LiquidFireCavy (mdk) wrote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Killing is wrong, no matter who's doing it. Doesn't matter how much someone deserves to die, it's not my, your, our, nor society's job to kill them. Keep them away from the rest of us, but kill them?

so what you're saying is that even if someone had you pinned down and was ready to kill you, if you had the chance to save your own life you wouldnt because killing is wrong?? doesnt make much sense does it? neither does your statement. sure most of the time killing is wrong, but killing to protect is ok. i mean do you think everyone in the military that has killed someone to protect the lives of millions of americans are bad people because they killed?? GAM normally you are a level headed person who makes great points, but in this thread you lose. killing is sometimes a necessary evil needed to survive

That's self defence you're talking about, I was talking about state-sponsored murder.

There's a difference.. Poor choice of words, my bad.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

degenerated wrote:I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from when you say:

Quote:

Sure there are some that cannot be rehabilitated but that still does not give anyone the right to kill them.

What's more humane? Locking up a psychopath for 50 years, or putting them down. Again, you wouldn't keep a dog in a cage for 17 years if they bit someone, you'd put them down. I fail to see the difference. Then again, I don't think any one form of life is inherently more valuable than the next. Value is subjective and determined through interaction and experience. One life isn't as valuable as the next.

Humans aren't dogs. A dog won't (likely, depending on the breed) live 17 years. Plus, once a dog is pre-disposed to biting or mauling a human, you're not likely to break them of that pre-disposition. Humans, can be broken, or helped at least. Either way, sequestering them from society at large is preferable to disposing of them.

If you kill them tomorrow for something they did today, when will they learn?

degenerated wrote:

Quote:

If you are prepared to take a life then remember the same could happen to you because someone else desided you should die.

That's a risk I take walking down the street. Of course it could happen to me. Even if I thought like you, I could still be gunned down by a lunatic as I'm sitting in class. I'm not grasping your point.

You're not making a point either.

Plus, you're not going to be sentenced to death by a gun-toting Joe... Point of fact, you'll be just as dead, but you won't have been killed by a group of your peers. Murder is murder, if you or I or WE do it.

degenerated wrote:Everyone is prepared to take a life, for some it's just easier (and for some, fun). Regardless of what you say, you'd take a life under the right circumstances.

Come off it, Killing for want is murder. Doesn't matter if its someone killing their wife, a stranger in the commission of a robbery, or in a Lethal Injection chamber.

degenerated wrote:

Quote:

Killing is wrong, no matter who's doing it. Doesn't matter how much someone deserves to die, it's not my, your, our, nor society's job to kill them. Keep them away from the rest of us, but kill them? From a purely moral standpoint: how does that make any of us better than they are?

I really hate this argument, because it's so silly. Can you really not tell the difference? If you bring morals into it, then it should be even easier to see. But I suppose that depends on how you define morality. If you break it down to it's purest form (right vs. wrong), then should good not triumph over evil and banish it? Or does good triumph over evil and tuck it away in a corner?

How is it silly? How do you justify the state sanctioned murder of individuals?

Question for you: Can you tell the similarities?
- Joe kills a liquor store clerk because he was robbing the store.
- Joe is put to death because the state seems to think that killing him back will make things better.

If you want to talk about semantics, the light and dark (or good and evil) are incapable of annihilating each other in anything other than equal proportions.

Back in reality, either your hands have more blood because your state sanctions murder, or less because it doesn't.

That being said: Tookie wasn't hurting anyone else while he was imprisoned. He would have died an old man, and could have possibly helped keep kids out of gangs. Now, that's not possible.

I'm opposed to the death penalty because you learn nothing from it, not the killer, the rest of the world. Think of it like this: something like 40% of criminal profiling is based off of ONE person's interviews immediately before his death. And, that one person also directly helped capture another murderer: The Green River Killer, Gary Leon Ridgway. That one person was Ted Bundy.

The scale of evil, basic/advanced murder profiling... hell even blood spatter analysis would be retarded by 25 years plus without the interviews conducted (and still being conducted) with lifer murderers, and death-row inmates. If you just popped them once they were convicted, you'd learn nothing about how to recognize and prevent murders, serial or impulsive.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

id rather someone be locked up for the rest of their life with no freedom than to have them get the easy way out and be killed
and if you guys do not know what forgiveness is, that is a big reason why the human race is @!#$ty
most of the people in this thread have no idea what a gang is about, or been a part of one, or even been close to a real one
and most dont even know why they were first created
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/bastardsoftheparty/index.html
a good documentary about the history of gangs

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

LiquidFireCavy (mdk) wrote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Killing is wrong, no matter who's doing it. Doesn't matter how much someone deserves to die, it's not my, your, our, nor society's job to kill them. Keep them away from the rest of us, but kill them?

so what you're saying is that even if someone had you pinned down and was ready to kill you, if you had the chance to save your own life you wouldnt because killing is wrong?? doesnt make much sense does it? neither does your statement. sure most of the time killing is wrong, but killing to protect is ok. i mean do you think everyone in the military that has killed someone to protect the lives of millions of americans are bad people because they killed?? GAM normally you are a level headed person who makes great points, but in this thread you lose. killing is sometimes a necessary evil needed to survive

That's self defence you're talking about, I was talking about state-sponsored murder.

There's a difference.. Poor choice of words, my bad.

its cool
i mean yes killing is wrong but sometimes its necessary. as for the death penalty, i dont like it either. criminals need to learn from their mistakes. killing them doesnt teach them a goddamn thing. its the easy way out as someone already said. the whole "eye for and eye" mentality needs to stop. its useless in the civilized world. granted i dont consider america very civilized with some of the @!#$ i see going on around me everyday, but still back to the point. if you kill someone you should have to sit down and talk to the victims family. and tell them why you did it and then listen to how @!#$ty their lives are now. also you shouldnt have any human contact for a long period of time. therefore somewhat making you "dead to the world". i think if murderers had to see exactly what happens to those who were close to the victim and also basically let the victims family "have at him" they would maybe learn something
now serial killers are another story tho. yea its wrong to kill whether its one person or hundreds of people (excluding self-defense), but those who can go abouts killing multiple people and not thinking twice about it need a more severe punishment. again the death penalty isnt the solution, but maybe something that will actually get their attention like some kind of torture. yea yea i know, thats not right either, but @!#$ they did something very wrong and just having them sit in a jail cell til they die wont do a damn thing and wont teach them a damn thing. you teach a person what pain is, you also teach them what compassion is.


** sorry for the bad spelling and punctation, my keboard is going and i dont feel like hittin backspace 6 thousand times

Tracer Bullet wrote:id rather someone be locked up for the rest of their life with no freedom than to have them get the easy way out and be killed
and if you guys do not know what forgiveness is, that is a big reason why the human race is @!#$ty
most of the people in this thread have no idea what a gang is about, or been a part of one, or even been close to a real one
and most dont even know why they were first created
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/bastardsoftheparty/index.html
a good documentary about the history of gangs

i know how it all happened, i actually watched that. it was pretty good, not great but it does give a better understanding on how it all started. hence my previous post

StrippedCav98 (Now Quotable) wrote:well i live literally a block from philly and i see this @!#$ day in and day out. it just gets worse and worse. last year i think there was 410 homicides in philly. right now were already up to 110 or so (that was back on easter sunday so it could be more by now). i think its pathetic. the whole gang mentality has grown out of control. what started from a simple group of friends hanging together to protect themselves from white kids now grew into this nearly 50 years later. i dont feel i suffer from the same things they do because i dont put myself in the same situations as they do. what i do suffer from is the effect it has on the city.

if you want to watch a good documentry on gangs watch the other hbo special back in the hood: gang war 2



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:40 AM

StrippedCav98 (Now Quotable) wrote:

Tracer Bullet wrote:id rather someone be locked up for the rest of their life with no freedom than to have them get the easy way out and be killed
and if you guys do not know what forgiveness is, that is a big reason why the human race is @!#$ty
most of the people in this thread have no idea what a gang is about, or been a part of one, or even been close to a real one
and most dont even know why they were first created
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/bastardsoftheparty/index.html
a good documentary about the history of gangs

i know how it all happened, i actually watched that. it was pretty good, not great but it does give a better understanding on how it all started. hence my previous post

StrippedCav98 (Now Quotable) wrote:well i live literally a block from philly and i see this @!#$ day in and day out. it just gets worse and worse. last year i think there was 410 homicides in philly. right now were already up to 110 or so (that was back on easter sunday so it could be more by now). i think its pathetic. the whole gang mentality has grown out of control. what started from a simple group of friends hanging together to protect themselves from white kids now grew into this nearly 50 years later. i dont feel i suffer from the same things they do because i dont put myself in the same situations as they do. what i do suffer from is the effect it has on the city.

if you want to watch a good documentry on gangs watch the other hbo special back in the hood: gang war 2

the reason i said most is i know one or two people in here would actually know about gangs from experience, it was more directed at the people who talk about gangs from the comfort of their suburban or country home far away from any real gang situation

now lets add this to the mix

Quote:


Child Predators Could Face Execution In Texas

(AP) AUSTIN Backers of a Senate bill to toughen punishment for child-sex offenders said they've reached a deal that would permit the death penalty for offenders who repeatedly prey on children.

The compromise bill, which was distributed to Senate members on Tuesday, would allow the death penalty only for those twice convicted of raping a child 13 or younger. It also boosts mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of sex crimes against children.

"The goals here were pretty simple: protect children, send a message to child predators. Texas is not going to tolerate these kinds of heinous crimes," said Rich Parsons, a spokesman for Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a leader of the charge for tougher penalties for child molesters.

The House passed its version of the bill, dubbed Jessica's Law, last month. It carries a minimum of 25 years to life in prison on a first conviction and possibly the death penalty for a second offense.

The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a Florida girl who was abducted and killed. More than a dozen states have passed versions of Jessica's Law to crack down on sex offenders and Gov. Rick Perry has deemed passage of a child sex offender bill a legislative emergency.

Staffers of Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, the bill's sponsor, said the Senate could take up the compromise bill as soon as Thursday.

"The only thing we impose the death penalty for is two (penetration) aggravated sexual assaults of a child," Deuell said.

"There's a trigger in there that if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the death penalty for nonmurder is unconstitutional, then everything will revert back to life without parole."

The compromise tones down sex-offender penalties initially supported by Dewhurst and Deuell. The original bill called for mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for a wide variety of sex crimes against children. A second offense for any of those could have resulted in the death penalty.

The compromise bill requires 25-year mandatory sentences only for first convictions of rape of a young child. It also requires many convicted predators to serve 75 percent of their sentences.

The proposal increases sexual assault of a child from a second- to first-degree felony, pushing minimum sentencing from two to 10 years. A second conviction could bring life without parole.

The bill also increases punishment indecency with a child and for possession of large amounts of child pornography.

Defense lawyers weren't part of most of the compromise negotiations, said David Gonzalez, of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

He criticized the mandatory minimum sentencing and said it's unconstitutional to sentence the death penalty for nonmurder offenses.

LiquidFireCavy (mdk) wrote:now lets add this to the mix

Quote:


Child Predators Could Face Execution In Texas

(AP) AUSTIN Backers of a Senate bill to toughen punishment for child-sex offenders said they've reached a deal that would permit the death penalty for offenders who repeatedly prey on children.

The compromise bill, which was distributed to Senate members on Tuesday, would allow the death penalty only for those twice convicted of raping a child 13 or younger. It also boosts mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of sex crimes against children.

"The goals here were pretty simple: protect children, send a message to child predators. Texas is not going to tolerate these kinds of heinous crimes," said Rich Parsons, a spokesman for Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a leader of the charge for tougher penalties for child molesters.

The House passed its version of the bill, dubbed Jessica's Law, last month. It carries a minimum of 25 years to life in prison on a first conviction and possibly the death penalty for a second offense.

The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a Florida girl who was abducted and killed. More than a dozen states have passed versions of Jessica's Law to crack down on sex offenders and Gov. Rick Perry has deemed passage of a child sex offender bill a legislative emergency.

Staffers of Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, the bill's sponsor, said the Senate could take up the compromise bill as soon as Thursday.

"The only thing we impose the death penalty for is two (penetration) aggravated sexual assaults of a child," Deuell said.

"There's a trigger in there that if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the death penalty for nonmurder is unconstitutional, then everything will revert back to life without parole."

The compromise tones down sex-offender penalties initially supported by Dewhurst and Deuell. The original bill called for mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for a wide variety of sex crimes against children. A second offense for any of those could have resulted in the death penalty.

The compromise bill requires 25-year mandatory sentences only for first convictions of rape of a young child. It also requires many convicted predators to serve 75 percent of their sentences.

The proposal increases sexual assault of a child from a second- to first-degree felony, pushing minimum sentencing from two to 10 years. A second conviction could bring life without parole.

The bill also increases punishment indecency with a child and for possession of large amounts of child pornography.

Defense lawyers weren't part of most of the compromise negotiations, said David Gonzalez, of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

He criticized the mandatory minimum sentencing and said it's unconstitutional to sentence the death penalty for nonmurder offenses.

lock him up for life
what he faces in prison is far worse than the death penalty
child molesters/predators are persecuted even among the dregs of society

[bSo you are saying that he should have been killed no matter what kind of positive things he did for the younger generation. You kill someone you should die to. Right! What about the many of people that Bush killed through the years? You saying its right to punish certain people but pthers cant be punished because of there position. I know he killed two or three people but he saved more than he killed. Plus everybody that has killed didn't get killed so what makes Tookie so differant.]

Bush didn't kill anyone... he never went to Vietnam, he was valiantly protecting the skies of Houston from Viet Cong at that time.

If you mean by proxy however, yeah, he's going to hell, and isn't coming back.



mdk:
That kind of silliness is part of the reason people think Texas is hicksville. I'm sorry, I realize that it's a terrible crime, but that's no answer. Why not do some good, execute EVERY person that holds a political position that violates the trust given them through appointment or election... Every banker that launders a nickel of drug money... Every person that so much as Jay-walks, and have NO AGE LIMITS! That's right... Execut-O-ramA!

*shakes head*

I had a post in OT about an old man's advice to young men... one of the things was "don't be a republican, and if you have to be a republican don't be a "conservative."" I see why now. Democrats may need to be kicked in the ass to get them going, but Republicans have proven that they need to be reigned in at every turn. Grand Old Party, my Canuck Arse!

Anyhow...

Psycopathic murders account for only about 5% (at most) of all murders, but because they're repeatable and usually accelerate, they can be tracked and read. Usually these people are more than happy to give the information about their acts. If nothing else: they give a prolonged look at what happens in most murders impulsively. As far as being "Dead to the World," the average Death-row or lifer inmate doesn't have outside visitors after 4 years of incarceration. Thomas Silverstein is in Leavenworth Prison, and is designated No Human Contact, and it's basically the step down from Abu Ghraib.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I dunno GAM. I'd write up a nice long response, but I'm just going to make some simple points because I'm tired of repeating myself ad nauseum in arguments on this board.

1) Please don't tell me I'm not making a point, when it's clearly there. If you don't understand something, ask. Hahahaha posted that my life could be taken because somebody else decides my time is up, as if it were to be some big revelation. It wasn't, because of course I could die at any time if somebody wants to open fire for no reason. I failed to see his point, and said so.

2) Murder is not murder. There are varying degrees, and working in the criminal justice system, you should know. Homicide is probably what you're talking about, but killing is not killing. You say killing for want, but sometimes you there is killing out of need. If you cannot see the difference, fine, but then there's no point in arguing further.

3) I can see how interviews with killers could be important. I'll give you that. Doesn't mean that convicted socio/psychopaths have to be offed the next day. Interviews can still be conducted, information can still be gathered.

If people want to discuss forgiveness as a virtue, that's fine. I don't think that's what's wrong with society. I think it's the opposite. We're too soft, and working in the education system, you can see where kids go wrong because they believe (and rightly so) that there are no consequences for their actions. You should see how handcuffed I am when it comes to doling out discipline.

That goes on into adulthood, where people, like many on the board, continue on by saying that if you kill someone (out of want, if that helps, GAM) then there are no repercussions. That's wrong.

Put them in jail for life? Wow. What a great idea. So somebody who probably (although not always) leads a horrible life (hence the turn to crime) goes ahead and gets put into a prison where his life will probably be better than the one he led before.

That's stupid, unjust, and wrong. If you know you are going to die for killing someone, it's a much greater deterrent than going to prison. It's not going to catch those deranged individuals that are trigger happy, or people who want to die anyway, but it'll make "Joe Blow" think twice.

Seriously. Going to prison now is a badge of honor for criminals. It really, really shouldn't be.

I'm not saying I'm right, it's just what I see and it bothers me that we're becoming a little too lenient as a society.

degenerated wrote:

Put them in jail for life? Wow. What a great idea. So somebody who probably (although not always) leads a horrible life (hence the turn to crime) goes ahead and gets put into a prison where his life will probably be better than the one he led before.

That's stupid, unjust, and wrong. If you know you are going to die for killing someone, it's a much greater deterrent than going to prison. It's not going to catch those deranged individuals that are trigger happy, or people who want to die anyway, but it'll make "Joe Blow" think twice.

Well apparently the death penalty isnt enough of a deterrent since people still murder and kill, rape and molest, etc etc
Life in prison is far worse than the death penalty
why? humans are social creatures, putting a human in a non-social or very limited and harsh social environment is worse than death because they suffer far worse than if they were in the ground. They have no right to kill another person, but what gives us the right to decide his life should end? whether you are religious or not, no one has the right to take the life of another, regardless
self-defense? ok, its justifiable, BUT, it still does not give you the right to
im sure if you ask 10 people who had to kill out of self defense, at least 9 out of the 10 would say that they were uncomfortable with it still or that they feel remorse of some sort for taking someone else's life
It is not our place to decide who lives and dies (even if some people think it is their place)
Life in prison, locked down, away from the people you know and love, isolated from the free world, unable to eat when you wanted, sleep when you wanted, do anything whenever you wanted, is far worse than dying
its like your life is already over, but you are still alive
i feel that it is far worse than death, especially if the person has half a mind and constantly thinks about the situation, because it will haunt them forever
if you do not agree, thats fine, but to call it stupid, well that is stupid in and of itself.
i do see where you come from with the death penalty, i mean, if someone killed a member of my family, or raped someone i cared for or whatever, i would certainly want vengeance, an eye for an eye if you will
However, its critical in those situations not to stoop to that level and be just as lowly and immoral as the perp and do something you may yourself regret

degenerated wrote:I dunno GAM. I'd write up a nice long response, but I'm just going to make some simple points because I'm tired of repeating myself ad nauseum in arguments on this board.

1) Please don't tell me I'm not making a point, when it's clearly there. If you don't understand something, ask. Hahahaha posted that my life could be taken because somebody else decides my time is up, as if it were to be some big revelation. It wasn't, because of course I could die at any time if somebody wants to open fire for no reason. I failed to see his point, and said so.

Your point wasn't evident. If you want to be understood, it behooves you to make the point plainly evident. This isn't teacher/student semantics, we're peers with differing points of view. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong here)

Quote:


2) Murder is not murder. There are varying degrees, and working in the criminal justice system, you should know. Homicide is probably what you're talking about, but killing is not killing. You say killing for want, but sometimes you there is killing out of need. If you cannot see the difference, fine, but then there's no point in arguing further.

MURDER IS MURDER. This is something where you are plainly wrong.

Homicide is the killing of another person, or the person doing the act, irrespective of motivation.
Murder on the other foot, is the act of killing another in an inhuman or barbarous way or for barbarous reasons (killing wantonly is what I've said before, get it right ).. It's defined under statue as murder for the reason of motive and malice of forethought (in the US under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 51 § 1111, the Canadian Criminal Code defines it as culpable homicide, and culpability means the presence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea). Homicide divisions in police agencies exist because they investigate the deaths of people, felonious, natural or accidental.

This difference between negligent homicide, justifiable homicide, Murder in the first degree, Murder in the second degree, manslaughter and accidental or non-culpable homicide is motivation, and mens rea. Saying Murder is not Murder is about the most insipid remark I've seen you post, and up there with some of the other winners I've seen from others that are no longer active in the forum.

degen, I say this seriously, if you're saying and believing Murder is not murder (and don't tapdance around the point, you said it. If you believe that, you have no earthly understanding what the felonious taking of a human life is), I really worry about your students, or at best hope that you're teaching something definite like a mathematical discipline.

Quote:

3) I can see how interviews with killers could be important. I'll give you that. Doesn't mean that convicted socio/psychopaths have to be offed the next day. Interviews can still be conducted, information can still be gathered.

On this, you and I agree (obviously ). I still think that picking the brain of people like Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader, Andrei Chikatilo, Arthur Shawcross, Clifford Olson and John Wayne Gacy (to name a few) to develop and refine the psychological profile of a serial murderer is at least justifiable for keeping them alive and in seclusion from society at large.

Quote:

If people want to discuss forgiveness as a virtue, that's fine.

I'm not suggesting that, I cannot in any conscience excuse what happened, I just think that murdering an individual that murdered is hypocritical.

Quote:

I don't think that's what's wrong with society. I think it's the opposite. We're too soft, and working in the education system, you can see where kids go wrong because they believe (and rightly so) that there are no consequences for their actions. You should see how handcuffed I am when it comes to doling out discipline.

You're making a hell of a precarious step from unruly youths to dyed in the wool serial killers.

It's not your job to be these kids primary disciplinarian, nor should it be. You have to maintain control of the class, but realistically, that's not going to happen all the time. Either way, I know that teachers get a raw deal (more so in the US), and it isn't easy to find the balance or the spark to really engage a class over the long term.

Now back to the real bad guys, if you think that prison is easy (even minimum security) it's really not. You have little control over your movements outside a controlled area, and you're really not with the most savoury individuals... all day... every day... until the end of your sentence. Sometimes, true, kids slide without punishment, and they do it time and again, but at some point the lion's share figure out that running afoul of the law isn't such a hot idea. The few that end up not learning that the easy way end up learning the hard way. Look at it like this: the case closure rate (closing a case with a viable suspect and evidence within 24 calendar months of the initiation of an investigation) since advanced investigative measures became widely accepted (ie, Mitchondrial/recombinant DNA analysis, Forensic lighting sources, blood spatter analysis, advanced dactyloscopy & toolmark/rifling analysis etc. etc. etc.), has jumped from about 70% to over 94% in major metropolitan areas. 35 years ago, it was about 50% at best.

I'd still rather catch 'em early, before they commit a crime, but if they do, it's a lot harder to get away with it now. I don't personally lay the blame on the parents, teachers, friends, etc. alone. People develop into murders for a couple major reasons, but often it can be diverted if someone pays attention and knows what they're looking for. Everyone fails them in that case. Some develop into murderers because they are predisposed to, and have the right stimuli to become that way.

Quote:

That goes on into adulthood, where people, like many on the board, continue on by saying that if you kill someone (out of want, if that helps, GAM) then there are no repercussions. That's wrong.

Put them in jail for life? Wow. What a great idea. So somebody who probably (although not always) leads a horrible life (hence the turn to crime) goes ahead and gets put into a prison where his life will probably be better than the one he led before.

Sarcasm aside, killing them isn't an answer. I suspect you assume that individuals that murder are predominantly poor, and that maximum security is a cake-walk. I've seen a few prisons, and they generally are foul, loud, smelly and decrepit places... there is nothing about it that is better than self-determination.

Quote:

That's stupid, unjust, and wrong. If you know you are going to die for killing someone, it's a much greater deterrent than going to prison. It's not going to catch those deranged individuals that are trigger happy, or people who want to die anyway, but it'll make "Joe Blow" think twice.

Degen, this is another case where you're really uninformed... murderers formulate premeditation typically 1-3 hours before the actual act, and it's been shown in some studies that you can have an otherwise normal person go into a dissociative mania lasts upwards of 36 hours.... This makes Mens Rea and Actus Reus the issue, most people that are dissociating (and even those that don't) aren't thinking ahead of time. That whole "you'll go ta Alcatraz fer 20 yers!" voice in the head bit usually doesn't happen in act of passion murders, only in the case of contract killings does that become an issue, and that's less than 5% of murders (last I remember anyhow).

Quote:

Seriously. Going to prison now is a badge of honor for criminals. It really, really shouldn't be.

I'm not saying I'm right, it's just what I see and it bothers me that we're becoming a little too lenient as a society.

Going to prison in the US is like going to college. Criminals become better criminals... I don't know the answer, but 2 years medium security for stealing an ipod (or whatever) isn't an answer that is productive. Leniency/Severity isn't the issue from my point of view. If you think that society is getting too lenient I invite you to read this article. You're going to have bad apples no matter what, and they will rebel in equal proportions to the severity of the punishments meted out. The end goal shouldn't be conforming to societal norms because of fear (kids like that will get over their fears), it's getting them to want to conform for their own good.

Those that don't conform to acceptable behaviours aren't likely just bad because they want to be, they're like that for another cause... the rub is that you have to figure that cause out, and divert from or confront and challenge the problem. Either way, punishment oughtta be a last resort, and reserved for those that don't want to conform.


Sorry for the book



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Nothing pisses me off more than people insulting my intelligence.

First of all, if you're going to tell me to get my point across in a succinct manner, the same applies to you.

You mentioned earlier: Killing people is wrong. Then you say murder is murder.

Until you clarify yourself on exactly what form of killing you're talking about, you're throwing quotes, articles and statistics around without any real argumentative basis, because I have no idea what you're arguing against.

Because what I understand you as saying is that killing is wrong in any way, shape or form. Then, you retract that statement, and say you were talking about state-sponsored murder. But then, technically, you're arguing your opinion, not fact, because state-executions aren't murder, they're homicide. You just don't like it. That's fine, but don't pretend you're right, and that the government is murdering people.

Then, every soldier that knowingly killed an enemy combatant is, according to you and your definitions, a murder. They shot someone with an intent to kill, following orders or not. You know the difference.

However, perhaps my choice of words was bad as well then, where I said murder is not murder, when maybe I should have said killing is not killing? Even though that's not quite right, either. I hate arguing semantics, but I think you knew the point I was getting at. Besides, murder is murder only in the fact that somebody ends up dead. Like I said, even the law differentiates between different degrees. You make it sound cut and dry, it isn't. You of all people should know that.

I'll give you that killing is killing, but again, only because someone ends up dead. The justice system itself has, as you've pointed out, multiple distinctions between how and why the act of killing took place. To say it's all the same is a joke, and that's it's all wrong is a joke. Or maybe it depends on how you're looking at it. I think you're just looking at the final outcome.

Quote:

You're making a hell of a precarious step from unruly youths to dyed in the wool serial killers.

I don't remember making the jump from deviant teens to psychopaths. I said that kids today grow up with the idea that there are no consequences for their actions. How far do you read between the lines?

Quote:

Sarcasm aside, killing them isn't an answer. I suspect you assume that individuals that murder are predominantly poor, and that maximum security is a cake-walk. I've seen a few prisons, and they generally are foul, loud, smelly and decrepit places... there is nothing about it that is better than self-determination.

I know it's not a "cake-walk" but I know that there are a lot of people who view prison, as abhorrent as it is to us, as a place where they feel connected. Regardless of how unhealthy that connection is.

As far as two years for stealing an iPod, I'll agree with you there. I'm not against reforming a petty criminal, or even one who goes around stealing cars. If you want to talk about second chances, you should see how many "second chances" I give kids in my classes. I firmly believe that school is for making and learning from mistakes. If you'd like to talk about punishment as a last resort, you also need to understand that punishment, in most cases, isn't even an option in schools. And believe it or not, I don't believe in punishing kids without giving them fair warning, and even then, the punishment I believe in is a useful punishment. You don't do your work? Your punishment is to come in on your own time, do the work, and get the marks.

I believe in natural consequences. But I think that once you've been given so many chances, you have to accept those consequences. I don't think that if you kill someone, wantonly as you put it, that you should have a second chance. There really isn't much you can do to make up for that, is there?

But anyway, I would really appreciate if you would come off the holier than thou attitude. If you want to attack my opinion, that's one thing, I can deal with it, because I really don't care. Call it insipid because you don't agree with it, that's up to you. I personally think you've made some asinine statements on this forum, but I sure as hell don't walk around saying that you're no good at your job.

So if you're going to attack what I do as a profession (where my opinion has very little to do with my professional obligations) then you can go straight to hell. Do not presume to tell me what I should and shouldn't be teaching because of my opinions on this particular subject, and most definitely don't do it to belittle me, as it makes you look a little insecure.

I don't know the exact stat but something like 70% of murders are spousal and quite unlikely to happen again. Those murderers will not murder again. So why kill them?

In my opinion killing is only acceptable when there is no other option. If someone is about to take a life, yours or someone elses then you must defend the victom, killing the offender is a last, but acceptable resort. In times of war, killing the opponents forces is a necessary action as they are quite likely to inflict death on your forces. Even in war the object is to disable the ememies offecive capabilities, not necessarily kill them. Blow up the tank, if the crew dies, that is secondary. Shoot down the aircraft, but do not open fire on the pilot when he/she bails out.

Considering that the majority of offenders could and would be productive members of society, and at the time are contained and pose no threat to anyone, there is no reason to kill them. In that case execusion is unjustified, vigilante "justice" and in my books, murder.

If you know for sure that a person cannot be contained, and will inflict further harm upon others, then yes, kil them. I have no problem with a prison guard shooting a perp as they try to escape, or as they engage in a fight etc inside the prison system. I do have a problem with a shackled, caged person bening stapped down and uncerimoniously dispatched. Watch an execution sometime and explain to me how that is not murder.

PAX




PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)

degenerated wrote:Nothing pisses me off more than people insulting my intelligence.

First of all, if you're going to tell me to get my point across in a succinct manner, the same applies to you.

You mentioned earlier: Killing people is wrong. Then you say murder is murder.

Until you clarify yourself on exactly what form of killing you're talking about, you're throwing quotes, articles and statistics around without any real argumentative basis, because I have no idea what you're arguing against.

If you read what I had said to MDK, I admitted it was a poor choice of words. It's right at the top of the page... I'm sure it's not that easy to miss, I quoted everything. It's not an insult to your intelligence, I didn't follow what you were saying before. Don't make me have to pick up your line of thought like a string in the dark, man.

Quote:

Because what I understand you as saying is that killing is wrong in any way, shape or form. Then, you retract that statement, and say you were talking about state-sponsored murder. But then, technically, you're arguing your opinion, not fact, because state-executions aren't murder, they're homicide. You just don't like it. That's fine, but don't pretend you're right, and that the government is murdering people.

okay.. you want to call it homicide, fine. What is the justification for the killing of an individual? Protection of the public? If you can keep a person in maximum security or a SHU, you're accomplishing the same end, and saving a ton of money and time in offing.

You want to talk opinion, the opposite side of the equation says that it is entirely justified, even when someone is wrongly executed.

Either side has point, but the pro-execution side has to deal with the fact that once you execute a person that should have been exonerated, you can't really bring them back to life, and payouts from the state are cold comfort at best. All I'm saying is remove the jeopardy and make life a little easier on everyone.

Quote:

Then, every soldier that knowingly killed an enemy combatant is, according to you and your definitions, a murder. They shot someone with an intent to kill, following orders or not. You know the difference.

I'm talking about domestic, premeditated murder. Militaries and war, I don't hold the individual soldiers responsible, I hold the leaders responsible. There's a difference... Murder is a one on one thing where there is personal issue at stake. War is one of those places you could call the killings homicides with justification, I doubt that other ideology, individual American Soldiers had anything personal against specific Taliban/Al-Qaeda (other than Bin Laden) or Russians (other than say Stalin) or Japanese or Germans (other than Emperor Hirohito or Hitler and his retinue).

Quote:

However, perhaps my choice of words was bad as well then, where I said murder is not murder, when maybe I should have said killing is not killing? Even though that's not quite right, either. I hate arguing semantics, but I think you knew the point I was getting at. Besides, murder is murder only in the fact that somebody ends up dead. Like I said, even the law differentiates between different degrees. You make it sound cut and dry, it isn't. You of all people should know that.

Justification is what is cut and dry. You kill another person for your own reasons other than survival, where you gain something from that killing, that's murder.. the gain (or want, no matter how nebulous) and planning is what makes a homicide into a murder.

Capital punishment fits that definition: The state has a set of laws where elected officials have set out a group of crimes which an individual commits that are eligible for you to be killed for, instead of keeping those individuals from society in perpetuity. That's malice of forethought, you don't allow individuals to go about killing in retribution, this is no different. On top of that, there is nothing really gained from the death of another person, considering the jeopardy in place, it's not at all worth it. This is assuming you can put yourself in the shoes of a person wrongfully convicted.

Quote:

I'll give you that killing is killing, but again, only because someone ends up dead. The justice system itself has, as you've pointed out, multiple distinctions between how and why the act of killing took place. To say it's all the same is a joke, and that's it's all wrong is a joke. Or maybe it depends on how you're looking at it. I think you're just looking at the final outcome.

I've made the distinction, and that I used a poor word selection initially.

If an abductee kills their abductor, that's not murder, that's personal defence. If the abductor kills the abductee, that's murder pretty cut and dry.

Quote:

Quote:

You're making a hell of a precarious step from unruly youths to dyed in the wool serial killers.

I don't remember making the jump from deviant teens to psychopaths. I said that kids today grow up with the idea that there are no consequences for their actions. How far do you read between the lines?

You had said that those that murder believe there are no consequences, and then you related your experiences in the education system. I figured you were drawing the parallel. Chalk it up to miscommunication, either I didn't see what you were trying to say and drew my own conclusions, or you didn't say it in a concise manner. Either way, water under the bridge.

Quote:

Quote:

Sarcasm aside, killing them isn't an answer. I suspect you assume that individuals that murder are predominantly poor, and that maximum security is a cake-walk. I've seen a few prisons, and they generally are foul, loud, smelly and decrepit places... there is nothing about it that is better than self-determination.

I know it's not a "cake-walk" but I know that there are a lot of people who view prison, as abhorrent as it is to us, as a place where they feel connected. Regardless of how unhealthy that connection is.

It's kinda sad, but if that's where they feel at home, why not let them stay there if they do something heinous. I'm not saying that to make them feel good about themselves (again, prisons suck at the best of times) I'm saying because at some point, reformation is not possible, and sequestering them away from the rest of us and keeping them under lock and key is a better long-term solution. If nothing else, it allows the reformation altruism to become a real and workable option instead of just a nice idea.

Quote:

As far as two years for stealing an iPod, I'll agree with you there. I'm not against reforming a petty criminal, or even one who goes around stealing cars. If you want to talk about second chances, you should see how many "second chances" I give kids in my classes. I firmly believe that school is for making and learning from mistakes. If you'd like to talk about punishment as a last resort, you also need to understand that punishment, in most cases, isn't even an option in schools. And believe it or not, I don't believe in punishing kids without giving them fair warning, and even then, the punishment I believe in is a useful punishment. You don't do your work? Your punishment is to come in on your own time, do the work, and get the marks.

Life imprisonment without parole isn't a second chance though. That is the end of the line. Even if parole is allowed, Murders in the USA aren't traditionally paroled at the same rate as others. Giving a useful punishment is great, but when you start applying that to felonies, violent felonies and murders you really can't afford to be tossing those second chances out like they're ticker tape, so to that point, I agree with 3 strikes legislation.

As far as my work, I don't get to assign punishment. That's up to the Crown Prosecutors' Office.

Quote:

I believe in natural consequences. But I think that once you've been given so many chances, you have to accept those consequences. I don't think that if you kill someone, wantonly as you put it, that you should have a second chance. There really isn't much you can do to make up for that, is there?

Again, a life imprisonment is not a second chance, to me at least. I figure it's the better option.

Quote:

But anyway, I would really appreciate if you would come off the holier than thou attitude. If you want to attack my opinion, that's one thing, I can deal with it, because I really don't care. Call it insipid because you don't agree with it, that's up to you. I personally think you've made some asinine statements on this forum, but I sure as hell don't walk around saying that you're no good at your job.

So if you're going to attack what I do as a profession (where my opinion has very little to do with my professional obligations) then you can go straight to hell. Do not presume to tell me what I should and shouldn't be teaching because of my opinions on this particular subject, and most definitely don't do it to belittle me, as it makes you look a little insecure.

I called your statement insipid because you said Killing is not killing... that might make sense to you, but in that context, it sounded like foolish denial to me. I never said you were no good at your job, because point of fact, I don't know you. It was left in the ether, but the point I was making (in hindsight in a backhand way) is I hope that the way you were making your point here is NOT indicative of the way you acquit yourself professionally. If I at 29 couldn't figure out what you're saying, what are teens going to think?

It wasn't at all meant as a direct insult, however since it was taken that way, I apologise for the insult, unintended as it was. I don't degenerate to personal insults. PERIOD. I've given people hell here for that, and I don't like getting them either. Again, I didn't intend for you to take it as condemnation.

And for the holier than thou attitude... I'll say this, and I've said it before: Deal with it.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

ShiftyCav wrote:u want to stop teens from joining a gang, then dont create one. tookie deserved what he got. if he was still on the street would he have changed?

Spike J wrote:Street Gangs are nothing but a leech on society by a bunch of thugs with nothing better to do than ruin other peoples lives whether it be by feeding peoples addictions or stealing from people or just plain beating or killing people.

agreed

X2...street gangs and "gangstas" are pathetic. they are not "family".

since they conveniently like to mark themselves with tattoos, cloths, etc i say...send in the marines!!! live fire urban combat training.

and comparing the mafia (organization, outfit, etc), the yakuza, and other "organized crime" groups to street gangs like the bloods n crips is laughable. sure, few of the tactics are the similar, but by and large the older, more refined groups tend not to condone random rapes, muggings, and general petty crime.

for instance...in Hartford, CT (capitol of my home state) there were sections you stayed out of because they were known/run by the black gangs, and you could tell...dirty, dark, horrible neighborhoods. however, when you crossed into the italian (mafia) section..all the street lights worked, no thugs on the corner, youd even see women walking alone at night. why?? because they took care of thir neighborhood and the peple who belonged in it. no fear of random rape, murder, etc.

i have no problem with organized crime, such as it is today, but there are reasons for that...

as the US Marshal said in "Last Man Standing" "...a certain amount of corruption is natural, and will be tolerated..."


_________________________________________________________________
Looking for something new? How about an off topic forum where you can truly express your opinions without interference of mods or admins?

Join verbalwarfare.com

http://www.verbalwarfare.com/forum.php?referrerid=86

I'd rather see a place where you made money with your skills and wits, and not intimidation and such.

And I'll say this: if you think that Rape, drugs and such aren't tolerated in traditional OCGs, you have another thing coming. They'll allow whatever as long as it doesn't do 2 things:
- Affect another members' family,
- Increase the OCG's exposure to Law enforcement scrutiny and prosecution.

The only difference between OCGs like Mafia (White/Black hand), Triads, Yakuza, street gangs, and Cartels and the like is their Organizational heirarchies, and the degree to which the membership will adhere to the structure and their superiors.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I think the bible pretty much sums up the idea of captial punshiment, "eye for an eye", the person that did the killing, lost their right to live when they decided to take another humans life. I see nothing wrong when captial punshiment is used.

Did you happen read the other portion of the Bible.. it's called the new testament... worth a read.

An eye for an eye just means that everyone goes around blind after their second infraction.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.