Terrorist Attack (Or unlikely freak accident) Hits Boston

[haasd0gg]

I believe, in a cut and dried case like the one Otto mentioned, the victim should be given a sawzall to take the aggressor apart with, one inch at a time.

[[m'kay]]

well, the other day I saw in the news that a lady went outside with the stroller and the baby inside. When she was walking in the park some guy tried to rob her and while she was giving her purse the son of a [female dog] shot the baby in the face. I'm sure that lady is wishing for the death penalty... Now, the method used for the execution is somewhat stupid, putting a person to sleep. Is it fair for that lady to see that a-hole is getting a humane death, while she lost her son in the most terrible way? Nowadays all the killers say they have dementia and try to get away with it. Then they get 20 years of prison (or less), are released, and go back and kill another innocent person.

I mean, i'm not for death penalty, but we should think about how people like that lady feel after loosing a son in such a way. It's not fair. I just don't say "yes, death penalty" because an innocent person could be wrongly convicted and killed, since the justice system is also imperfect.

something to think about...

No, we shouldn't take into account how people feel. The justice system does not and should not account for feelings. It's not "fair"? Tough [poo]. We got where we are today by making damn sure that feelings don't mean anything in a court of law. People dying doesn't solve a single, solitary thing. If you already have someone in captivity for life, the only reason you should kill them is if it's a financial liability to keep them alive. If it would cost more to kill them in a humane, orderly way, then keep them alive so they can actually have a chance to make up for what they've done, even if it's just by suffering.

What you say isn't "something to think about", because you're just appealing to some childish pathos [poo] rather than the systems that barely manage to keep our society afloat. I don't give a [poo] what one lady thinks, I wouldn't allow an entire governmental system to be changed just because one woman lost a child. I wouldn't allow an entire governmental system to be changed just because I lost my child. You can't just throw brute strength and feelings around and expect things to be changed for the better. We need a different kind of strength now, and that's the strength of reason and cruelty rather than passion and misplaced kindness. What would you have the mother do? Would you suggest that she be able to pick the method of death for the man who killed her child? Well done, she's chosen to kill him herself in the most excruciating way possible. Guess what? Now she's a killer. That scar will not leave her psyche as long as she lives. Now that she knows that killing is an a-ok response, if she has another child she'll protect it with all she has from threats that may or may not even exist in all actuality. Now you've brutally killed one person and made a killer out of the other, just because you decided to make allowances for how someone feels after a loss.

Oh, but that's not all! Suddenly now there's a bunch of people who want to do the same thing, because you decided that you would let your feelings about one woman's case force you to change things up, now everyone wants the same exact treatment. You gave candy to one kid in the class for being an especially good girl, and now everyone wants a piece for themselves. People can be cruel, hateful things and then oh hey now you've got a bunch of people saying that if something gets stolen from them, they should be able to beat the [poo] out of a person so long as the medical bills are equal or less to the amount stolen. Get your feelings bull [poo] out of here. Killing someone is the easy way out, every single time. All it does is [m'kay] you up in the head and let the person who's killed get off easy without actually paying for their crime.

[haasd0gg]

You're right. Just send all the [poo] bags to me. My psyche is completely [m'kay] already.

[CommanderOtto]

well, the other day I saw in the news that a lady went outside with the stroller and the baby inside. When she was walking in the park some guy tried to rob her and while she was giving her purse the son of a [female dog] shot the baby in the face. I'm sure that lady is wishing for the death penalty... Now, the method used for the execution is somewhat stupid, putting a person to sleep. Is it fair for that lady to see that a-hole is getting a humane death, while she lost her son in the most terrible way? Nowadays all the killers say they have dementia and try to get away with it. Then they get 20 years of prison (or less), are released, and go back and kill another innocent person.

I mean, i'm not for death penalty, but we should think about how people like that lady feel after loosing a son in such a way. It's not fair. I just don't say "yes, death penalty" because an innocent person could be wrongly convicted and killed, since the justice system is also imperfect.

something to think about...

No, we shouldn't take into account how people feel. The justice system does not and should not account for feelings. It's not "fair"? Tough [poo]. We got where we are today by making damn sure that feelings don't mean anything in a court of law. People dying doesn't solve a single, solitary thing. If you already have someone in captivity for life, the only reason you should kill them is if it's a financial liability to keep them alive. If it would cost more to kill them in a humane, orderly way, then keep them alive so they can actually have a chance to make up for what they've done, even if it's just by suffering.

What you say isn't "something to think about", because you're just appealing to some childish pathos [poo] rather than the systems that barely manage to keep our society afloat. I don't give a [poo] what one lady thinks, I wouldn't allow an entire governmental system to be changed just because one woman lost a child. I wouldn't allow an entire governmental system to be changed just because I lost my child. You can't just throw brute strength and feelings around and expect things to be changed for the better. We need a different kind of strength now, and that's the strength of reason and cruelty rather than passion and misplaced kindness. What would you have the mother do? Would you suggest that she be able to pick the method of death for the man who killed her child? Well done, she's chosen to kill him herself in the most excruciating way possible. Guess what? Now she's a killer. That scar will not leave her psyche as long as she lives. Now that she knows that killing is an a-ok response, if she has another child she'll protect it with all she has from threats that may or may not even exist in all actuality. Now you've brutally killed one person and made a killer out of the other, just because you decided to make allowances for how someone feels after a loss.

Oh, but that's not all! Suddenly now there's a bunch of people who want to do the same thing, because you decided that you would let your feelings about one woman's case force you to change things up, now everyone wants the same exact treatment. You gave candy to one kid in the class for being an especially good girl, and now everyone wants a piece for themselves. People can be cruel, hateful things and then oh hey now you've got a bunch of people saying that if something gets stolen from them, they should be able to beat the [poo] out of a person so long as the medical bills are equal or less to the amount stolen. Get your feelings bull [poo] out of here. Killing someone is the easy way out, every single time. All it does is [m'kay] you up in the head and let the person who's killed get off easy without actually paying for their crime.

it's not something I made up. Death penalty exists in many states here. And you didn't read what I said in the last sentences.

[[m'kay]]

You're right. Just send all the [poo] bags to me. My psyche is completely [m'kay] already.

That's actually not the worst idea. [poo], that's why it's commonly assumed that warriors in tribal societies had some form of PTSD, and that's why they took all of the dirty work when it came to killing and pillaging. Some people have a talent for carrying that burden, but the majority don't. So it would make sense that you would send those people that deserve or require death to those that can actually give it without further harm to their mental state. That's another reason that i'm not a fan of the death penalty- putting someone to death in a humane fashion like falling asleep takes a hell of a lot of manpower, even ignoring all the financial costs. That's a lot of people who usually just do chemical work that have to put the death of a another human being on their tally, even if they are distributing the responsibility. Guillotines would honestly be a better way to go about it - only one person pulls the lever, the person dies instantly, and it's not like you have to put them on display or anything. That, and it keeps them conscious that their death is coming up until the last moment, which makes them at least understand what is going to happen as a result of their actions rather than just having a nice nap and never waking up.

it's not something I made up. Death penalty exists in many states here. And you didn't read what I said in the last sentences.

No [poo] the death penalty exists. What you're saying is that we should think about how she's feeling, when that's the exact opposite of what we should do. Bleeding hearts don't make a good society. And what you said in the last sentences doesn't er, because if you were in a jury and you were asked whether she should be allowed to take ers into her own hands regarding the fate of her child's killer, you'd just go with whatever everyone else says. Your opinion doesn't er because it changes whenever anyone says you're wrong or brings up any conflicting evidence whatsoever, so the attitude behind your opinion is the thing i'm attacking.

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

So, if someone were to murder a child or, lets say, your parents, it is your opinion that they should continue with their life?

Behind bars, yes. I'm not God. I don't decide whether somebody should continue living or not.

[CommanderOtto]

Narg, I admit my opinion is not very clear here, but what I wanted to point out is that it's easy to say "no death penalty" if one has not been through a situation like having your son shot in the head, or your wife die in some terrorist attack. For example, if a terrorist (Osama, for example) had been captured and sent to a U.S court instead.. would you prefer to let him live, or allow the death penalty? See what I mean? Don't take it as an "attack", i'm just saying man..

[masterjedi]

the remaims of a cooker found which was packed with nails.

[CommanderOtto]

the remaims of a cooker found which was packed with nails.

goodgod, and you still add a smiley to what you said? really?!!!!!???

[[m'kay]]

Narg, I admit my opinion is not very clear here, but what I wanted to point out is that it's easy to say "no death penalty" if one has not been through a situation like having your son shot in the head, or your wife die in some terrorist attack. For example, if a terrorist (Osama, for example) had been captured and sent to a U.S court instead.. would you prefer to let him live, or allow the death penalty? See what I mean? Don't take it as an "attack", i'm just saying man..

And? Tell me something, Otto. Have you seen my determination at any point? Do you know whether or not i've been in a situation where i've been able to decide whether someone deserves death? I have. And I chose not to kill them, or have them put in prison. I made it clear that if they tried to harm me or my family again, that I would kill them - painfully. Ever since, that person's been nothing but the pinnacle of decency. Your hypothetical situation is one that would never have happened. Even if it had, what the hell do you think is a better torture? A quick, painless death, or a lifetime of solitude and reflection? Would you make him a martyr, or would you make him pay penance for what he did? I don't hate you Otto, but I do hate the fact that people advocate for death without knowing when killing is actually helpful in any way. Especially when they don't have the spine to not only take the life, but to be able to live on after doing so. Killing should be discussed by the killers, because they know how, when, and most importantly why they should do it.