Family killer gets death!

[Patriot76]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061023/ap_on_...WtkBHNlYwM3MTg- (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061023/ap_on_re_us/richmond_slayings;_ylt=AlUQpK35OkpyQ8ZGgxdl_oWs0NU E;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-)

What are they waiting for? Fry this scum now!

Do you guys agree?

[colonelguppy]

no.

for the record, we don't spare people for the scumbags like this, we spare them for those who didn't do anything.

[Patriot76]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 08:27 pm
no.

for the record, we don't spare people for the scumbags like this, we spare them for those who didn't do anything.
How does executing him hurt innocent individuals?

[colonelguppy]

i doesn't. i didn't say it did. i said the system is flawed which kills innocent people.

[C_Rasmussen]

I'd say fry him. I mean he killed someone for fuck sake. Why keep him in prison?

[Pirate Utopian]

what if someone is innocent and they found evidence for it, but at then he already got popped?
i dont think he is innocent but we cant say no deathpenalty anymore and then say except him

[Demogorgon]

The death penalty is nothing but judicial murder. it is barbaric.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 03:25 pm
The death penalty is nothing but judicial murder. it is barbaric.
Well jeez, way to let the guilty run free. Not only that but prison is also quite the punch to the wallet. I mean the taxes go to funding the safety of these murdering fucks.

[colonelguppy]

it's more expensive to kill inmates then to house them for life.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 05:40 pm
it's more expensive to kill inmates then to house them for life.
Only because they replaced firing squads, and gallows, with gas chambers, and lethal injections, ;) .

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 03:40 pm
it's more expensive to kill inmates then to house them for life.
It is more worth the expenses however because with prison you're just pissing it away.

[colonelguppy]

yeah and due process and appeals processes and state provided lawyers and other neat things like that.


It is more worth the expenses however because with prison you're just pissing it away.

... but the net value is a greater expense, plus the fact that you're putting an immense amount of faith in the judiciary to be right.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

How does executing him hurt innocent individuals?
Because the family of the killer, who have done nothing wrong, now have to deal with his death. The killer on the other hand, receives no punishment. Once he is dead he can feel no pain.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Punishment in law is a completely stupid idea. The death penalty should be abolished. A legal system should work to reform criminals or keep them off the streets. Punishment is just a method of executing human cruelty in a so-called "justified" manner.

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 02:40 pm
it's more expensive to kill inmates then to house them for life.
Someone answer me this. Why is it more expensive? Is it because how the courts have to keep going back to the case? I never understood this :huh: :wacko:

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Political_Chucky+October 23, 2006 07:23 pm--> (Political_Chucky @ October 23, 2006 07:23 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2006 02:40 pm
it's more expensive to kill inmates then to house them for life.
Someone answer me this. Why is it more expensive? Is it because how the courts have to keep going back to the case? I never understood this :huh: :wacko: [/b]
yeah thats pretty much it.

[MrDoom]

Send them to the Antarctic Gulag... <_<

Seriously, criminals would be more productive in some sort of labor camp than dead.

[Zero]

If there is overwhelming evidence of a murder, then give the option of life in prison, or execution.

If someone is convicted of more than one murder with overwhelming evidence, life in solitary confinement.

Otherwise jail time is necisarry. Chapter 11 sentincing is adequate for murder charges: 25 to life.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

Why do people kill other people? Every reason I can see is either brought on by their environment/society or some sort of medical instability. The money spent on prisons would be better served trying to fix these problems.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Blue Collar Bohemian"
The money spent on prisons would be better served trying to fix these problems.
As well as spent rehabilitating these people.

[unema-]

Quick question :)
If I&#39;m not mistaken, most leftist support abortion. Now why would we let a convicted murderer live when a seemingly innocent, living(at a certain point) baby be killed because its inconvenient timing? Now I&#39;ve heard the "its the woman&#39;s choice its her body blah blah.." Seems kinda backwards to me, but idk just wondering, no flames please :P

ps. i dont believe in capital punishment

[Rollo]

Let him live and work, not be a wasted life.

[ComradeR]

Seriously, criminals would be more productive in some sort of labor camp than dead.
I agree having them serve their prison sentence working, contributing back to the society they harmed is far better then simply killing them, or paying for them to just sit in a cell.

[cb9's_unity]

the idea that we can get people to stop doing bad things by making examples of others seems like a good idea.... too bad we&#39;ve been using it for thousands of years and it still doesn&#39;t work. how about teaching them how to be productive members of society or hell why not make them work. i mean that guys gonna sit in his cell for 23 hours, wouldn&#39;t it be far worse to make him work half that.
so i say for lesser crimes we need rehabilitation. For the crimes that would usually get the death penalty i say we give them a real sentence, throw them the work penatly and force them to give back to community they tried to destroy.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+October 24, 2006 07:37 am--> (C_Rasmussen @ October 24, 2006 07:37 am)
[email protected] 23, 2006 03:25 pm
The death penalty is nothing but judicial murder. it is barbaric.
Well jeez, way to let the guilty run free. Not only that but prison is also quite the punch to the wallet. I mean the taxes go to funding the safety of these murdering fucks. [/b]
So we should execute people because of the &#39;bottom line&#39;? That&#39;s pretty fucking callous dude.

[Jazzratt]

The government asks us quite reasonably not to kill anyone. They then wheel out the electric chair? :lol: What a fabulous justice system.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 09:43 pm
The government asks us quite reasonably not to kill anyone. They then wheel out the electric chair? :lol: What a fabulous justice system.
Don&#39;t forget that they have no problem killing innocent people in say... Iraq, or in fact that they pay people to kill innocent people in Iraq...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+October 28, 2006 12:52 pm--> (Black Dagger @ October 28, 2006 12:52 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2006 09:43 pm
The government asks us quite reasonably not to kill anyone. They then wheel out the electric chair? :lol: What a fabulous justice system.
Don&#39;t forget that they have no problem killing innocent people in say... Iraq, or in fact that they pay people to kill innocent people in Iraq... [/b]
Yep, although I somehow don&#39;t see them executing all the hired killers they sent off over there...

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by unema&#045;@October 24, 2006 06:41 am
Quick question :)
If I&#39;m not mistaken, most leftist support abortion. Now why would we let a convicted murderer live when a seemingly innocent, living(at a certain point) baby be killed because its inconvenient timing? Now I&#39;ve heard the "its the woman&#39;s choice its her body blah blah.." Seems kinda backwards to me, but idk just wondering, no flames please :P

ps. i dont believe in capital punishment
Interesting theory...Of course this sparks a completely different debate, one that has been done to death on this site, but I will be brief, simple, and civil, and try to meet you halfway (I like a good debate, we will discuss this from a practicle point of view and not bring morals or rights into this).

Abortion seems backwards to you, but you have never been in the position of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Whatever her reasons are (perhaps having a child will financially cripple her and she will be unable to care for it, perhaps it was the product of rape, perhaps she is 13, perhaps a thousand other scenarios), she decides to abort. Now you have just passed a law banning abortions, is this going to stop her? Aborting a fetus isnt a massive crime that cant be covered up, the fetus (or even easier, zygote or embryo) is at all times present, so she can attempt the abortion in various different ways whenever she wants. most likely she will succeed, but these methods of auto-abortion are extremely dangerous, painful, nerve-racking, and alltogether unpleasant (clean hospital abortions are still unpleasant, but far safer and less "backwards"). So making abortion illegal simply wont work, however the death penalty can be banned effectively with a single sheet of paper. Now this was a legal arguement, so please dont respond with moral connundrums, because that would require its own thread.

[uber-liberal]

Come at it from any angle you want; murder is murder is murder, be it in war, in the heat of passion, or in a state sanctioned execution chamber.
To quote God, "What part of &#39;Thou shalt not kill&#39;, are you right-wing assholes missing here?"

[ezlncomandante_pablo]

question to anyone willing to answer: if a loving family member or comrade of your&#39;s was murdered, what would you want their punishment to be? labor or death?

[uber-liberal]

Neither. A lifetime spent in service to humanity seems more befiting. Not as a slave but more of a social worker, without the interaction with people.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

question to anyone willing to answer: if a loving family member or comrade of your&#39;s was murdered, what would you want their punishment to be? labor or death?
Personally, labor.

[KC]

question to anyone willing to answer: if a loving family member or comrade of your&#39;s was murdered, what would you want their punishment to be? labor or death?

Death, of course.

[Zero]

Labor.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 03, 2006 01:33 am

question to anyone willing to answer: if a loving family member or comrade of your&#39;s was murdered, what would you want their punishment to be? labor or death?

Death, of course.
Why death?

[red team]

question to anyone willing to answer: if a loving family member or comrade of your&#39;s was murdered, what would you want their punishment to be? labor or death?

Not a very interesting question, either punishment is equivalent if looked at from a production/consumption perspective. If you choose death that means you&#39;re exacting a personal value judgement of revenge by denying upon the perpetrator by denying him/her the ability to consume and therefore enjoy life in a commodity consuming society. If you choose labour then you&#39;re simply taking the opposite side of the same consumption/production coin. By forcing the perpetrator to perform labour you&#39;re making up for lost production that your now dead friend could have completed in the lifetime as a worker.

[KC]

Why death?

Because I&#39;d kill them...

[Patchd]

Capital punishment mainly only benefits the ruling classes. If someone murdered my family, of course I would be fucking pissed off, but I would rather they be put to hard labour for life whereby they would do something more useful for society. Capital punishment is a tool of the bourgeoisie, you only have to look into Mumia&#39;s case for that, the bourgeoisie uses capital punishment as a means to get rid of political opponents, and it must be abolished.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Because I&#39;d kill them...
And then you&#39;d spend the rest of your life in jail yourself. Nice plan...

[ezlncomandante_pablo]

my question did not require a right answer, only an answer in ones opinion. i think some of us would probably take justice in our own hands, and others would let it be(without revenge or hate towards the murderer).

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 03, 2006 02:58 am

question to anyone willing to answer: if a loving family member or comrade of your&#39;s was murdered, what would you want their punishment to be? labor or death?

Not a very interesting question, either punishment is equivalent if looked at from a production/consumption perspective. If you choose death that means you&#39;re exacting a personal value judgement of revenge by denying upon the perpetrator by denying him/her the ability to consume and therefore enjoy life in a commodity consuming society. If you choose labour then you&#39;re simply taking the opposite side of the same consumption/production coin. By forcing the perpetrator to perform labour you&#39;re making up for lost production that your now dead friend could have completed in the lifetime as a worker.
Usually forced labour on the part of the murderer would provide more productive energy than that of your dead friend&#39;s hypothetical labour, simply because your friend would have more leisure time and less obligation to work - especially in a technate. Also bear in mind that killing the murderer would deprive us of another source of production, although I do see your point about the removing another consumer. Personally however I can see Labour as being the more efficiant option, epsecially if the murderer&#39;s consumption abilities were curbed (say through allowing them only a minimal ration of food and very little in the way of shelter or comforts.).

[red team]

Originally posted by Jazzratt
Usually forced labour on the part of the murderer would provide more productive energy than that of your dead friend&#39;s hypothetical labour, simply because your friend would have more leisure time and less obligation to work - especially in a technate. Also bear in mind that killing the murderer would deprive us of another source of production, although I do see your point about the removing another consumer. Personally however I can see Labour as being the more efficiant option, epsecially if the murderer&#39;s consumption abilities were curbed (say through allowing them only a minimal ration of food and very little in the way of shelter or comforts.).

Well, as I said before, it&#39;s not a very interesting question. What is more interesting to asked is why murderers exists in the first place. If people don&#39;t have the desire to murder and find the very thought of it repulsive then we wouldn&#39;t even need to make the choice between forced labour and execution. The question posed is rather like asking whether or not you prefer chemotherapy or surgery if you have cancer. The preferable choice would be not to have cancer. In this respect the population of a society having members with the desire to murder is really like a disease and to eliminate the root cause of it we&#39;ll have to look into things like psychology and childhood development which are subjects I don&#39;t have much detailed knowledge of.

But here&#39;s something to think about. Nobody starts off in life with the desire to murder unless the baby has a brain defect in which case murder it&#39;s a symptom of insanity and not premeditated intent. But think about all the interactions since you&#39;ve started off in life that makes you disrespect the life of others more and more. What I&#39;m saying is that human behaviour itself is learned from life experiences. During your life how much disrespect has been dished out to you? Ever since childhood most people lives have been brutalized and regimented by "authority" figures. From school to work to retirement and death the whip hand has been shown at every turn. You "have to" show up at school at a certain time to be force-fed instructions by a "teacher" in order to learn (what can you learn from this actually?). You also "have to" learn it a certain way and you&#39;ll be tested that you did indeed learned it a certain way in exams where you can&#39;t "cheat" by referring to books and computers (as if that happens in a real situation). You "have to" go to work and dress up in a uniform or office attire. You "have to" follow rules and schedules laid out by your boss. You&#39;re under pressure from your boss to "perform". You&#39;re expected to follow social institutions like marriage and family. How many have to&#39;s and ought to&#39;s and expectations do you have to follow? How much respect have been shown to you to choose your way to live your life? That there are people who commit murder, which is really the ultimate in disrespect, in this brutalized, regimented society is no surprise. What is surprising is that the world isn&#39;t just filled with psychopaths, who are really people who have lost all respect for anybody or anything, and that there are still people like us who hope for better way of doing things and a better future.