsthand.

I can't keep up here! I'll stop reading a second and type something!

i do also believe that if a person takes another's life, they lose their right to live one themselves.

"Hasn't anyone else here made a mistake? Haven't we all tried to make amends at one stage? Is everyone infallible but Williams?"

yes I have made mistakes... but they didn't involve the death of anyone.

Quote from: Lord Nipper on Tue 13/12/2005 22:44:38
He shotgunned 4 people.Ã,  He tried to kill jail guards, and threw chemicals at them.Ã,  He wasn't some kind old guy feeding cornbread to "Mr. Jingles".

:D

I cry my eyes out every time I see the Green Mile. I don't think anyone on this earth should be killed by electrocution. I can't honestly see why it's still done in a modern society. I'm guessing expense...? But how much more expensive can one or two injections be? Anyone have any info on this for me?

I'll be honest, I'm against the death penalty 100% when it suits me. Ã, I find that the kind of people who have hard line, no room for movement stances on it tend to be young people. I know for a fact that the older I get, the more I've seen in the world and the more I realise there are some people for whom it's a better choice. Of course I don't know where to draw the line, and I rather hope that's a debate we never stop having.

I believe it would be perfect if every case could be dealt with very deeply and personally, so that every criminal could become a changed man (or woman). That's just impossible on every level though. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Just to make myself sound like even more of an old fart, I don't place the importance I used to on human life anymore. I mean, in every day situations, sure. But I don't consider it beyond evil to take a human life in every circumstance. Ergo, I think there are times where it's just not a terrible thing.

Some people make the mistake of thinking that just because someone -could- be reformed in a certain amount of time, it doesn't mean they will be.

Of course, I think there should be severe, SEVERE limits on a government sponsered execution. There should be limits on exactly how sure you are of their guilt. I mean, they should have been proven guilty ... but in such a way that there could be no mistaking it under reasonable circumstances. Not everyone "proven" guilty is done so to such a degree. Of course, their crime should be pretty severe too. There's that line we should be debating though.

shitar: As everyone has said before me, you need to think before you start topics and actually tell people what you're talking about. Furthermore, when people actually discuss the topic, don't just swear at them and call them... whatever it was, I can't remember (I appreciate you editting your post though).

EDIT: I just wanted to add that I'm not -for- the death penalty, as my post may have sounded. I'm lucky I live in Australia where it doesn't concern me. To be honest, every case where I hear about it in recent years has angered me a lot and like I said, for the most part, I -am- against it... I just find myself wavering when I see that one special circumstance that makes me believe the criminal shouldn't be left alive anymore.

But yeah, I'm glad I live in Australia (or, will be in another 6 months anyway). We seem to be doing okay for the most part. That said, we don't have the crime that America does so I don't feel I have the right to be preachy in that sense.

Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 14/12/2005 00:13:35
I believe it would be perfect if every case could be dealt with very deeply and personally, so that every criminal could become a changed man (or woman). That's just impossible on every level though. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Just for Information, Here in Idaho (and I think most of america) when a person is found guilty of an offense that can get them prison time, they have to go through what they call a PSI. This involves them talking to a couple therapists, interviews with victims, the defendants family and friends, and reviewing their criminal record. They try to paint a picture of the person so the judge can decide on the appropriate sentence.

Most of the time people get what they call a "Rider" if it is there first felony. This is just going to a boot-camp type place for 180 days. They still have their sentence hanging over their head if they screw up, the judges call it "Retained Jurisdiction" and a lot of times people screw up anyway.....

The way our legal system works here is that they are innocent until guilty, and it is the prosecutions responsibility to prove the case. This isn't easy, I've seen plenty of people who have told me they commited the crime get away just for lack of evidence....But they ussaully came back anyway....

Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 14/12/2005 00:13:35
I cry my eyes out every time I see the Green Mile. I don't think anyone on this earth should be killed by electrocution. I can't honestly see why it's still done in a modern society. I'm guessing expense...? But how much more expensive can one or two injections be? Anyone have any info on this for me?

Uh, only Nebraska requires electrocution.  The other 37 states that actively do execute use lethal injections.

DG: A silly mistake is not a murder! come on! It is not the same!

BTW, I found a use at AmIrightorwrong. Let's have a poll

http://www.amiwrongorright.com/?id=10472

Squinky: That sounds pretty good, I'm glad to hear they have things like that in place!

I guess I meant what I said on a more extreme level though. Like, think of the most seemingly-insane, evil criminal you can think of. do you think it's possible for him to see the error of his ways and honestly change for good? I do. Honestly. I believe even someone like Hitler could have been convinced of his own evil and made to realise the horror of what he did. I think it would have taken a heck of a lot more than years of therapy and things like that though. It would have to have been an intense, intense shake up of his life, involving every trick in the book. Old grandmas, young children, kittens, flying him to different countries, re-educating him on the basics of life, possibly some spiritual enlightenment, drill sargaent style interrogations probing deep into his soul... I don't know. I believe it's possible with everyone. But it's not practical. I think we should do everything we can on a broad scale, as squinky mentioned in Idaho, and individually as much as we can, but doing as much as we can won't necessarilly mean it's enough... there's just no guarantee.

I'd like people not only to consider murder though, which is not, to me, the worst of all crimes, and think of the case of a child rapist. These are the one "genre" of criminal I find my usual values have trouble standing up to. I tend to find myself thinking these people are beyond saving in any circumstance. I'm honestly not sure what to do in these cases but I can't say I'd be sad to have a Ã, death penalty exist soley for these people.

pcj: Thanks for the info. But I'm not just talking about America. Do any other countries use it? Anyway, in that case, why does Nebraska still do it, I have to wonder.

Quote from: ManicMatt on Wed 14/12/2005 00:12:58
"Hasn't anyone else here made a mistake? Haven't we all tried to make amends at one stage? Is everyone infallible but Williams?"

yes I have made mistakes... but they didn't involve the death of anyone.

That's not the point. Hell, a guy could get drunk, drive a car and kill a child, but that doesn't mean he had the intent to kill someone.

So let's talk about intent.

Forget murder for a second. Have you ever been purposely spiteful only to regret such later?

You see, we as human beings are often blind while under rage. It's only after we learn from our mistakes that we achieve clarity.

I may not have murdered anyone in my life, but I have done some very mean things before. Things I've regreted and apologised for. And I have learned from such in order to understand myself better.

Williams made a bigger mistake than probably any of us have. I'm sure he learned from it. But if you forever condemn him, you might as well forever condemn ever other person on the planet who was once spiteful but has learnt from their actions.

"I once was blind, but now I see."

QuoteDG: A silly mistake is not a murder! come on! It is not the same!

If someone commits a murder then regrets it and other say that such is not a mistake, then what the fuck is it??

Also, see my comments above.

Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 14/12/2005 00:34:54
pcj: Thanks for the info. But I'm not just talking about America. Do any other countries use it? Anyway, in that case, why does Nebraska still do it, I have to wonder.

Good question...here's more info on Nebraska (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=11&did=509); I couldn't find why they use electrocution instead, but it might be to deter people from committing capital offenses in the state.

We're talking about murder here. Not a mistake!
A mistake would be stealing a car, stealing money, beating up your wife. Not killing. And when you talk about murder, I don't think you're refering to the drunk who accidently killed someone on the road.
Don't get me wrong. I said it before, I'm saying it again: I'm against capital punishment! Like Kinoko, I believe that people can change no matter what (99.9%, always).

Part of forgiving your self is having your victim forgive you. You know a simple, I steal your car, you find me, I spent time in jail, in the meantime, you have your car back, and although you won't ever put me in your house, you have forgiven me, because I was young, stupid, drunk, under drugs, anything. In the murder case this is not possible!

That's the difference.

And anyway let's see things from another view:

What is the purpose of any punishment?

1. To prevent the criminal from doing more crimes!
2. To reform(e) the criminal to make him a usefull member of the society.
3. To advertise what will happen to anyone trying the same thing! Examplify (is this an actuall english word?)
4. To simply punish the criminal!

I can't find another reason for punishment in general. And I can't see something that can only be acomplished by killing the murderer. Not ot mention that No.2 goes to waste...

So a carjacker can be "young, stupid, drunk, under drugs, anything" and call it a mistake but a murder can't?

That's a little hypocritical.

I mean your whole basis for this seems to be "murder can't be considered a mistake because it's murder", which is a pretty superficial argument.

I think someone can say, "That was an error. I regret it. I am sorry. I was young and stupid," for crimes they commit, be it carjacking, murder, or stealing pies from open windows.

Wow.  I mean, wow.  We all make mistakes, right?  Like...Murder?  That's got to be the single most inane argument against the death penalty I've EVER had the misfortune of reading.

Yep.

People do make mistakes, that's why the punishment is judged on a case-by-case basis.  But we have to allow for the option of the death penalty in others.

QuoteWilliams made a bigger mistake than probably any of us have. I'm sure he learned from it. But if you forever condemn him, you might as well forever condemn ever other person on the planet who was once spiteful but has learnt from their actions.

Everyone keeps talking about it like he made a mistake.  It wasn't.  Killing four people with a shotgun isn't an accident.  He did it to prove he was tough, not because of circumstance.  This guy wasn't "young and stupid", he was a gang member.  The only reason he would regret it is because he was going to die, and he couldn't do it all over again.

I agree with DG. Murder CAN, in some circumstances, be a mistake. whether it be accidental, unintentional, the result of an alterered mindstate or simply really regretted.

Just because it's an action that resulted in the death of someone else, that doesn't mean it can't be a mistake.

Don't just think of 'murder' as some scary looking guy shooting an innocent person. In real life, it happens all the time for bizarre or really mundane reasons.

Recently in Japan, a young girl student was murdered by her teacher. They had a lot of fights and he simply decided to kill her one day. He got all the other students out, closed and locked the classroom and stabbed her to death. He then confessed, no struggle. He simply found that he couldn't live with that girl also existing in the world, regardless of the consequences. This case REALLY baffled me, I tried to think of what he could have possibly been thinking. How he thought this would help. Why he gave himself up just like that. This isn't an argument for my "murder is sometimes a mistake" case, just to show that murders in real life are often just strange like that. Just someone kind of snapping out of their usual self and society. Life is extremely complicated like that.

Now, I don't think the fact that murder is sometimes a mistake or regretted, is a good argument against the death penalty. It's simply a good reason to be very wary, and to... as much as we possibly can, take things on a case by case by case basis.

Quote from: ProgZmax on Wed 14/12/2005 01:04:32
Wow.Ã,  I mean, wow.Ã,  We all make mistakes, right?Ã,  Like...Murder?Ã,  That's got to be the single most inane argument against the death penalty I've EVER had the misfortune of reading.

Then you better not read Capote's "In Cold Blood". Hey, wow! He wrote a whole book considered a masterpiece on something you consider inane! Bloody hell and fuck me in the eye hole! Ain't that a piss in the pants?

Jesus, you're treating this like if someone commits a murder, they lose their humanity forever and can never get it back. Murderers are still human beings. If anything, people murder because they are misguided human beings. Murder has been a misguided part of human culture for many, many centuries. So, don't act so shocked at the things I say.

I don't validate William's crimes. I think he should have spent a long time in prison. But I don't think anyone can justify the death penalty for him on the simple basis that he was a murderer and that's that. Who are we to judge? We're not perfect.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 14/12/2005 01:03:16
I mean your whole basis for this seems to be "murder can't be considered a mistake because it's murder", which is a pretty superficial argument.

I'm just trying to differentiate between a mistake and a murder. No, I don't think it's the same. And if you read the paragraph about forgiving I think I try to explain why.

And I'm drawing a line between a road accident which evtually kills a lot of people and a cold-clooded murder with a shootgun! Simple as that! And I think that every country in the world (ok, I don't know about all the countries but still), even countries that don't have death penalty find that cold-blooded murder with a shootgunx4 is worst than a car accident while drunk (which results in death).

If I'm not mistaken murder is when you kill somebody because you want to do it! Everything else can be a mistake but not murder. I could be wrong in my English so forgive me if this is the case.

Again a note here: I don't think that anybody should receive the death penalty. Nobody! They don't lose their humanity forever and I don't want to lose hope of their redemption. But a murder is not simply a mistake.

I think someone can be a misguided individual to go out and kill someone. That consistutes a mistake.

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 14/12/2005 01:23:49

Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 14/12/2005 01:03:16
I mean your whole basis for this seems to be "murder can't be considered a mistake because it's murder", which is a pretty superficial argument.

If I'm not mistaken murder is when you kill somebody because you want to do it! Everything else can be a mistake but not murder. I could be wrong in my English so forgive me if this is the case.

Yes, that's right.  If you don't have intent to kill someone, that's manslaughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter).  If you're charged with murder, you are being charged with intentionally killing someone.  Sure, you might regret it in the future, that's commonly known as "guilt".  It changes nothing, you still did it, and should bear the consequences.

I agree. Bear the consequences. And I also think that "intent" is a key issue here, as I said previously. However, I still think you can have the intention to do something bad and later call it a mistake after you realise the negative impact of such actions.

As the cliche goes: To err is human, to forgive devine.

Guilt is natural.  His feeling sorry for his actions won't bring back the dead.  Since he knows what he did was wrong, he should also accept his punishment.

Punishing him won't bring back the dead either. So, why'd you bring that up?

I can see we're spiralling towards a conclusion here ^_^

Because there are consequences to his actions; not only did he commit a crime against the victims, he committed a crime against the state.

If punishing him won't bring back the dead, neither will letting him free.  Keeping criminals apart from society is one way the government keeps them from killing other innocents.

No, you misunderstand. I was trying to say it's a bit of a pointless argument to say "his feeling sorry for the victims won't bring them back". Of course it won't. Neither will anything else.

Hmm, maybe this might sound better coming from Morgan Freeman. He has a softer, gentler voice than I do.

Take it away, Morgan!

(http://gfx.filmweb.pl/f/1048/ph.27219.jpg)

"There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret. Not because I'm in here, or because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then, a young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I want to talk to him. I want to try and talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone and this old man is all that's left. I got to live with that. Rehabilitated? It's just a bullshit word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a shit."

I'll leave it at that for the moment. I have to go do some work.

I think the next post belongs to Kinoko, and will go something like this:

"Hmmm... Morgan Freeman. I hate this guy! What do you think about Morgan Freeman?"

;D

A little afterlife here:

I kinda believe that Paradise and Hell have to do with guilt. And after killing four innocent people (or one, or none sometimes), someone has guilt. And these guilts are what make a man/woman go to Hell! So according to my thinking Williams will indeed rot in Hell. If he has trully redemted himself and does not feel any guilt then he might go to Heaven. Chances are, though, that he won't. I don't see any reason in speeding up his transposition in Hell...

Wow. I tend to be liberal in most matters but here I fully agree with Squinky/Darth/ProgZMax/etc.: the guy got what he deserved and any more words on this is a waste of valuable network traffic. (I stand ashamed of my own actions in it. :)  )

The guy killed 4 people, for God's sake! Don't everyone find it a tad inappropriate that he starts writing children's books? He was an a**hole in his whole life and lo and behold: in jail he discovered the good in himself. WTF??? Where was that piece of good hiding when he shot a family of three in the head, execution-style?

I find calling mass murder a "mistake" a bit strong. A mistake is if I make a typo in my weekly meeting report, that's a mistake.

Death penalty may be a bad think (I actually don't think so, but that's another matter), but this guy was the posterboy for it. Every day he got after the initial verdict was a *gift* to him.

As for redemption: if there is a God out there, the guy now has a chance to discuss the matter with Him in person. If there isn't a God, that solves the question of redemption, too.

I think it was ProgZMax, who mentioned a good writer who never happened to commit mass-murder will be struggling to get published. Here we have a moron and mothers of three wet their panties from his "children's books". Forgive me for the foul language but I find this appalling.

PS: if someone thinks I'm worked up, I'm not. :)  I just have a strong opinion on people killing for fun and then saying "Oops, I'm sorry, that was an accident, really."

Just a quick add-in: you're not considering the context here. They're not just any old kids books. They're kids books with a strong anti-violence message. Don't you think they have some benefit on society?

DG: Sorry, but no. The way I see it, there is no place for any kind of message under the Sun from a mass-murderer. If there was, it would mean that we start relativizing murder.

Under different circumstances I'd take a different stance myself. For some crimes, I can imagine that someone actually turns a better person in jail. Not frequently, but I can imagine, even probably after a single murder. After four? No way.

As a quick test for those who think the guy should've been given another chance, think about this: imagine that you're in the middle of the desert with this guy. You also have his anti-violence book. Would you trust him with the water-bottle?

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?

MrColossal: I definitely didn't mean 1 murder is "good". All I said was that I would probably consider it "not as bad" under different circumstances. I don't think any murder is good, but there might be some factors that may give a bit of leniency towards the one who committed it.

(When I say not as bad, I mean that I would consider 25-to-life a proper punishment for it, instead of the death penalty. Don't get me wrong, I never meant promoting a murderer to local kindergarten-manager or something silly like that.)

Broken legs are repairable; a death cannot be "repaired". 

In the views of common law, life is a "natural right" which no one has the right to take from another.  It's removing someone else's freedom to kill them.  A broken leg isn't a loss of freedom.

I'm sorry for double-posting this, but I feel this is important enough (to me, at least  :P ) to post it so that it stands out, instead of the almost-unnoticeable edit):

As a quick test for those who think the guy should've been given another chance, think about this: imagine that you're in the middle of the desert with this guy. You also have his anti-violence book. Would you trust him with the water-bottle?

Nikolas, shut the hell up :P Seriously, I fecking adore Morgan Freeman. I wish he was my grandpa.

EDIT: Of course, I mean "shut the hell up" in a nice way ^_^

Now you have me totally lost! Do you like actors or not? Simple as that... ;D

Now seriously.

I don't think that 1 murder is better than 3. Or 2, or whatever.

I'm here discussing only that taking ones life is wrong. THE END!

I don't care if it is for fun, or for vengence (because after 25 years of locking up in prison, I can't believe that it is for punishment), or for punishment. I don't care if the killer is a black/white/caribean/greek/australian/morgan freeman himself guy or the goverment of the UK/USA/Greece/KOREAN. I don't care if the murdered was innocent or guilty or the guy who did whatever wrong doing.

Killing is plain wrong! From every side.

Note: Do bend all the above a little. I'm the same guy who would pull the trigger to kill a spy in a time of war (another thread from Shitar). But it is war...

Another note: I can't imagine what I would do to the guy who would hurt my family (who all of you know how much adore, and advertise in these forums :)). But still after taking my vengance and killing the guy who would've hurted my family I would probably feel guilty for doing so.

Now there's an idea. I can't believe that there is no guilt in killing someone. I know, I would feel so guilty that I would probably commite suicide after murdering someone (accidently or not). I'm not sure if I would feel the same guilt while killing Hitler, for example. Maybe this is a simple measure of dealing with this simple issue. Here is the question:

You have in front of you Williams. He is tied and you have the lethal injection on your hand. Would you kill him? And if yes, would you feel any guilt for killing him? Think about that.

and about the water, you didn't tell us what is our relationship with him. If we are in the same gang, hell yes I would give him the bottle of water. If I had spent 10 years in jail with him, or if I knew him well enough again yes I would give it to him.
If we were together in the dessert, would you give me the bottle of water? I think not. You just don't know me! I know that I wouldn't trust you...

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 14/12/2005 03:20:39
Now you have me totally lost! Do you like actors or not? Simple as that... ;D

I mean "I'm going to kill you if you don't stop spouting this nonsense" in the NICEST way :D

Of course, I know. This is why the smiley was there...

Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 14/12/2005 03:22:45
I'll going to

?

I'm a English teacher so I'll right. Everyone else are wrong!

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 14/12/2005 03:27:54

Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 14/12/2005 03:22:45
I'll going to

?

Kind of ironic when...

QuoteIf we were together in the dessert, would you give me the bottle of water?

Only if it were a tiramisu, then you can have my water.

In conclusion, everyone doesn't know how to spell or use grammar on the internet.

Also...

QuoteYou have in front of you Williams. He is tied and you have the lethal injection on your hand. Would you kill him? And if yes, would you feel any guilt for killing him? Think about that.

Okay... I'm thinking...

...

.......

...........

Okay, done! To answer the first question, "No."

And that means I don't have to answer the second question.

CASE CLOSED!

If you are prepared to kill you must be prepared to be killed simply as that.
EYE FOR EYE TOOTH FOR TOOTH.

We don't know anything about that man but we first think about that dead people who he killed.

AND who is this shitar guy ??? he only post in gengen and hisd topics are allways political or something.We are here because of AGS not to argue about guilty of some killer.

If you don't want to argue about the guilt or innocence of Stanley Williams, don't post in the thread or read it.

ok

QuoteWho are we to judge? We're not perfect.

Thats why (in the us) we have a jury of our peers for any major offense.

And laws that have been dictated (somewhat) by the majority, when and if the majority wishes for change, they have a say in the law making process.

I respectfully disagree on eqauting pre-meditated murder as equivalent to accidental deaths or drunk driving deaths. Not only are these treated completely different in court, but they are morally different. And this is a moral issue, regardless of your views.

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 14/12/2005 03:20:39
and about the water, you didn't tell us what is our relationship with him. If we are in the same gang, hell yes I would give him the bottle of water. If I had spent 10 years in jail with him, or if I knew him well enough again yes I would give it to him.
If we were together in the dessert, would you give me the bottle of water? I think not. You just don't know me! I know that I wouldn't trust you...

I don't quite see how does it matter what would be your relationship, since we're talking about a mass murderer, after all. If I stick to your example, 10 years in prison wouldn't put you high on my trust-list.

I think you didn't really grasp my example (perhaps I wasn't clear about it.) If you get stuck in the desert even with a complete stranger, you *can* build some level of trust, simply because there is no previous ill acts by either of you.

I just don't see how one could build any (however fragile) trust with a known mass murderer. So would I trust you with the water? Not necessarily, but perhaps yes. (Then again, maybe not.) Would I trust a mass murderer with the water bottle? Absolutely, 100% no.

I myself am totally, 100% against death-penalty. I've always been and I think I'll always be. Nevertheless, I really to try to understand other people's point of view on the subject. Humans are imperfect and since I'm human, I could always be wrong...
Funnily enough, this is one of the best reasons against death-penalty. We are all humans. None of us is almighty. Who are we to decide over the life and death of another human being?
I think, it is really sad that Stanley Williams died today, like I always think it is sad whenever someone dies. I don't know if he really commited those murders. He very possibly has. And still I am sad that someone who very likely killed four innocent people died? Yes, I am and let me explain why before you start squashing me.
I think, a question, we all have to ask ourselves, is: Why do some people become murderers? Why do people commit crimes in general? Is it something that they are born with, like a special gene or something? Could it be because of their education? Could it be because of bad influence from other people? Could it be some mental illness? Could it be because of the circumstances under which those people grew up?
I think it's a good mixture of all of the above. I don't think people are born to be murderers. I don't think people are born to be anything. Let's say humans are somewhat intelligent hard-drives. Basically, when we are born, we are brand new and empty, ready to be saving data. And that's exactly what we do throughout our whole life: we collect data. Some data is given to us by our parents or friends. We do something and receive a consequence for our action. This is saved as well (hopefully). It is what we call learning. When it comes to making decisions, we access our hard-drive and choose, based on what we have stored. If we burnt our finger once by holding it into the flame of a burning candle, we'd surely not do that again, because we have learned that that causes pain, which is usually something people try to avoid. That's why mother's need to watch over their children. They are not born knowing that it hurts to put your little finger there. They either need to find out or be told that it hurts.
Why am I explaining all this? Basically, I want to explain that I believe that something like ultimate free will does not exist. I don't know if that is really true. It is just my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in fade or anything like that. It's just that in my opinion that we as imperfect human beings are not able to see the world objectively. It all needs to be interpretated by our brain and that's our nice little hard-drive with all the information we stored on it and that's inevitably gonna have a strong influence on how we interpretate the world around us, ourselves and our actions. Some people might be clever enough and overcome certain data on their hard-drive, but we certainly can't expect that from everyone, because sometimes the brain just doesn't have enough capacity to do that, which is certainly not the owner's fault. No-one in a healthy state of mind would simply decide on his own 'I truely learned that killing is wrong, that it causes pain not only to the person being killed, but also to his relatives etc., but anyway, I'm just bored, I'll go shoot someone.'. A person, thinking something like that is either insane or has some other priorities (like to have fun is more important than other people's life). What I'm trying to say is, that imo, these different priorities surely come from different data on the hard-drive, which simply leads to different interpretations.
I know that this is a very strong opinion and I've already had various discussions about it that all lead to nothing as well.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that a murderer should be left running around on the streets, because he is not responsible for what has done. A murderer is either mentally ill or terribly misled by the data on his hard-drive. If he is mentally ill, there is something wrong with the hard-drive itself. Sometimes that can be fixed, sometimes it can't. If he is mislead, there is something wrong with the data on his hard-drive. Sometimes this can be changed by trying to delete the old data and replacing it with new, sometimes it can't be changed (maybe because there is simply too much wrong data, maybe because it keeps itself from being deleted etc.). In both cases, the mentally ill one and the mislead one, this person should be put into jail. Not because of punishing him, but because of protecting others. I really don't like to think of the government as a castigator. It should be a protector for the people and a teacher to the person who committed the crime (and if it is just 'if you do that again, you'll be punished.' If the person fears the punishment enough, he might not commit the crime again, though not necessarily because he then think the crime is wrong, but just because of the fear of being punished for it. That's certainly not the ideal way, but since the human hard-drive is quite complicated, maybe the only doable in most cases.) The problem is that you don't know whether the person who has commited a crime has actually learned something or is maybe just pretending. If someone was a thief, the risk of letting him proove that he learned something, is not as high as letting a muderer proove. In the case of the thief, it's "just" about money and stuff like that, in the case of the murderer it's actually a human life. I therefore think that some people, like murderers or children rapists shouldn't get a chance to proove that they have learned something and stay in prison forever, because the risk of letting them out in public again, without knowing for a 100% (and that's impossible) that they are not gonna do that again, is simply too high.
Of course, my whole believe of humans not really having free will implies that I may never be angry at anyone, no matter what they did to me. Basically that's true, but unfortunately that's impossible. I'm only human myself. I'm not able to really see things objectively, because I have data on my hard-drive as well, which is determining how I see, hear, fell etc. I totally understand that people want revenge. If someone killed my parents or my brother or a friend of mine, maybe I would want the killer to rot in hell forever, to suffer incredible pain and agony for all eternity. The government on the other hand should try to be as close to objective as possible. They should try to keep their emotions out of it as much as possible.
If you kill someone who has commited a murder, he has no chance at all to learn something from that. It also doesn't protect society from the killer better than a life-long imprisonment would. It's true that the society needs to pay for those people, but since the killer is at least to some point the result of the society itself, maybe the society should be punished for that by paying for him. That might teach them to try to prevent those things from happening in future. I know it's the old fear of the punishment method rather than replacing the wrong data, but like I said, it's complicated and maybe that's the only possible way.
After all, the government should try to give an example. If the government may kill a killer, why can't I? That's already part of the wrong data that is stored on people's hard-drives.

I am aware that all of the above, could be complete nonsense. I don't know. I'm only a human being. But unless the death-penalty is imposed by someone who is almighty and completely objective, like God for example, the data on my hard-drive does simply not allow me to agree to it and since I don't believe in the existance of God, it's gonna stay that way, unless my data is changed and that's very probably never gonna happen.

You may as well, tear me apart now, if your data doesn't allow you to just accept my opinion as being my opinion. You may as well feel the desperate need (again due to your data) to change my data and express this need by argueing how wrong I am, even though it's very unlikely to happen, as it is unlikey that my post has changed any of the pro-death-penalty-data, stored on various hard-drives of various members of this community.

Quote from: Venus on Wed 14/12/2005 05:36:19
After all, the government should try to give an example. If the government may kill a killer, why can't I? That's already part of the wrong data that is stored on people's hard-drives.

Because of the same laws that are applied to the murderer, they are the reason, and probably the only reason more people don't murder the person accused of murdering their loved ones. This is where the Deterrent factor of punishment comes in. Also because you would be biased and unable to make any decent ruling...

Quote from: Venus on Wed 14/12/2005 05:36:19
I am aware that all of the above, could be complete nonsense. I don't know. I'm only a human being. But unless the death-penalty is imposed by someone who is almighty and completely objective, like God for example, the data on my hard-drive does simply not allow me to agree to it and since I don't believe in the existance of God, it's gonna stay that way, unless my data is changed and that's very probably never gonna happen.

This is why in so many places there is reference to God in American law. But I don't want to open up that can of worms....

Even though your "harddrive" analogy hurt my head, I can see where your coming from. But people have to learn to live in society without hampering others freedoms, regardless of their personal circumstances or upbringing. I don't care if I get shot by an overpriveledged yuppy or a downtrodden hobo, I'm still shot, and my rights and well being have been assualted. Your rights end where mine begin, and the other way around....

It's not hard to not murder someone, it's not like a fat person on a diet, compelled to sneak a little cake at midnight. This person murdered four people.

Quote from: Venus on Wed 14/12/2005 05:36:19
Funnily enough, this is one of the best reasons against death-penalty. We are all humans. None of us is almighty. Who are we to decide over the life and death of another human being?

The government is empowered by the people to enact such measures upon criminals.  If they don't want to live under our laws, they shouldn't live here.

QuoteI don't know if he really commited those murders. He very possibly has.

No question.  He admitted his guilt.

QuoteI don't think people are born to be murderers. I don't think people are born to be anything.

This is the old Hobbes-Locke argument over whether humans are born innocent and it is society which corrupts them or if they are born corrupt and society improves them.

QuoteBasically, I want to explain that I believe that something like ultimate free will does not exist. I don't know if that is really true. It is just my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in fade or anything like that. It's just that in my opinion that we as imperfect human beings are not able to see the world objectively.

That has nothing to do with free will; that's perspective.

QuoteThe government on the other hand should try to be as close to objective as possible.

The defendant is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of peers.  The jury is randomly selected and then both parties are able to make sure none of them are biased.

QuoteIf you kill someone who has commited a murder, he has no chance at all to learn something from that. It also doesn't protect society from the killer better than a life-long imprisonment would.

Yes, but it's also a deterrent.

QuoteAfter all, the government should try to give an example. If the government may kill a killer, why can't I? That's already part of the wrong data that is stored on people's hard-drives.

Because the government is acting under the law.

QuoteI am aware that all of the above, could be complete nonsense.

Yes, I ran it through Word's AutoSummarize and it gave me "This is utter crap."

QuoteYou may as well, tear me apart now, if your data doesn't allow you to just accept my opinion as being my opinion. You may as well feel the desperate need (again due to your data) to change my data and express this need by argueing how wrong I am, even though it's very unlikely to happen, as it is unlikey that my post has changed any of the pro-death-penalty-data, stored on various hard-drives of various members of this community.

You're trying to make us disprove your beliefs in regards to morality with cold fact?  No, thanks.  :P

Quotethey shouldn't live here

not living there and dying there aren't exactly the same

You shouldn't expect to murder and get away with it.  It's against the law; the government was within its right to execute the law.  End of statement.  If you have a problem with the law, either find enough people who agree with you to try to change it, live with it, or leave.

thanks for explaining that to me

1.
As a side note: the government shouldn't be trusted on its word. I'm from a country where this was obvious. So just because the government says that someone is guilty, it's not necessarily true.

2.
I think that reciting the government's right to execute is actually a cheap way to win this particular argument. The government has "rights" to do whatever they vote for themselves. It's not always right, even in a strong democracy, like the US.

Murdering someone is not bad because it's aganst some written law, but because it's morally wrong. In the current western society where it happened, it's quite easy to define "good" and "bad" in this context. There are killings which are not morally wrong and as such, don't count as murder. (For example if someone defends himself against a potentially deadly attack and kills the attacker. Solders do not commit murder during battles, even though they kill people.)

I don't think that being brought up in a bad environment/family should be an excuse for killing people for fun or profits. The same for not having the "right data". As a taxpayer, I'm not willing to support people who kill/terrorize others (and potentially threaten my family members, too) for their own agenda or gains. As I said in one of my first posts in this thread, I'd be willing take a different position under different circumstances. But knowing the history of this killer, I don't see any reason and apparently judges didn't see any, either.

And let's not forget that some university professors actually nominated this moron for a Nobel peace prize. That's really a new low.   :(

Would part "A" (For death penalty) and "B" (Against death penalty) accept a state of total sedation for those who have commited murders?

It can be made with drugs, in the way the prisoner would lost its psyque, even the dreams.

But the government wouldn't officially have the right of murdering. It should be a consolation for families, and the lawyers might look for more evidences of innocence of the prisoner, as it is a revertible state.

I personally am more for this that death penalty. Not because I do not believe that murders deserve it, but because I think that 10-15% of the people who receives the lethal dose hasn't really been guilty for trial mistakes, mainly.

What do you think?

I can't honestly argue for or against it.  While many families struggle to make ends meet and keep their children fed while still paying taxes, is it fair for them to have to support a prisoner's expenses?  A murder in prison can expect regular mealtimes, a roof over his head, medical and dental care, while many families can't afford these things.  That doesn't seem just no matter how life-loving you claim to be. 

[edit: Removed paragraph too off-topic]

I don't agree with the death penalty.  If my family were killed and the death penalty was required to be carried out by the victims' family, I don't know that I could administer the killing blow.  I would be angry, sad, bitter and confused, but I don't know that I'd be able to claim the right to take a human life.  Maybe I would, under the circumstances, but I can't determine that unless I were in that state. 

I don't believe in killing for vengeance's sake, but I find it harder to argue against it being a deterrent or (and this seems cold and callous, but) as a cost-saving measure. 

What I do believe, however, is that all life is not equal.  We choose our value by the choices we make.  Regardless of being rich or poor, a person's worth is what they make it.  We're saddened, but not shocked, by the deaths of thousands of our military personnel.  We're saddened, but not surprised, at the deaths of police officers.  They did, however, make a choice to enter a career that carries with it a risk of death.   As a gang member/founder, Williams was fully aware that there was a risk of death, and he acted accordingly.  His victims had no such conscious choice.  The number 4 has been bounced back and forth as a measurement of his sin, but what about all the lives taken as a result of the gang he helped to found?  What about the enrollment in the rival gang (The Bloods)? What about their victims? 

Farlander's solution of sedation (can't help but think of Demolition Man's freezing penalty) might have some merit, but it's purely science-fiction at this point.  We can't keep a person in an indefinite coma and be able to wake them at any time, particularly with the same quality of life they had before, should they be found innocent of their crime.   It sounds much more humane than 25 years in prison only delaying the inevitable death, long after a person becomes something other than what they were when they commited the crime (whether better or worse).  For now, in some places, certain crimes carry a potential penalty of death (and only a small percentage are actually carried out, particularly in California).  If the person doesn't want to die, they probably shouldn't kill people.  Their sentence may not be morally right, and our execution of them is an act of murder in the name of justice, but it's not like this is a sudden change after the fact. 

If somebody wants to rail against California's execution of this man, and become indignant about the loss of a person who weaves a hell of a wonderful feel-good, morality reinforcing novel, try taking a look at Texas instead.  If you really want to discuss the correctness of the penalty, look at the state that uses it the most.  Look at the state that has a fast-lane law that pushes multiple-murderers to the front of the queue (thus putting some weight behind the 1 victim versus 4 victims argument).  Bottom-line: This guy's getting attention and bringing the issue up because he's a) being executed in a state that does so rarely and b) because he's in the spotlight due to an well-advertised repenting novel.  Arguing in favor of this person's right to life, while ignoring others in prisons across the nation, seems pretty hypocritical for a person claiming the sanctity of human life as their podium.  Congratulations upon being manipulated by a PR campaign into voicing your opinion now (rather  than previously).   

As stated, I can't side with either point of view without conceding points of the other.  The one thing I can say I disagree with absolutely is a person claiming to be Christian and quoting the "eye for an eye" passage.  This quotation is not only history inaccurate when taken out of context, but specifically rebuked by Jesus - ""You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, ‘Do not resist injuries, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other as well'"  This was in refutation of a law limiting the extent of retribution, not magnification of it.  Maybe Jesus realized the same thing as Ghandi: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless."

I'm saddened that another human life was ended with William's execution, but I honestly don't have a better solution.  We revere life so much that we argue against the death penalty.  I wonder how much power those with no regard for human life gain over us as a result. 

Come on homes, I have some thing to say about this too, and I think it's a good conclusion, of course people will argue with me but please read:

I am absolutely against the death penalty, not discussing why now, that's not the order now..

It's this case:

A guy, out of the getto, founded a local street gang, The Cribs, getting bigger, getting bigger, getting one of the two biggest gangs of America..
Dont forget this, I absolutely aint approving his actions but, in the American getto, you have to steal to live, not that murder is the case to survive..
Either way, upon the day we live now, street gangs Bloods and Cribs are the order of the day, Tookie has been caught for at least four murders, pretty sure he did them, he even confessed to do it, now this:

Tookie starts writing books for young black people in the getto's, those guys look up the "great" Tookie and read it. And learn from it, I'm almost absolutely sure Tookie evaded a lot of new gang member recruitment cause the kids dont wanna join anymore after his books. This man.. did very, very wrong, but he did very good too after, very very good.. probably prevented murders with this, cause, maybe you guys know, that being in a street gang like the Cribs means you gotta murder to be part of it.
He ain't nominated for the Nobel Peace Prise for nothing..

I think there's quite a difference in penalting a serial killer like the Texas Chainsaw Murderer who just liked to kill without a cause and not being able to regain being a human being("fictional" example), or an ex gang member who certainly cleaned his life..

About the death penalty, I said i won't discuss it, but I only wanna say even the Texas Chainsaw Murderer kind of guy ain't wor'thy for the death penalty..

How can you be just as bad as a murderer, cause murdering him is being as bad as him..
I just don't get it..

I don't have a right to choose who lives and who dies, but if I were forced to choose between a mother of two and a ganster who had killed non-gansters, the gang-banging asshole dies, no question.  Wait! He said he was sorry?  Definitely the mom then. 

Death is an inequitable punishment regardless of the target, but justifying defense because of theoretical repentance and presumed slate-wiping?  I call bullshit.  Aside from that statement, I have difficulty not smiling when someone uses half-assed "Gansta" speak yet still insists upon calling the gang, "The Cribs" (versus Crips). 

I don't think he should've been executed either, don't get me wrong.  I don't think he should've been killed even though I consider gangsters to be some of the lowest forms of life.  It's testosterone rampaging gone awry, introducing an overblown solution to a very real problem, resulting in more loss of life.  If there were only gang-members involved, fine.  Let 'em shoot it out until they're eventually extinct.  Of course, since I've got more chance of dying from a gangster's bullet than from anything else while at work (due to the average 1-per-day homicide rate in the city) while at work, I'm probably a tad biased. 

By the way:

Quote"I think there's quite a difference in penalting a serial killer like the Texas Chainsaw Murderer who just liked to kill without a cause"

New York Times write-up: "He and three friends had been driving around during the predawn hours. At about 4 a.m., they spotted a 26-year-old clerk named Albert Owens sweeping the parking lot of a 7-Eleven. Court records describe Williams herding Owens into the storeroom and ordering him to lie face down on the floor, before shooting him twice in the back. At some point, one of the men took $120 from the cash register. Two weeks later, Williams broke down the quadruple-locked door of an L.A. motel and shot Yen-I Yang and Tsai-Shai Yang, the Taiwanese proprietors.

When their daughter Ye Chen Lin heard her parents' screams and came out of her bedroom to investigate, Williams shot her too, leaving only one survivor from the immediate family, Robert Yang."

So, the difference being that a stereotypical serial killer never repents or gets a book deal? 

I'm not saying it's right to take his life in retribution.  He's probably really sorry and wishes he could take it back and remove the stains he's made on society.  I'm just saying that differentiating him from a psychotic killer isn't so cut-and-dry an argument.

I have just received a PM... Apparently, when I wrote this:

QuoteImagine a croatian who has killed your family in the death row. I am just trying to put you in the emotional situation of someone who is seeing a guy who hates in the death row

The verb "HATES" might be missunderstood. I am not saying that the croatian guy is the guy who has hate inside. I am not saying that the croatians are guys with hate. I am not saying that the serbians do.

I was just looking an example of a guy who I knew that the RELATIVE OF THE VICTIMS was going to hate, but not making a racial commentary. I guess that if shitar should have been proved to be a zealot of the NY Yankees I might have used the example of the Dodger's pitcher killing his family...

I was just trying to flip the omelette and attempting to make him seeing a person who he really hates in the death row, because it is obviously that he is making his arguments from the point of view of deffending a person whose books he reads and admires.

I apologise. It is a very bad example. And specially bad if it uses something so sensitive as races or religions.

Excuses to everybody, and please, if the topic turns into something worst I'd feel even worse, so, please, if you want to help me, no further commentaries on this, at least not in public.  :-[

I think that most of use (including me) are judging things from a very indifferent perspective.

I speka for myself now: I have my family, my life, my talents, my AGS forums, my music, I'm wealthy (compered to 90% of the population of Earth), I'm educated (doing a PhD now). These things do matter!

Someone with no chance, no life, no family, noparents, nothing but a gang, what would he say?

I'm not looking to say that he's innocent and that life brought things this way, I'm just trying to position the people who think that death penatly is a good idea, into a different perspective. And try to really keep an open mind. If you had some zulu killing and eating people, would you sentence them to death? I doubt it... Would you stop them and try to teach them, why they can eat pork instead of humans? Sure! Would you lock them up and make them slaves? Probably.  But you wouldn't kill them.

I just can't imagine that someone/anyone is born with the tendency to kill. With an instinct for killing. And due to that I can't justify death penatly.

Question: In Europe, is there any country that has death penatly? I honestly don't know, but I doubt it. But in USA death penatly exists. Especially in Texas. Why is that?

Over the years of growing up I've learned that the way to face a problem is to actually find the roots and destroy the roots, not face the consequences.

Example: New Orleans. The solution to flooding is not to make stronger barriers, but somehow to raise the level of the city, as it has been said. The barrier deals with the consequences of the problem, but the problem itself is that the city is bellow sea level. (Ok. I'm not sure abuot this, but take is as an example...)

"Aside from that statement, I have difficulty not smiling when someone uses half-assed "Gansta" speak yet still insists upon calling the gang, "The Cribs" (versus Crips).",

I am no half ass gangsta or whatever, I just ain't English so sometimes my language will read very strange, anyway, excuse me.. Crips -_-..

Appreciated for the fine redirection to my way, very smoothly done..

Back to topic now..

"New York Times write-up: "He and three friends had been driving around during the predawn hours. At about 4 a.m., they spotted a 26-year-old clerk named Albert Owens sweeping the parking lot of a 7-Eleven. Court records describe Williams herding Owens into the storeroom and ordering him to lie face down on the floor, before shooting him twice in the back. At some point, one of the men took $120 from the cash register. Two weeks later, Williams broke down the quadruple-locked door of an L.A. motel and shot Yen-I Yang and Tsai-Shai Yang, the Taiwanese proprietors."..

Okay.. you are right, maybe he is not to be trusted to be seeing the light again and stuff, still, like i said, even the Chainsaw Massacre Murder type isn't worthy for death penalty..

We shouldn't be like them, killing and all..

I don't say he wasnt a psycho mddfkka, i just think he saved a lot of lifes not going his way.. cause there are hundreds small gangs out there, not to even mention the big criPs/Bloods gangs who murder for daily cause..

And Nikolas, I think you are absolutely right with ur statement!
Some people have only their gangs, are kinda brainwached and just dont see the difference between good and bad anymore, just think all they do is to survive or just cool, going into such a gang is just making u more and more psycho..

Just to clear up a few things... The Bible does talk about an "eye for an eye" in the Old Testament and Jesus talks about "turning the other cheek". However, you need to keep these things in context. "Eye for an eye" was said in response to the  vengeance activities of the peoples in Canaan, where they would respond to an injustice by murdering an entire family (things would escalate from there). In perspective, "eye for an eye" makes more sense. There was also a system of "safe cities" for the wrongly accused or accidental crimes. The "eye for an eye" mandate was given to the Jews for their justice system. Like I said earlier, the law must be based on absolutes.

Jesus said "turn the other cheek" in response to the injustices inflicted on the Jewish people by the Romans (who occupied the entire Lebanon region). The Jews at the time expected their Messiah to be a revolutionary who would overthrow the Roman government. Jesus' guide is more of a personal one. If everyone treats each other as they want to be treated themselves, it's not necessary for a court of law to enact an "eye for an eye" punishment. Have I made this clear? These two different philosophies can coexist without being contradictory.

I wonder if the direction of this thread would be different had Williams killed Lennon.

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?

big brother, I am ill-equipped to discuss a biblical matter like this, mainly because I've uh... missed bible study for the last 15 years but I think jesus' teachings were supposed to be a 'new guide' to overturn the mosaic law (eye for an eye) completely. At least in the Orthodox church that's how it is. Your reasoning seems reaching, and the two modes of thinking ( love your enemy and eye for an eye ) seem completely inconcilable.

"the law must be based on absolutes" I don't know about that, but I'm pretty sure the interpretation of the law is left upon us incomplete human beings.

Let me put it like this -
Golden rule - guide for personal behavior
Eye for an eye - rule for when personal behavior violates the law

Clear now? Eye for an eye is the society's safety net enacted by the law, not by individuals acting on their own incentive.

As for Mosiac law (the 613 mitzvot of the Torah), Jesus overturned the need to sacrifice animals. He sought to convert people to see the spirit behind the law, rather than to follow it by the letter. At this time, the Rabbis were adding laws (and elaborating on existing ones), like the exact distance one can walk on Sabbat (day of rest) before it's considered "work". When the religious leaders caught Jesus and his disciples picking and eating grain on the Sabbat, they confronted them. Jesus countered with something like "Sabbat was made for man, not man for the Sabbat." Jesus was not trying to overthrow the idea of a day of rest, only define the spirit of what it means.

In case I wasn't clear before, I was stating the the typical interpretation of Christians quoting the law was contrary to Jesus's statement and that people that used it as a justification for retribution didn't understand the original context (as reinforced in Leviticus).  Further interpretation gave way to proportional needs and losses with a starving person in need might receive less punishment than a wealthy thief (thus making the amount paid back more proportionally similar instead of absolutely).

"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?

I am afraid yes.., if a man loses all he got, he changes.. some people will change agressively, other people will be just lonely all day and feel sorry for themselves..

I totally agree to Nikolas. At last in the EU, there is no country that has the death-penalty and the system seems to be working. You don't need to threaten people to kill them, in order to prevent them from killing others. Otherwise the European Union's killing rate would simply go throught the roof, but as far as I know, it is even lower than in the USA. I think threatening someone to kill him as a deterrend simply sends the wrong signals. Let's take a simpler example than killing. Let's say a child hits someone. Should the parents hit him for it as punishment and as a deterrend to not do it again? The person who was hit and that person's relatives might feel better, knowing that the kid had to make the same expierence as a punishment. But doesn't that also imply the idea that hitting becomes an established form to punish someone for that kid? Why do so many children who were hit by their parents, go and start hitting their own children? It's a vicious circle and to break that is really difficult. If a government now kills people as punishment, doesn't killing become an established form of punishment? I try to understand the difference between murder and killing by enacting law, but even though I consider myself to be somewhat educated, I still don't get it. How can someone who has received no education at all, but that violence is the answer to everything, get that difference?

This whole argument that death-penalty is not murder and wrong, because it is enacted by the law is something I really don't understand even though I'm really trying to. Who makes that law? It's the government. Does that mean that as long as it is stated in some law, a government can do anything they want to? That would actually make Hitler a very decent guy, who did nothing wrong at all. He was elected by the people of his country! They didn't stop him making laws that stated that Jews were not considered to be humans and could therefore be killed to "clean" the country! I think we can all agree that Hitler wasn't a decent guy and that he murdered millions of people, right? According to his own laws, he was doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Simply saying that the government may kill people, because that's how it is stated in the laws, is a bit too risky for my taste. Even if a majority of people agrees to those laws doesn't make them ultimately right. We just hope that the majority of people is doing the right think, but that's not necessarily true. I am German myself and believe me, I have to deal with my country's past on almost a daily level, because it is my duty to make sure that something like this is never going to happen again and I'm currently reminded on that, which is a really good thing. I'm quite certain that something like that is not going to happen here again, because the majority of people understood that this was just plainly wrong. A consequence of Germany's past is, that we have established some unalienable rights for people. Nothing and no-one can take those away from you, no matter what religion you believe, which colour of skin you have or what you did. The most important of these rights is living. No-one should be able to take that away from you, no matter who you are and what you did, because everyone could be wrong. A government can be wrong, people, even if there are a lot of them in a group, can be wrong. Therefore an eye for an eye should never ever be the society's saftey net, because the society could be just as wrong as the individual acting on his own incentive. If you take away someone's life, that life is lost forever and since every institution could always be wrong, I'm really glad to live in a country that ensures me to have the unalienable right of living.
There is no ultimate wrong or right. Not everything is just black and white and since we as incomplete humans are not able to determine which colour it is exactly, we shouldn't kill people, claiming that we could.

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.

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

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."

Quote from: DonB on Wed 14/12/2005 17:45:48
Well, even that terrorist wouldnt deserve a death penalty mate..

Why?

'cause he's already dead?

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...

Quote from: ManicMatt on Wed 14/12/2005 15:48:59
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 :P 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...

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 14/12/2005 18:31:25
'cause he's already dead?

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

Eric, I understood your joke.

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!)

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.

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...

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.)

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....

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.

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:

QuoteRe-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, :P)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

There's your answer... :P
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!"

Geoffkhan: We tell the jury that to even think of the death penalty, they have to have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Plus its up to the judge to decide.

Yes, I'm sure there are innocent people in just plain jail. But hopefully, as technology improves, we will have at least a 99.9% accuracy when it comes to the death penalty. Of course 100% is wanted, but unlikely. And with the technology improvements, hopefully the innocent will be freed.

-------------
And I'm pretty sure that it costs the state the same amount of money to just put someone to death, as it does to keep them in a cell, and feed them for the rest of their life. I know, to me, it doesn't add up well, but that's what I've read. If anyone feels like correcting me, or backing me, thats cool. Whatever.
-------------
King, you dont seriously have a book like that for your children, do you?
{edit from post below} ahh, ok, for some reason, I was thinking of Nikolas.Ã,  nevermind.

QuoteKing, you dont seriously have a book like that for your children, do you?

I don't have kids... and no, i was joking...

Err, sorry.  I just realized how unclear i said that...

Anyway I don't thikn that this (like most debates in the internet), is going anywhere.

Let me take down to this:

I feel that death penalty is wrong! I don't think that any human being can have a call on anybodys life! And when it happens (murder), I think that the punishment should be severe! The worst possible, but not killing!

And Farlander I kinda answered your question with our own little Hitler (who is acutally responsible for a lot of lives, including my uncles Nikiforos Mandilaras, was his name). But still neither me or my parents want to see this guy of ours (Papadopoulos, reread my post), dead.

There are a lot of hypothetical questions here: Again, if someone murdered my family or a close friend of mine, would I kill the murderer? I don't know! I just don't know. But I am pretty sure that after the trial and his eternal lock up in jail I wouldn't care to kill him anumore. That's what I thinki. I'm not sure.

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 14/12/2005 20:42:50
I think that the punishment should be severe! The worst possible, but not killing!

Like... torture? Then it would be more humane to just kill them.

Okay okay I'm putting words into your mouth now!

Let it be know Nikolas, I do respect your regard for human life, but I myself am not so pure when it comes to evil bastards.

I don't agree with a system that kills people who has been proven to be innocent more than 20% of the times, Mr. Geoffkahn. Actually, suspects that at least one innocent has been killed makes me go against death penalty.

Re-read my post, and realise that in first place I've been trying to say shitar that he must be respectfull with Squinky in first place. Then I inquired about the feelings of people about inducting a coma state to the prisoners... And then my attitude has been directed to realise where does the "Group B" people put the line for agreeing with death penalty.

See? I haven't said my opinion at the moment. Ã, :)

I am against the "happy" administration that some states do about death penalty. I am sure that I would push the button if I were a relative of a person who has been killed, if I were sure of his fault, and I am sure it would me feel better.

As you can see... I am closer to you than "Group A" in this discussion... But not enough for moving a finger against this particular "Stanley Williams".

Quote from: big brother on Wed 14/12/2005 20:28:19
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.

If the innocent people were had a life sentence they have a chance at being freed. Yes it is a problem with the courts... we still have problems that weren't completely resolved even after the Clarence Gideon case. In Gideon's case the original witnesses were found to be lying.

In my mind Williams was not innocent and therefore deserves punishment, though there is some controversy whether he committed those four murders. Apparently he pleaded not guilty in the murder case, and the day before his execution his lawyers found witnesses testifying that the original witnesses were lying, being also criminals like Williams. I don't know whether this is true or not, but it does present a doubt.

Economically it does favor the death penalty, since it does cost a LOT of money to keep people in prison for life as opposed to executing them with lethal injection which costs around $100 and some time to fill out forms.

Quote from: Scummbuddy on Wed 14/12/2005 20:33:44
Geoffkhan: We tell the jury that to even think of the death penalty, they have to have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Plus its up to the judge to decide.

Yes, I'm sure there are innocent people in just plain jail. But hopefully, as technology improves, we will have at least a 99.9% accuracy when it comes to the death penalty. Of course 100% is wanted, but unlikely. And with the technology improvements, hopefully the innocent will be freed.

Every year around 4 people on death row are found innocent and freed. In my opinion, that's a suprisingly high amount. You make it seem as though our justice system is very accurate in proclaiming someone guilty or not guilty.

And even if the innocent are freed, it's still on their record as being convicted. That and it's also quite an inconvenience as you can imagine. :P

I can imagine that would be a big hit at the job interviews.

Interviewer: We noticed on your resume that there's this period of time between when you quit your last job and today. Could you explain a little?
Former Death Row Inmate: Funny story, actually...

 I'm making my last post in this thread with this:

If you have ever lived in a city or area that was like the "Ghetto" and saw what the life there was like, read his book and you will understand what it's targetting.

If you have lived a fairly comfortable life, don't bother reading it unless you are out to prove that it's a giant "subliminal message".

He killed 4 people because of the man he was 25 years ago. If he would have been taken behind the court and executed IN HIS CRIMINAL MINDSET that would seem to be the most justifyable government killing. He was killed 25 years after he killed 4 people. In my opinion that was enough time to be redeemed and I think the point of executing a criminal is for what they would do if they were free, not because they 'broke the law'. He didn't try to get OUT of jail. He wanted life without parole so he could continue his writing.

Whether they were sincere or not his books appealed and had a positive message for the young black people that were victims to the American "ghetto" lifestyle. He saved potentially 1000s of young black men from getting his fate which in turn saved the people those black men would have killed if they joined a gang, to prove themselves.

I believe killing a human that killed a human can be justifyable in only some extremely rare cases. But then we could argue the entire human complex and ask 'who is to say killing is bad'? What universal scientific law is there that says Hitler is evil because of what he did. This is an interesting debate that should be brought up more in the world.

"He saved potentially 1000s of young black men from getting his fate which in turn saved the people those black men would have killed if they joined a gang, to prove themselves."

Prove it.

Yo Big Brother,

about this:
"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."


I don't think you should talk to me like that, I am just discussing, don't have such arguments like; If you can't post something relative (or even something logical), don't....

About the content; I ment.. even the kind of murderers like terrorists, serial killers or what so ever, who are we to decide over a human life, if we would, we are just as bad as them self..

There are the blow-them-self-up terrorist yes, but there are thousands of "sleepers" and "brains" if I am right, all with horrible plans..

QuoteAbout the content; I ment.. even the kind of murderers like terrorists, serial killers or what so ever, who are we to decide over a human life, if we would, we are just as bad as them self..

We are the ones being murdered and terrorized.

Yes, so should we kill them back them? and be as bad as they are?

If it gets personal I cant promise i wont, but in the objective way answer must be no!

And then there's the case of sick people, you can't kill sick people just because they are sick;
In the getto's kids see drugdealerd kill eachother over some money every day, all raised up only by mum, even saw there own dad killed, can't expect those people to live their life normally on..

Those people are just becoming sick, not knowing whats right and whats wrong, killing other people cause that's what they are grew up with, you can't kill those people because they are sick can you?!

Quote from: DonB on Wed 14/12/2005 22:58:57
"You're out of your element, Donny."

I don't think you should talk to me like that, I ain't calling you names or something, I am just discussing, don't have such arguments like; If you can't post something relative (or even something logical), don't....

Somehow I don't think you got the reference... :P

Ahh i get it, The Godfather..
anyway shoudnt be so rude still..
ontopic now :)

While I admit he did sound rather rude using the 'f' word, I sense that the "donny" bit is some kind of film reference or something, and therefore used playfully.

Ahh thanks, got it now..

Quote from: DonB on Wed 14/12/2005 23:04:30
Yes, so should we kill them back them? and be as bad as they are?

If it gets personal I cant promise i wont, but in the objective way answer must be no!

And then there's the case of sick people, you can't kill sick people just because they are sick;
In the getto's kids see drugdealerd kill eachother over some money every day, all raised up only by mum, even saw there own dad killed, can't expect those people to live their life normally on..

Those people are just becoming sick, not knowing whats right and whats wrong, killing other people cause that's what they are grew up with, you can't kill those people because they are sick can you?!

No wonder you didn't want to state your argument right away! So you're saying that some people DON'T have the will to choose their own actions (grew up in the ghetto, etc), but some us us need to DECIDE not to execute the wrongdoers?
(BTW killing them back and execution are very different terms, in the latter an objectivity exists). So according to you, all humans aren't created equal then, since some of us have this ability to choose our actions. Wow, if we suppose that the "ghetto = ethnic", this takes us back to the 3/5 Compromise (black people being worth 3/5 of a white person).

I can hear MLK, Malcolm X, Paul Robeson, etc. rolling in their graves.

have you guys seen "The Life of David Gale"
it really fits in with this topic.

This thread is pure gold really, and although I found lots of unintentionally hilarious quotes posted by people falling on all sides of the argument, I mainly felt that what I believe to be the most important aspect of this issue was not touched upon, until recently. I'm too tired to get into a full-blown debate, but since relativistic morality was mentioned, I might as well challenge a few perceptions.

big brother, first of all, do not say you are not putting a utilitarian value on human life. When someone says 'well, they cost more by keeping them alive' you're doing just that. 'good' or 'bad' thing to do, you did it, so don't shy away from it. You have your own pros and cons list just like nikolas (who no offense, is the one advocating the most tired and shallow and weak-kneed position on the subject in this thread) even though you didn't post it like him.

Okay so to quote you:

QuoteIf there is no absolute morality, why are humans the only animals that live for ideals

To this I agree. There's no god-given or otherwise subjective morality to follow. So people have individual ethical codes, and societies operate under some communal morality, fortified through law. Now, when someones steps outside conventional morality, to say, breaks the law, he's breaking the social contract with his state. The ways to deal with that are various. Ancient greeks usually ostracised people, that is, banished them from the city-state, a fate at the time considered worse than death because the city state was the heart of the world. People just switched cities sometimes, or lived and died in the wild, or eventually were allowed back in after years and years. But there's something important to note on this example: The judgement was clear, but the punishment passive. The city-state didn't judge your morality and effectively punished you for it. You were simply judged unfit to operate within the confines of their society. Now, of course ancient greeks also had death penalties (the socratic fate) and etc, but I'm making a point here: exactly because there's no subjective morality, and right and wrong is invented, there's no morality that is more 'right' than another one. All are equally invalid/valid in their invention. Regardless of how many people may believe in it, or innumerable variations of it (because there's no two people with the exact same morality) I find it completely unjustified for the ruling morality (through numbers) to PUNISH deviations from it. Removal of the offending party is one thing. You lay on the bed you've made. You break the laws of a society, you're removed from the society, fine. But for the ruling morality to TAKE YOUR LIFE on the grounds that your breaking of their laws was too extreme is just an utilitarian leap that I don't see anyone should easily make.

QuoteIf 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.)

Your analysis and example are base and invalid in certain ways. From that there's nothing universally perfect (sic) which I take to mean that there's no subjective truth on matters moral, it does not follow that we are unable to measure things relativistically. In fact, the whole of human existence is based on relativistic measuring of things we can only hope are to a degree compatible from a person to another. People have lived and died for such relativistically defined things as love, freedom, power and even for the fun of it. Your positivistic call for an invented abstract moral system is unrealistic, inapplicable and ill-defined. From that there's no abstract morality does not follow that we need to invent one, and even more PUNISH those that do not follow this sillyness.

QuoteWhat 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"?

Yeah, that's right, you have no right to judge his system of morality. And guess what? You don't have to. You have to judge his actions, and say "these actions clearly mean you are unfit to remain within this society" and then remove him. It's the difference between a judge that says an offender is unfit for this society and a judge that says that an offender is unfit for society at large and also EVIL. This is a world of difference. You can now talk about how ostracising wouldn't work in modern times because of this or that blah blah logistic reason, but I'm not debating logistics, and I'm not debating utilitarianism. I am not  utilitarian, I have personal absolute ethics. 100 deaths and 1 death cannot be weighed against each other and one found 'MORE tragic'. Not every argument can be dragged down to how much a human life costs in prison and how it's better to flush down your shit than scent it. Human life might be worth a bit more than that, and we might also, as finite beings, not be fit to remove it with silly morality-of-majority pretense.

QuoteBullshit.

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....

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 15/12/2005 02:40:42
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."?

QuoteUh, 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."?

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 14/12/2005 02:36:31
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.

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:

Quoteso 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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

Quote from: esper on Thu 15/12/2005 07:13:13
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 ;D

Quote from: Geoffkhan on Thu 15/12/2005 07:34:51
Oh great then. Castrati singers will take over the world! :o ;D

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? 

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!"

I just want to say that I think your line of thinking takes a lot of things on assumption. Does that mean that christians who are for gay marriage don't believe in their faith enough?

The whole thing with death penalty just disgusts me. There is something dirty, perverted about it.

If you're involved with the killing of another person, I think you'll become reduced as a human being, I think a part of you will be lost with the life you took.

I see trials and executions on the news, from China or Texas or whatever, and the sermonizing voice of the judge, the DA or the military officer, and the curious audience stretching to see the spectacle, and the victim clad in orange or whatever, with shackles so tight he can't walk, and he gets strapped like a spread eagle to some operation-room bunk, and more preaching, more sermons, and outside people cheer and laugh with big banners and signs insulting the culprit and praising their legal system for its efficiency, and eventually someone is put to death by people who lack the powers to bring him back.

How people can avoid getting sick of all that amazes me. It's perverted.

Perhaps because people, in their finite wisdom, haven't figured out a better solution?  Should we be disgusted any less by loss of life due to this person's disregard for it?  Is the only alternative incarceration?  Is this more merciful?  How many years of jailtime is a human life worth? One? Ten?  Do murders have to spend 100 years in prison for killing ten people or do they get a discounted group rate?

Don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted by this morbid fascination with execution and the parading that occurs during the event.  I don't see how anybody can cheer when the hour comes and a man's life has been taken.  Even if I were for capital punishment, I couldn't help but think of it as a grave necessity and not a cause worthy of celebration. 

It's an embarassment that California still does this, and doesn't seem fitting of a nation that bills itself as being progressive lovers of freedom. 

However, other countries quickly point their collective fingers and voice their disgust while offering no viable alternative.  Other countries don't have the same issues with gun violence and wonder why the United States citizenry doesn't just rise up and toss the collective mass of weaponry into a kiln.  It's apparently in our nature to beget violence, and I haven't heard a reasonable solution that's likely to deter a potential killer. 

Maybe it is more humane to lock someone away for the rest of their lives (or at least until they're no longer deemed a danger) so that they can't take any more.  Vengeance accomplishes nothing except to vent some of the victims' relatives' rage and thirst for blood.  Since capital punishment doesn't seem to be the answer either (since people are still frequently killing people), it seems time to at least try something a little less final.

Andail, have you ever read Roland Barthes? The process of making something into a "spectacle" adds information. In this case, the information is an object lesson to those who view. According to Foucault (Discipline and Punish), that's why executions have been public (up to more recent years). As for the accompanying sensationalism, human nature is to blame (the reason why tabloids sell and disasters and scandals are in the news more than good things happening). An objective execution is disgusting, but not when compared to multiple murders!

In Afghanistan, the executioner would traditionally be a member of the family the criminal wronged. The criminal would be on his knees in a field (in the goalie box in a soccer field, ironically) and the person would stand behind him and blow his head off with a machine gun. Believe it or not, I saw actual footage of this in one of my clases (the camcorder was hidden under a burqa, I believe).

As for the topic of guns, look to Switzerland. The populace is armed by mandate, yet they have the lowest handgun death rate in the world (or close...I know the handgun related deaths was 0 one of these recent years). This is due to the concept of active deterrence. The risks far outweigh the benefits from any illegal act (No one will try to hold up a liquor store when everyone in there is armed). It's similar to the way a "beware of dog" sign discourages housebreakers.

Big Brother, while you wrote that post, did you bear in mind that Switzerland is a nation of extremely high social standards, practically without segregation or unemployment? Perhaps most people there aren't motivated enough to hold up their local liquor store.

The phenomenon of everybody having a gun doesn't reduce crime in any way. Capital punishment doesn't reduce crime in any way. It's a bit more complicated, I guess.

I think studies have enduringly shown that indeed, the existence of capital punishment does not act as a deterrent in cases of violent crime. Yet it's still one of the main arguments of the for people, again and again, no sources cited and murmured again and again so as if it's said enough, people will believe it's true without checking.

Well I checked:


The death penalty is not a deterrent; those who are against the death penalty claim that recent studies in the US do not support the view that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. [12] (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES). It is also argued that anyone who would be deterred by the death penalty would already have been deterred by life in prison, and people that are not deterred by that would not be stopped by any punishment. This argument is typically supported by claims that those states that have implemented the death penalty recently have not had a reduction of violent crime. A stronger variant of this argument suggests that criminals who believe they will face the death penalty are more likely to use violence or murder to avoid capture, and that therefore the death penalty might theoretically even increase the rate of violent crime. [13] (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/capital-punishment.html).

from the wikipedia.

Quote from: Andail on Thu 15/12/2005 17:25:21The phenomenon of everybody having a gun doesn't reduce crime in any way.

Care to explain this? You can't refute an argument by simple stating the negatory. Sometimes it's helpful if you can cite a source or maybe use a little logic (but only in moderation, too much logic might give some of the people here headaches).

Helm, a proof relying on a degree of statistical significance (which relies on a preset level for the p-value) is FAR weaker than a logical proof. There are two many confounding factors between states to establish a correlation with those studies.

Quote from: big brother on Thu 15/12/2005 18:26:05
Helm, a proof relying on a degree of statistical significance (which relies on a preset level for the p-value) is FAR weaker than a logical proof. There are two many confounding factors between states to establish a correlation with those studies.

You're right, a proof relying on statistical evidence is weaker than a logical proof. I'll spare you the (sic) thing because it's annoying, but I'd just like to point out that i'm not trying to 'prove' anything here, merely present theories. This is not number theory, we're not proving anything. This is examining society, and the depth of one's argumenting can never be deep enough to be considered anything else than a probable or improbable theory. But anyway yeah, you know what's even weaker than a position based on statistical evidence though? A proof that is neither based on logic nor on statistical evidence, and therefore only on the disparate connections the arguing party has chosen to point out, in the swarming sea of the most probables. Kinda like saying gun ownership in switzerland is the reason they don't have violent crime!

Quote from: big brother on Thu 15/12/2005 18:26:05
Care to explain this? You can't refute an argument by simple stating the negatory. Sometimes it's helpful if you can cite a source or maybe use a little logic (but only in moderation, too much logic might give some of the people here headaches).

Care to explain why I have to give you proofs, when you don't give me?
Do you think that mentioning Switzerland's low crimerate is any sort of proof? In that case, isn't it proof enough for you that america has a very high crime-rate, when their gunlaws are also very liberal?

You should review your own techinique of debating through the past few posts, it has been very peculiar.
Even more interesting is that when Helm actually shows you clear statistical sources, you choose to disregard them, as they don't fit your personal notion of proofs. Still, you haven't brought anything to the table yourself.

Also note that I merely expressed my own personal reactions while watching executions on TV, nothing else.

Ummm....

I never said they have no violent crime in Switzerland.

I never said gun ownership was the reason for this.

I only said that universal gun ownership drove the risk side of rational crimes higher.

Switzerland illustrates this microeconomic relationship.

Do you think these are "disparate connections"?


Andail: You refuted what I said about gun ownership in the US without any proof. I'm not saying you need to list a bibliography MLA style after your post. I just think it would be nice if you tell me WHAT makes you want to disagree with my statement.

Gun ownership in Switzerland is mandated by the government (as part of the militia). This is not the case in the US. Would you like me to look up sources for this? In the US there is lots of regulation on handgun ownership, which discourages legal ownership of a handgun.

Did I write anywhere that you don't have the right to be disgusted at what you saw on television???

Quote from: big brother on Thu 15/12/2005 17:12:44
This is due to the concept of active deterrence. The risks far outweigh the benefits from any illegal act (No one will try to hold up a liquor store when everyone in there is armed). It's similar to the way a "beware of dog" sign discourages housebreakers.

If you want to start somewhere, prove that.
To me it sounds very vague and loose, and "active deterrence" sounds like something you found on the agenda of some rifle association. I simply don't believe that if you hand out guns to everybody, crime will drop. I think the opposite.

I don't know if I can come up with a "proof" that will fit your rather tight criteria (since you haven't displayed any yourself, it's hard to know what you like, sort of), but I just see before me the wild west, or, for that matter, today's america. Do you think removing all guns would make crimes increase?

I wanted to respond to this now, but I will cite the textbooks if you really want. The cost-benefit relationship is pretty basic micro, though. But fair enough, we definitely had different schooling.

From a logical standpoint, say you're a rational criminal and you are going to rob a liquor store. Would you pick a store where you know everyone inside has a gun and knows how to use one? Probably not. The risks of yourself getting hurt outweigh the benefits you can gain from stealing the money in the register.
This is the same reason why schoolyard bullies won't attack kids his size or bigger.

The armed citizenry and strategy of deterrence was employed by the Swiss during WWII (one of the reasons the Nazis were reluctant to attack).
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-second-world-war-ii.html

QuoteDo you think removing all guns would make crimes increase?

It would give criminals more leverage, since that legislation would only disarm the upright citizens.

I hope this answers your questions for now.

Well, here I would have to ask myself:

Since both countries have a lot of gun owners and apparently Switcherland has almost no murders where America has, why is this happening? It is obviously not the guns that make the difference! Then what is?

why does america have around 10000 gun killings a year, when other countries only around 100-300?

Umm.. it has a bigger population?

What'sthe population of Europe? Allcountries together. Is it around 200 million? Is it around the same population of America? (not sure, honestly asking)

Andail (and others), here is an essay written by an instructor of economics at Univeristy of Missouri St. Louis about "Rational Choice and Deterrence Theory." It's pretty basic stuff, but he does describe cost-benefit analysis.

http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/ratchoc.html

QuoteIt is obviously not the guns that make the difference! Then what is?

How is this obvious? Switzerland trains their citizens in the proper use of a firearm. EVERY male between the ages of 18-65 is required by law to own at least one handgun. They have to maintain a certain accuracy at firing ranges. One of my second cousins even got issued a rocket launcher. It is not unusual to see tanks and helicopters everywhere. Here in the US, it is illegal for a citizen to even own a fully automatic weapon. I don't see how you can group both countries in the same category.

Quote from: big brother on Thu 15/12/2005 19:21:25
From a logical standpoint, say you're a rational criminal and you are going to rob a liquor store. Would you pick a store where you know everyone inside has a gun and knows how to use one? Probably not.

Just for your information, that isn't a logical proof. That is some sort of socio-psychological theory you have.

Also, it's far too simply to be applicable in a large system. People commit crimes for many reasons, which is why people commit crimes in America, even though practically everyone is armed to their teeth.

Everyone? I think that's a stereotype. Honestly, when I visited France I was pretty surprised at the weaponry I saw. French MPs carry submachine guns...

You're attacking my hypothetical situation with a generality. I asked YOU a specific question. My intention was NOT to apply it to "a large system". Microeconomics assumes rationality. Sure, not all people are, but it assumes that's the minority (I hope most of us are blessed with the gift of reason  :-\).

So, BB, you're saying that in America not everyone owns, or would like to own a gun? Again I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that, like andail said, everyone is armed to their teeth.

And anyway doesn't it strike you as odd, just as an observation, nothing more, that Squinky, Darth, You, ProgZmax think basically that "the society will collapse" without the threat of death penalty while on the other hand Europeans, me, Andail, Helm, Farlander are against death penalty and believe that society can very well work without?

EDIT: Yes but again, France does not have the murders America does, or am I wrong. And there is no death penalty in France, is there?

No one ever said "the system will collapse", or anything similar.  And i think it's pretty safe to say that everyone on long island that i've met is certainly NOT armed to the teeth.  I only know one who even owns a gun, and it's a pellet gun at that...

No one said "the system will collapse", either.  I think it can function without a death penalty, but i think the death penalty works in its way.

QuoteFrom a logical standpoint, say you're a rational criminal and you are going to rob a liquor store. Would you pick a store where you know everyone inside has a gun and knows how to use one? Probably not. The risks of yourself getting hurt outweigh the benefits you can gain from stealing the money in the register.
This is the same reason why schoolyard bullies won't attack kids his size or bigger.

If you think the mindset of a desperate man about to rob a place is that of calm rationalization of odds and chances, then I think you don't know what you're talking about. I've been in fights with people far larger than me, and they resulted to my getting beat up, and I can safely discern that this would be the most probable scenario, but sometimes you do things when you're very angry or desperate or other combinations of strong emotions overtake you that you can't calculate in the terms you're using. Violent crimes are not HEAT-type calcualted assault and robberies always. Sometimes you have a gun in your hand and you want to kill somebody who annoys you.

Quote from: ProgZmax on Thu 15/12/2005 04:05:19
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.

This is why I had "" around the words society will collapse, but again this is what I'm getting from this thread.

And I agree completly with Helm on this one

Desperation or emotions can make the equation more inelastic (lowering the opportunity cost by the necessity of the action), but it DOES not negate reason. Please read the essay I linked to a few posts up.

EDIT: It is supposed to read "inelastic." Desperate situations (balls against the wall) can restrict an individual's choices.

I think you mean elastic, not inelastic.

And I will read the essay you linked. Right now. And come back here.

Quote(1) The human being is a rational actor, (2) Rationality involves an end/means calculation, (3) People (freely) choose all behavior, both conforming and deviant, based on their rational calculations, (4) The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain,

This is as far as I got. Rediculous. The human being is not a 'rational actor'. We are acting on predetermined paths where everything we've experienced and our genetic makeup and our instinctual drives lead us to the only non-choice we never had to make. We are bystanders, watching our own lives. There's no free will, and this behaviourist attempt to codify human action in oversimplified cause-and-effect models -whereas comforting and simple- is just comforting and simple. Human existence is very complicated, there's a complex structure where everything interfaces with everything, and people watch their bodies do strange things, they watch as they make mistakes, they watch as they cry and repent, and they watch as they make the same mistakes again. Automation and synchronicity. The sense we make out of life is the sense we apply to it. We are not 'rational actors', in some retarded pre-socratic hedonist quest for maximal pleasure versus minimal pain. There's SO MUCH going on in the head of a human being, this analysis, even if it's just for criminal behaviour fails to cover even the bases.

Do you have any other texts you want me to half-read?

I guess this is why you're an artist and not a businessman. :)

Most subjects are simplifications of reality, ways of interpretation to help us understand the patterns. This doesn't mean exceptions don't exist, only that they distract from understanding it as a system. To this goal, assumptions are made, and we recognize them as such. It just happens that these assumptions are integral to economics, finance, marketing, and capitalism. First and second world countries operate with these assumptions. I'm sorry they're not to your taste. (Although you should try to be open-minded and read the whole thing before you judge it to get a sense of the context.)

I don't think either of us can carry on this discussion based on anything but emotions if we don't employ a system of some kind.

you took it too far back. Of course any system of discource is based on assumptions and the like even language makes assumptions. The fact that I have to say 'I. have. to. say', subject, verb, object suggests self-will, so here's a very common assumption that however is probably false. The issue I have with the simplification of the text you posted is that it's OVERsimplified to the degree that it becomes a useless tool for examination of real life. To say that the colour of a fabric is red is a simplification (since we know the qualities of light etc create the illusion of colour, and that there is no colour really) but if the discussion is about different fabrics and colours they have, this is a simplification that can stand the relatively humble tests the discourse will put it through.

But to approach human action, human interaction, criminal behaviour and the various internal workings of the human psyche from the foundation that WE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE OUR ACTIONS and WE ARE RATIONAL BEINGS and WE OPERATE ON A PLEASURE/PAIN DICHOCTOMY is just... so stupid it hurts. It's like approaching the development of adventure games, believing every engine you might use will have a 'MAEK MY GAEM' button.

And yeah, capitalism isn't much to my taste. Seems like it's not to the taste of the opressed around the world too! Imagine that!

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 15/12/2005 19:47:24
And anyway doesn't it strike you as odd, just as an observation, nothing more, that Squinky, Darth, You, ProgZmax think basically that "the society will collapse" without the threat of death penalty

Let's give an example of why this is rubbish.

In Britain in the 1960's, the death penalty was suspended for a trial period of 5 years. There was a lot of opposition to it at the time because people thought the murder rate would go sky high. In fact, it hardly changed at all; and so after the 5 year trial the death penalty was abolished permanently.

Think about the mentality of a murderer ... if you're of the frame of mind that means you're about to kill someone in cold blood, does it matter whether the penalty is death or life imprisonment? Not really, you're not thinking about the penalty (either way you're screwed and in many ways death is an easier way out than life in prison), you're just thinking about the current moment, whatever it is that's leading you to kill.

Adjusting the penalty for more "minor" and planned crimes can have an affect on the offending rate (take much of the Arab world, for example, where the penalty for stealing can be getting your hands chopped off; and surprisingly enough, the crime rate there is lower than in Western countries); but in a crime where the rage is such that someone is prepared to kill another, they're really not thinking about the consequences.

The main objection I have to the death penalty is what happens if a mistake is made -- suppose someone is found guilty of murder and jailed for life, but they keep protesting their innocence and then 10 years later they get a retrial and are freed. Suppose instead they'd been executed ... what happens then? You can't apologise and release them from jail, it's too late. How do you reconcile that situation?

Maybe my English are poor, but I can't see how a this (half) quote can be rubbish.

As far as I can see from this thread the Americans are "in favor" of death penalty and the Europeans are against it. Am I wrong on that? As a matter of fact, you being a British also oppose the idea of death penalty (for your own reasons).

This is what I said, and I have absolutely no idea why this is rubbish.

Care to explain (and quote the full sentence, since it is in another page, please)?

he means that the concept that society will collapse without the death penality is rubbish.

Ok, but is it clear that I don't support this concept?

Nikolas, you've posted that you are against the death penality about 35 times in this thread so far. I'd say it's um, clear. Yes.

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 15/12/2005 19:47:24
And anyway doesn't it strike you as odd, just as an observation, nothing more, that Squinky, Darth, You, ProgZmax think basically that "the society will collapse" without the threat of death penalty

I didn't say society would collapse without the death penalty.

I stepped out of this argument.

I'm for the death penalty and think it's necessary.

Some are against it.

I won't change my opinion.

I won't try to change other's opinions.

We're still friends.

I'm done.

CJ said death penalty is wrong, and hence all who believe differently will be chased out of the forums by the ags-mob!!!

I'm from England and I support the death penalty.

Has the issue been raised on the problem we had/are having over here with overcrowded prisons? I recall a few years ago of how a judge pretty much let someone free just because there was no room for them in prison! Killing the more dangerous scum in prison would give more space, though. Else we could just build more prisons and have a prison on every street.

sure

Just because someone asked:

Us Population as of july 2005 (CIA website): 295,734,134
European Union:  456,953,258     

I tried to find some statistics of how many guns are in america, but I couldn't find anything reliable. I would dispute the statement that all americans have guns though, the majority does not. Taking that into consideration I would agree that Sweden's current state where the government issues weapons is far different that the U.S. There are many guns here, but they are smattered about, and the typical person does not carry one. I speak from this with a law enforcement perspective, I only found one gun on a person illegally in the course of 5 years. Typically the person who has guns has many guns, which screws up the eqaution.

From my knowledge most gun related homicides are drug related, and america does have a problem with that. I would bet my life that if there was some way to make the drug issue go away, or at least get rid of the criminal element attached to drugs, the gun homicides would drop dramatically.

It is difficult to find statistics about the ubiquity of guns in US households.  However, while living in three states, spending most of my life in an urban area (that of San Francisco), I haven't seen a civilian gun, only those carried by military personnel and peace officers.  None of my relatives or friends own a firearm, nor do they desire one.  Granted, I travel in, let's say, comparitively liberal social circles, but firearm ownership seems far from "armed to the teeth." 

I'd also like to add that among those who've primarily argued against the death penalty, at least two are also US citizens.  So, it's not universal that Americans support it. 

From the beginning, the US has had large investors under many banners.  The plutocrats, aristocrats, mafia and drug cartels have all had a share in building America's commerce as well as ensuring their supply lines' permanence and that their interests are upheld by legislation. 

Drugs, firearms, incarceration and execution aren't likely to go away any time soon without some massive break in the cycle.  Since the death penalty hasn't been a deterrent in the last couple of hundred years, it's unlikely to be so now.  No one item on the list of the US' woes can be pointed at for blaming purposes, it goes a bit deeper than that.

One other repetition that seems based upon incorrect presumptions is that an innocent person could easily be executed before they've had the chance to prove their innocence.  While I haven't researched this in some time, the shortest timespans from sentencing to execution have been 5 years, with the longest being 35 years.  On average, 7-9 years can be expected in most states before an execution is carried out.  The exception to this is Texas which seems rather more efficient with its executions.  I would think that, after 5 years, one is unlikely to be able to prove their innocence despite attorneys, family and friends dedicated to this purpose.  Two specific cases that illustrate this lengthy time before execution are that of Stanley Williams (25 years) and Richard Ramirez (7 years as of 1996, I'm uncertain beyond that, convicted in 1989 of 16 murders, a high-profile case). 

Very quick research: In California, minimum average time before actual execution - 16 years.  In California (Where Stanley Williams was executed), there have been 11 executions since 1978. 

You keep saying "prove their innocence".  People keep forgetting that you're innocent until proven guilty.  Usually you won't receive the death penalty anyway unless there's some fairly concrete evidence.

*Sigh*  The word "you" without any quotation to suggest otherwise leads me to believe that was directed at my last post.  I am well aware of the novelty of proving one's innocence after they've already gone through the innocent-until-proven-guilty tapdance.  The usage of the "prove their innocence" term is directed in refutation of those who state that people may be executed before they can prove an incorrect guilty verdict.  We're talking about the 1% (or whatnot) that are found guilty but proven later to be innocent of their crimes. 

It would seem that your stance, pcj, is for the death penalty.  While I can see merit in both sides of the argument, executing someone based upon terms like "usually" and "fairly concrete evidence" seems both reckless and callous.  Arguing for capital punishment ought to include more absolutes since the punishment is the most absolute possible for that person.

"Absolutes" implies something which cannot be reached by humans.  We cannot produce anything that is "absolutely" anything in the truest sense of the word.  Therefore, we can only do our most.  Ensuring that "someone" gets a fair trial seems to me to be a step in the right direction.

Yes, it can be argued that "we" (humans), not being able to be "absolute" in anything, do make mistakes and that therefore we shouldn't have a death penalty.  However, in our judicial system, it is the prosecutor's responsibility to prove the defendant guilty, not the other way around.  There have been injustices committed against "innocent" people, but Mr. Williams was guilty.  He admitted it.

People have been cruel to people for as long as "we've" existed.  There are cold-blooded killers out there who pay no heed to the consequences of there actions; it won't make much difference to them whether or not they're executed or not.  And with this sort of people, it is likely that if simply released even after an "interminable" amount of time, that they will kill again and that a life sentence itself in the prison system is not effective to reform violent criminals but is merely a "delayed" death sentence - we're removing their lives from them, anyway; wouldn't it be more humane to end it quickly?  So we execute them in a much more humane manner than often they treated their victims, to remove them from society.  I liked the idea about exile, but that's just putting off the matter.  Exile to where?  Will there be guards keeping them from leaving?  Will we constantly provide them with food or leave them to fend for themselves?

Surely, if we don't have the right to determine the punishment of others, what gives us the right to judge them?

P.S. I included more "quotations" to make "you" "happy".  ;)

Quotebut is merely a "delayed" death sentence - we're removing their lives from them, anyway; wouldn't it be more humane to end it quickly?

People keep saying this and it amazes me how easy it must be to so easily quantify what life and death is. Oh sure, life impisonment is just a "delayed" death sentence. Anybody would choose a quick death over 25 years in prison, right? Where do you get off? How can you so confidently say this in the place of the people who are in that position? Doesn't their opinion count? Doesn't the fact that people actively DO NOT WANT TO DIE and prefer to remain alive, even if it means in prison for the rest of their lives mean anything to you? How do you find it so easy to make that assumption? A human life is unquantifiable, it's not societal macromanagment 'oh we're burning too much electricity better flick off a few power users' and death is theory. Nobody knows what death is. How can you theoretically send off people to it so easily? Do not tread so lightly.

Helm, obviously anyone would choose death over 25 years in prison that's why Tookie Williams was trying to get his death sentence enacted as quickly as possible.

Oh yeah, OBVIOUSLY.  :P

You know what?  I've had a change of heart!

I'm gonna dedicate myself to saving Tookie's life.

What?

Oh shit ...

Quote from: Helm on Fri 16/12/2005 15:44:08
Doesn't the fact that people actively DO NOT WANT TO DIE and prefer to remain alive, even if it means in prison for the rest of their lives mean anything to you?

I assume their victims also DID NOT WANT TO DIE.  But they didn't have that choice, did they?

Yeah, his victims' desire for life didn't stop him from killing them, because he was a murderer. Their deaths were anything but justified. And now you're telling me that the state can operate like a murderer as well, just as long as it's dealing with a murderer? If you're unjust and take a life, then it's open season for you and you relinquish all human rights? Off with your head?

What the state does isn't murder, it's justice.  Once the criminal has been properly tried, they can be executed.

You have a knack for wording your opinions into seeming facts, but still, you're presenting no viable argument on WHY it's just to take someone's life. You just repeat your point without fleshing out the concepts that -I hope- are at it's foundation. I'm not expecting proof or anything, since this an ethical manner. I'm expecting to see how you arrive from your axiomatic ethics to the conclusion that the state has the right to take human lives. Explain what those axioms are for me. Explain what the value of human life amounts to, in your system of belief, explain what the social contract you're participating in with your state is. Stop giving me the headlines, I've heard them all before.

The government is established by the people for their mutual protection.  It has laws that its citizens are to abide by.  If those laws are broken, there are consequences.  One of those consequences is capital punishment.  This was reached by the consent of the people and until that consent is removed, it is law.  Therefore, it is lawful to execute criminals.  The suspects are tried through an involved trial process; they have the right to appeal and have the case reviewed and this is done automatically, since it is a capital punishment.

It is no light matter to execute someone, but as the state is a representation of the people, and the murderer took it upon him or herself to kill someone, the state as an embodiment of the people should protect itself in any way it can.

In the same light, war is justifiable.  And what does that involve except a state taking lives and breaking things?

I am not arguing whether it is lawful to execute people in the USA where you live. Is anyone doing this in this thread? I am arguing on the moral implications of capital punishment, the assumptions it makes about state authority, the value of human life, utilitarianism, and effectively whether it SHOULD be lawful to execute people. You see, this is called a theoretical discussion on a subject. Not a factual examination, because the facts are easy to esthablish: the US endorses capital punishment. It has arrived to this practice through sound, lawful means, therefore it's endorsement is also lawful at this time. There. Fact. Truth. We're not talking about that. We're presenting ethical viewpoints one step back from the facts. Explaining what we feel life is and how it should be treated. And ultimately, examining state - citizen relations in the context of crime, rehabilitation, punishment, death.


I am asking you to present to me, the clear foundations of your personal ethics. The axioms on which your further argumenting SHOULD rest. If such exist, please post them so I know where you're coming from. I am not interested in convincing you of anything, I just want to understand where you're coming from. I did as much, I placed the value of human life outside the scale of other human commodities and suggested that the value of human life is therefore unquantifiable and under no circumstances should the state call for taking it away and consider this action ethically fortified. My ethical axioms are as ungrounded as anyone elses. There's no subjective morality. So, where are you coming from? What's your founding ethical beliefs? Can you help me understand without resorting to equalizing RIGHT with LAWFUL for once?

Every person has the natural right to life.  Anyone who purposely and unjustly takes that right from another revokes their own.

"axioms" Now there's a word I've never heard anyone say before.

Quote from: pcj on Fri 16/12/2005 17:27:31
Every person has the natural right to life.  Anyone who purposely and unjustly takes that right from another revokes their own.

Great! That's a step. So you're saying that when you purposely (intent) and unjustly (without accepted * by whom? * moral foundation) takes a life, you forfeit all societal protection and human rights?

Questions about that. What is the nature of intent? Does free will come into play? Can you entertain the notion that someone might not be at all in control when he commits a violent crime? Are there extenuating circumstances? Do they come into play in your supposition? Do you mean that when someone is found to have commited a crime after cold calculation and when he was of complete control of his actions, only then the first part of your supposition has been met? What happens to not-so-black-and-white situations?

Also, about justice and acting on just cause. Where do you draw the line? If I kill someone when the overwhelming majority considers it the right thing to do, is that then just? Does majority rule in your justice? Or is the law more abstract, and only when the law says I can kill then I can kill? And then, doesn't the majority shape the law through various measures? Is there a higher order than law tha dictates justice to look to? Or is there some other individual justice, sense of morality that could justify the killing of another?

So, now, tell me a few things about society. What's the point of laws in a society? Is protection the biggest imperative? If so, does communal protection ever override or overvalue personal protection? Communal good versus personal good?

Is it to society's benefit that the person who kills is killed? Does society specifically benefit any less if the person who kills is removed from society without losing his life? Why is that step necessary? Is it for the vindication of the victim's family, or for some other reason? What about punishment and vindication, where do you stand on those?

ManicMatt: I suggest you stay away from this thread

I believe, that it should be possible legally in a country to execute particularly bad criminals. It should not be easy to make such a decision, but it should be an option. I agree with everyone that execution is not a good sentence, but I think it's necessary - not for deterring criminals, but for punishing them.

As I see it, most of the argument on this thread comes from everyone trying to find a general answer to the question of the death penalty while I believe there is no such answer (a good example is Helm's question whether it benefits society to execute criminals.)

I think it's necessary to make a decision on each such case individually. On a purely moral ground it's easy to say that the death penalty is wrong and many of the arguments for this stance have valid points. But if you look at individual cases, it may be quite easy to counter those pooints - not in every case, but definitely some cases. From what I know about S.W., it was a clear-cut decision. In other cases, it may be different.

I don't agree with those who say that there shouldn't be a death penalty, simply because there are criminals who I don't think can rejoin society after any amount of jailtime. As I said previously, a 4-times mass-murderer already makes the list in my book, so I don't really see any room for argument there (no matter how many times he says he's sorry - he had a chance each time to not to do it before pulling the trigger.)

When talking about a murderer who committed a single murder, I'd be willing to look at a bunch of factors to see if there is a way of saving that person. If so, I'd say, put him in a jail - I don't think anyone in non-criminal society will trust him anymore, but he may have a chance of redeeming himself. However, even in such a case, I'd keep the door open to death penalty, for cases where the murder appears particularly cold. If you ask me what's cold: everything that makes me (or the jury and the judge) feel like it. After all, law is (largely) a written framework of what society thinks is acceptable.