llcoolguy972 Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 And whose fault is it that he's fat? Stuff like this really pisses me off. People are always so worried about the rights of the accused/convicted that they forget about the victims. Who cares if his medication resists the drug that puts him to sleep? Why the hell does it matter? He's going to die less than a minute after, who cares if it's comfortable for him? Obviously he didn't care about the comfort of the two women he raped and murdered, so we shouldn't care about his. TBH, they should shoot him in the face for trying stupid [cabbage] like this. -.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Nothing is too inhumane for someone who took another's life. Your rights as a human should be stripped the minute you are proven to have committed murder. And of the executioner? He too has taken a human life; and whatever way you look at it, there is an alternative to the death penalty. Should the executioner also have his human rights removed by your logic? You've punished a murderer... by murdering him. I'm not quite sure that sets a better example. I'm just looking at the way the legal system works, and (Having no intricate knowledge of the legal system) could I not commit a crime, but then claim that I am not bound by any laws, since I did not agree to them? I signed no contract, I never even verbally said that I would follow the law. Therefore, by the law itself, I am not obligated to follow the law. The government could probably just turn around and tell anyone/thing that I am not to be serviced or provided for, my land confiscated, but then that would be interfering with my rights as a human. I'm not a hypocrite for it either. I may not follow the alw, but that does not prevent me from enforcing the law on others. A country's laws apply to all inhabitants of that country. You merely living there is a sign that you agree to, and will adhere to the law of that land. If you don't agree with the law, move to another country whose laws you do agree with. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Nothing is too inhumane for someone who took another's life. Your rights as a human should be stripped the minute you are proven to have committed murder. And of the executioner? He too has taken a human life; and whatever way you look at it, there is an alternative to the death penalty. Should the executioner also have his human rights removed by your logic?/quote] I think we should build machines to do it anyways. Seriously, if there's someone who decides "I think I'd like to be an executioner!", then they're probably pretty sick in the head too. So a machine would do the same job, like a guillotine. Be quicker, too. But you could apply that logic to anything. You could apply it to soldiers, to the repairsmen who didn't fix a car good enough, to the people who built a building that collapses, to the person who plants those damn coconut trees that kill so many every year. Of course there's an alternative. But the American justice system is terribly flawed. There was a man here who murdered a young couple (I think, it was quite some time back) and was allowed to leave with parole after only three years of jail. As it turns out, I believe he was a drug dealer, and later killed another group of people and fled to somewhere in South America. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkace21 Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 If juries agree with him, let him rot and die a slow painful death from diabetes and old age. He needs to take his punishment for the crimes he committed. Not make up excuses to live an extra 2 years. People in glass houses should shower in the basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 What I've never understood is, if you're gonna kill him anyway, why care for dignity? The death penalty is hardly the epitome of humanity. :roll: Just fire a bullet at them and have done with it. You guys couldn't even resist making a show out of Saddam's death. Course, being the silly naive liberal I am, I would say that one way to avoid all this is to not have the death penalty in the first place. But I understand that if you didn't, rapists, terrorists and murderers would run riot... just like they do in all countries which have outlawed the death penalty. This post is full of win, take caution when reading it, or you might be struck with guilt if you're for the death penalty. The death penalty should NEVER be a method of "justice", I would not have had Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam put to death...EVER! The fact that Saddam's death was publicized made me sick to my stomach... Here's how I think it should be: I believe that in the case of a grand felony or something so horrendous it deserves retribution, the offender should be offered the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. If he chooses the death penalty, he has to give himself the injection. After many years, they should be offered a chance of parole. Ultimately, though, it should just be outlawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 That isn't a bad idea, mage. Although I disagree with parole; it would have to take a VERY long time. I mean, no parole for 30+-40+ years for murder, rape and other grand felonies. EDIT: And you do know Hitler and Stalin weren't put to death, right mage? (Well, nobody is certain how Stalin died) As for Saddam, take that up with the Iraqi jurors. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkace21 Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 What I've never understood is, if you're gonna kill him anyway, why care for dignity? The death penalty is hardly the epitome of humanity. :roll: Just fire a bullet at them and have done with it. You guys couldn't even resist making a show out of Saddam's death. Course, being the silly naive liberal I am, I would say that one way to avoid all this is to not have the death penalty in the first place. But I understand that if you didn't, rapists, terrorists and murderers would run riot... just like they do in all countries which have outlawed the death penalty. This post is full of win, take caution when reading it, or you might be struck with guilt if you're for the death penalty. The death penalty should NEVER be an issue, I would not have had Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam put to death...EVER! The fact that Saddam's death was publicized made me sick to my stomach... Here's how I think it should be: I believe that in the case of a grand felony or something so horrendous it deserves retribution, the offender should be offered the choice of life in prison or the death penalty. After many years, they should be offered a chance of parole. So you would have let hitler continue to massacre Jews and others he didnt see fit to live, or let stalin continue his purges, or let saddam continue to attack the Us, and oppress the Iraqi civilians? And letting convicted murderers out on parole? That's what we call a can of worms. People in glass houses should shower in the basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 So you would have let hitler continue to massacre Jews and others he didnt see fit to live, or let stalin continue his purges, or let saddam continue to attack the Us, and oppress the Iraqi civilians? And letting convicted murderers out on parole? That's what we call a can of worms. :!: :!: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 I have to say, I almost wrote something a bit mean to that, mage. That's all you ever say, even when people completely address your argument. Seriously, you must really like that phrase. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 I have to say, I almost wrote something a bit mean to that, mage. That's all you ever say, even when people completely address your argument. Seriously, you must really like that phrase. I do like that phrase, but I only say it when people DON'T address the argument at hand, or put words in my mouth. If you can find an instance when I've used it, and did not use it properly, then be my guest...but you won't find any. 1.) If they don't address the argument I've laid out... or... 2.) If they say something that I never said, and try and claim that is my argument such as this fellow did here. Those are the two times I will use the phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 He asked if you would have let them live and keep doing the terrible things they were doing (even though by the time they died, their respective genocides were generally over) - had any of them been put on trial in front of the world. And unless your post had some strange, invisible text, that's how I and obviously he have interpreted your statement - it's quite broad. Doesn't sound like much straw manning to me, just seems like you don't want to present a counterpoint, which doesn't sound like you at all. EDIT: Well then, we're understood I believe. Don't feel like making a post to take up more space. Care to counterpoint my argument now? Even though it was more representing Ginger. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 He asked if you would have let them live and keep doing the terrible things they were doing (even though by the time they died, their respective genocides were generally over) - had any of them been put on trial in front of the world. And unless your post had some strange, invisible text, that's how I and obviously he have interpreted your statement - it's quite broad. Doesn't sound like much straw manning to me, just seems like you don't want to present a counterpoint, which doesn't sound like you at all. Why it's a straw man: I said I would not have had them put to death. I NEVER said I wouldn't have stopped them from committing their crimes, and have them placed in prison. They were not so much questions as they were sarcastic "quips". He did not mean for them to be answered, they were apart of his argument. edit to your edit: Yes I am aware, I was saying so for the sake of getting my point across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriegsmier Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 What I've never understood is, if you're gonna kill him anyway, why care for dignity? The death penalty is hardly the epitome of humanity. :roll: Just fire a bullet at them and have done with it. You guys couldn't even resist making a show out of Saddam's death. Course, being the silly naive liberal I am, I would say that one way to avoid all this is to not have the death penalty in the first place. But I understand that if you didn't, rapists, terrorists and murderers would run riot... just like they do in all countries which have outlawed the death penalty. Yes but if we have gun control and gun restrictions....LOL just kidding. ;) I say just use another means to execute, whoopie. Problem is Ohio is in a bind. Their only method of execution is Lethal Injection so its either go or no go. They'll probably end up going for it reguardless. All of them stall of course. The appeals process and process leading up to the execution can take years, thats why inmates sit on death row so long. Court systems are to backed up. We just had some electric chair executions recently in South Carolina. One in 2008 and one in 2004. First ones since 1996. 9 states offer Electric Chair 5 states offer Gas Chamber 2 states offer Hanging 2 states offer Firing Squad (These 2 only use Firing Squad if Injection is found to be unconstitutional or impractical) All have Lethal Injection as an option as well. Most states with these "primitive" forms of execution only authorize them if the accused is convicted before a certain date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Nothing is too inhumane for someone who took another's life. Your rights as a human should be stripped the minute you are proven to have committed murder. And of the executioner? He too has taken a human life; and whatever way you look at it, there is an alternative to the death penalty. Should the executioner also have his human rights removed by your logic? You've punished a murderer... by murdering him. I'm not quite sure that sets a better example. The executioner isn't killing an innocent person, where as the murderer did. Innocent person = has rights. Kill an innocent person = you have no rights. Killing a gulity person =/= you have no rights. Simplest I can put it. As for me, I have two ways: Strip the guy naked and put him in a 3x3 cell of stone. Give him minmum food and water. If thats too inhumane, kill the bastard via hanging. "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenin64 Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 I say set the guy on fire and watch him run around and scream until he dies. Then, as said before, feed to the other inmates, as long as the flesh isn't too badly burned. Closest thing to true self-sufficiency a prison can get. Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizz Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Make him burn it all off, Temple of Doom Style :twisted: Wongton is better than me in anyway~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbellz Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 No one's fat enough to take a bullet to the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 No one's fat enough to take a bullet to the head. It would be slightly more ironic if you only had John Lennon in your signature instead of The Beatles as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriegsmier Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 I say set the guy on fire and watch him run around and scream until he dies. Then, as said before, feed to the other inmates, as long as the flesh isn't too badly burned. Closest thing to true self-sufficiency a prison can get. I like that idea. The fire might take some of the fat off too, would make for much leaner cuts of meat when they get it in the kitchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 So you would have let hitler continue to massacre Jews and others he didnt see fit to live, or let stalin continue his purges, or let saddam continue to attack the Us, and oppress the Iraqi civilians? Hitler wouldn't have been able to massacre the Jews if he was in jail, or on some desolate island in the middle of nowhere, as has happened with some political leaders in the past. To say the death penalty would have been the only way of preventing him from persecuting minorities in Germany is a blinkered view to say the least, especially since in reality, the death penalty wasn't even a significant factor in stopping the Nazi movement. And letting convicted murderers out on parole? That's what we call a can of worms. No one here is suggesting that the alternative to the death penalty is to become overly liberal and let them out onto the streets again. While it isn't desirable that the tax payer forks out to keep these people alive, such is the price of upholding both the law and anti-homicide values simultaneously. Think about it. If the state itself responds to a murderer by taking his life in public view, then how does this reinforce the message that taking life is wrong? Indeed, not only is it entirely hypocritical and ineffective (through fear of sounding repetitive, homicide rates are three times higher in the US than in England and Wales where the death penalty has been outlawed for decades), it actually gives the impression that taking life is more acceptable given a certain circumstance, rather than the impression we should be giving; that taking life should be the final option, bar risking your own. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjrox32 Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 I'm kinda of on the fence about the death penalty. I don't really know which side to support, because on one hand I think that once you kill/rape someone, you shouldn't be allowed to live for causing that much suffering. On the other hand, I feel that prison (or solitary confinement) can possibly be better punishments. It also seems very hypocritical. I've never really understood the whole point of the electric chair and lethal injections anyway. Why not just shoot them in the head? That'd be quicker, more efficient, cheaper, and more humane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 I believe in 'eye for an eye'. Even though the whole idea is hypocritical, it really helps put them in their victims' shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_de_Sable Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 While I disagree with the death penelty (seriously, will it really make up for the crime? And are you any better by murdering them?) I think his reason is alot of [cabbage], he just doesn't want to die. Besides, they could starve him to death. I don't want them eating food paid for by taxpayer's money, thank you very much. "All of the experts agree if the first drug doesn't work, the execution is going to be excruciating," Cooey's public defender, Kelly Culshaw Schneider, said Monday. And that's a bad thing? [English translation needed] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Anyone remember the joke they said about this particular news story on the Bob and Tom show? :lol: Figures that I can't remember it all. Last.Fm My Bloggy Proud to have served on Tip.it Crew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Finch Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 While I disagree with the death penelty (seriously, will it really make up for the crime? And are you any better by murdering them?) I think his reason is alot of [cabbage], he just doesn't want to die. Besides, they could starve him to death. I don't want them eating food paid for by taxpayer's money, thank you very much. Since when is feeding somebody the best way to starve them? I can't think of a faster, more humane method of taking a life than launching a lead projectile into their head. Hit the right spot, and he'll die before his brain is able to tell the nerves that there is any pain. And it's extremely cheap, too. The only problem that I can think of is cleaning up the mess afterwards. If Fatty McHamburgler complains that his obesity will make him suffer a little before he dies, just take him out back and put him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now