 |
|
Authorities estimate the four girls – ages 5 to 17 – had been dead for at least two weeks. Jacks told police they were “possessed by demons” and had died in their sleep, one by one, within a week of each other, court documents say. Authorities estimate the four girls – ages 5 to 17 – had been dead for at least two weeks. Jacks told police they were “possessed by demons” and had died in their sleep, one by one, within a week of each other, court documents say. The charging documents identify the children as Brittany Jacks, 17; Tatianna Jacks, 11; N’Kiah Fogle, 6; and Aja Fogle, 5.
Although autopsies are incomplete, the medical examiner’s office reported that there was evidence that Brittany had been stabbed, the charging documents state. There was evidence of binding on the necks of the Tatianna and N’Kiah, and evidence of blunt force injury to the head of Aja and binding on her neck, according to the documents. The three children were dressed in white T-shirts when their bodies were found Wednesday, charging documents state. Brittany’s body was naked but was partially covered by a white T-shirt. An object that appeared to be a steak knife lay nearby, and there was a dried maroon liquid around the body, according to the documents.
There have been several incidents, recently, that have me re-evaluating my views on the death penalty. The man who threw his 4 kids off the bridge 80 ft into the river below, the nut bag who decapitated the girl in South Carolina (who, by the way has already cut a deal for life), and this case. Is there any redemption for people like this?
let killer=(person who kills someone);
let victim=(person killed by killer);
let kk=(number of persons murdered by killer);
let vk=(number of persons murdered by victim);
if (kk > vk)
{
killer(goes to prison as usual);
}
if (kk < vk)
{
killer(goes free);
}
kk=kk+1;
#31, okkay, you just rolled out of bed on to your keyboard… right?
#32 I’m sorry. You are right. I did make several syntax errors. Should have been:
let killer=(person who kills someone);
let victim=(person killed by killer);
let kk=(number of persons murdered by killer);
let vk=(number of persons murdered by victim);
while(alive(killer))
{
if (kk > vk)
{
imprison(killer, ’25-to-life’);
}
if (kk < vk)
{
free(killer);
}
let kk=kk+1;
}
#29, Three Headed Fish Breath,
Oh, what a fool we still have in Houston. Someone who knows a good argument when he sees one. BUT, instead of rebutting that argument, relies upon ad hominem and straw man attacks. So it is now attack the messenger instead of the message which, just coincidently, is contrary to the racist, perverted justice that said fool spouts with a torrent of spittle flecked invectives. No offered rebuttal, just spew.
Enjoy your morning coffee. Use it to wash down your daily Paxil, Effexor, Estratest, and whatever other mind or mood altering medication have been prescribed.
#30, bobbo,
Can a legal execution after due process and appeals be “revenge?”
Sure. Why couldn’t be? When John Wilkes Booth was killed, was it justice or revenge? When Sacco and Vanzetti were executed, wasn’t that society taking revenge? During the Jim Crow era, how many blacks were summarily “legally executed”?
Remember, too often the laws have been wrong. Slavery was not only legal, it was enshrined in the Constitution. Most of those who wrote and later signed the Declaration of Independence owned slaves. Later, in 1897 the Supreme Court said it was just fine to segregate blacks into separate areas. Several States have enacted laws prohibiting specific religions from enjoying the freedoms other religions have. Until quite recently, private homosexual sex was illegal and punishable. How about laws that banned birth control, mixed race marriage, abortion, or allowed jailing young juveniles with adult prisoners, executing juveniles, treating fatherless children differently than other children, prohibited congenital defective children from attending school. Did you know that most States have laws on the books prohibiting the Communist Party from existence.
Yes, laws can be wrong. They can and do blatantly abridge the Constitution. So yes, an execution can and has often been revenge. Not that a court would ever admit it.
#30, Bobbo,
Are people who ARE GUILTY of a crime nonetheless innocent? NO. You switch/confuse hypotheticals completely.
Say what? You now go on to write :
Hypo–you have a group of 11 people. …
This is not a hypothetical situation. It is a theoretical opinion that society is better off if the safeguards in our system allow ten guilty people to go free than it is for society to condemn or punish one innocent person. You sir, have a difficult time understanding the concept behind that idea.
“so many Muslims were arrested for no or invented reasons”–Oh Really? What is your hard number? I recall newstories on 3-5 such cases.
Obviously you don’t recall too well. From Wikipedia.
Following the attacks, 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants were fingerprinted and registered under the Alien Registration Act of 1940. 8,000 Arab and Muslim men were interviewed, and 5,000 foreign nationals were detained under Joint Congressional Resolution 107-40 authorizing the use of military force “to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
what other nation would be attacked by an ethnic group that is a minority within their borders and not have a greater wave of hostility than showed by GOUSA?
Gee, during WWII, how many German Americans were interned by Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and later the US? Or was your question an attempt to justisfy discrimination.
#30, bobbo,
Capital Punishment after due process is not revenge or barbaric as would be genocide against an ethnic group.
If Yugoslavia enacts a law allowing Serbs to summarily displace Albanians and a Yugoslav Court holds that law to be Constitutional you think it is fine? If the Yugoslav military rounds up Albanian men and accidentally kills a few because they might try to escape, you don’t think that rises to being wrong?
For an FYI, due process is only as good as the courts interpretation of it.
Finally===big if here===”IF” capital punishment were further curtailed so that the guilt of the accused were higher than it is now ((no single witness only death penality cases, no jail snitch death penalty cases, etc)) and then applied more rapidly as the due process was more certain===then, THEN maybe some innocent witnesses would not be killed to prevent their later testimony. Just a maybe.
Geeze, did you roll out of bed and fall on your key board? So that the guilt of the accused were higher? What kind of twisted logic is that. If there isn’t as much proof then we will only lock you up? Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick !!! Either the person is guilty or not. There are no shades of gray.
Pre-meditated, cold blooded killing is wrong. I don’t care how scummy the victim is. I don’t care that it’s the state doing it.
We can’t call America a civilized country as long as we do it.
#35–OK, capital punishment has a mix of justice, punishment, revenge, protection, demonstration about it. Silly to argue about which single element it is when it has many elements?
#36–Maybe society is better off letting 10 guilty go free to protect one innocent==BUT==the assumption that the innocent are protected is highly debateable when those guilty folks kill again. So, yeah==one innocent person accused of a crime does not go to jail, while one innocent victim of crime gets murdered. The former is protected, the latter is sacrificed. One avoids jail, the other gets killed. Now, society is better off how?
#37–the 80K Muslims fingerprinted is news to me, but I don’t equate being fingerprinted as required by law to be violence?
And yes, there was widespread violence/intimidation against those of German descent during WW2. Storefronts stoned, people anglicizing their names, foods renamed that sort of thing==but I agree, not too much retaliation against germans. But not that much retaliation against Muslims either. Relatively “civilized” given the nature of the threat?
While a bit vague–yes, I am stating some discrimination by various definition against young muslims is warranted as the terrorists of concern come from this group.
#38–due process does not allow discrimination based on race/ethnicity. Laws that do this are unconstitutional. The world ain’t perfect.
I haven’t been talking about the death penalty. I’ve been talking about whether or not 10 guilty men should be let go to protect one innocent person and what the net value to society might be.
I support the death penalty for those guilty of horrible crimes involving the deaths of other people. Guilt should be beyond a reasonable doubt and reasonable doubt needs greater definition. I do this as my concept of justice and appropriate response, not revenge.
My support is just marginal. I’m also perfectly fine with life in prison etc as the majority may decide.
“…I’ve been talking about whether or not 10 guilty men should be let go to protect one innocent person and what the net value to society might be.”
That, bobbo, was one of the fundamental principles that the American system was to enshrine – that first and foremost, no innocent person suffer an undeserved punishment, even if it requires that the guilty sometimes escape punishment.
And that IS the civilized way to go about it. Err on the side of not harming the innocent. The other way, much prized here in Texas, and Houston, is one of, if not THE, major contributing factor to the massive injustices this place is infamous for.
The slippery slope is the problem. Once you accept letting the occasional innocent get crushed by the machinery, it gets easier and easier to rationalize it’s occurrence, and people stop caring. All they understand around here is ‘Get the bad guys at all costs. And if you gotta ‘break some eggs’ to do it, then that’s too bad. At least we’ll have all the bad guys locked up.’
But it never works out that way. Our asshole prosecutors do not use – against every moral precept and ethical principle – factual innocence as their criterion of whether or not to prosecute someone, they make that decision based on their estimate of whether or not they can get a conviction, innocence be damned.
THAT’s where willingness to let innocents suffer just to try (always unsuccessfully) to ‘get all the guilty ones’ gets you. Prosecutors out to win at all costs, which leads to the current state of affairs; neither defense, nor prosection, nor even the judges give a shit about whether you’re guilty or not. Can you play the game better, is all that matters, and that translates directly into – how good a lawyer can you get? Nothing else.
Take my personal word for it. That’s how it works.
That’s why the founding fathers were not such fools. You tamper with the mandate to protect the innocent at all costs at the risk of totally corrupting the system.
AND NOW we return to some postponed business, to wit: smacking Mr. Catshit back to the Stone Age.
#34 –
“Oh, what a fool we still have in Houston. Someone who knows a good argument when he sees one. BUT, instead of rebutting that argument, relies upon ad hominem and straw man attacks.”
Zero of either. I submitted OFTLO’s an analysis of his statements, their semantic content and their resultant logical validity.
Anyone reading my #22 can see that I make no comment whatsoever about OFTLO nor do I offer any straw men. I addressed his statements as they stand. Therefore you are a liar or an idiot. That, of course, does not exclude the possibility that you are both.
OFTLO offered this well-known but rarely analyzed statement:
“If is is wrong to kill another human being (saving for self defense, obviously) then it is still wrong when the state does it.”
In case there was any doubt about where he was coming from, he added this as well: “the moral belief that we cannot condemn killing while being killers”
And I reiterate his statement, reframing it (you apparently don’t understand the meaning of that very simple word) in a structure which does not alter it’s premises, conclusions or validity in any way, but makes it simpler to dissect, which I will again do:
PREMISE: IF it is wrong to kill another person –
CONCLUSION: THEN it is still wrong when the state does it.
Now we replace vague terms – which are not permissible, because they are open to conflicting interpretations – with explicit ones.
IF it is wrong [morally unacceptable]
OR DO YOU CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT?
[for an individual, not acting as a representative of accepted authority]
OR DO YOU CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT?
to [deliberately, voluntarily and unlawfully – NOT accidentally, involuntarily or legally]
OR DO YOU CLAIM THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT?
kill another [innocent]
OR DO YOU CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT?
person,
THEN, it is still wrong [meaning: it remains morally unacceptable]
OR DO YOU CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT?
when the state [society, acting on behalf of society, according to the agreed consensus of the members of that society]
OR DO YOU CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT?
does it [meaning, lawfully subjects a guilty person to the punishment of execution]
OR DO YOU CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT?
Answer up, Catshit.
I am not in any way shape or form “putting words in anyone’s mouth.” I am defining the terms that OFTLO used in his statement. As he offered them, the terms are too vague to be usable in determining whether or not his statement is true. Therefore all wiggle room must be removed by strictly defining what is meant.
YOU are challenged to find any error in my refinement of his statement. You cannot do so, for two reasons; one, there is none to find. This ain’t rocket science. And, two, you have no more ability to semantically parse natural-language statements for logical equivalence than my wee tortie cat has to fly a 787. You are so far over your head, as your asinine comments have made so painfully obvious, that you don’t even know where to start.
“If it’s wrong to kill, it’s still wrong when the state does it” is not a logically valid statement. That means it is not, as it stands, true. It could be true or it could be false – depending entirely on how the terms are defined. And the term ‘kill’ can mean a number of different things. So, unless that term is made explicit each time it is used, the statement remains unsupported and therefore unproven and unprovable.
But by substituting EXACT definitions for each instance of the undefined, vague term causing all the problems, we can then determine the truth-value of the statement.
In the first case – ‘if it is wrong to kill’ – what is meant by ‘kill’ is MURDER. There is no question that that is what is meant.
OR DO YOU CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT?
But in the second case – ‘it is wrong when the state does it’ – it is IMPLIED, INCORRECTLY, FALSELY, that the same definition of ‘kill’ is being referred to as ‘it’ as in ‘does IT’. When a person is legally put to the punishment of execution, it differs in numerous, vital ways from murder.
EXECUTION and MURDER are NOT THE SAME THING. Not even remotely.
MURDER takes the life of an INNOCENT person, one who has done nothing to merit, in the view of society, being killed.
Therefore, MURDER is regarded as a CRIME.
Society DOES NOT APPROVE OF, AUTHORIZE OR SANCTION MURDER.
EXECUTION takes the life of a GUILTY person, one who has committed an act that society has deemed extremely unacceptable and has decreed merits punishment, revenge, retribution and/or deterrence, by the forfeit of the actor’s life.
Therefore EXECUTION is NOT A CRIME. It is a PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME.
Society APPROVES OF, AUTHORIZES AND SANCTIONS EXECUTION.
Therefore, EXECUTION, UNLIKE MURDER, IS AN ACT WHICH:
– IS CARRIED OUT BY, AND WITH THE AGREEMENT, APPROVAL AND SANCTION OF THE CONSENSUS OF SOCIETY
– IS NOT CARRIED OUT BY AN INDIVIDUAL, ACTING ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE
– IS NOT INFLICTED UPON AN INNOCENT, BLAMELESS PERSON
– IS NOT INFLICTED FOR ANY PERSONAL, ARBITRARY REASON
– THE INTENT BEHIND MURDER IS AN UNLAWFUL, ARBITRARY DECISION ON THE PART OF A PERSON
– THE INTENT BEHIND EXECUTION IS A LAWFUL, PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENT FOR THE MOST SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF LAW AS DECREED BY SOCIETY
– THE RESULT OF MURDER IS THAT AN INNOCENT PERSON DIES AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF A FORBIDDEN ACT CONTRARY TO LAW
– THE RESULT OF EXECUTION IS THAT A GUILTY PERSON DIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
Now, Fused-brain, would you care to explain how that these two different acts – undertaken as they are by totally different parties, for totally different motives, one act approved of by society, the other totally forbidden – are in any way morally equivalent to each other?
The only possible way that the statement
‘if murder is immoral, then execution is immoral’
– WHICH IS THE EXACT MEANING OF WHAT OFTLO SAID –
can be true, is with the explicit addition of this premise:
‘To kill any human being at any time for any reason other than self-defense is always immoral’
The problem is that you, or OFTLO, or Gandhi, or whoever, might be willing to accept that premise. But the rest of humanity is under no obligation to agree. We don’t have to accept that belief – for, make no mistake, that is exactly what it is, a BELIEF, NOT a FACT. It is a value judgement, and there are no absolutes. That is something for philosophers to argue about, but in the meantime, it remains a personal opinion.
Since not all of us accept that all killing besides self-defense is unjustified, then we do not accept that qualifying premise, and without it, that whole ‘if murder’s wrong, the DP is wrong’ stuff has no logic or fact to back it up.
You have to be pretty blind or brainwashed to not be able to see that the exact things that make murder immoral are not things that apply to execution. And since they don’t apply, they are worthless arguments against the DP.
You can point to all the DNA exonerations you like. I think they are a good thing, that it is excellent that those persons should be off of Death Row. I would not personally allow anyone to be sentenced to death on less than solid physical evidence.
And there’s the other problem. These people have been exonerated. But you forget that others, who HAVE been executed, have also had the benefit of DNA analysis. And guess what? In each and every case of EXECUTIONS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT – AFTER CONVICTIONS AT TRIALS WITH CORROBORATING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE – DNA CONFIRMED THEIR GUILT.
Try and find one factually, demonstrably innocent person put to death in the United States in the last, oh, say, 40 or 50 years?
Good luck.
And if all those who have been executed had instead lived, some of them would have murdered more innocent people. That is a fact. Grow up and accept it.
“If the death penalty … is such a great idea, then why is the US the ONLY country in the industrialized world that has it.”
“But mom, all the OTHER industrialized nations banned it!”
“So, if all the other industrialized nations jump off a cliff, you have to jump off a cliff, too?” 😛
#44, Three Headed Fish,
Let’s see how bad your Alzheimer’s is today.
Post #44
#34 –
“Oh, what a fool we still have in Houston. Someone who knows a good argument when he sees one. BUT, instead of rebutting that argument, relies upon ad hominem and straw man attacks.”
Zero of either.
Post #29,
Once again, after a period of clear sailing, you then get an attack of the heebie-jeebies, or you forget your meds, or whatever occurs, and then proceed to loudly and arrogantly stick both of your feet in your mouth.
Or did someone else write that and accidentally your name was put on it? Go ahead, read the rest of #29 and see if you didn’t attack the messenger instead of the message.
Anyone reading my #22 can see that I make no comment whatsoever about OFTLO nor do I offer any straw men. I addressed his statements as they stand. Therefore you are a liar or an idiot.
Where did I say you attacked OFTLO? I complained you reWROTE his arguments to suit you. His arguments are in plain English, they need no INTERPRETATION. You added words and meaning that were not in his arguments.
Post #44,
And I reiterate his statement, reframing it (you apparently don’t understand the meaning of that very simple word) in a structure which does not alter it’s premises, conclusions or validity in any way, but makes it simpler to dissect, which I will again do:
Again, no you didn’t. OFTLO may reframe his argument or statement. You can’t. You can only interpret or rewrite it. They are his arguments to “reframe”. You can not think for him and tell us what he thinks. Plus, you added your own little bit to a very simple statement in an attempt to twist his argument to make it seem he agrees with you.
#44, Three headed Fish Breath,
IF it is wrong [morally unacceptable]
OR DO YOU CLAIM THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT?
I don’t know what you are driving at here. Have you taken your meds? Questioning if something is something is a question. What you have done here is take a piece of a sentence and try to twist a meaning out of it. That is wrong. Take the whole sentence. It is the sentence that FRAMES the meaning, not the individual words in isolation.
The rest of your drivel using your twisted logic is equal garbage.
***
I am not in any way shape or form “putting words in anyone’s mouth.” I am defining the terms that OFTLO used in his statement.
Lets see, OFTLO wrote:
Post #13
We can only extol a value if we hold that value true for ourselves. If is is wrong to kill another human being (saving for self defense, obviously) then it is still wrong when the state does it.
It is a simple statement. If killing is wrong, it is wrong regardless who does it. How can that be misinterpreted?
Then in #22 you wrote:
Sorry. Fallacy detected. Argument invalid. When you use the word ‘kill’ you allow it to be defined differently in your premise and your conclusion. That’s a no-no.
No. The word “kill” has only one definition in OFTLO’s statement. It means to take a life. The same definition you use later when you write:
‘If killing a person who does not deserve to die is wrong, then killing a person who DOES deserve to die is wrong.’
And the same sense when you write:
IF it is wrong for a person or persons to, in violation of the law, take the life of another person who does not deserve to die,
The problem here is that you twisted OFTLO’s statement by adding your own words. He did not use any qualification as to who is being killed or why. It was you that added the extra.
#44, Three Headed Moran
When a person is legally put to the punishment of execution, it differs in numerous, vital ways from murder.
Yes, that is true. Only because when society puts its approval upon an exercise, it now become permissible. That still does not make it right or moral. Unless you accept that state sponsored genocide or discrimination may be allowed if it has legislative approval.
*
EXECUTION and MURDER are NOT THE SAME THING. Not even remotely.
Yes, that is true too. It is equally valid that Ladies don’t fart, they toot. But as Willie Shakespeare once wrote, “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet; ”.
*
Now, Fused-brain, would you care to explain how that these two different acts – undertaken as they are by totally different parties, for totally different motives, one act approved of by society, the other totally forbidden – are in any way morally equivalent to each other?
Let’s see here. If it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to kill. When Nazi Germany decided that Jews were a danger to the German Aryan society were they wrong to act with legislative and judicial oversight of their discriminations? Well, if that is wrong, then isn’t it equally wrong for White South Africans to develop apartheid? Or Israel to discriminate against Palestinians? All these acts were justified by the authority of the governments and majority of citizens.
As I said before, just because it has a government’s approval does not mean it is right.
*
The only possible way that the statement
‘if murder is immoral, then execution is immoral’
– WHICH IS THE EXACT MEANING OF WHAT OFTLO SAID – …
…‘To kill any human being at any time for any reason other than self-defense is always immoral’
I don’t know, does it? Again, that is not what OFTLO said. He was explicit in using the word “wrong” instead of “immoral”. In case you didn’t notice or were unaware, they mean different things and are not synonymous. Something can be one but not the other.
The problem is that you, or OFTLO, or Gandhi, or whoever, might be willing to accept that premise.
No, because that is your “premise”, not OFTLO’s or mine. I agree with how OFTLO framed his statement.
#44, Three Empty Headed Moran
You have to be pretty blind or brainwashed to not be able to see that the exact things that make murder immoral are not things that apply to execution. And since they don’t apply, they are worthless arguments against the DP.
You are the one arguing that murder is immoral. Although OFTLO said it first in this thread, I agree that murder is WRONG. I also agree that what applies to one should also apply to the other.
I’m typing reeeal slooow because it appears you can’t absorb the information very quickly.
At one time in American society, it was legal, moral, and acceptable to own another human being. As the owner, you could fornicate, beat, work to death, sell, or any of whatever ownership entitled you to do. Slowly the attitude changed and it became illegal to own another person.
At one time you needed to own substantial property in order to vote. That changed to universal suffrage for MEN. Then women could vote. Then barriers to stop the poor were abolished. Native Americans were forbidden to vote, buy alcohol, and in some cases even speak their own languages.
All these were validated by legislative action, held as legal by courts, and supported by most citizens as moral. Yet today there are few people that would accept that these actions were not wrong.
#45, Three Empty Headed Moran,
“But mom, all the OTHER industrialized nations banned it!”
“So, if all the other industrialized nations jump off a cliff, you have to jump off a cliff, too?”
A straw man argument. I realize the significance is over your level of comprehension so maybe I should apologize for forgetting your limited mental capacity. By the way, all those other countries have lower incarceration rates and lower crime rates too. To the best of my knowledge, they also have socialized health care and higher participation in political elections. Since you don’t understand why I point that out let me explain.
The fucking morans like you are more intent upon exacting revenge and insist that our courts punish those found guilty with maximum sentences. You have this deluded idea that if we make an example out of every offender, it will deter others from breaking the law. Every other country puts far more effort into rehabilitating an offender than they do in persecuting or punishing him. Their attitude on crime and punishment has shown that this is reflected in their lower crime rates.
OK, now you can go back to your spittle encrusted keyboard and write all those invectives of how stupid I am. I realize you don’t have anything original to say or even anything intelligent. Somehow I just know you will try to once again make an idiot out of yourself.
Dipshit, I implied that YOU, not OFTLO, had an attack of the heebie-jeebies, etc.
Idiot.
Needless to say, with that fine start, you got everything else so bass-ackwards, you just slipped right off into another dimension.
So much inane horseshit, so little time.
Enjoy, and see you when you get back from Bizarro World, if ever… 😛
Gee, I wonder why that scumbag in Atlanta who decapitated that girl made a deal with the cops – he would show them where the body was if they didn’t seek to execute him.
Not a deterrent, huh? Doesn’t sound to me like he’s indifferent as to whether he’ll die for his crimes. You have this marvelous fantasy that cold-blooded murderers think so little of themselves that they are undeterred by the possibility of being executed. But they are, Fusillio, they are. You people who stick wrenches in the gears and cause these 5, 10, 20, 30-year delays in carrying out the death sentence, the slime thank you for removing that deterrent. They kill with the assurance that they will, thanks to you, live on, and maybe, as too many do, get released, or escape, so they can kill again, which they do.
Yes, they’re quite grateful for your efforts on their behalf. If you’re lucky, when one of ’em escapes, maybe he’ll find his way to your neck of the woods, to thank you in person.
• • • • • •
Maybe you should move to Canada. They’re very civilized up there. That gentleman, Mr. Robert Pickton, in Vancouver, who slaughtered, no, make that butchered, 25 or 26 women, won’t have to worry about losing his life. No, that would be cruel and uncivilized. Keeping a valuable member of society like him alive is very important.
In 25 years he will be eligible for release. What a civilized country. It warms my heart.
Read a little about this wonderful human being, who shouldn’t be executed, because we all make little mistakes sometimes. Just ’cause he did some things doesn’t mean we should judge him. He’s a human being just like you and me. Maybe he can turn his life around in prison.
Why no indeed. If it can’t be conclusively connected to Pickton and his victims, why, we would obviously be running the risk of convicting an innocent man, right, Fusie? His lawyer will tell the jury (if they’re allowed to hear about it – after all, we wouldn’t want Pickton to be unfairly judged just because he has a bloody Sawzall, right? I mean, doesn’t everybody have one – and have freezersfull of dead women, in chopped-up pieces?
This is what makes you DP opponents gullible suckers.
WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS of the ones convicted absent physical evidence, every single sack of shit on Death Row has done something comparable to this. Every one. And with just as little doubt that they are beyond any possible chance, guilty as guilty can possibly be.
And these, these… creatures have, by their 100% deliberate, vile, unhuman, absolutely unforgivable actions resigned from the human race. They no longer have any right to be regarded as or treated like human beings. They are no better, and actually far worse than, rabid pit bulls carrying ebola.
Killing these vermin is NOT murder. It is justice, and a rational preventive measure to ensure that they never kill again – because your beloved ‘life without parole’ DOESN’T WORK.
Your ‘life without parole’ is too unkind for your bleeding-heart brethren in B.C. But even where there the sentence IS available, and is used, the part you avoid, that you tiptoe around like the chickenshits that you are, is that when these subhuman destroyers of life are not eliminated permanently from society by the only foolproof method that has EVER WORKED – execution – then they CAN and they DO GET OUT. AND THEY MURDER MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE. The number of innocents who die because of their murderers having not been executed is orders of magnitude higher than the number of innocents on Death Rows everywhere taken together.
So you and your kind, by delaying, deferring and preventing executions have, as a demonstrable and inescapable fact, caused the deaths of more innocents, who would be alive today if those executions – EXCLUDING those convicted on only eyewitness and/or circumstantial evidence – had been carried out. Those others are guilty. And they have killed again and again because they were not killed.
The blood of their victims is on YOUR hands. You’re so civilized and so humane. Worrying more about these evil slime than the innocents they have slaughtered is not ‘civilized’ or ‘humane’. It is arrogant, self-righteous stupidity, with a high human price tag.
Keeping them alive serves no purpose but to give them more chances to slaughter more innocents. Thanks, guys.
#52. So, we could say your FOR the death penalty?
Well, tell you the truth, I’m having a hard time deciding. I’m very wishy-washy about these things. 😉
You know, when OFTLO posts that killing is wrong, he does so with an immediate exception, the defense of self. Some “groups” (I’m thinking Quakers but could be wrong, and Existentialists of a certain mold) hold that taking a life is so wrong, you shouldn’t do it even to protect yourself!!!!
Now–OFTLO’s immediate recognition of a single exception, the non-listing of defense of others, and the failure to understand the justification/morality/functionality of a “fair and exact” societal imposed death penalty, simply shows a lack of insight.
Ya, bobbo; if it’s flat-out morally unacceptable to kill, then a case can be made that there cannot be exceptions; and by the same reasoning, if an exception can be made for the individual to defend him/herself, then society, a group of selves, should be entitled to defend itself. Preventing further murders (which execution unquestionably does) is a proactive self-defense on society’s part.
Anyway, as I said, keeping them (the guilty ones) alive serves no purpose. They no longer have a role in society.
Mr. Pickton, for example, upon being convicted, should be taken out next morning and shot. Instead, he is going to be kept alive. And somewhere down the line, the odds are very good that he’s going to murder someone else. Because Canadian justice is so “civilized.”
No one seems to be arguing that the children in this story really may have been possessed by demons. Three hundred years ago, this discussion would have gone in a whole different direction 😉
Yes, Gary, there is much to what you say. Howsever, the discussion may also have gone at a somewhat slower pace 300 years ago due to the speed limitations of dial-up… 🙂
#56, Three Headed Moran,
Holy Shit Batman, the moran made an argument instead of an ad hominem attack.
… by the same reasoning, if an exception can be made for the individual to defend him/herself, then society, a group of selves, should be entitled to defend itself. Preventing further murders (which execution unquestionably does) is a proactive self-defense on society’s part.
Doesn’t that sound exactly like the reason this woman killed her kids in the first place. Because they were possessed with demons and might kill someone? Since most reasonable people would also agree that the woman isn’t all that mentally stable, that should also put society’s argument of preemptive or proactive killing in the same category. Delusional.
As well, if you carefully look at your argument, that was the same rational the Nazis used against the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and political opponents they murdered. To protect the German society. It was just self defense. Hey, weren’t many of the Jim Crow lynchings all about “so they’ll never do that again”?
***
You make a fundamental attribution error about Pickton. Yes, he may apply for parole in 25 years. He will never get it though. There are several murderers in Canada in a special prison that will never see the other side of prison walls again.
***
Anyway, as I said, keeping them (the guilty ones) alive serves no purpose. They no longer have a role in society.
Hhmmm, another one of your over generalizations. So, let’s just euthanize all those in vegetative states or comas, they no longer have a role in society. And why not all those old people sitting in nursing homes? Using all that valuable oxygen and filling up landfills with those diapers. They don’t have any important role in society either. By your measure, keeping them alive serves no purpose.
#57, Gary,
Three hundred years ago this would have been settled in a church trial. They would have held her underwater until she drowned to see if she was possessed by demons herself.
Oh, quit being such a fucking dunce, Fusoid.
“Doesn’t that sound exactly like the reason this woman killed her kids in the first place. Because they were possessed with demons and might kill someone? Since most reasonable people would also agree that the woman isn’t all that mentally stable, that should also put society’s argument of preemptive or proactive killing in the same category. Delusional.”
Wow. Talk about straw men!
No, it DOESN’T sound like the “reason” she murdered her kids.
The reason murderers are executed is NOT BECAUSE THEY MIGHT MURDER AGAIN, BUT BECAUSE – UNLIKE THOSE KIDS – THEY HAVE ALREADY MURDERED SOMEONE. “Preventing” the kids from murdering someone by killing them, when they have actually done nothing has NOTHING TO DO WITH EXECUTING SOMEONE WHO ALREADY HAS COMMITTED MURDER. They are not being killed to prevent them doing it again – their inability to repeat their crime is a very desirable consequence of their being executed for their crimes.
That means, in case you haven’t gotten it yet, that EXECUTIONS PREVENT ADDITIONAL MURDERS.
• • • •
Anyway, as I said, keeping them (the guilty ones) alive serves no purpose. They no longer have a role in society.
Hhmmm, another one of your over generalizations. So, let’s just euthanize all those in vegetative states or comas, they no longer have a role in society. And why not all those old people sitting in nursing homes? Using all that valuable oxygen and filling up landfills with those diapers. They don’t have any important role in society either. By your measure, keeping them alive serves no purpose.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Can you really, I mean REALLY be that fucking dense??
I said, if you will bother looking, THE GUILTY ONES.
CONVICTED, COLD-BLOODED MURDERERS ARE NOT INNOCENT PEOPLE IN COMAS. THEY ARE NOT OLD FOLKS IN NURSING HOMES. THEY ARE THE VERY WORST OF CRIMINALS. THEY HAVE RESIGNED, AS I SAID, FROM THE HUMAN RACE.
They, not the comatose or the aged or the otherwise blameless people, have FORFEITED ANY RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS HUMAN. And since the alternative is to warehouse them until some of them get out and murder again, THERE IS NO REASON TO KEEP THEM ALIVE.
Quit the childish fucking evasion, Fuso. Tell us ONE SINGLE REASON THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY VICIOUSLY, INHUMANLY TOOK FROM THEIR VICTIMS – LIFE.
And fuck you if you try this bullshit about it “costing less to keep them in prison for life.” One bullet and a few cubic feet of gas to cremate their worthless carcass is a lot less money than four walls and three squares a day for 40 years. Not even counting the value of the lives of the innocent people they get to murder, no longer enjoying the life they denied their victims any more.