|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 23 2008 07:09 Clutch3 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 06:59 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Too many people are getting all hippy and faggy on issues like this. Nature doesn't imprison flawed, dangerous living creatures that break the natural rule of things they get destroyed by their peers. These three boys are weak, sick and demented individuals. They broke the order of things and spread so much disguisting fear and violence the only answer is to wipe the slate clean with them and hope they come back as something less capable.
In nature, creatures that prey on other creatures that can't defend themselves actually are _not_ destroyed by their peers. You can't make a Darwinistic argument here. FWIW, I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion. (Although I believe capital punishment -- the death penalty administered by the state -- is wrong. If that makes me "faggy", whatever that is, so be it...)
I'm not talking about creatures that prey on other creatures.. I am quite LITERALLY talking about the abnormal animals that break the "rules" of their family structures or "society." It happens when mutations occur, an animal is clearly "retarded" etc. This isn't a rule obviously, it doesn't happen all the time and perhaps my analogy was making a stretch but in essence what I was trying to get at is that surely nature doesn't imprison, and it surely DOES try and root out the abnormal, extraordinary evils. Please don't nit pick the post and look for literal ways to disagree, approach it philosophically and you will have a discussion. I am not always right and I love good debate but ignoring this last part will avoid all that.
|
On December 23 2008 07:02 Cloud wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 06:43 HamerD wrote:On December 23 2008 06:33 Cloud wrote:
Wow is it just me or did you just say "no it doesnt cost more but YES, it DOES COST MORE" Just you. Don't try to miss the point. It costs a lot to execute people in the American justice system, but that is because execution is a punishment for quite a large range of offences. If the only people who could be executed were self-admitting, rational serial killers with no remorse, executing them would be severely cheaper, by a huge factor, than keeping them alive for the rest of their life. I thought that by legal definition a confession would actually help to reduce the sentence, but no, of course youre just limiting your sentence to people who you can be 100% certain they committed the crime so your poor consciense doesnt get in a moral dilemma, not to mention your "way" would make confessions the most retarded legal strategy ever. Youre also assuming that just because you pay a little bit of money to the state, you are entitled to have "them" kill people you find repulsive or that you loathe. I mean maybe when executioners are a bunch of robots with complete disregard of human life. But despite what your idea of a good judicial system might be, some people wont just kill someone as soon as they learn hes guilty just because its written on a fucking book, much less to speed up the process and save you some bucks which can be better used in i dont know, killing terrorists? Ps. testie stick to dota.
If you have videos of you killing people on 21 separate occasions, you can't exactly make a convincing argument against it. There should be no 'bonus' for a confession given to people like this. Either they come clean or try to cover it up, they should die quickly either way.
Hold an election for people to kill the serial killers. Whatever, I'm sure you could find a person out there who would happily destroy these creatures for the fee of a normal security guard's time pay.
And even if that is too extreme and macabre, why should we care about the moral wellbeing of the executioner? If they don't want to destroy ppl like this, then they shouldn't take the job. Same reason as if you don't want to kill, don't join the army.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 23 2008 07:04 Cloud wrote:
Reality check of what incontrol? If you dont kill them and instead have them holed for life they will hunt you in your sleep or something? What the hell is the point of killing or even torturing someone if theres such an alternative?
I was going to bring this up earlier but people are saying "being imprisoned for your entire life is worse than the death penalty." That simply isn't true. There is a reason people fight TOOTH and NAIL to get a life in prison and NOT the death penalty: it is WAY worse to them. The ultimate hammer should be used for the ultimate people. If we give them the same punishment as a 3 strike offender in california we are saying the wrong thing. We need to have boundaries, you exceed them you forfeit your right to live in that society.
If you'd like to continue to debate this please try and remove your childish jests. Did you literally think I was afraid of nocturnal visits by ukranian serial killers?
|
On December 23 2008 07:09 baal wrote:btw that video should be the new RickRoll !!!!
- "OMG i wanna see Jessica Alba's porno video!"
*clicks
- bam!!! your soul is dead now.
that post can go straight to the '4chan only' file.
|
On December 23 2008 07:17 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 07:09 baal wrote:
btw that video should be the new RickRoll !!!!
- "OMG i wanna see Jessica Alba's porno video!"
*clicks
- bam!!! your soul is dead now.
that post can go straight to the '4chan only' file.
Baal, please go be funny in one of the other 10k+ threads on TL. Thanks.
|
On December 23 2008 03:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I'm not reading 8 pages but if nobody has said it this is almost the exact story from "Funny Games" a movie.
what? no it's not.
yeah, they toy with their victims but the similarities end there
good movie though!
|
On December 23 2008 06:57 OneOther wrote:close this shit this thread ruins my holiday spirit 
yyyyyyeah my bad guys.
i should have saved this till next halloween
|
On December 22 2008 17:55 choboPEon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 17:49 Savio wrote:
No way am I gonna watch that.
EDIT: I don't see how anything short of the death penalty will qualify as "punishment fits the crime".
Also saves the government a lot of money they would have to pay for the nect 60 years to keep them comfortable and happy in jail. the death penalty, with the appeals process, costs more than a life in max security prison. BUT whatever, im not ready to debate the punishment. the whole thing is too crazy.
It doesn't HAVE to be a long process. I think 1 year should be the longest anyone should stay on death row and then they should be executed. Judges should give priority to these cases to get them over and the men dead.
The process is smoother in Texas than in a lot of other states, but it could be even faster.
Then it would definitely be cheaper.
|
On December 23 2008 07:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 07:04 Cloud wrote:
Reality check of what incontrol? If you dont kill them and instead have them holed for life they will hunt you in your sleep or something? What the hell is the point of killing or even torturing someone if theres such an alternative? I was going to bring this up earlier but people are saying "being imprisoned for your entire life is worse than the death penalty." That simply isn't true. There is a reason people fight TOOTH and NAIL to get a life in prison and NOT the death penalty: it is WAY worse to them. The ultimate hammer should be used for the ultimate people. If we give them the same punishment as a 3 strike offender in california we are saying the wrong thing. We need to have boundaries, you exceed them you forfeit your right to live in that society. If you'd like to continue to debate this please try and remove your childish jests. Did you literally think I was afraid of nocturnal visits by ukranian serial killers?
Living in misery is better than NOTHING. Also, you say what im describing is an utopia?
Your argument about how natural selection is the shit, and everything else deserves to die by nature is completely flawed when you take a good look at what the reality truly is: those thousands of kids who shot their parents, fathers who starve and rape their daughters, serial killers with no remorse as hammerd calls them, or even more simple, racists and parents who dont "love" their children, none of them fit in your ideal law that supposedly governs all of nature.
An utopia is branding everything that "goes along" with darwin white and everything that does not black, an utopia is thinking you can just kill every bad guy and turn this into a better world. An utopia is thinking that setting an example actually works for anything.
|
On December 23 2008 07:44 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 17:55 choboPEon wrote:On December 22 2008 17:49 Savio wrote:
No way am I gonna watch that.
EDIT: I don't see how anything short of the death penalty will qualify as "punishment fits the crime".
Also saves the government a lot of money they would have to pay for the nect 60 years to keep them comfortable and happy in jail. the death penalty, with the appeals process, costs more than a life in max security prison. BUT whatever, im not ready to debate the punishment. the whole thing is too crazy. It doesn't HAVE to be a long process. I think 1 year should be the longest anyone should stay on death row and then they should be executed. Judges should give priority to these cases to get them over and the men dead. The process is smoother in Texas than in a lot of other states, but it could be even faster. Then it would definitely be cheaper.
the death penalty without a long appeals process is asking for mistakes that can never be fixed
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 23 2008 07:44 Cloud wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 07:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On December 23 2008 07:04 Cloud wrote:
Reality check of what incontrol? If you dont kill them and instead have them holed for life they will hunt you in your sleep or something? What the hell is the point of killing or even torturing someone if theres such an alternative? I was going to bring this up earlier but people are saying "being imprisoned for your entire life is worse than the death penalty." That simply isn't true. There is a reason people fight TOOTH and NAIL to get a life in prison and NOT the death penalty: it is WAY worse to them. The ultimate hammer should be used for the ultimate people. If we give them the same punishment as a 3 strike offender in california we are saying the wrong thing. We need to have boundaries, you exceed them you forfeit your right to live in that society. If you'd like to continue to debate this please try and remove your childish jests. Did you literally think I was afraid of nocturnal visits by ukranian serial killers? Living in misery is better than NOTHING. Also, you say what im describing is an utopia? Your argument about how natural selection is the shit, and everything else deserves to die by nature is completely flawed when you take a good look at what the reality truly is: those thousands of kids who shot their parents, fathers who starve and rape their daughters, serial killers with no remorse as hammerd calls them, or even more simple, racists and parents who dont "love" their children, none of them fit in your ideal law that supposedly governs all of nature. An utopia is branding everything that "goes along" with darwin white and everything that does not black, an utopia is thinking you can just kill every bad guy and turn this into a better world. An utopia is thinking that setting an example actually works for anything.
You misunderstood: I said it was utopian language, not "a utopia" which aside from being grammatically incorrect, is not what I was saying.
Human beings have moved away from the nature of things. Hence this discussion. Bears don't get up and kill fellow bears with screw driver shaped twigs, this we know 
|
On December 22 2008 21:04 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 19:15 Smurg wrote:
Whether that means serving out 70 years of solitary confinement and beatings or just being ripped apart by small razor-toothed animals...this shit cannot be forgiven. Though I share your feelings I rather go for something more pragmatic that can at least return some vale back to the society they so disrespected and defiled. 16 hours a day hard menial work, 2 meals on the go, until they drop dead. Plus mandatory Donation of blood every 3 months, bone marrow every 4 months, one kidney and maybe one cornea (if their job is not better served by 2 eyes), while alive. Mandatory full harvest of organs if they quit working for any reason. Also when work at Chernobyl is needed, they are in auto-volunteer.
You have a very good point here. There is no reason that jails should be so expensive and nice. cable television and full health care and a gym (this may not be all jails).
There is no reason that inmates should cost the state anything. If we put them to hard work 12-14 hours a day, they could provide for the state at least as much as it takes to keep them alive.
If jails were more like Physician described, I would not be such a strong proponent of the death penalty.
I imagine that we can ALL agree, than jails should be rougher, cheaper, more efficient, and provide more of a punishment to people like this.
I mean, SOMEONE has to scrape the sewer pipes clean....why not these 3?
|
On December 23 2008 07:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 07:04 Cloud wrote:
Reality check of what incontrol? If you dont kill them and instead have them holed for life they will hunt you in your sleep or something? What the hell is the point of killing or even torturing someone if theres such an alternative? I was going to bring this up earlier but people are saying "being imprisoned for your entire life is worse than the death penalty." That simply isn't true. There is a reason people fight TOOTH and NAIL to get a life in prison and NOT the death penalty: it is WAY worse to them. The ultimate hammer should be used for the ultimate people. If we give them the same punishment as a 3 strike offender in california we are saying the wrong thing. We need to have boundaries, you exceed them you forfeit your right to live in that society. If you'd like to continue to debate this please try and remove your childish jests. Did you literally think I was afraid of nocturnal visits by ukranian serial killers?
The only argument against it I can think of is if these guys feel that they can "get away with it" by dying. I mean they are probably not religious, and though they seem lack most emotions it does'nt mean that everyone in their position (people thinking about doing stuff like this) do. So I guess my point is that a life imprisonment in solitary confinment could scare people similar to these guys with the promise of being kept alive and not being "released" from their actions by dying.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 23 2008 07:34 choboPEon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 03:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I'm not reading 8 pages but if nobody has said it this is almost the exact story from "Funny Games" a movie. what? no it's not. yeah, they toy with their victims but the similarities end there good movie though!
Multiple rich kids [x]
kill for fun, nothing else really [x]
disturbed past of killers absent and thus odd [x]
target victims based on being defenseless[x]
toy with victims [x]
laugh while killing [x]
I could go on...
|
An argument about the role of the state in terms of killing this people is misguided. All the state has to do is withdraw its protections from these people and they would be dead in short order.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 23 2008 07:50 Makhno wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 07:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On December 23 2008 07:04 Cloud wrote:
Reality check of what incontrol? If you dont kill them and instead have them holed for life they will hunt you in your sleep or something? What the hell is the point of killing or even torturing someone if theres such an alternative? I was going to bring this up earlier but people are saying "being imprisoned for your entire life is worse than the death penalty." That simply isn't true. There is a reason people fight TOOTH and NAIL to get a life in prison and NOT the death penalty: it is WAY worse to them. The ultimate hammer should be used for the ultimate people. If we give them the same punishment as a 3 strike offender in california we are saying the wrong thing. We need to have boundaries, you exceed them you forfeit your right to live in that society. If you'd like to continue to debate this please try and remove your childish jests. Did you literally think I was afraid of nocturnal visits by ukranian serial killers? The only argument against it I can think of is if these guys feel that they can "get away with it" by dying. I mean they are probably not religious, and though they seem lack most emotions it does'nt mean that everyone in their position (people thinking about doing stuff like this) do. So I guess my point is that a life imprisonment in solitary confinment could scare people similar to these guys with the promise of being kept alive and not being "released" from their actions by dying.
But nobody does a life in solitary confinement (not in "modern", western countries anyways). That would be cruel and unusual.
People honestly don't fear life in prison like they do the death penalty. This is self evident as I have said.
|
On December 23 2008 07:15 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 07:02 Cloud wrote:On December 23 2008 06:43 HamerD wrote:On December 23 2008 06:33 Cloud wrote:
Wow is it just me or did you just say "no it doesnt cost more but YES, it DOES COST MORE" Just you. Don't try to miss the point. It costs a lot to execute people in the American justice system, but that is because execution is a punishment for quite a large range of offences. If the only people who could be executed were self-admitting, rational serial killers with no remorse, executing them would be severely cheaper, by a huge factor, than keeping them alive for the rest of their life. I thought that by legal definition a confession would actually help to reduce the sentence, but no, of course youre just limiting your sentence to people who you can be 100% certain they committed the crime so your poor consciense doesnt get in a moral dilemma, not to mention your "way" would make confessions the most retarded legal strategy ever. Youre also assuming that just because you pay a little bit of money to the state, you are entitled to have "them" kill people you find repulsive or that you loathe. I mean maybe when executioners are a bunch of robots with complete disregard of human life. But despite what your idea of a good judicial system might be, some people wont just kill someone as soon as they learn hes guilty just because its written on a fucking book, much less to speed up the process and save you some bucks which can be better used in i dont know, killing terrorists? Ps. testie stick to dota. If you have videos of you killing people on 21 separate occasions, you can't exactly make a convincing argument against it. There should be no 'bonus' for a confession given to people like this. Either they come clean or try to cover it up, they should die quickly either way. Hold an election for people to kill the serial killers. Whatever, I'm sure you could find a person out there who would happily destroy these creatures for the fee of a normal security guard's time pay. And even if that is too extreme and macabre, why should we care about the moral wellbeing of the executioner? If they don't want to destroy ppl like this, then they shouldn't take the job. Same reason as if you don't want to kill, don't join the army.
Yeah, i am perfectly sure that in every advertisement of the army they have right up top that youre gonna kill people, just like in every police advertisement.
|
On December 22 2008 19:56 Smurg wrote:
But in this case, their suffering should definitely be prolonged.
Why? Lock them up for life, yes please, I would not want people who have done things like this to ever have the opportunity to do it again. But are you really suggesting that suffering should be pointlessly inflicted on them (beyond life imprisonment and isolation)? What would that accomplish?
EDIT: I didn't want to derail with death penalty discussion, but that seems to be a lost cause, so here's a video of Jeremy Irons on the death penalty. Jeremy Irons rocks.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMho2cP1NE
|
On December 23 2008 07:44 Cloud wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 07:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On December 23 2008 07:04 Cloud wrote:
Reality check of what incontrol? If you dont kill them and instead have them holed for life they will hunt you in your sleep or something? What the hell is the point of killing or even torturing someone if theres such an alternative? I was going to bring this up earlier but people are saying "being imprisoned for your entire life is worse than the death penalty." That simply isn't true. There is a reason people fight TOOTH and NAIL to get a life in prison and NOT the death penalty: it is WAY worse to them. The ultimate hammer should be used for the ultimate people. If we give them the same punishment as a 3 strike offender in california we are saying the wrong thing. We need to have boundaries, you exceed them you forfeit your right to live in that society. If you'd like to continue to debate this please try and remove your childish jests. Did you literally think I was afraid of nocturnal visits by ukranian serial killers? Living in misery is better than NOTHING. Also, you say what im describing is an utopia?
What makes you think that all people on death row live in misery? And you haven't answered his point that most people desperately don't want to die.
|
You dont need to keep them in a full concrete cell, thats torture which is just as useless, you just put them away from the rest of society and try to make them do something worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
