|
Death Penalty for Child Murderers ? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
Now wait a minute! This would be good ONLY if not enough evidence is available to 100% prove that he/she did the crime. If it's a FACT that this person committed the Life-enprisonment crime and he/she gets life in prison, there's no way that anyone will ever know that this criminal "bettered" him/herself because you can "behave" good from SECOND ONE on. It's possible to listen to the guards and do whatever needs to be done PERFECTLY. What can be done then? I can keep going on and on... |
there is no 100% my friend. Apart from Mathematics, it is impossible to have 100% accuracy, but sorry, i am going off on a tangent..
Yes, there is no way of knowing that someone bettered himself (i don't understand the quotes u put there). But why don't u give people the chance? Have you never sped? Did u never run a red light 'accidentally'? Have you never paid a bill past its due date?
Do u _REALLY_ hate people that much that you don't give them a second chance, or a third? I mean, how do u live with yourself if you ONLY believe that people are inherently bad? I mean, you should set an example and show the world how BIG you are by killing yourself right now. Only then will u be a true Matyr and show us that people deserve to die all the time for anything.
damn, i am stupid for replying again..
anyhow, u mentioned earlier that 'good' crimials (I am using your terminology here) that 'only' stole money should be let off easy. Well, how about this scenario:
1. Person A robs bank, but does not get caught.
2. Bank needs to close, because it cannot pay back all the money its customers have out in, since it has lost a certain amount due to the robber.
3. Person B, an old, poor man, had all his money with the bank. Now he has none left, is too old and sick to work, so he has to starve!
hmm, looks like your 'good' criminal just killed a person, so by your definition:
DEATH ROW |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
there is no 100% my friend. Apart from Mathematics, it is impossible to have 100% accuracy, but sorry, i am going off on a tangent..
Yes, there is no way of knowing that someone bettered himself (i don't understand the quotes u put there). But why don't u give people the chance? Have you never sped? Did u never run a red light 'accidentally'? Have you never paid a bill past its due date?
Do u _REALLY_ hate people that much that you don't give them a second chance, or a third? I mean, how do u live with yourself if you ONLY believe that people are inherently bad? I mean, you should set an example and show the world how BIG you are by killing yourself right now. Only then will u be a true Matyr and show us that people deserve to die all the time for anything.
damn, i am stupid for replying again..
anyhow, u mentioned earlier that 'good' crimials (I am using your terminology here) that 'only' stole money should be let off easy. Well, how about this scenario:
1. Person A robs bank, but does not get caught.
2. Bank needs to close, because it cannot pay back all the money its customers have out in, since it has lost a certain amount due to the robber.
3. Person B, an old, poor man, had all his money with the bank. Now he has none left, is too old and sick to work, so he has to starve!
hmm, looks like your 'good' criminal just killed a person, so by your definition:
DEATH ROW |
OK, I'm sorry if I offended anyone AGAIN but, it seems like I was posting a BIT too fast to think about things like that. You're right with the ENTIRE post. I agree... |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
Now wait a minute! This would be good ONLY if not enough evidence is available to 100% prove that he/she did the crime. If it's a FACT that this person committed the Life-enprisonment crime and he/she gets life in prison, there's no way that anyone will ever know that this criminal "bettered" him/herself because you can "behave" good from SECOND ONE on. It's possible to listen to the guards and do whatever needs to be done PERFECTLY. What can be done then? I can keep going on and on... |
Well, first off, I *do* think there are situations where you could have 100% or as close to 100% as you're ever going to get in this world, but even in that case I still don't think murdering the murderer is the answer. As I said, I don't believe in an eye for an eye justice system.
What *they've* done cannot be undone, it's in the past. I believe in giving people an honest chance to redeem themselves so they can get on with *their* lives at some point, and to hopefully allow them to become productive in some point in the future.
Obviously, people who are mass murderers, psychopaths, and who have serious psychological issues should be kept off the streets for the rest of their lives...but kids who kill people in gang related activity early in their lives, or people who commit crimes of passion, or other similar examples deserve a chance to turn their lives around at some point IMHO.
I understand your argument that people can *act* one way and actually be another, but I'd trust a panel of psychologists to make the right call...I think it's better to have a way for people who *are* capable of rehabilitation to get out of prison than to just throw away the key because of the slim chance that they'll commit another crime.
Yes, mistakes will be made from time to time, but I think there'd also be a largely untold number of success stories as well. Giving someone say 20 to 30 years to think long and hard about what they've done has a way of changing their way of thinking...
And really, I don't know how this got so far off track to begin with, anyone who'd be eligible to be executed in the states that allow it would likely be imprisoned for life without parole in lieu of execution in the states which *don't* allow it. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CortexBomb
Well, first off, I *do* think there are situations where you could have 100% or as close to 100% as you're ever going to get in this world, but even in that case I still don't think murdering the murderer is the answer. As I said, I don't believe in an eye for an eye justice system.
What *they've* done cannot be undone, it's in the past. I believe in giving people an honest chance to redeem themselves so they can get on with *their* lives at some point, and to hopefully allow them to become productive in some point in the future.
Obviously, people who are mass murderers, psychopaths, and who have serious psychological issues should be kept off the streets for the rest of their lives...but kids who kill people in gang related activity early in their lives, or people who commit crimes of passion, or other similar examples deserve a chance to turn their lives around at some point IMHO.
I understand your argument that people can *act* one way and actually be another, but I'd trust a panel of psychologists to make the right call...I think it's better to have a way for people who *are* capable of rehabilitation to get out of prison than to just throw away the key because of the slim chance that they'll commit another crime.
Yes, mistakes will be made from time to time, but I think there'd also be a largely untold number of success stories as well. Giving someone say 20 to 30 years to think long and hard about what they've done has a way of changing their way of thinking...
And really, I don't know how this got so far off track to begin with, anyone who'd be eligible to be executed in the states that allow it would likely be imprisoned for life without parole in lieu of execution in the states which *don't* allow it. |
OK, ur right. Let's get back to the ORIGINAL SUBJECT of this thread: What should be done to people who kill innocent children? If life enprisonment is done for just "plain" murder, then what should be done to people who constantly murder, molest, and rape innocent children? (note the word "CONSTANTLY")
Hopefully, after this is answered, this thread will be over. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CortexBomb
What *they've* done cannot be undone, it's in the past. I believe in giving people an honest chance to redeem themselves so they can get on with *their* lives at some point, and to hopefully allow them to become productive in some point in the future. |
go tell that to the mother and father of a 11 year old girl who was kidnapped, raped, tortured, then brutalley butchered and left in a road side ditch....go take that remark and stand to that little girls mother and father and tell them it's in the past and they should just move on...and then tell them the person who was convicted of the crime to their 11 year old daughter, through compelling evidence, that he deserves a chance to redeem himself so he can be let out of prison one day again...while their 11 year old daughter lies 6 feet under ground in a grave..never to grow as a person, never to acheive, never to love, never to marry, never to grow old and never to live in this wonderful thing we all endear called LIFE!!!!....YOU go tell them that....
| quote: | Originally posted by CortexBomb
Obviously, people who are mass murderers, psychopaths, and who have serious psychological issues should be kept off the streets for the rest of their lives...but kids who kill people in gang related activity early in their lives, or people who commit crimes of passion, or other similar examples deserve a chance to turn their lives around at some point IMHO. |
WRONG...a society in modern civilization is only civil if we as people abide by the rules inwhich we have all perceived as moralley and lawfully just..if you murder or rape any other human being in this life you no longer deserve the right ,we as a whole society, have all agreed upon....it's VERY simple..you want to be a member of this FREE society..then don't commit crimes...if you do then face the punishment.... |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
anyhow, u mentioned earlier that 'good' crimials (I am using your terminology here) that 'only' stole money should be let off easy. Well, how about this scenario:
1. Person A robs bank, but does not get caught.
2. Bank needs to close, because it cannot pay back all the money its customers have out in, since it has lost a certain amount due to the robber.
3. Person B, an old, poor man, had all his money with the bank. Now he has none left, is too old and sick to work, so he has to starve!
hmm, looks like your 'good' criminal just killed a person, so by your definition:
DEATH ROW |
UM that was entirely WRONG...if a person robs a bank and takes ALL of the money in that bank and the bank needs to close...which would never happen...but if it did need to close that old man would not be broke...and he would nto starve,.,.,..,have you ever heard of the FDIC...which is the Federal Depository Insurance Company?...
well they are there to protect peoples money in the bank from robberey, fire ot what have you....that old man would not lose 1 dollar of his money...the only person who would lose money would be the bank itself..not it's customers. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
If someone can put a 'lol' inside a thread that discussed the DEATH PENALTY, it appears to me, that there is something WRONG with that person? How can u laugh when it comes to a topic such as KILLING people? Maybe you are as 'sick' as people who kill/ rape little children? |
sorry but if i was to see someone with MY OWN EYES murder or rape a CHILD...and i am tlaking if i was right there and saw the criminal act and knew for a 100% fact who it was who did it..because he was standing right in front of me...
well if i saw that...and i had a gun..i would shoot that sick bastard in the neck and watch as the blood squirted from his neck and watch as he chokes on his own blood as it fills his lungs...and i would stand right over him and laugh my ing ass off and would not stop laughing until he was dead..
anyone who kills or rapes a child is the sickest person to walk the earth....there is no worse crime...and i would LOL my ass off to be the one to kill one of these sick s....they DO NOT deserve to breath the air we all do.... |
|
|
| Nadi |
I still fail to see how one can not deserve to live because he killed another person. That just doesnt make any sense, its being hypocritical to a hole new level.
As far as not killing them, meaning they got off free and can do it again, just because you don't die doesnt mean you get out of prison. Everyone has the opportunity to really die, not everyone can really live, there lack of death doesnt mean they will be in any situation like that again. |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
OK, ur right. Let's get back to the ORIGINAL SUBJECT of this thread: What should be done to people who kill innocent children? If life enprisonment is done for just "plain" murder, then what should be done to people who constantly murder, molest, and rape innocent children? (note the word "CONSTANTLY")
|
i know this will sound like Bill Clinton, but please define constantly for me, when u spend 30 years in prison, there will be a 'gap' of 30 years in molesting children..
Apart from that, how is murdering a child different from murdering an adult?
I heard that the US constitution, which you should believe in, since u live in this country, says something about 'all men are created equal'..
doesn't say something about 'all adults are created equal and children are a special case' |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
go tell that to the mother and father of a 11 year old girl who was kidnapped, raped, tortured, then brutalley butchered and left in a road side ditch...
|
give me her address.
| quote: |
WRONG...a society in modern civilization is only civil if we as people abide by the rules inwhich we have all perceived as moralley and lawfully just..if you murder or rape any other human being in this life you no longer deserve the right ,we as a whole society, have all agreed upon....it's VERY simple..you want to be a member of this FREE society..then don't commit crimes...if you do then face the punishment.... |
wrong from you. Society -in many 'modern' countries- believes in universal values. these values apply to all people, that is the only reason we are able to bring war criminals to justice.
How else would u say that people in the Third Reich were bad people, since they killed jews. At that time, it was just, yet, there were still trials for those people, since there are universal values that most people that a certain set of things is right and a certain set is wrong.
Another example:
for about 40 years, there was a wall between two halves of Berlin, Germany. Along this wall, there were guard-towers. The guards at these towers had the 'command' to shoot to kill people who were trying to flee from the DDR (GDR). The guards killed a bunch of people during the 40 year period. After Germany re-unification in 1989, these guards were brought to trial, since they did something that is deemed universally wrong, killing people, and were sentenced to prison terms.
Now, are you going to tell me that we did wrong by bringing these criminals, which they are for killing people, to trial? I mean it was perfectly legal for them, they even were TOLD to do that by their superiors, who made the legislation.
hmm.. well, i guess this, once again, is all about believes. Some people hold one set of values, others hold a different set.
on to another point, earlier u mentioned that "even the bilbe says 'an eye for an eye'", which is true, but it is said in the old testament. That rule is 'older' than the 10 commandments, hence has since been revised, even within the bible. If you are jewish, the 10 commandments apply to you, if you are chrisitan, you are supposed to live by the 'New Testament' which doesn't contain the phrase u quoted, but rather the phrase similar to (I have never read an english bible, so i need to translate this) "Do upon others as u wish done upon yourself". |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
UM that was entirely WRONG...if a person robs a bank and takes ALL of the money in that bank and the bank needs to close...which would never happen...but if it did need to close that old man would not be broke...and he would nto starve,.,.,..,have you ever heard of the FDIC...which is the Federal Depository Insurance Company?...
well they are there to protect peoples money in the bank from robberey, fire ot what have you....that old man would not lose 1 dollar of his money...the only person who would lose money would be the bank itself..not it's customers. |
and where does the FDIC take the money from? The people, who pay taxes.. and since we know that Rozzer says it is too expensive to keep people in prison for a life-sentence, we need to save all the $$ we have, so let's kill them |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
Apart from that, how is murdering a child different from murdering an adult? |
because unlike you seem to do...we value children higher...because they are unable to defend themselves like an adult, they are pure, have no true hatred towards anyone, could NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER have any reason to give to someone to kill them unlike an adult who can provoke and their innocentes....not only that anyone who can look into the eyes of a child and commit such terrible acts would not hesitate to commit attacks on anyone else...which inturn makes them a very high threat......
how you could ask how killing a child over and adult is beyond me...you can not be that ludicrous...well obviously you are since you asked..
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
I heard that the US constitution, which you should believe in, since u live in this country, says something about 'all men are created equal'..
doesn't say something about 'all adults are created equal and children are a special case' |
what is men?...it's plural for man
Main Entry: [1]man
Pronunciation: 'man, in compounds "man or m&n
Function: noun
1 a (1) : an adult male human
the Constitution was talking about adults, not children.... |
|
|
|
|
