It might be argued that he already made his choice when he took the lives of those people. This would be especially true if the decision were made in a country where the death penalty existed.
On another point, if we consider life in prison (of some form) then do we not also have to consider the possibility that someone, somewhere along the line, might consider him fit for parole? What do we do with that thought?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Yes I have a big problem with bomb collars... Comparing it to pro life/ pro choice is insulting and so far apart I'm amazed anyone would link the two.
Forced life under threat of death vs a quick* painless* death, you seriosy think the former is somehow more acceptable?
*done 'properly'
How is it insulting? Pro-life people want to remove the choice from women and force them to have babies, the same is said when an criminal has been sentenced to death, the choice to live has been removed from their hands, they are going to be murdered by the state. The two concepts share the same final result, take away someones choice, these being to live or to die, to give birth or to abort it.Originally Posted by Rob_B
Allowing the criminal to live and work for society would be of great benefit to civilization, the collar is there as a protective device in-case somehow he escapes, harms a other or disobeys orders.
You're question shows a lot about your character, you seem to want a painless and quick death over wanting to live even if living is hard and painful. In regards to this question, people who have really painful illnesses where they are in pain all the time and no treatment aids them. Are you suggesting that they should have a quick and painless death over a life of pain and misery?
This is a little personal, but I have a friend who is only in her early 20's, a bright pretty girl but she has so many health problems and illnesses that pretty much makes her entire life, every minute, hour and day, painful, she has confessed to me many times, that it would be better if she just die. I can understand why she thinks like that, but you never know what will happen in the future, something can come along and make her better, other then the fact that her life enriches people around her and she has moments where she is happy.
Have you ever looked into the methods that nations around the world use to murder people? The idea that some methods to murder criminals are painless or quick have been proven wrong so many times in a large number of recorded events, where the criminal in his last seconds, minutes or hours is under a great deal of pain and suffering, let alone that people have been sent to their deaths and proven innocent afterwards. It's a hard fact, but killing people is not pretty, easy and is in-infact, can be very messy and a lot of trouble. Few examples, look up hanging and read how badly it can go wrong, the chair is a very big one, gassing, shooting, even death by needle can go wrong.
Ugh, personally, I don't see the problem with having these criminals fix the pot holes on our road in the street or having them help people in third world countries by having them make safe land mines that are kill so many people per year, I wouldn't make them walk in the fields, they would have the proper tools, but better them then someone else.
I'm not religionist, but I do believe one of God's laws is "thy not kill" but like most things written by man, we change things to our liking and to make it acceptable.
Let me ask you Rob_B, would you use your own hands to murder a criminal for his crimes or would you want someone else to do it?
Last edited by IronWarrior; 17-04-2012 at 04:40 AM.
Contract him out to the Thailand authorities i.e. put him in a Thailand Prison for the rest of his life, would save a fortune and his life would be hell.
Anyone seen... banged up abroad?
Just a gentle reminder to keep things nice between members guys !
Cheers, David
Honestly reading some of those comments leave me confused, I get some people feel outraged but make little sense. Death or Torture I don't see any reason why it would act as a deterrent to someone like him, he also claimed he wanted to die during his attacks, martyrdom eh!
I also find it funny that he claims to be moral based on his religious believes too. I mention that because I find it sickening when religious types always bang on about religion been responsible for morality. I'd guess they would claim he isn't a true scottsman thou.
But my personal favorite is this:
Just made me think of this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...rs-script.html
(Ken Livingston Crying at his propaganda video).
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
aidanjt (18-04-2012)
This sicko craves the attention he's getting, his trial should be heavily censored (if shown at all) then he needs throwing in a deep hole and forgetting about.
Isn't salad what food eats??
No to any death penalty.
but then I'm not a parent of any of the kids he murdered. If I was, then my answer would be different and less rational.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
A few questions - since the majority seem to be saying no to the death penalty:
1 - If he isn't given the death penalty will he be liable for parole? What if at some point he is?
2 - If he's given work to do - what sort of work and how (without putting the public at risk)?
3 - 77 people have had their lives cut short. That's it. Done. No more. Over. Why should he be permitted to live out his days and for the families of the murdered individuals to pay for it?
4 - A number of people have said that punishment 'x' would be worse than the death penalty. If that is true, then doesn't that mean you should be even more against those forms of punishment? What is it that is wrong with the taking of someone's life as justice/punishment for the severest crimes?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Dunno. Honestly I hope we have a hexite who knows enough about Norweigen law...
Why is he any more dangerious than any of the other murderers? He wasn't exactly a master planner, thou by all accounts he was a good shot, this is hardly a problem. Compared to someone who is say physically strong and erm McGyver.
Because that's life. It is no differen't to when one person is injured and public money used for police, trial, hell even the legal defense bill..... What difference does it make? Would the families really feel better if the government gave them a fraction of a pence of a rebate? Because that is how much the trail and detention will be costing.
I will say all of your arguments are deeply emotive and lacking reasoning.
Because death is quite easy, there are things worse than it, if your basing your morality on something as primative as an "eye for an eye" then ultimately he can only be killed once. As such it seems rational to me that someone who is saying the death penality is for justice should be advocating the prolonged torture of the person? Rather than a swift painless passing? Because ultimately 77 deaths for 1, isn't 'piratically more just' than imprisonment, or rather, I can't see the argument.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Has it not been said that the degree of civilisation in society can be measured by how they treat their prisoners?
The fallacy in that logic is with your first "if" .... the blanket assumption that all killing is wrong. And in my view, it isn't. It isn't even always illegal.
You are, for instance, allowed to use reasonable force, including lethal force, in defence of yourself, others or your property (in UK law) if it's "reasonable.
Then, there is an enormous selection of situations where something is wrong, illegal or both, except in specific circumstances. Like .... speeding.
Finally, the logic that you use falls down in that what is wrong/illegal for individuals is very often neither wrong nor illegal for the state, when done as part of a judicial process.
As an example of that latter, let's take .... imprisonment.
If you lock someone up because you feel like it, you'll end up locked up yourself if you get caught. But when the state does it, as part of the judicial process, nobody bats an eyelid and indeed, it's a regular, everyday process.
So, just because something is illegal most of the time doesn't mean it cannot be used as a judicial punishment. And if you're arguing that killing is "wrong" on moral, ethical or religious grounds in all circumstances, well, that's you're opinion (if that's what you're arguing), but it's not my opinion, nor is it the current state of UK law.
There are arguments against (and for) the death penalty, but in my view, that is not one of them.
there is no such thing as society just the 1 % , and their so far above everyone it doesnt matter.
m
You answered your own question .
people are paradoxes by nature ,that is why someone can live their whole lives in fear of the unkown ( death ) yet at the same time rationally assume it might be better option than suffering here.
No wants to take a chance with death unless forced too , because the unkown is like the joker in the pack , it could be anything..
And that is the most frightening ,and seductive thing of all ..depending on how you " see " it.
m
Last edited by melon; 17-04-2012 at 08:09 PM.
Yes it has and I totally agree with it.
They shouldn't publicise it so much, just stick him in a nut house for 100 years and be done
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
