EPTDnepropetrovsk Maniacs - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ganfei
Taiwan1439 Posts
| ||
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
These guys, on the other hand, were spree killers. They killed 21 people over the span of roughly 3 months. With spree killers, the killings don't satisfy any internal need. Instead, they tend to drive the killer(s) to kill again immediately. Think of it as a night of drunken vandalism or something. It wasn't done to satiate any desperate need to kill, but rather as a compulsive act. It also explains why there were three killers, rather than just a single individual. Basic group dynamics dictates that people will do far more when they are with one or more peers, the group can essentially pressure itself into things that the individuals would never do individually. Obviously, there are issues at work that go way, way beyond peer pressure, but thinking of these kids as serial killers doesn't really make sense, given the circumstances. Just my 2 bits, hope that made sense. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 23 2008 08:31 Cloud wrote: Life sentence is not a big a detterrent as capital punishment? It has anyway been proved that the threat of capital punishment does not reduce crime. And yeah, nothing bad can happen when you imprison them forever, I dont see how that translates into doing nothing, nor do i see how does that support killing them. Except the cost of keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives. We should be executing people on death row after they have been there for 6 months. Then there would be a clear benefit to executing them. Either way you are taking their life away. But one is cheaper and faster while the other takes 40 years and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars each. The only problem I see with capital punishment is that it is not applied fast enough. If that changed, it would be a good practice. The only other good option would be hard labor 12 hours/day and minimal cost of living, because both of those are efficient ways for society to handle those who have violated our laws so severely that we have decided that their life should not continue (physical life or practical life). | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
Azrael1111
United States550 Posts
On December 23 2008 10:27 Boblion wrote: If you kill people ( even criminals ) just to save money you are a fucking retard. Justice and sentences shouldnt be related to $. way to fly off the handle | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 23 2008 10:27 Boblion wrote: If you kill people ( even criminals ) just to save money you are a fucking retard. Justice and sentences shouldnt be related to $. Yeah but my argument is that these are creatures and not humans. They don't count as people in my book, don't deserve the title. | ||
|
Mooga
United States575 Posts
On December 23 2008 09:37 Lucktar wrote: Just thought I'd chime in here a bit about the kids and the psychology of it all. People in this thread keep referring to them as 'serial killers,' and that's not really correct, from a psychological perspective. A serial killer almost always kills alone, and over a sustained period of time. Think of it as hunger. The killer gets hungry, goes out and kills someone, then is satisfied for a while. He gets hungry again, and goes out and kills again. Kinda morbid, but the point is there. The term "serial killer" has nothing to do with how many people are involved with the killing. Did they not do the killings over the period of a few months? I doubt that they went on a 21 person killing "spree" in one day... | ||
|
kazokun
United States163 Posts
On December 23 2008 10:36 HamerD wrote: Yeah but my argument is that these are creatures and not humans. They don't count as people in my book, don't deserve the title. Your book doesn't fucking cut it. Nobody's book does, therefore we must maintain their right to life regardless of what the true course of action is, because we don't know what the good course of action is. Nobody's opinion is good enough to assign these people anything but a full term in jail. Nobody is wise enough to judge on somebody's life. Life is too precious and we barely understand it, why take more lives than what has already been taken? | ||
|
frankbg
Canada335 Posts
On December 23 2008 10:38 Mooga wrote: The term "serial killer" has nothing to do with how many people are involved with the killing. Did they not do the killings over the period of a few months? I doubt that they went on a 21 person killing "spree" in one day... 21 victims in 3 months is a spree. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 23 2008 10:27 Boblion wrote: If you kill people ( even criminals ) just to save money you are a fucking retard. Justice and sentences shouldnt be related to $. We are taking away their lives either way. We might as well do it in the way that is best for society. They have already hurt society, so why should we give them the opportunity to keep hurting it over the next 60 years? EDIT: After all SOME of the money to keep them alive, feed them, provide television, weights, etc. WILL come from the families of the victims. Why should government coercively take money away from these families (aka taxation) and give it to the murderers of their loved ones? | ||
|
Mooga
United States575 Posts
I agree, but I still think they are considered serial killers by definition. All "spree killers" do their killing in a matter of hours. The only killers who kill over the span of more than a day are typically considered serial killers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_spree | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
But i think i just can't watch a video where someone die and is tortured, it is somewhat a moral problem for me. | ||
|
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
On December 23 2008 10:53 Mooga wrote: I agree, but I still think they are considered serial killers by definition. All "spree killers" do their killing in a matter of hours. The only killers who kill over the span of more than a day are typically considered serial killers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_spree No, that article says nothing of the killings having to be within a matter of hours, that is your own assertion. It seems like you're confusing 'mass murder' and 'killing spree'. I'm pretty sure experts would agree with the user you are challenging. These people could not be considered 'serial killers' because there was no 'cooling off' period. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 23 2008 08:54 NoobsOfWrath wrote: Those aren't elephants or bears. Incontrol ALWAYS misrepresents information for the sake of his argument and generally argues about things he doesn't know anything about, in terms of data and statistics. The death penalty has been shown time and time again to be a terrible deterrent. The purpose of capital punishment, incarceration, etc is deterrence and rehabilitation. I don't even want to go into this argument, because it's immense, complex, and has been argued by far more informed people for many years. I just dislike seeing Incontrol talk about this shit claiming he's "read the same studies" when he clearly hasnt. The odds of being killed on deathrow are less than the odds of being killed on the streets of Chicago. Death row is hardly a deterrent or even a threat. Sick burn buddy! I didn't get into the semantics of the articles I have read so that must mean I am blowing shit up and making stuff up. Sick read buddy, you nailed it. Being killed by the state is not a deterrent at all.. nobody fears it. Bam, how do we know this? Cause article said so rofl. "The odds of" bullshit roflfllf. Yep, but people aren't paying lawyers, sitting in a room for 10+ years and putting on immense amounts of weight to avoid the streets of chicago are they? Would you like to actually engage my argument or you want to just assume the worst? Fuck off. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
I don't see why they deserve human rights. With all rights come responsibilities. | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
On December 23 2008 11:56 HamerD wrote: I don't see why they deserve human rights. With all rights come responsibilities. you're thinking of privileges. | ||
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
On December 23 2008 11:31 Lefnui wrote: No, that article says nothing of the killings having to be within a matter of hours, that is your own assertion. It seems like you're confusing 'mass murder' and 'killing spree'. I'm pretty sure experts would agree with the user you are challenging. These people could not be considered 'serial killers' because there was no 'cooling off' period. Correct, the cooling off period is a pretty defining characteristic of serial killers. A good example of a spree killer would be Alton Coleman. The wikipedia article still lists him as a serial killer, but still describes his killings as a 'spree.' >.> Either way, comparing him to someone like Ted Bundy, for example, the difference becomes pretty clear. Bear in mind, I have no idea if there are actual legal definitions between the two; I'm speaking just from a psychological perspective here. On December 23 2008 11:56 HamerD wrote: I don't see why they deserve human rights. With all rights come responsibilities. See, that's the thing about human rights. It's not a matter of deserving them. They're rights. Everyone is entitled to them, by virtue of being human, not because some arbitrary process has concluded that they've earned them. | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
On December 23 2008 11:49 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Sick burn buddy! I didn't get into the semantics of the articles I have read so that must mean I am blowing shit up and making stuff up. Sick read buddy, you nailed it. Being killed by the state is not a deterrent at all.. nobody fears it. Bam, how do we know this? Cause article said so rofl. "The odds of" bullshit roflfllf. Yep, but people aren't paying lawyers, sitting in a room for 10+ years and putting on immense amounts of weight to avoid the streets of chicago are they? Would you like to actually engage my argument or you want to just assume the worst? Fuck off. Crimes punishable by death already place the criminals life in the line, so yes, i think he cares a little less about it. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On December 23 2008 11:56 HamerD wrote: I don't see why they deserve human rights. With all rights come responsibilities. Human rights are not something you are supposed to deserve. And with rights come no responsibilities, the whole point of having rights is that it applies to everyone lol. By your logic we should be allowed to torture terrorists into giving us information, because once they killed people they lost their rights to live. But by the same logic they should be allowed to torture our soldiers because they have also killed people who were innocent in their eyes. Don't you see how important it becomes here for things like the geneva convention to exist? Saying certain people don't deserve rights leads to atrocities exactly like the ones you are trying to prevent. | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
| ||
| ||
