They're three 19 year-old boys (Igor Suprunyuck, Viktor Sayenko, Alexander Hanzha) who murdered 21 people in one month. The murders were particularly brutal (think screwdrivers, hammers) and random but what really makes the extraordinary is that they taped the killings.
They started off torturing and killing cats and later moved onto killing people. Their first victim was murdered by beating with metal rods, but since it took him a while to die, they’d used hammers to finish him off. Hammer must have seemed like a decent tool for killing as they’d continue with their killing spree using hammers as primary object with which to kill. They would video tape their murders on a cell phone camera and would attend the funerals of the people they’d killed.
It's straight out of some book or movie, isn't it?
The police did not reveal how they caught Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs but investigation on motives uncovered brutal truth - the teens were killing as a hobby. They were murdering people to have a collection of memories when they get old. Each of the boys, who were classmates and come from wealthy families admitted that they were killing just for fun. They were picking their victims at random - mostly people who looked like they would not fight back.
A few rich kids picking on whomever they think won't fight back? I swear to god, this is the script to some cliched horror flick. Also, they would go to their victim's funerals and take pictures.
The video is easily available on the net (I haven't watched it).
Here is an english translation of what is said in the video:
“Hold on, hold on. Be neater, fuck!” likely saying that to watch out for the blood. *Laughing* “Hold on, hold on, hold on, don’t hit him, don’t hit him. Watch him…” the rest of the sentence is indistinct, but he’s likely telling the guy to watch for the blood as he’s zooming in to capture the close up The following audio is unclear. [After the screwdriver stabbing] “What? With what?” as the cameraman responds to the boy who stabs the victim “What, he’s still alive?” says the guy stabbing the victim “He’s still moving his arms after I ripped up his intestines” the cameraman muffles indistinctly “He’s having a fucked up day” says the stabbing guy after he’d stepped on his stomach. [More muffled talk as he proceeds to stab him in the eyes with the screwdriver] “Get over here fast. Kill him already.” “What?” says the stabber “Kill him already.” “I already put the hammer back. He’s already dead.” “I poked out his eyes and he’s still not dead” says the cameraman “Get the knife” cameraman continues *Proceeds to bludgeon him then interrupts by saying something indistinct* “More, more” cameraman telling the other guy to keep bludgeoning him to make sure he’s dead “Hold on, hold on” *They start walking back to the car* More muffled talk from the blond killer “Wash your hands” cameraman says and tells him to spray cleaning chemical on the hammer “I’ll hold it” *Muffled talk from the guy washing the hammer* *More muffled talk from the guy washing his face and walking back from his car* “I stuck the screwdriver in his brain” says the camera man *Muffled talk from the guy washing his hands* “I got him in the nose from his eye” or something along those lines “I don’t understand how he was alive? I felt his brain” says the camera man “I was holding the screw driver like this *muffled/don’t understand*” Before the video ends the blond guy says “Alright, let’s get a picture”
I almost certainly won't watch this but I think the whole thing, while being profoundly sick and fucked up, is really interesting. Of course, it wouldn't be the internet if this wasn't getting comments like 'awesome' and 'my new heroes' ... I just posted this because it's interesting, though!
Almost everyone who has watched it says they regret watching the video so I recommend playing it like me and sticking with the text! I had the link here before but screw it.
I wish they lived in Venezuela... so Police could torture them as well..
I saw a video of a prison in Venezuela were the police men were filiming with their cellphone cameras one of the immates getting his neck chopped with a metal bar and then all the prisoners playing futbol with his head...
Apparantely the immate was in prison for child raping etc so that's why they did that or watever
[edit] just glanced at the video.. horrific please dont watch!
I can understand a deranged person doing this, but how can these three kids who just know each other from the same school do something like this? Even if they knew each other from a gang or something that would be more comprehensible.
Dude wtf is wrong with them... going to the funeral after torturing them? Too bad that they won't live long enough to talk about their killing spree when they get older, I'm against the death punishment but this is just sick
I just watch the video and it was one of the most disgusting things that I have ever watched. The guy was alive the whole time. I almost had to cover my eyes when they started stabbing him in the eyes with a screwdriver and the guy was alive but barely able to move. These kids are really messed up and don't deserve prison but to be electrocuted or something.
There seems to be a strange news blackout around the horrifying story of the "Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs", three Ukranian teens who apparently recently performed a series of staggeringly violent serial killings and recorded them on cellphone video and then attended the victims' funerals. Supposedly this is some of the first actual video of this kind of crime that has made it into the wild of the internet - the perspective of the deranged killer.
If you Google-news "Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs," little if anything comes up, but the video and story is all over the gore/shock sites, putting them ahead of the news organizations here in the US.
I can't watch the video, and only came across the story by cruising Encyclopedia Dramatica for teh (non-violent, tsk-tsking) lulz, but I glimpsed some stills and felt a little more heartsick about humankind because of it.
On December 22 2008 13:29 Yaqoob wrote: The video is here for anyone to watch but its really gory and disgusting
wow that's even worse than I imagined
Don't watch this if you don't want to see someone's face being smashed to a pulp and hear him scream while he's still alive while being hammered to death.
At least they were stupid enough to create this evidence, the quality of the movie leaves no doubt to the guilt of the attackers. Shocking how young these kids are, they will be in prison for at least 50 years before they die. Im still against capital punishment though, I hope they won't be convicted under Russian law.
On December 22 2008 13:29 Yaqoob wrote: The video is here for anyone to watch but its really gory and disgusting
wow that's even worse than I imagined
Don't watch this if you don't want to see someone's face being smashed to a pulp and hear him scream while he's still alive while being hammed to death.
At least they were stupid enough to create this evidence, the quality of the movie leaves no doubt to the guilt of the attackers. Shocking how young these kids are, they will be in prison for at least 50 years before they die. Im still against capital punishment though, I hope they won't be convicted under Russian law.
yeah, i'm against capital punishment as well. i'm hoping for a lengthy prison sentence, though!
The video really is so much worse than I thought it would be. Plus knowing that it actually is real just adds to how horrible it is. Oh well, give it a day and it will just become something to casually look back on, like pain olympics was for everyone.
On December 22 2008 13:48 Valentine wrote: The video really is so much worse than I thought it would be. Plus knowing that it actually is real just adds to how horrible it is. Oh well, give it a day and it will just become something to casually look back on, like pain olympics was for everyone.
Pain Olympics was not that bad. Come to think of it, I think this is the only video that ever made me cringe.
How could someone do that to another human being. Some people are just so fucked up. I watched a little bit of the video but it seriously almost brought tears to my eyes. There is still so much evil in this world.
On December 22 2008 13:48 Valentine wrote: The video really is so much worse than I thought it would be. Plus knowing that it actually is real just adds to how horrible it is. Oh well, give it a day and it will just become something to casually look back on, like pain olympics was for everyone.
pain olympics wasn't real and was voluntary, way different.
On December 22 2008 13:48 Valentine wrote: The video really is so much worse than I thought it would be. Plus knowing that it actually is real just adds to how horrible it is. Oh well, give it a day and it will just become something to casually look back on, like pain olympics was for everyone.
pain olympics wasn't real and was voluntary, way different.
Word, this video really rocked me pretty hard though. I had to pause and come back after a while, I just took a while to stare at my desktop and think, and finished it later. Really, it's just so fucked up, but we will all get over it and move on.
On December 22 2008 14:01 MoltkeWarding wrote: Does everyone think that Dnepropetrovsk is in Russia or something?
I was aware of it being in Ukraine (it even says so in the newspost) but someone mentioned Russia so I thought they are being convicted in Ukraine while the murders were committed elsewhere or that Russia is their native country, something like that. I just assumed that whoever mentioned it knew something I didnt.
On December 22 2008 14:00 Orome wrote: and I don't understand why anyone would watch that movie volutuntarily, are you seriously curious what killing someone with a screwdriver looks like?
I was curious about how these kids can kill someone without expressing any emotion of remorse, anger, doubt, but just did it in cold blood. The kid even made an effort to avoid any blood getting on him.
The gore itself is shocking but what was even more shocking to me is how clumsy these kids are, they literally have no idea what they're doing, they're just messing around with a human life for the hell of it. I can't even bring myself to understand how 3 of these people can find eachother in an environment and commit these crimes, and keep doing it. Then again it can be a coincidence that these 3 psychopaths found eachother.
On December 22 2008 13:26 Yaqoob wrote: I just watch the video and it was one of the most disgusting things that I have ever watched. The guy was alive the whole time. I almost had to cover my eyes when they started stabbing him in the eyes with a screwdriver and the guy was alive but barely able to move. These kids are really messed up and don't deserve prison but to be electrocuted or something.
Fuck electrocution, they deserve to have everything shown in that video done to them.
On December 22 2008 14:00 Orome wrote: and I don't understand why anyone would watch that movie volutuntarily, are you seriously curious what killing someone with a screwdriver looks like?
I was curious about how these kids can kill someone without expressing any emotion of remorse, anger, doubt, but just did it in cold blood. The kid even made an effort to avoid any blood getting on him.
The gore itself is shocking but what was even more shocking to me is how clumsy these kids are, they literally have no idea what they're doing, they're just messing around with a human life for the hell of it. I can't even bring myself to understand how 3 of these people can find eachother in an environment and commit these crimes, and keep doing it. Then again it can be a coincidence that these 3 psychopaths found eachother.
Yeah, I watched it for similar reasons. That was quite twisted, I heard it was on a phone so I was expecting like a 1-2 minute clip of it happening. It was kind of 8 minutes of torture. Most of the video didn't really bother me that much, I have a very high tolerance for stuff like this. However the eye part was twisted. Although I wouldn't of known it was his eyes if someone didn't tell me, his face was kind of pulverized at that point.
So why are you guys against capital punishment again?
I don't think we should have links to the videos at all.
I haven't watched it and I never will. Reaiding the OP made me sick to my stomach and the replies only made it worse.
Despite the fact that the reality of these murders need to be realized and understood by the community, sharing the video at all is just fucking wrong. These people performed the sickest possible deed a human being can do, and they recorded it. Why would you give them the satisfaction to watch them perform these actions?
I know I'm a sensitive guy but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect links to the video to be an unspoken taboo.
This is so fucked up, I don't know what to say, reading the transcript was enough to make me feel sick to my stomach, there's no way in hell I would watch the video, knowing that it's real and it's the taking of a real humans life is disgusting.
On December 22 2008 14:21 Nintu wrote: I don't think we should have links to the videos at all.
I haven't watched it and I never will. Reaiding the OP made me sick to my stomach and the replies only made it worse.
Despite the fact that the reality of these murders need to be realized and understood by the community, sharing the video at all is just fucking wrong. These people performed the sickest possible deed a human being can do, and they recorded it. Why would you give them the satisfaction to watch them perform these actions?
I know I'm a sensitive guy but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect links to the video to be an unspoken taboo.
Ugh.. This is disgusting.
Well, some people just get off on other people's pain. It reminds me of a quote from Kite, "You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off; hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god."
Wtf...how could people be so messed up as to do this? I mean...fucking torturing animals is bad already, then doing the same this to humans? How could these people possibly be born without any empathy at all?
Damn I'm glad I read the replies before trying to watch the video, no way I will watch it now. It's probably going to haunt me already just imagining without having to witness it for real.
They would video tape their murders on a cell phone camera and would attend the funerals of the people they’d killed....
The police did not reveal how they caught Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs but investigation on motives uncovered brutal truth - the teens were killing as a hobby.
Interesting that they are a trio. Never heard of any serial killing thing were there was more than two perpetrators. Atleast they seem to have done the standard steps by starting out tourturing animals. They dont deserve death penalty, that is just too soft. Killing them would just be a fast way out of everything for them. They will never be released anyway so I hope they rot away for like 60years behind bars.
On December 22 2008 13:48 Valentine wrote: The video really is so much worse than I thought it would be. Plus knowing that it actually is real just adds to how horrible it is. Oh well, give it a day and it will just become something to casually look back on, like pain olympics was for everyone.
pain olympics wasn't real and was voluntary, way different.
It wasn't real? what the fuck are you talking about?
Damn that video is pretty nasty so far (is loading pretty slow). Guy's face is all smashed and bloody and hes probably knocked out and like snoring with blood downing himself. Some white pus shit too.
i watched it till i started feeling kinda sick to my stomach i just ate i don't know, people are messed up... poor bastard getting stabbed. poor kids too, i mean like they gotta be really fucking messed up to be able to do that. and i feel sorry for messed up people
I don't feel as though their thinking was impaired to a point where you could call them "messed up". I can't understand how one could feel bad for them when you have their victims to compare them with.
if you think about it, it's not that unexpected that this could happen, I personally feel bad for those kids, but I'd agree on a hefty prison sentence, if only to deter other from committing a similar act.
(I'm against the death penalty if you didn't notice)
and as everyone else has warned, unless you are particularly strong willed, or mentally stable don't watch the video, if you are just that curious and aren't sure you are strong willed or mentally stable, there is a probability you have some mental instability and i would not advise you watch it.
As for the link being here, I believe there should be one, but definitely not on OP to force people to read through at least some of the comments so the nature of the video sinks in.
On December 22 2008 15:43 Azrael1111 wrote: I don't feel as though their thinking was impaired to a point where you could call them "messed up". I can't understand how one could feel bad for them when you have their victims to compare them with.
Would you kill people for the hell of it if it weren't for the justice system?
Free choice my ass, it's not that simple.
Their victims do not take away the tragedy of their existence.
On December 22 2008 15:41 KizZBG wrote: You shouldn't feel sorry for them. They haven't got any mental problems etc D:
What a bullshit argument, the criteria psychologists use for making a diagnosis is if your behavior interferes with your every day life or that of others, which Im pretty sure it does here. And even if it didn't, the line is completely arbitrary. It's obvious these kids come from some kind of fucked up environment or are traumatized in some way. You should feel sorry for them, the fact that they can kill without any remorse is enough to feel sorry for a person.
Kind of a coincidence that I watched cannibal holocaust earlier , then log on and see this video. (they actually kill some live animals in the movie. and other gross cannibal shit/rape which is fake though)
If I'm going to make a list of people I am going to feel sorry for, a gang of rich kids which gouged out someone's eyes with a screwdriver, smashed his skull in with a hammer, did all sorts of other sick twisted shit to him, and repeated twenty more times the torture of twenty more people to death in similar ways, earns a place slightly above Hitler.
On December 22 2008 13:26 Yaqoob wrote: I just watch the video and it was one of the most disgusting things that I have ever watched. The guy was alive the whole time. I almost had to cover my eyes when they started stabbing him in the eyes with a screwdriver and the guy was alive but barely able to move. These kids are really messed up and don't deserve prison but to be electrocuted or something.
Fuck electrocution, they deserve to have everything shown in that video done to them.
Well I just can't feel sorry for them for the exact same reason. I don't know why, maybe I'm looking at this from a different point of view. I've just been reading about this on http://www.dnepropetrovskmaniacs.com I wonder what impact their parents had on their lives, what drove them to do these kind of things?
On December 22 2008 15:43 Azrael1111 wrote: I don't feel as though their thinking was impaired to a point where you could call them "messed up". I can't understand how one could feel bad for them when you have their victims to compare them with.
Would you kill people for the hell of it if it weren't for the justice system?
Free choice my ass, it's not that simple.
Their victims do not take away the tragedy of their existence.
On December 22 2008 15:41 KizZBG wrote: You shouldn't feel sorry for them. They haven't got any mental problems etc D:
What a bullshit argument, the criteria psychologists use for making a diagnosis is if your behavior interferes with your every day life or that of others, which Im pretty sure it does here. And even if it didn't, the line is completely arbitrary. It's obvious these kids come from some kind of fucked up environment or are traumatized in some way.
You should feel sorry for them, the fact that they can kill without any remorse is enough to feel sorry for a person.
Those three are truly sick individuals. There is no rehabilitation for people that fucked up. I don't think the death penalty or the prison system is appropriate for these three, and I CERTAINLY do not believe eye-for-an-eye is right either (that's the most disgusting response to this I can think of).
So what should be done? I don't know the answer. Nothing will make this situation "better" or take away from the fact that something (many factors) made these three individuals do these repulsive killings. And nothing we can do will take back what they've already done to all their victims and how its affected their families and close ones.
To those saying eye for an eye, are you serious? How the fuck is that going to help? And who would be doing the eye for an eye? Certainly not yourself right. I'd hope not. Anyone who brings themselves to doing something this disgusting is really fucked up. What good would it possibly bring? You guys have some misguided notions on "teaching people a lesson" - the killers feel the need to do these atrocities and nothing deters them from it.
I have no solutions and don't believe there are any solutions that will make this better. I just wish these three were caught before they ever did any of this and I hope the victim's families and close ones will find a way to overcome what's happened.
About the video... I think it should be preserved for historical purposes, like videos of the holocaust are. I don't believe sharing it will encourage anyone to commit these acts. The majority of people who view this video regret it and cannot finish watching the video - and that's a good thing in a sense. We are not watching it with satisfaction. We are watching it with total disgust. And the rare few who enjoy this video must already be fucked up enough where they need some intervention NOW.
I can't write too coherently after reading and watching all this... this is just sick.
The fact that these kids targeted the people in particular they felt wouldn't put up any resistance is absolutely despicable on top of the brutal manner they apparently conducted the murders (I don't plan on watching the video). 21 defenseless people gone because of these kids ...
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.
On December 22 2008 17:49 []p4NDemik[] wrote: The fact that these kids targeted the people in particular they felt wouldn't put up any resistance is absolutely despicable on top of the brutal manner they apparently conducted the murders (I don't plan on watching the video). 21 defenseless people gone because of these kids ...
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.
On December 22 2008 17:49 []p4NDemik[] wrote: The fact that these kids targeted the people in particular they felt wouldn't put up any resistance is absolutely despicable on top of the brutal manner they apparently conducted the murders (I don't plan on watching the video). 21 defenseless people gone because of these kids ...
This is why there is concealed carry.
Oh no you didn't. If you edit your post I'll edit this and no-one need ever know.
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.
Actually, the cost of the appeals process that Defendants are allowed when they receive the death penalty is more expensive then life in prison. At least in countries that protect people's rights like the US.
And personally, I can't consider life in jail as comfortable and happy, especially a Russian jail. I would consider life imprisonment a worse punishment then death.
Just trying to point out a couple practical rather than moral arguments against death penalty.
Now if given the opportunity and motivation, I might vigilante these guys, but I would give myself up to the law afterward.
Whether something is moral or not and whether it is legal are separate questions to ask.
On December 22 2008 13:15 Romance_us wrote: Will they be killed as result of this in Russia? They plead guilty to all charges.
There's a moratorium on death sentences in Russia. They will probably get life sentences.
But if you're for some reason bloodthirsty (as "moral" people commonly are) then rest assured as russian prisons are a sentence worse than death for people who were sentenced for a "wrong" thing.
I watched the video before, it's quite disturbing, but the whole story pretty much reflects what is happening to the morality here in Russia - generally, there's a strong disconnection between the wealthiness of people and their educational level. Wealth in Russia means a lot of power (thanks to corruption) and people who get it are commonly uneducated enough to not know the basis of humanely behaviour. I won't be surprised if those guys evade their sentences or even already did (the people that go to jail may be entirely different from those who committed those crimes).
can i suggest to the admins you take the vid off... I watched it and it's actually one of the most disgusting things ive seen in my entire life, it didn't shake me up that bad but think about this... There's probably kids as young as 12-13 reading this site, when you're 13 you're curious, you'll open the link... I don't think i need to continue as to I why the vid shouldn't be made public on this site.
On December 22 2008 18:15 Ftrunkz wrote: can i suggest to the admins you take the vid off... I watched it and it's actually one of the most disgusting things ive seen in my entire life, it didn't shake me up that bad but think about this... There's probably kids as young as 12-13 reading this site, when you're 13 you're curious, you'll open the link... I don't think i need to continue as to I why the vid shouldn't be made public on this site.
yeah, i took the video out of the OP. might want to take it out of the thread, but in the end it just takes a pretty quick search and any curious kid will find the video.
You walk outside and wave to your neighbour, you listen to music, you kiss a girl, you sing drunkenly to bad 80's songs, you hang out with friends, you enjoy a walk on the beach with your wife, you watch your children grow up, you see other children playing and having fun in summer time, you enjoy the breeze on your face as you walk through the streets of another country; admiring the difference in cultures as you travel, you look into the love of your life's eyes and you smile.
The simple pleasures, the beautiful pleasures of life.
And then you have these fucking assholes who are killing old people, children and women in remote forests with no care or decency towards human life in the least...making a mockery and laughing at the dying breaths of a defenceless human being as blood pours down their face, their stomach pumping rapidly with the struggled gasps of their dying lungs defiling and denying them their right to live...ripping them away from their family and friends.
I don't know what it is, but whenever this sort of thing happens, it will always affect me because I put myself in the same position (of the victim) or moreso the people that I love (family/friends/girlfriend) being subjected to this...it is how I can empathise and it's how I can learn to hate and the way I can feel most human - and to want to be someone who wants nothing but the preservation and wellbeing of human-life. This disturbs me...
I cannot begin to describe properly how much these guys need to be destroyed in the most painful way possible. 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.
I cannot begin to describe properly how much these guys need to be destroyed in the most painful way possible. 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.
Is there any more info somewhere on this case? I simply cant understand how three so abnormal people can just happen to find each other at random, and the news over here doesn't report on it, scared of it spreading i guess though that doesn't stop them in most cases. Makes me wonder who makes decisions about what news is to be told and what isn't.
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.
I can't believe some of you people watched the video, you've got to have some problems yourself if you voluntarily watched it. Seriously take the link off, disgusting.
I watched the video... holy fuck. That's bad. I've seen a lot of vile shit before in my time, but that is just... heartless. I cannot even wrap my mind around it.
Those kids are exactly what the world doesn't need.
I suggest to anyone who hasn't seen the video but is considering it to really ask yourself if it's worth it.
On December 22 2008 21:18 Nebula wrote: I can't believe some of you people watched the video, you've got to have some problems yourself if you voluntarily watched it. Seriously take the link off, disgusting.
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 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.
I concur.
I wasn't really creative with my punishments, this sounds more suitable.
nah, there isn't really any reason to close this thread as there hasn't been any flamewars or anything.
and it brings up some interesting discussion.. but really..
this is so fucked up wow. I feel bad for the victims, but even more for their family and friends. IMO the only people that would be justified to deal with them "eye-for-and-eye" would be close family and friends. I feel bad for families that are gonna go through horrible and difficult times, mentally, financially, etc.. because their parent was killed by these sick fucks.
it sucks there isn't anything more severe than life-time imprisonment, other than capital punishment, but imo i think life in prison would be worse than capital punishment.
On December 22 2008 21:32 Locke. wrote: The internet can be a sad place. I think humanity will be a little bit better off if this thread is closed.
You think the internet can be sad? You should see how sad things can be in the real world. People like these crazy Russian fucks are out there, and now 21 families have to live with this. That's what's really sad.
Closing the thread won't make things happier for either place; TL is (im pretty sure) a place where educated people can discuss things or voice their opinion on ANY subject.
On December 22 2008 15:50 Etherone wrote: if you think about it, it's not that unexpected that this could happen, I personally feel bad for those kids, but I'd agree on a hefty prison sentence, if only to deter other from committing a similar act.
(I'm against the death penalty if you didn't notice)
and as everyone else has warned, unless you are particularly strong willed, or mentally stable don't watch the video, if you are just that curious and aren't sure you are strong willed or mentally stable, there is a probability you have some mental instability and i would not advise you watch it.
As for the link being here, I believe there should be one, but definitely not on OP to force people to read through at least some of the comments so the nature of the video sinks in.
So if that was your mother being pulverized in the face with a hammer by 3 fucked up teenagers, you'd still be against the death penalty? Hey guess what fuckwit, that was someones brother, uncle or cousin. Your a fucking idiot. You do something fucked up like that to somone, it's only fair you suffer the same fate, and if you think otherwise your just talking plain shit.
This is the first the first video I felt was to disgusting to watch. I got sick to my stomach reading the disciption.
I thought of things Roman nobillity did to indulge in their madness as teens. They did sick shit like that killing random citizens. Getting away with it by influential family ties.
I hope they serve their time among the harshest criminals without any priviledge.
On December 22 2008 15:50 Etherone wrote: if you think about it, it's not that unexpected that this could happen, I personally feel bad for those kids, but I'd agree on a hefty prison sentence, if only to deter other from committing a similar act.
(I'm against the death penalty if you didn't notice)
and as everyone else has warned, unless you are particularly strong willed, or mentally stable don't watch the video, if you are just that curious and aren't sure you are strong willed or mentally stable, there is a probability you have some mental instability and i would not advise you watch it.
As for the link being here, I believe there should be one, but definitely not on OP to force people to read through at least some of the comments so the nature of the video sinks in.
So if that was your mother being pulverized in the face with a hammer by 3 fucked up teenagers, you'd still be against the death penalty? Hey guess what fuckwit, that was someones brother, uncle or cousin. Your a fucking idiot. You do something fucked up like that to somone, it's only fair you suffer the same fate, and if you think otherwise your just talking plain shit.
This is why we don't make the family of the victims the judge and jury in our criminal system. You're a fucking idiot. The point of our justice system is not revenge and it is built to be impartial. Your entire point seems to be that the impartial system would reach a different conclusion to the families of victims, that's not a very clever point.
Agree with Kwark obv. Anyway, spending the rest of your life in a jail is much more painfull than being killed by a 5 seconds electric shock . These kids killed themself by doing what they've done. Their life are over.
I ask for a credible source and get a link to some ukrainian website I have never heard of? Why is there no coverage for this in the washington post, guardian, faz, moscow times, reuters? While I am sure there are sick poor fucks out there doing such things, they are stupid enough to film it and take pictures and attend victims funerals? There are 3 people in one class who are all serial killers? I think there are very few cases with 3 serial killers. Moreover they are rich kids and sons to important politicians and military personnal? And for an unknown reason there is a media blackout? I think that sounds so over the top, no way there would be no news about it if it had any credibility because that story sounds like pure $$$. But I could be wrong and if someone finally finds a credible source feel free to inform me.
On December 22 2008 15:50 Etherone wrote: if you think about it, it's not that unexpected that this could happen, I personally feel bad for those kids, but I'd agree on a hefty prison sentence, if only to deter other from committing a similar act.
(I'm against the death penalty if you didn't notice)
and as everyone else has warned, unless you are particularly strong willed, or mentally stable don't watch the video, if you are just that curious and aren't sure you are strong willed or mentally stable, there is a probability you have some mental instability and i would not advise you watch it.
As for the link being here, I believe there should be one, but definitely not on OP to force people to read through at least some of the comments so the nature of the video sinks in.
So if that was your mother being pulverized in the face with a hammer by 3 fucked up teenagers, you'd still be against the death penalty? Hey guess what fuckwit, that was someones brother, uncle or cousin. Your a fucking idiot. You do something fucked up like that to somone, it's only fair you suffer the same fate, and if you think otherwise your just talking plain shit.
This is why we don't make the family of the victims the judge and jury in our criminal system. You're a fucking idiot. The point of our justice system is not revenge and it is built to be impartial. Your entire point seems to be that the impartial system would reach a different conclusion to the families of victims, that's not a very clever point.
I hope one of your family members gets murdered, and the killer walks scott free with no conviction. How would you feel? Clearly it hasn't happened to you before. Are you insane????? Clearly. Do you know how many murderers walk free without convictions due to pussies like you, and continue killing? Do you find that fair? Clearly you don't, because your a whack cunt. I live in Australia where the death penalty doesn't even exist and I'm still pro death penalty, and i don't have a fucked up mind. I wouldn't even dare to watch the killing video.
On December 22 2008 23:30 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: I ask for a credible source and get a link to some ukrainian website I have never heard of? Why is there no coverage for this in the washington post, guardian, faz, moscow times, reuters? While I am sure there are sick poor fucks out there doing such things, they are stupid enough to film it and take pictures and attend victims funerals? There are 3 people in one class who are all serial killers? I think there are very few cases with 3 serial killers. Moreover they are rich kids and sons to important politicians and military personnal? And for an unknown reason there is a media blackout? I think that sounds so over the top, no way there would be no news about it if it had any credibility because that story sounds like pure $$$. But I could be wrong and if someone finally finds a credible source feel free to inform me.
I visit a gore site often, and you'd be surprise of the many many many incidents that happens, but aren't reported.
Life imprisonment in solitary confinment is the way to go here I think. It's though enough to help the families handle their need for revenge, while being a good example for other sick individuals like this (i.e you wont die and escape your actions instead you'll be alive for a very long time, all alone).
On December 22 2008 23:46 gds wrote: Dosed: stop trolling please.
It is not trolling, it is a perfectly normal argument ffs. I just find it absolutley fucking wrong for someone to even think the death penalty shouldn't be accepted by people today.
On December 22 2008 23:30 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: I ask for a credible source and get a link to some Ukrainian website I have never heard of? Why is there no coverage for this in the Washington post, guardian, faz, Moscow Times, Reuters? While I am sure there are sick poor fucks out there doing such things, they are stupid enough to film it and take pictures and attend victims funerals? There are 3 people in one class who are all serial killers? I think there are very few cases with 3 serial killers. Moreover they are rich kids and sons to important politicians and military personal? And for an unknown reason there is a media blackout? I think that sounds so over the top, no way there would be no news about it if it had any credibility because that story sounds like pure $$$. But I could be wrong and if someone finally finds a credible source feel free to inform me.
- you are right in your observations, and deep down I wish & hope it's a hoax (mind u, I didn't watch the videos)
On December 22 2008 23:38 Makhno wrote: Life imprisonment in solitary confinment is the way to go here I think. It's though enough to help the families handle their need for revenge, while being a good example for other sick individuals like this (i.e you wont die and escape your actions instead you'll be alive for a very long time, all alone).
I completely agree, imagine spending the rest of your life alone in a cell.
On December 22 2008 23:46 gds wrote: Dosed: stop trolling please.
It is not trolling, it is a perfectly normal argument ffs. I just find it absolutley fucking wrong for someone to even think the death penalty shouldn't be accepted by people today.
I don't know if perfectly normal would be a good way of putting it.
Hey dosed, really stop posting stupid shit. killing people helps noone, you dont pay taxes so that others can kill the people you hate, not to mention, do you have any idea how fucked up the policemen who carry out executions can get? To kill somebody who youve never met in your life and who doesnt have anything to do with you?
Jesus, youre hoping that someone else's mother gets murdered just so that they share your fucked up point of view? Try fucking saying that to a mirror dude. You really should get out of your fucking bubble of thinking you can just change the ugliness of the world by force.
Oh and by the fucking way. If a criminal is not sentenced with death, he doesnt just "walk away" you moron, he gets it for life, if he walks away its for a completely different reason other than people being such "pussies" for not wanting to kill others. You sound like a fucking murderer yourself did you know that?
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 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.
I concur.
I wasn't really creative with my punishments, this sounds more suitable.
Yeah, I must agree. This punishment seems fitting. The russian winters can be quite vicious I hear.
omg how can people do this shit. i tried watching the video, fast forwarded through it a bit and all i can say is don't watch it....i've never seen anything so cruel. I hope these murderous piece of shits get what they deserve, fucking torture. life in prison too.
On December 22 2008 23:46 gds wrote: Dosed: stop trolling please.
It is not trolling, it is a perfectly normal argument ffs. I just find it absolutley fucking wrong for someone to even think the death penalty shouldn't be accepted by people today.
an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind.
here is a vid for you guys, don't worry, it's not THAT VID we were talking about, it shows how they disrespect their victims in the graves. Think this is safe to watch: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ec_1228735825&p=1
On December 22 2008 21:01 Supah wrote: Is there any more info somewhere on this case? I simply cant understand how three so abnormal people can just happen to find each other at random.....
This, I think, was the most important point brought up. How do three highly unusual boys meet up and become serial killer partners? I don't doubt the credibility of the story; I am sure that it's true. But these kids must have met up years before they had started any of this and slowly progressed to this point.
On December 22 2008 23:46 gds wrote: Dosed: stop trolling please.
It is not trolling, it is a perfectly normal argument ffs. I just find it absolutley fucking wrong for someone to even think the death penalty shouldn't be accepted by people today.
an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind.
not everyone would commit crimes or be victims of crimes
On December 22 2008 17:45 EscPlan9 wrote: To those saying eye for an eye, are you serious? How the fuck is that going to help? And who would be doing the eye for an eye? Certainly not yourself right. I'd hope not.
eh, good point. I wrote my response while I was still pretty pissed off after reading this. I honestly don't know what should be done to them, but life in prison isn't enough imo and yeah...eye for an eye, while I don't believe it's too harsh, would still be wrong.
I read an article about this a few weeks ago and thought about posting it on here, but then I thought, "No, I won't because it fucked me up too much seeing that video that I don't want other people to see it."
Yet, I see someone here didn't have any issues with that and posted it.
On December 23 2008 01:20 polarwolf wrote: here is a vid for you guys, don't worry, it's not THAT VID we were talking about, it shows how they disrespect their victims in the graves. Think this is safe to watch: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ec_1228735825&p=1
Wow picturing themselves infront of killed animals and sticking their finger up their victims and you expect me to feel sorry for them...
This response is a little late, but I'll post it anyway...
Some people were saying earlier that we should feel sorry for these kids, because did not have free will. They say that these kids were a product of their environment, and therefore we ought to feel sorry for them. Therefore we shouldn't kill them or sentence them to other "cruel" things, but rather we should try to rehabilitate them. These people have probably read too much Clarence Darrow or something.
This is bullshit. Not because it's necessarily wrong, but because it's not a rational way to live life even if you believe they had no free will. There's absolutely no rational basis for living your life as if free will does not exist for everyone. If free will does exist for everyone, then living your life this way is going to cause you to make moronically bad decisions, whereas if free will doesn't exist it doesn't matter how you live your life.
Plus, can you really feel sorry for them just because they kill without remorse? Why is that a basis for feeling sorry for them? I feel sorry for people who do good things and don't get what they deserve out of it. Or I feel sorry for people who get punished and abused when they didn't do anything wrong. Even if these children were abused as children, there's no way I'm feeling sorry for them after they murder 21 people. Before they murder 21 people? Sure, I'd feel sorry for them. But you can't go around murdering people AND expect anyone to feel sorry for you.
Basically, if they had free will, then even you people making this argument would probably not feel sorry for them, and if they didn't have free will, see my above argument for free will.
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.
That movie is an absolute mindfuck. I don't use that word often, but there aren't many other words to describe it. A buddy of mine was ranting about how good it was, and it turned out to be pretty terrible on many levels.
Imo insta death penalty. These creatures should be destroyed.
Ps to echo the points already said, this is the probably worst gore/snuff video out there
Ps these people really have no human rights left imo. Also, there is no way it can be doubted they did this. When you have violence like this filmed as 100% evidence of brutal sadistic murder, the perpetrators SHOULD be destroyed quickly after a short trial. The only thing that is needed is psychiatric profiling, but in anything but the most mental derangement there should be death sentence coming up every time. No money should be expended in keeping these creatures alive, they are anti-human and against us all.
On December 23 2008 06:15 Cloud wrote: It costs more to kill a person than to keep him in jail for the rest of his life.
Nope, it costs more to hold a guy in death row for 10 years with unlimited appeals and force special jury time in the court case and demand more investigation from police detectives than slip them into a prison for 25 years; but to simply kill a man via lethal injection costs something like 1000 dollars. The American death sentence system is very expensive because too many people are put up for the death penalty. I think only people like this should be destroyed, and that would cost far less, probably 4 or 5 times less than keeping them alive would. Give them a short trial, and don't let them appeal. Much much cheaper and it gets rid of these creatures which would kill any one of us or our families without any rationale or provocation.
It's a complicated situation and this over-quoted buzzphrase is seriously simplified and fundamentally inaccurate in this sort of a situation. In a one on one motivated murder, it's very difficult to get a cheap death sentence. In this sort of obvious serial killer situation, it SHOULD be easy.
On December 23 2008 06:15 Cloud wrote: It costs more to kill a person than to keep him in jail for the rest of his life.
For your sake I hope you're kidding.
Actually there was a documentary in the U.S where it did cost a lot to "properly" kill someone. Like electricity bill or whatever, setting up dates... all that b.s
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.
Too much talk. Burn them one by one, alone on a fire and forget them. The same fire so that they may stand atop their friends corpse and then burn. Do not let their last moments on earth be remotely peaceful or anything but pain. It is times like this where I would wish for religion to be true and for hell to exist.
On December 23 2008 06:15 Cloud wrote: It costs more to kill a person than to keep him in jail for the rest of his life.
Nope, it costs more to hold a guy in death row for 10 years with unlimited appeals and force special jury time in the court case and demand more investigation from police detectives than slip them into a prison for 25 years; but to simply kill a man via lethal injection costs something like 1000 dollars. The American death sentence system is very expensive because too many people are put up for the death penalty. I think only people like this should be destroyed, and that would cost far less, probably 4 or 5 times less than keeping them alive would. Give them a short trial, and don't let them appeal. Much much cheaper and it gets rid of these creatures which would kill any one of us or our families without any rationale or provocation.
It's a complicated situation and this over-quoted buzzphrase is seriously simplified and fundamentally inaccurate in this sort of a situation. In a one on one motivated murder, it's very difficult to get a cheap death sentence. In this sort of obvious serial killer situation, it SHOULD be easy.
I actually agree with this fully. TOO MANY people are put on death row. People like those discussed in the OP deserve death and nothing less imo.
In addition however: The discussion on "price" fucking bs and only comes up when the death penalty is being discussed. It isn't like western society gives a rat's ass about cost.. we spend money on the most ludicrous things on earth. Removing an obviously broken, dangerous creature from the planet is one of the only sensible things we could spend money on.
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.
"slippery slope" and "the state shouldn't decide who lives and dies" bs is utopian garbage that needs a reality check.
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?
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?
Torturing them is irrelevant these clearly mentally ill people cannot live among other humans, so just take their lives, the method is also irrelevant.
Pain will not do any good or wrong to them in any way, these are emotionless sociopaths, kill them and donate their useless bodies to science so they atleast pay a tiny bit back to society.
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...)
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 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.
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 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
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.
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 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
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 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 07:04 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.
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]
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.
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 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 07:04 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.
Ok, I am curious about one thing. After reading the dialog, I decided firmly that there was no way I was gonna watch that. I thought I was the only one who was gonna feel that way, but I have read many people give the same sentiment while others watched it because they were curious.
So here it is:
Poll: Did you watch the video? (Vote): Yes, I was curious. (Vote): No way, That's too sick.
Also, don't flame anyone for their decision, but please answer honestly.
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.
I said that living is better than dying, if death row inmates got tivo and ps3 its fucking irrelevant to my point.
i watched like the first 5 seconds "accidently" because i googled it in order to find a reliable newssource, then i found a vid "from their first murder" and i wondered if it was the same as everybody was ranting about, i really have a high tolerance level for stuff like, but i couldn't last more than 5 seconds, when they smashed his face with a shovel or something and then show a closeup of the pulp that used to be his face, still breathing heavily, blood flowing into his nose and mouth. Then tears ran down my face and i had to quit.
holy fucking shit, i've seen countless beheading vids from afghanistan, iraq, africa and nepal, but this tops it all.
Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
This is just bullshit when considered in the case of these people. To my mind there is just no way to look at the case and say these people deserve any human rights whatsoever. You have to shield yourself from the brutality in order to compose yourself, and then try to put across these psuedo-humanist anti execution points. After watching the video they made, I just can't imagine them deserving human rights.
And yeah I watched it and it was pretty hard to watch. I cringed when he went for the poor man's eye with the screwdriver. This is one of the worst videos I've ever seen definitely. People who haven't seen gore before really shouldn't even go near this. That brutal stabbing of the woman in the netherlands was terrible too. Just, lifechanging perspective-alterers imo.
And clearly the worst thing in that video was the victim's moaning, and the laughing of the murderers.
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
This is just bullshit when considered in the case of these people. To my mind there is just no way to look at the case and say these people deserve any human rights whatsoever. You have to shield yourself from the brutality in order to compose yourself, and then try to put across these psuedo-humanist anti execution points. After watching the video they made, I just can't imagine them deserving human rights.
And my point is, whether they killed the neighbours cows or 29 people, theres nothing to gain from killing them, what you think the zodiacal balance in the universe will collapse if bad people arent dead? Do you really think it helps someone that another guy who isnt going to do anything to society for the rest of his life dies?
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
This is just bullshit when considered in the case of these people. To my mind there is just no way to look at the case and say these people deserve any human rights whatsoever. You have to shield yourself from the brutality in order to compose yourself, and then try to put across these psuedo-humanist anti execution points. After watching the video they made, I just can't imagine them deserving human rights.
And my point is, whether they killed the neighbours cows or 29 people, theres nothing to gain from killing them, what you think the zodiacal balance in the universe will collapse if bad people arent dead? Do you really think it helps someone that another guy who isnt going to do anything to society for the rest of his life dies?
But by that logic nothing happens/changes when you imprison them forever. I guess we should just do nothing? Nihilism ftw?
Fortunately we don't exist in a world where policy makers are as short sighted as you are. Putting them to death is an attempt to create a detterent. If people think killing for fun could lead to them being killed themselves then maybe they will think twice about it. That is the hope anyway. The actions of those caught affirm that fear.. they do everything they can to not be killed by the state IE legal disputes or even suicide. It is THAT compelling.
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
Where do you even come up with this bullshit. Yes, being against the death penalty is so irrational that whoever is for it MUST be an uninformed idiot right?
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
This is just bullshit when considered in the case of these people. To my mind there is just no way to look at the case and say these people deserve any human rights whatsoever. You have to shield yourself from the brutality in order to compose yourself, and then try to put across these psuedo-humanist anti execution points. After watching the video they made, I just can't imagine them deserving human rights.
And my point is, whether they killed the neighbours cows or 29 people, theres nothing to gain from killing them, what you think the zodiacal balance in the universe will collapse if bad people arent dead? Do you really think it helps someone that another guy who isnt going to do anything to society for the rest of his life dies?
My point is that, after considering that they are not human, they have no human rights; that human society should dispose of them the way we do any aggressive disrupting influence, like a wild bear in the town centre or a plague of locusts; get rid of it in the cheapest way possible.
I might settle for Physician's idea: if they were each left in a small cell, with one light, with nothing but some sort of menial task like making t-shirts paying for their 2 small meals a day (with the surplus going to families of the victims); they were afforded no time outside the cell, no contact with any other human, and if they became sick they were given no treatment.
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
Where do you even come up with this bullshit. Yes, being against the death penalty is so irrational that whoever is for it MUST be an uninformed idiot right?
No Frits, definitely not. You get me wrong. All I'm saying is that in extreme EXTREME cases like this, there can't be any parallels drawn. You cannot lump these...creatures in with most other murderers or EVEN serial killers.
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.
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
This is just bullshit when considered in the case of these people. To my mind there is just no way to look at the case and say these people deserve any human rights whatsoever. You have to shield yourself from the brutality in order to compose yourself, and then try to put across these psuedo-humanist anti execution points. After watching the video they made, I just can't imagine them deserving human rights.
And my point is, whether they killed the neighbours cows or 29 people, theres nothing to gain from killing them, what you think the zodiacal balance in the universe will collapse if bad people arent dead? Do you really think it helps someone that another guy who isnt going to do anything to society for the rest of his life dies?
My point is that, after considering that they are not human, they have no human rights; that human society should dispose of them the way we do any aggressive disrupting influence, like a wild bear in the town centre or a plague of locusts; get rid of it in the cheapest way possible.
I might settle for Physician's idea: if they were each left in a small cell, with one light, with nothing but some sort of menial task like making t-shirts paying for their 2 small meals a day (with the surplus going to families of the victims); they were afforded no time outside the cell, no contact with any other human, and if they became sick they were given no treatment.
Getting rid in the cheapest possible way? what the hell? when was the last time that a big zoo animal like an elephant or a bear gets killed before having a whole squadron of veterinarians with tranqs and transport to take it back to the zoo?
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
Where do you even come up with this bullshit. Yes, being against the death penalty is so irrational that whoever is for it MUST be an uninformed idiot right?
No Frits, definitely not. You get me wrong. All I'm saying is that in extreme EXTREME cases like this, there can't be any parallels drawn. You cannot lump these...creatures in with most other murderers or EVEN serial killers.
Yes and you are accusing people like me of drawing these parallels. Which is nonsense. Death penalty should be outlawed out of principle, severity of crime is irrelevant to me. Don't try to accuse me of something you don't even understand.
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
Where do you even come up with this bullshit. Yes, being against the death penalty is so irrational that whoever is for it MUST be an uninformed idiot right?
No Frits, definitely not. You get me wrong. All I'm saying is that in extreme EXTREME cases like this, there can't be any parallels drawn. You cannot lump these...creatures in with most other murderers or EVEN serial killers.
Yes and you are accusing people like me of drawing these parallels. Which is nonsense. Death penalty should be outlawed out of principle, severity of crime is irrelevant to me. Don't try to accuse me of something you don't even understand.
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
This is just bullshit when considered in the case of these people. To my mind there is just no way to look at the case and say these people deserve any human rights whatsoever. You have to shield yourself from the brutality in order to compose yourself, and then try to put across these psuedo-humanist anti execution points. After watching the video they made, I just can't imagine them deserving human rights.
And my point is, whether they killed the neighbours cows or 29 people, theres nothing to gain from killing them, what you think the zodiacal balance in the universe will collapse if bad people arent dead? Do you really think it helps someone that another guy who isnt going to do anything to society for the rest of his life dies?
My point is that, after considering that they are not human, they have no human rights; that human society should dispose of them the way we do any aggressive disrupting influence, like a wild bear in the town centre or a plague of locusts; get rid of it in the cheapest way possible.
I might settle for Physician's idea: if they were each left in a small cell, with one light, with nothing but some sort of menial task like making t-shirts paying for their 2 small meals a day (with the surplus going to families of the victims); they were afforded no time outside the cell, no contact with any other human, and if they became sick they were given no treatment.
Getting rid in the cheapest possible way? what the hell? when was the last time that a big zoo animal like an elephant or a bear gets killed before having a whole squadron of veterinarians with tranqs and transport to take it back to the zoo?
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.
I too have followed/read the same studies and (they have problems, biased funding, specific intent etc) aside from those I say actions speak louder than words! Again, we go back to my crux argument: People fight with everything they absolutely have to _get_ life in prison, not the other way around. If people favor one over the other so much I would contend that it becomes a greater detterent when you remove the option! It is self evident but I thought some logical explaining was needed here.
On December 23 2008 06:44 MYM.Testie wrote: Too much talk. Burn them one by one, alone on a fire and forget them. The same fire so that they may stand atop their friends corpse and then burn. Do not let their last moments on earth be remotely peaceful or anything but pain. It is times like this where I would wish for religion to be true and for hell to exist.
It's that type of thinking which lead to this. It's comical that you would seek to punish sadism with sadism. Let's torture people to death in order to teach that torturing people to death is wrong? That's logical.
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"
You look ridiculous carrying on this argument. Execution costs far less than life imprisonment, that is a well known fact. Proponents of capital punishment give the exact opposite of your argument, that their means is less costly. This is all irrelevant of course, the matter should be judged by whether it is right or wrong, not through economic standards. But I can't believe you're making such a basic mistake. A child could understand why your statement that "It costs more to kill a person than to keep him in jail for the rest of his life" is false.
On December 23 2008 07:55 Djabanete wrote:
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.
Thanks for providing that. I think he is completely right.
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
This is just bullshit when considered in the case of these people. To my mind there is just no way to look at the case and say these people deserve any human rights whatsoever. You have to shield yourself from the brutality in order to compose yourself, and then try to put across these psuedo-humanist anti execution points. After watching the video they made, I just can't imagine them deserving human rights.
And my point is, whether they killed the neighbours cows or 29 people, theres nothing to gain from killing them, what you think the zodiacal balance in the universe will collapse if bad people arent dead? Do you really think it helps someone that another guy who isnt going to do anything to society for the rest of his life dies?
My point is that, after considering that they are not human, they have no human rights; that human society should dispose of them the way we do any aggressive disrupting influence, like a wild bear in the town centre or a plague of locusts; get rid of it in the cheapest way possible.
I might settle for Physician's idea: if they were each left in a small cell, with one light, with nothing but some sort of menial task like making t-shirts paying for their 2 small meals a day (with the surplus going to families of the victims); they were afforded no time outside the cell, no contact with any other human, and if they became sick they were given no treatment.
Getting rid in the cheapest possible way? what the hell? when was the last time that a big zoo animal like an elephant or a bear gets killed before having a whole squadron of veterinarians with tranqs and transport to take it back to the zoo?
Actually not too long ago there was a thread on this forum about a polar bear that was shot dead the second it touched land after a (iirc) 25mile swim. Pretty awesome
I may misunderstand your post but actually big animals are killed all the time. USA has several states that fund companies with money and all they basically do is "maintain" animal population control by flying around in copters and blowing their faces off.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 $.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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...
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?
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...
21 victims in 3 months is a spree.
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.
Btw i wanted to watch this video, just to know if i can " stand " it. But i think i just can't watch a video where someone die and is tortured, it is somewhat a moral problem for me.
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...
21 victims in 3 months is a spree.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your book doesn't fucking cut it.
I don't see why they deserve human rights. With all rights come responsibilities.
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.
Your book doesn't fucking cut it.
I don't see why they deserve human rights. With all rights come responsibilities.
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...
21 victims in 3 months is a spree.
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.
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 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.
Your book doesn't fucking cut it.
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.
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.
Crimes punishable by death already place the criminals life in the line, so yes, i think he cares a little less about it.
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.
Your book doesn't fucking cut it.
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.
Also, im done here, im not gonna argue with people who say death penalty is justifiable because its cheaper, jesus, how about we apply the same people to other hopeless causes like healthcare for the elderly.
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.
Crimes punishable by death already place the criminals life in the line, so yes, i think he cares a little less about it.
I have no idea what you are saying. You suggesting people who commit capital crimes don't care about their life?
On December 23 2008 12:13 Cloud wrote: Also, im done here, im not gonna argue with people who say death penalty is justifiable because its cheaper, jesus, how about we apply the same people to other hopeless causes like healthcare for the elderly.
That is not at all a parallel, that's just drivel. Why do you say the word 'hopeless' and why do you try to compare elderly people with serial killers :S.
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...
21 victims in 3 months is a spree.
no a spree is in one go. Like Columbine and Dawson
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...
21 victims in 3 months is a spree.
no a spree is in one go. Like Columbine and Dawson
Those were in 1 location, a spree is by definition at multiple locations.
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.
Your book doesn't fucking cut it.
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.
No it doesn't. THESE creatures do not deserve human rights. Most other crimedoers do.
Your attempt to extract a straw man argument is just pathetic. Why don't you ask me what I think should and shouldn't be done regarding terrorists and all of the other examples you made? I wouldn't condone any of those things. I don't condone atrocities. That's just blathering idiocy. You argue so abstractly. I am not saying that these boys should be beaten with a hammer and have their eyes gouged with a screwdriver, just saying that their lives are worth nothing to society, and they have no right to life; they have no right to ANYTHING.
I don't know what you Americans are taught but the phrase 'with all rights come responsibilities' has been inculcated in me since youth so you'll have to accept we have a different way of viewing the world. I believe that human rights are indistinguishable from human privileges, whoever brought up the etymological argument btw.
I really have to bemoan the sad situation that humanity can sometimes slide into when it completely incapacitates itself by morality paralysis. What possible use is there of saying these creatures deserve human rights? Can anyone explain why THEY specifically deserve them; without using the lame ass 'everyone gets human rights it's in the SPECIAL CODE of geneva'. Half of you are probably just desperate to play devil's advocate; and Frits just likes to be involved.
As do I, of course.
PS i wasn't referring to Frits when I said you Americans.
Poll: What should happen to the maniacs? (Vote): Standard life imprisonment (Vote): Labour camp style, zero benefits (no healthcare) life imprisonment (Vote): Execution (Vote): Torture (Vote): Anything less???!!!??!?!
And let's assume the execution option is the same cost as the standard life imprisonment
These people are fucking crazy. But once again only the negative stories get the attention. Kinda annoys me cause all of them are sad/ horrific stories that make me depressed
you are argueing FOR TAKING AWAY ALL RIGHTS and then say that you're not advocating atrocities
DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF HAVING RIGHTS
fdafsadsfadsf you say they have no right to anything, wouldnt that include the right of not being tortured? fuuuuuuck you are so stupid. You keep proposing your idiotic idea's but when you can apply it to something else you come up with some bullshit and call it a strawman, which it clearly isn't. You are one shortsighted idiot, wow.
I don't agree about taking money into account when making judicial decisions, but here's some facts about death penalty costs.
Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.” Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.
On December 23 2008 12:40 Frits wrote: you are argueing FOR TAKING AWAY ALL RIGHTS and then say that you're not advocating atrocities
Christ, is English even your first language?! Yes I am saying they have no rights, and YES I personally would not give ONE TINY LITTLE FUCKING SHIT if they were tortured to death. But I am not advocating that. I am advocating that they are destroyed or turned into solitarily confined labour machines until they die. Remember, I am only talking about sane, sick, prolific serial killers here, not everyone else you want to suddenly lump into the category of 'HamerD's anti-human rights manifesto'
I am advocating that they are destroyed or turned into solitarily confined labour machines until they die.
You are unreal.
I didnt even say that you are anti-human rights, Im just saying that you have no idea what the implications of your retarded idea would be.
edit: And no, english is not my first language, even though I haven't said anything here that discredits my english speaking skills. What you're thinking of is logical reasoning, and I think mine is a lot better than yours. (Don't even bother replying, you believe in astrology, this is a free win for me.)
On December 23 2008 12:41 Jusciax wrote: I don't agree about taking money into account when making judicial decisions, but here's some facts about death penalty costs.
Thanks for the facts. To re-iterate for the billionth time, the issue is not that simple. Look at where the costs are- appeals, evidence collection, jury special time, time on death row...etcetc. it's 4 in the morning and even though SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET, I can't be bothered to trudge up the facts. Though this is a matter close to heart for me. Also, remember that the main reason the cost is so high is that so many people are executed, for comparatively minor offences compared to the creatures in this particular situation. There are also people executed for whom the fine line between enough evidence and doubtful amount of evidence is blurry. This all adds to cost.
You'll find facts for and against you all around the internet on this topic, it is NOT clean cut.
ps that someone is not you, maybe not even Frits, it's just an expression
I am advocating that they are destroyed or turned into solitarily confined labour machines until they die.
Frits you're the greatest straw man creator since the scare crow from the wizard of oz discovered viagra. You have some sort of compulsion for quoting me out of context. I am not advocating committing atrocities against these killers. I am advocating destroying them or full no-benefits life labour. Atrocities imo would be genocide, torture, rape, etc. I don't advocate those. You didn't pick up on a contradiction in my post you just misquoted me.
It's like an editor reviewing an album saying 'Quite obviously not the greatest album of all time' and the band quoting 'Quite obviously...the greatest album of all time' on the front of the CD.
You don't advocate it but by taking away their rights you allow it.
How is that a strawman, it's just using logical reasoning to point out that your idea has huge shortcomings. Just because parts of your idea are flawed and can be easily refuted doesn't mean pointing it out is using a strawman. There's a huge difference, I am not taking anything out of context or comparing your idea with something else, I am simply pointing out how shortsighted your reasoning is.
I think they should be sentenced the same way everyone else is, we're reacting and speaking out of shock - murder is murder, torture murder has occured so much over the history of the world - there are of course differences here. I'm over the initial shock, I'm still appalled and disgusted of course. But I think the seriousness of their crimes will be reflected by their sentences.
Murder happens daily, people are stripped of their right to live by the killers - and the killers are in turn exacted justice depending on the nature of the crime - a life in prison is not an existence, it is a waste of your life, with metal bars, solid concrete and hundreds of disjointed inmates to remind you every day what you've done, your life is effectively over. The weight of the law will fall down on these three hard. Execution will remove them from the world, but in 'real' justice terms it won't destroy them as they destroyed their victims, it will be a moment of pain and then nothing.
A long spell in solitary confinement within the walls of an Eastern european prison with little to no privileges will suffice for them.
I can see what Frits is getting at, if we strip away human rights in one case, then where do we stop? Why do we have the laws and regulations in place if we are to defy them? I only hope the judicial system in the Ukraine will deliver swift and exacting justice - whatever that is.
I don't think their legal system will ever allow them the chance for parole - if it does, then there is a problem somewhere in the world.
We should be happy in knowing that they aren't going to survive, and the world of the living (outside bars) is not one they will ever see again. This will be enough to destroy them - and whatever tasks they have to do as part of normal prison life will be hard enough, given the nature of their crimes.
It won't ever repair the hurt that the 21 families are feeling, but it will at least give them a measure of 'peace of mind'. To know that their loved ones no longer feel the pain, and that their killers are essentially rotting behind bars with less rights than 90% of the population.
We have to remember, if we stripped away all of their rights, are we simply unleashing our own heart of darkness (the desire for eye-for-an-eye, revenge in the same way - in the case torture) by implementing revenge justice? It would be an easy response for hundreds of people to want to kill them the same way that they killed their victims (As I know I did last night). This momentary lapse in judgement (heat of the moment) could potentially lead to a much worse situation, if we change our systems for these acts, where do we stop?
On December 23 2008 13:07 Frits wrote: You don't advocate it but by taking away their rights you allow it.
Yep. True. I don't want it to happen, but I don't give a shit if it does.
Wait, are you telling me that if you saw an angry mob grabbing these cunts and stamping on their heads you would feel bad? God I know I wouldn't.
That would bother me immensely. You hate them for the crime or murder yet you use murder as a tool against them...Hmmmm
No of course I don't hate them. It's not the fact that they committed murder...it's the fact that the tortured/laughed/took pictures at funeral of victims/were unprovoked/ did it for fun; that leads me to say I wouldn't care if a crowd ripped them to shreds.
On December 23 2008 13:07 Frits wrote: You don't advocate it but by taking away their rights you allow it.
Yep. True. I don't want it to happen, but I don't give a shit if it does.
Wait, are you telling me that if you saw an angry mob grabbing these cunts and stamping on their heads you would feel bad? God I know I wouldn't.
That would bother me immensely. You hate them for the crime or murder yet you use murder as a tool against them...Hmmmm
No of course I don't hate them. It's not the fact that they committed murder...it's the fact that the tortured/laughed/took pictures at funeral of victims/were unprovoked/ did it for fun; that leads me to say I wouldn't care if a crowd ripped them to shreds.
I for one dont want them to be killed, just to be slowly tortured for they rest of their lives, you know for a long time, a quick and smooth death is an easy way for them, just torture them for years and years! also make them work for society like cleaning shit, when they die donate they organs and stuff like that, just like physician said
On December 23 2008 13:07 Frits wrote: You don't advocate it but by taking away their rights you allow it.
Yep. True. I don't want it to happen, but I don't give a shit if it does.
Wait, are you telling me that if you saw an angry mob grabbing these cunts and stamping on their heads you would feel bad? God I know I wouldn't.
That would bother me immensely. You hate them for the crime or murder yet you use murder as a tool against them...Hmmmm
No of course I don't hate them. It's not the fact that they committed murder...it's the fact that the tortured/laughed/took pictures at funeral of victims/were unprovoked/ did it for fun; that leads me to say I wouldn't care if a crowd ripped them to shreds.
So what you're saying is you're indifference to a bloody outcome to them is based on the way they committed their murder. If they just shot all their victims would that really change the fact that they took away a life.
On December 23 2008 12:41 Jusciax wrote: I don't agree about taking money into account when making judicial decisions, but here's some facts about death penalty costs.
Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.” Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.
This shows that our current system of death row is messed up. But if we just tried them, and if they were found guilty (which again implies no shadow of a doubt), then they should be executed the next day.
Cost per inmate: I dunno, 5 bucks? I don't think those chemicals are that expensive.
You can't argue that the death penalty is wrong because it is currently expensive. It doesn't have to be.
On December 23 2008 12:41 Jusciax wrote: I don't agree about taking money into account when making judicial decisions, but here's some facts about death penalty costs.
Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.” Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.
This shows that our current system of death row is messed up. But if we just tried them, and if they were found guilty (which again implies no shadow of a doubt), then they should be executed the next day.
Cost per inmate: I dunno, 5 bucks? I don't think those chemicals are that expensive.
You can't argue that the death penalty is wrong because it is currently expensive. It doesn't have to be.
Ever heard of the appeals process? There's a reason it's there.
On December 23 2008 13:27 Dgtl wrote: How can you not care if someone is ripped to shreds and then say you don't hate them??
Because they have done nothing to me or anyone I care about. Hate is a personal issue, nothing to do with passing judgement on issues like this. I can easily not care if they are ripped to shreds, because I think they deserve it. I don't want it, but don't care if it happens to them. My feelings of moral outrage at a lynch mob destroying them are all dissolved by my feelings of moral outrage at their actions. But not hate.
On December 23 2008 13:27 Dgtl wrote: How can you not care if someone is ripped to shreds and then say you don't hate them??
Hamerd is not exactly a man of logical thought, he believes in astrology.
At least you spelled my name correctly. From the looks of it you wouldn't know logic if it gave your first born cot death. The parts of astrology I believe in have never been disproven by any research. We can start a separate thread on it if you want.
On December 23 2008 13:07 Frits wrote: You don't advocate it but by taking away their rights you allow it.
Yep. True. I don't want it to happen, but I don't give a shit if it does.
Wait, are you telling me that if you saw an angry mob grabbing these cunts and stamping on their heads you would feel bad? God I know I wouldn't.
That would bother me immensely. You hate them for the crime or murder yet you use murder as a tool against them...Hmmmm
No of course I don't hate them. It's not the fact that they committed murder...it's the fact that the tortured/laughed/took pictures at funeral of victims/were unprovoked/ did it for fun; that leads me to say I wouldn't care if a crowd ripped them to shreds.
So what you're saying is you're indifference to a bloody outcome to them is based on the way they committed their murder. If they just shot all their victims would that really change the fact that they took away a life.
Yes, significantly, imo, but killing 21 people without remorse or provocation in any way is still a base affront to the concept of humanity and is still enough, in my opinion, to remove the human rights of the murderers.
On December 23 2008 12:41 Jusciax wrote: I don't agree about taking money into account when making judicial decisions, but here's some facts about death penalty costs.
Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.” Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.
This shows that our current system of death row is messed up. But if we just tried them, and if they were found guilty (which again implies no shadow of a doubt), then they should be executed the next day.
Cost per inmate: I dunno, 5 bucks? I don't think those chemicals are that expensive.
You can't argue that the death penalty is wrong because it is currently expensive. It doesn't have to be.
Ever heard of the appeals process? There's a reason it's there.
The reason it's there, for the 10th time, is that too many people are put up for execution trials. Unlimited free retrials (a very expensive strategic method of delaying execution) is only morally obligatory if the evidence isn't 100% positive. When you have killers with VIDEOS of their acts of murder, how can you POSSIBLY require a retrial?
ps sorry for quadrupost can someone pm me how to quote several ppl in the same post aside from a lot of copy pasting?
On December 23 2008 13:27 Dgtl wrote: How can you not care if someone is ripped to shreds and then say you don't hate them??
Hamerd is not exactly a man of logical thought, he believes in astrology.
At least you spelled my name correctly. From the looks of it you wouldn't know logic if it gave your first born cot death. The parts of astrology I believe in have never been disproven by any research. We can start a separate thread on it if you want.
It's alright, I was just trolling. I know exactly how you feel, the parts of the flying spaghetti monster I believe in have never been disproven by any research either.
On December 22 2008 14:26 HeadBangaa wrote: NOW DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY? HOLY SHIT, FUCK THE JUSTICE SYSTEM I'LL DO IT MYSELF
You just wanna kill someone yourself. The death penalty is only a way to legitimize murder.
I bet you'd find pleasure in killing them.
Even if that were true, the difference between me and them would be that they were getting pleasure by killing innocents. Arguing against punishing guilty people because the punishment sucks when it's done to innocent people doesn't make a lot of sense.
Let's apply your train of thought to that guy in Austria who imprisoned a large chunk of his family. I say the guy belongs in jail. Would you respond by saying "Jail is the only way to legitimize keeping people captive. I bet you'd find pleasure in locking him up"? Hell no. Captivity sucks, but the dude is not an innocent.
He should never have kept his family in confinement, but that does not mean he shouldn't be confined himself. You'll find that people aren't always going to be swayed by you saying "we shouldn't do to them what they did to others; it makes us just as bad". Captivity sucks, moreso when the victim is innocent and is justified as a punishment. Some people will say that death sucks, but moreso when the victim is innocent and is justified as a punishment.
Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on the death penalty. But you implying that people who want to see them dead are as bad as the murderers is not very compelling to me.
On December 22 2008 14:26 HeadBangaa wrote: NOW DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY? HOLY SHIT, FUCK THE JUSTICE SYSTEM I'LL DO IT MYSELF
You just wanna kill someone yourself. The death penalty is only a way to legitimize murder.
I bet you'd find pleasure in killing them.
Even if that were true, the difference between me and them would be that they were getting pleasure by killing innocents. Arguing against punishing guilty people because the punishment sucks when it's done to innocent people doesn't make a lot of sense.
Let's apply your train of thought to that guy in Austria who imprisoned a large chunk of his family. I say the guy belongs in jail. Would you respond by saying "Jail is the only way to legitimize keeping people captive. I bet you'd find pleasure in locking him up"? Hell no. Captivity sucks, but the dude is not an innocent.
He should never have kept his family in confinement, but that does not mean he shouldn't be confined himself. You'll find that people aren't always going to be swayed by you saying "we shouldn't do to them what they did to others; it makes us just as bad". Captivity sucks, moreso when the victim is innocent and is justified as a punishment. Some people will say that death sucks, but moreso when the victim is innocent and is justified as a punishment.
Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on the death penalty. But you implying that people who want to see them dead are as bad as the murderers is not very compelling to me.
This shows that our current system of death row is messed up. But if we just tried them, and if they were found guilty (which again implies no shadow of a doubt), then they should be executed the next day.
guilty doesnt mean no shadow of a doubt, it means no reasonable doubt
On December 23 2008 13:27 Dgtl wrote: How can you not care if someone is ripped to shreds and then say you don't hate them??
Hamerd is not exactly a man of logical thought, he believes in astrology.
At least you spelled my name correctly. From the looks of it you wouldn't know logic if it gave your first born cot death. The parts of astrology I believe in have never been disproven by any research. We can start a separate thread on it if you want.
It's alright, I was just trolling. I know exactly how you feel, the parts of the flying spaghetti monster I believe in have never been disproven by any research either.
I don't wanna get to into your off topic personal feud, but every time you criticize HamerD for "believing in astronomy" you just sound like a prick. Just debate what the debate is about.
Someone on TL once said people should ignore my thoughts on economics because I was a different religion than him. Prick right? Right.
This shows that our current system of death row is messed up. But if we just tried them, and if they were found guilty (which again implies no shadow of a doubt), then they should be executed the next day.
guilty doesnt mean no shadow of a doubt, it means no reasonable doubt
Ya, I think you are right about that. I erred.
But the point is still true that our justice system is pretty dang strict when it comes to convictions. Rightfully so.
On December 23 2008 13:27 Dgtl wrote: How can you not care if someone is ripped to shreds and then say you don't hate them??
Hamerd is not exactly a man of logical thought, he believes in astrology.
At least you spelled my name correctly. From the looks of it you wouldn't know logic if it gave your first born cot death. The parts of astrology I believe in have never been disproven by any research. We can start a separate thread on it if you want.
It's alright, I was just trolling. I know exactly how you feel, the parts of the flying spaghetti monster I believe in have never been disproven by any research either.
I don't wanna get to into your off topic personal feud, but every time you criticize HamerD for "believing in astronomy" you just sound like a prick. Just debate what the debate is about.
Someone on TL once said people should ignore my thoughts on economics because I was a different religion than him. Prick right? Right.
You can't honestly compare astrology with religion.
Apparently they committed these murders over a year ago, so this is a long ass process:
As it was reported earlier, in June 2007 3 twenty-year-old local residents were detained in Dnepropetrovsk on suspicion of committing 21 murders on the territory of the Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhie Regions.
Looks like an inconsistency in the reports. Why would the 2'nd one say June of this year. Since it implies 2008, then why does the other one say 2007?
Three 19-year-old teenagers from rich families committed some grave crimes for entertaining themselves. Murderers were detained yesterday on suspicion of committing murders since June, 24 this year on the territory of Zaporozhie and Dnepropetrovsk oblasts. They confessed they committed 19 grave crimes, informed deputy Interior Minister of Ukraine Nickolay Kupianskiy.
Also, I was unable to find a story on this in any news site. There isn't too much info given on this site. Has anyone tried searching for it on news sites?
It's a possibility that this murder case is being kept at as low a profile as possible so that people don't know too much about it. This would make it a lot easier for the police to take these rich kids' bribes, and frame someone else while letting these psychopaths go.
On December 23 2008 13:27 Dgtl wrote: How can you not care if someone is ripped to shreds and then say you don't hate them??
Hamerd is not exactly a man of logical thought, he believes in astrology.
At least you spelled my name correctly. From the looks of it you wouldn't know logic if it gave your first born cot death. The parts of astrology I believe in have never been disproven by any research. We can start a separate thread on it if you want.
It's alright, I was just trolling. I know exactly how you feel, the parts of the flying spaghetti monster I believe in have never been disproven by any research either.
I don't wanna get to into your off topic personal feud, but every time you criticize HamerD for "believing in astronomy" you just sound like a prick. Just debate what the debate is about.
Someone on TL once said people should ignore my thoughts on economics because I was a different religion than him. Prick right? Right.
You can't honestly compare astrology with religion.
Idra would. (He's not the one I was referring to though)
It's funny because after my brother brought this video up to me some weeks ago we were talking and he said to me, "You should post this in Team Liquid." After thinking about it momentarily I said to him, "No, I don't want other people morbid curiosity to lead them to the video."
they should seriously make these kids suffer till death.
Something horrific like... putting a metal ring around their genitals and forcing them to get erections, god that hurts like hell (dead serious by the way...) or if anyones ever seen the pounder hammer time that hurts like hell to. (PM if you want the link to hammer time on the pounder)
On December 23 2008 08:12 HamerD wrote: Most people argue against the death penalty because they have in their head the idea of a poor, illiterate, itinerant farm worker who was framed for the murder of the governor's wife and has no legal council to defend himself; or at least in some capacity the concept of someone who doesn't deserve the penalty having it, irreversibly and inhumanely, placed on them.
This is just bullshit when considered in the case of these people. To my mind there is just no way to look at the case and say these people deserve any human rights whatsoever. You have to shield yourself from the brutality in order to compose yourself, and then try to put across these psuedo-humanist anti execution points. After watching the video they made, I just can't imagine them deserving human rights.
And my point is, whether they killed the neighbours cows or 29 people, theres nothing to gain from killing them, what you think the zodiacal balance in the universe will collapse if bad people arent dead? Do you really think it helps someone that another guy who isnt going to do anything to society for the rest of his life dies?
My point is that, after considering that they are not human, they have no human rights; that human society should dispose of them the way we do any aggressive disrupting influence, like a wild bear in the town centre or a plague of locusts; get rid of it in the cheapest way possible.
I might settle for Physician's idea: if they were each left in a small cell, with one light, with nothing but some sort of menial task like making t-shirts paying for their 2 small meals a day (with the surplus going to families of the victims); they were afforded no time outside the cell, no contact with any other human, and if they became sick they were given no treatment.
You can't just declare people you don't like non human to justify what is little more than revenge. The point of human rights is that they are intrinsic to you. As long as you are genetically a human you have human rights. Whatever you do. Maybe you disagree with the concept of human rights. Maybe you think that torture for no purpose other than to make yourself feel vindicated is ok. Maybe you're an idiot. But that doesn't change what human rights means. You can disagree with the concept of universal rights intrinsic to humanity. What you can't do is accept the concept of human rights while denying them to people who are human.
I shouldn't need to explain stuff like this to you. It's not complicated. Humans can't be declared non human because they kill some people.
.... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
On December 23 2008 22:25 alffla wrote: why haven;t there been any offical news about this yet ?
like bbc or cnn or whatever
That's what I've been wondering about. The actual news post was made on Dec 6 but I checked several big news sites and saw nothing. I then checked archives and saw nothing posted on the 6'th as well.
It is a remote possibility that they are trying to keep this case from getting any attention so they can take bribe from the actual killers and then frame someone to take their place in jail. Their parents are rich; I don't even know how remote this possibility even is. Corruption over there is........
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I bet you'd torture them personally and you'd enjoy it. Then you'd be just one of them.
astrology is more respectable than religion predictable weather patterns that vary by season and time of year affect the health of the mother, affecting the development of the child thus allowing general predictions of their behavior based on their 'sign'.
big omnipotent omniscient omnipresent benevolent man in the sky who loves you dearly but has created you evil and will send you to suffer for all eternity if you dont fix yourself. also extremely concerned about what you do with your naughty parts.
On December 23 2008 15:23 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I wouldn't want to take credit from his amazing religion discussion senses.. he IS here. He is probably just being shy cause we called em on it.
Greg I will pray for you.
sorry im late had to make sure kwanro beats fantasy first
If we talk about the law and about punishments we have to be objective. Hatred and any other emotions shouldnt be involved.
Its just disturbing what kind of bullshit some persons are writing here. Let me say you one thing: Acts like these. Similiar, very similiar things like these happen DAILY. Maybe not in our beloved countries but basicaly all over the world.
If we start refusing the human rights to any culprits the whole system begins to shake and will finally collapse. And now what is more important? That our very own vengeance is fullfilled or that we can keep on living in a peaceful world where every murder gets threatened in the same way as the other.
I know those deeds were absolutely horrible. But things like these happen very often and just because you saw the video or because you are personaly involved shouldnt matter at all.
Everyone who cant divide feelings, emotions and stuff like this when it comes to law and to punishment in general doesnt know how the 'system' works and why it works this way.
Personal view: Sick sick sick sick bastards, unbelieveable what they did there.. omg.. OMG WTF
BUT: They did murders. Very cruel murders. As have done millions in the history of mankind before. They should still be treated as humanbeings no matter what and still have the human rights. They should thus not be tortured or treated in any way that is against the human rights.
Everyone who disagrees with that does not accept the way the 'system' works and if he really wants to change it he probably never thought what it would look like than!
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I bet you'd torture them personally and you'd enjoy it. Then you'd be just one of them.
English reading comprehension classes. Take them. I'm sure you'd enjoy it. Then you'd be just one of us.
On December 23 2008 23:07 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Its just disturbing what kind of bullshit some persons are writing here. Let me say you one thing: Acts like these. Similiar, very similiar things like these happen DAILY.
Umm, name two comparable cases (teenagers engaged in random serial murder for excitement, filming victims and victims' funerals) that happened in the last 10-20 YEARS. I don't know any such case.
Hint: gangster warfare doesn't count. Columbine shootings don't count. Routine ethnic cleansings in Africa don't count. The UNIQUE motives and the nature of the killers is part of why this case evokes so much anger and disgust.
And you dont disagree with the fact that they are still humanbeings and should be treated with human rights, do you ?
In terms of brutality Im pretty sure there are hundred of thousands similiar deeds that already occured. For sure that case is special and very disturbing..
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I bet you'd torture them personally and you'd enjoy it. Then you'd be just one of them.
English reading comprehension classes. Take them. I'm sure you'd enjoy it. Then you'd be just one of us.
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I can agree on this regarding from what I know in this case, these guys do not deserve death penalty or life in prison. But if you would do something like this to them where do you draw the line? A lot of mental disturbed people kills others in horrifying ways, should they also be tortured even though they are sick? In times of war tutoring is common, should those who did the act be punished the same way after the war is finished?
I think you need to think about what you are saying.
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
lol, internet cliche #4323243; the internet warrior.
Have you ever even fought someone? Shut the hell up lmao, no you wouldnt kill them.
And if you read more closely I am advocating for a justice system that isn't flawed, bleeding heart my ass, you guys are basing your opinion on emotion, not me. I care if the culprits are put to death because I try to create a better society, I try to extend my view beyond this case.
What is your argument anyway, WATCH THE FULL THING AGAIN hurrrr, yeah Im totally convinced now man!
On December 23 2008 23:07 MaGic~PhiL wrote: If we talk about the law and about punishments we have to be objective. Hatred and any other emotions shouldnt be involved.
Its just disturbing what kind of bullshit some persons are writing here. Let me say you one thing: Acts like these. Similiar, very similiar things like these happen DAILY. Maybe not in our beloved countries but basicaly all over the world.
If we start refusing the human rights to any culprits the whole system begins to shake and will finally collapse. And now what is more important? That our very own vengeance is fullfilled or that we can keep on living in a peaceful world where every murder gets threatened in the same way as the other.
I know those deeds were absolutely horrible. But things like these happen very often and just because you saw the video or because you are personaly involved shouldnt matter at all.
Everyone who cant divide feelings, emotions and stuff like this when it comes to law and to punishment in general doesnt know how the 'system' works and why it works this way.
Personal view: Sick sick sick sick bastards, unbelieveable what they did there.. omg.. OMG WTF
BUT: They did murders. Very cruel murders. As have done millions in the history of mankind before. They should still be treated as humanbeings no matter what and still have the human rights. They should thus not be tortured or treated in any way that is against the human rights.
Everyone who disagrees with that does not accept the way the 'system' works and if he really wants to change it he probably never thought what it would look like than!
Agree. The difference between us and them is that we don't hurt others to make ourselves feel good. The difference between rule of law and mob justice is that objective and trained officials make rulings for the benefit of society rather than for personal reasons. I agree that a vengeful mob ripping someone to shreds is much more fun and satisfactory than merely imprisoning them for the rest of their life for the protection of everyone else. But that goes against everything our justice system, and civilised culture, stands for.
Phil is correct, like it or not, fucked up horrible shit happens all the time. But that doesn't take away the fact that torturing people is wrong. Completely wrong. The reason there's laws against torture is because they know that there will be situations where it seems like a good idea. I can't say that I wouldn't like to have those kids beaten to a bloody pulp. But it's still wrong. And laws are there to remind us of that when we let emotions get a little too involved.
Let me propose a little thought experiment. Imagine that the video is of Ukranian policemen or something beating on one of those kids. They're meting out the punishment that is supposedly deserved. Does that make the video any less horrifying? Does it make your stomach turn any less? Do you now get a sense of satisfaction from watching the man get stabbed with a screwdriver? For your sake, I hope not.
No matter what the context, no matter what the reason, the actions portrayed there are horrific. Plain and simple. There is no justification, there is no reason for it. But repeating those actions doesn't somehow cancel out the damage that was done originally. Torturing those kids isn't going to give 21 families their loved ones back. It's not going to remove the horror that I'm sure we all felt watching that video. And it's certainly not going to somehow 'teach them a lesson.'
Torturing them would definitely be wrong. They should just be executed and have it finished and let the families begin healing as soon as possible.
And for goodness sakes, don't make the families (or anyone for that matter) have to give more money to these 3 men by way of taxes so they can eat their 3 square meals a day, etc. Just execute them.
If its done fast, then death row is NOT more expensive than life in prison, so don't even start...
Wild Wild West, Jim West, desperado, rough rider No you don't want nada None of this, six gun in this, brotha runnin this, Buffalo soldier, look it's like I told ya Any damsel that's in distress Be out of that dress when she meet Jim West Rough neck so go check the law and abide Watch your step with flex and get a hold in your side Swallow your pride, don't let your lip react, You don't wanna see my hand where my hip be at, With all of this, from the start of this, Runnin the game, James West tamin the west so remember the name Now who ya gonna call?
On December 23 2008 23:04 IdrA wrote: astrology is more respectable than religion predictable weather patterns that vary by season and time of year affect the health of the mother, affecting the development of the child thus allowing general predictions of their behavior based on their 'sign'.
big omnipotent omniscient omnipresent benevolent man in the sky who loves you dearly but has created you evil and will send you to suffer for all eternity if you dont fix yourself. also extremely concerned about what you do with your naughty parts.
And someone generalizes all religions into catholic esque to make theyr point.
For gods sake, stop treating religion like everyone with a bit of faith worships Zeus.
ps: on topic, my honest opinion is that, there is nothing that will bring justice to this, not torturing, not killing, not jailing them.
But id rather just jail them and have psicological evaluation and try to understand how did this happen
Really, they should be put to death. It's far too much to say executed or hanged something outrageous like that. They should just "put them to sleep".
I also read somewhere else that the family's are completely denying that it's their kids in those videos. I think that should be a new point of discussion. You would defend your child even after finding out he is beyond sadistic?
On December 23 2008 23:04 IdrA wrote: astrology is more respectable than religion predictable weather patterns that vary by season and time of year affect the health of the mother, affecting the development of the child thus allowing general predictions of their behavior based on their 'sign'.
big omnipotent omniscient omnipresent benevolent man in the sky who loves you dearly but has created you evil and will send you to suffer for all eternity if you dont fix yourself. also extremely concerned about what you do with your naughty parts.
And someone generalizes all religions into catholic esque to make theyr point.
For gods sake, stop treating religion like everyone with a bit of faith worships Zeus.
ps: on topic, my honest opinion is that, there is nothing that will bring justice to this, not torturing, not killing, not jailing them.
But id rather just jail them and have psicological evaluation and try to understand how did this happen
i just happen to be most familiar with the idiocies of the catholic church
being reborn as a cow is much more likely, i agree.
On December 23 2008 23:04 IdrA wrote: astrology is more respectable than religion predictable weather patterns that vary by season and time of year affect the health of the mother, affecting the development of the child thus allowing general predictions of their behavior based on their 'sign'.
big omnipotent omniscient omnipresent benevolent man in the sky who loves you dearly but has created you evil and will send you to suffer for all eternity if you dont fix yourself. also extremely concerned about what you do with your naughty parts.
And someone generalizes all religions into catholic esque to make theyr point.
For gods sake, stop treating religion like everyone with a bit of faith worships Zeus.
ps: on topic, my honest opinion is that, there is nothing that will bring justice to this, not torturing, not killing, not jailing them.
But id rather just jail them and have psicological evaluation and try to understand how did this happen
i just happen to be most familiar with the idiocies of the catholic church
being reborn as a cow is much more likely, i agree.
Of course! When I get to heaven, im gonna ask to be reborn as an alien, tired of earth.
I hear aliens have green skin and live in space. Would you really like that? You couldn't a have a Dog or a Cat or a bird or a mouse or a lizard or any type of animal cause they would die cause they need oxygen
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I can agree on this regarding from what I know in this case, these guys do not deserve death penalty or life in prison. But if you would do something like this to them where do you draw the line? A lot of mental disturbed people kills others in horrifying ways, should they also be tortured even though they are sick? In times of war tutoring is common, should those who did the act be punished the same way after the war is finished?
I think you need to think about what you are saying.
Except those guys are not mentally ill, they're fucking freaks. Rich kids with an education who kill for pleasure, torture their victims, make jokes and laugh while they do and then let them agonize to death. Innocents, picked at random. The icing on the cake? THEY EVEN SHOWED UP TO THE VITICM FUNERALS WTF...
I'll say it here. I'm normally against the death penalty but what these kids did is worst than a crime, they are animals, nothing more than walking meat, worth less than dogs.
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I can agree on this regarding from what I know in this case, these guys do not deserve death penalty or life in prison. But if you would do something like this to them where do you draw the line? A lot of mental disturbed people kills others in horrifying ways, should they also be tortured even though they are sick? In times of war tutoring is common, should those who did the act be punished the same way after the war is finished?
I think you need to think about what you are saying.
Except those guys are not mentally ill, they're fucking freaks. Rich kids with an education who kill for pleasure, torture their victims, make jokes and laugh while they do and then let them agonize to death. Innocents, picked at random. The icing on the cake? THEY EVEN SHOWED UP TO THE VITICM FUNERALS WTF...
I'll say it here. I'm normally against the death penalty but what these kids did is worst than a crime, they are animals, nothing more than walking meat, worth less than dogs.
I didn't say they were mentally ill, I said that if they are to torture these guys, where will they draw the line, mentally ill people kill others and they can't really be punished in the same way.
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I can agree on this regarding from what I know in this case, these guys do not deserve death penalty or life in prison. But if you would do something like this to them where do you draw the line? A lot of mental disturbed people kills others in horrifying ways, should they also be tortured even though they are sick? In times of war tutoring is common, should those who did the act be punished the same way after the war is finished?
I think you need to think about what you are saying.
Except those guys are not mentally ill, they're fucking freaks. Rich kids with an education who kill for pleasure, torture their victims, make jokes and laugh while they do and then let them agonize to death. Innocents, picked at random. The icing on the cake? THEY EVEN SHOWED UP TO THE VITICM FUNERALS WTF...
I'll say it here. I'm normally against the death penalty but what these kids did is worst than a crime, they are animals, nothing more than walking meat, worth less than dogs.
They're still humans. It's just humans aren't as nice as you thought they were.
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
lol, internet cliche #4323243; the internet warrior.
Have you ever even fought someone? Shut the hell up lmao, no you wouldnt kill them.
And if you read more closely I am advocating for a justice system that isn't flawed, bleeding heart my ass, you guys are basing your opinion on emotion, not me. I care if the culprits are put to death because I try to create a better society, I try to extend my view beyond this case.
What is your argument anyway, WATCH THE FULL THING AGAIN hurrrr, yeah Im totally convinced now man!
Have you ever even fought someone?
Yes. Many times =/ Nice try. I could go through my teenage years in detail but you're definatly not worth the extra lines.
Shut the hell up lmao, no you wouldnt kill them.
Internet cliche #310582: The kid who knows how you act/would act in real life even though he's never met you.
This is by far the worst crime I've ever seen. Hell, Hitler killed tons of people, except he didn't film himself doing it and cracking jokes at jews, enjoying stabbing the eye of a live man in with a screw driver. What happened to jews was torture as well, but systemic torture, what these guys are is simple. Pure fucking monsters; on a personnal level. They are not human. I'm honest here this is THE WORST crime I've ever seen, because of the pleasure they take killing the guy. Oh mind you, this isn't an ideological murder or a local mass murder (like a school shooting), this is them arbitrarily picking innocents who would not fight back and torture them for hours. They are not human, have no rights and deserved to go through what they made their victims go through.
This is like a one time thing. This is not worldwide eye-for-an-eye. Who's gonna try to get back at people for the torture & execution of these 3? This isn't even a case of changing laws and shit, just fucking do it. Hell, sending them to the mujahideen seems too soft of a punishment
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I can agree on this regarding from what I know in this case, these guys do not deserve death penalty or life in prison. But if you would do something like this to them where do you draw the line? A lot of mental disturbed people kills others in horrifying ways, should they also be tortured even though they are sick? In times of war tutoring is common, should those who did the act be punished the same way after the war is finished?
I think you need to think about what you are saying.
Except those guys are not mentally ill, they're fucking freaks. Rich kids with an education who kill for pleasure, torture their victims, make jokes and laugh while they do and then let them agonize to death. Innocents, picked at random. The icing on the cake? THEY EVEN SHOWED UP TO THE VITICM FUNERALS WTF...
I'll say it here. I'm normally against the death penalty but what these kids did is worst than a crime, they are animals, nothing more than walking meat, worth less than dogs.
I'd say they're mentally ill, based on the things they did. Any normal person with any sense of morality would not do such a thing. Best thing to do to them would be punishment (prison sentence, probably for life) + a true rehabilitation (where those kids would be changed in terms of their views/morals/ethics/behavior), but of course, the rehabilitation part is impossible.
On December 24 2008 04:00 frankbg wrote: They are not human, have no rights and deserved to go through what they made their victims go through.
This is like a one time thing. This is not worldwide eye-for-an-eye. Who's gonna try to get back at people for the torture & execution of these 3? This isn't even a case of changing laws and shit, just fucking do it. Hell, sending them to the mujahideen seems too soft of a punishment
They are humans and as such have rights. You can't declare people you don't like non human. It doesn't work like that. Your species is not based upon what you do. This isn't complicated.
Even if you could get away with torturing them that doesn't make it right. The legal system should not be a tool for retribution. That serves no-one. As for the "don't change laws, just do it". That doesn't seem a little silly to you? You're advocating vigiliantes torturing people who do bad shit with the tacit consent of the state?
On December 24 2008 04:00 frankbg wrote: They are not human, have no rights and deserved to go through what they made their victims go through.
This is like a one time thing. This is not worldwide eye-for-an-eye. Who's gonna try to get back at people for the torture & execution of these 3? This isn't even a case of changing laws and shit, just fucking do it. Hell, sending them to the mujahideen seems too soft of a punishment
You're advocating vigiliantes torturing people who do bad shit with the tacit consent of the state?
I find it interesting that in our society the prevalent philosophical framework through which individuals weigh the treatment of known criminals hinges questions of merit: what punishment does the criminal deserve?
This is a legitimate question, but I would caution that it should not be asked alone in the context of legal justice system (society's way of dealing with criminals). For a discussion of moralities of justice, it is perfectly suitable. For a discussion of the "death penalty", it is insufficient.
Here's why. For the dispensation of legal justice, we must also consider these issues from another philosophical viewpoint: what action against the criminal will be maximally beneficial to society?
I will not dispute that the trite argument "well, what the criminals deserve, according to what's moral IS what is most beneficial to society" could trivialize the distinction I've made. I say "could" because I think taking that position would be difficult -- the bulk of this argument, if fleshed out, would presumably be demonstrating that a given prescription of action based on a given moral standard is always beneficial to society, and I can't see that being a simple or easy task.
I find this approach more useful when considering the death penalty and related topics. It eliminates a dangerous limitation of the first approach: it is possible that the most "just" action is not the most beneficial to society. I believe this distinction explains why so many have argued against the knee-jerk approaches of some here (the "they should be made to suffer" crowd) by choosing to extend their arguments and point out dangerous implications that they find.
By the way, there are arguments both for and against the death penalty using this perspective. Incontrol, for example, raised the issue of deterrence, Cloud and others have discussed the issue of monetary costs of various punishments. There are other issues as well: the view of a given society by another based on the punishment it enacts and how that impacts relations between the societies is one example. When considering crimes that generally receive non-permanent incarceration, things like rehabilitation and recidivism reduction also factor into the equation. (With the death penalty, where the offender is essentially removed from society either way, rehabbing them doesn't really matter much, of course). Finally, approaching the issue from the societal standpoint admits the use of empirical evidence. For example, why hasn't anyone yet discussed changes in homicide rates in countries before and after banning or instituting the death penalty? I'm sure that information is out there somewhere.
I wrote all that just to reflect on the discussion and maybe provide a framework for future debate. In particular, I would urge that people take care not to engage someone who is considering only the correct moral punishment with questions about cost to society and vice versa. There are distinct debates to be had.
I feel that the point of punishments in capital crimes is to remove the offender from society forever. Both execution and life imprisonment accomplish this. In my head, I juggle all the variables and come out with life imprisonment being favorable. I won't go into it all here, because I don't really feel like debating it, however.
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I can agree on this regarding from what I know in this case, these guys do not deserve death penalty or life in prison. But if you would do something like this to them where do you draw the line? A lot of mental disturbed people kills others in horrifying ways, should they also be tortured even though they are sick? In times of war tutoring is common, should those who did the act be punished the same way after the war is finished?
I think you need to think about what you are saying.
Except those guys are not mentally ill, they're fucking freaks. Rich kids with an education who kill for pleasure, torture their victims, make jokes and laugh while they do and then let them agonize to death. Innocents, picked at random. The icing on the cake? THEY EVEN SHOWED UP TO THE VITICM FUNERALS WTF...
I'll say it here. I'm normally against the death penalty but what these kids did is worst than a crime, they are animals, nothing more than walking meat, worth less than dogs.
They're still humans. It's just humans aren't as nice as you thought they were.
On December 24 2008 22:37 Physician wrote: talismania - you need to post more in this forum : )
Why? Because he posted a long, vague explanation of the arguments at hand in language meant to appear sophisticated? Never have I read so much which said so little. I think you're easily impressed.
On December 25 2008 01:22 brambolius wrote: There is no debate to be had here.
People like this simply need to be tortured. Badly. Over extended periods of time. Again and again.
I would recommend the footage to everyone who says or thinks otherwise.
inb4 "then you are just as bad as they are"-They would only be treated like they treated others, there is nothing wrong with this.
Erm, this makes no sense. What they did is horrible because humans should not be tortured to death. What you're suggesting is doing more horrible things to them. People like you are the reason we don't have mob justice, instead a professional objective legal system. The only thing you're right about is that there is no debate to be had here. The entire basis of Western society disagrees with you.
Name a single civilised nation which practices corporal punishment in its judicial system. Do you perhaps believe the entire of civilisation has gotten it wrong here? That the concerted move of the englightened world away from retribution and towards prevention and rehabilitation was the wrong way to go?
They would only be treated like they treated others, there is nothing wrong with this.
How they treated others = A How they treated others = wrong A = wrong How we treat them = B How they treated others = How we treat them A = B B = wrong B = "there is nothing wrong with this"?
You have just been logically proved to be an idiot. You have pre-empted the correct argument (that you'd be just as bad as them if you tortured them) with the proof that it is the correct argument as if you were making a point.
I don't know how people like you get yourselves dressed in the morning. Humanity continues to disappoint me.
On December 24 2008 22:37 Physician wrote: talismania - you need to post more in this forum : )
Why? Because he posted a long, vague explanation of the arguments at hand in language meant to appear sophisticated? Never have I read so much which said so little. I think you're easily impressed.
You're kind of a douche, Lefnui.
He raised a good point about implications of "just" actions, and how actions that most people would consider the most "just" in that case, might not be the best action for the whole of society.
Everyone loves to think that there is true justice in this world, but that's simply not true (from an atheist's perspective), and the sooner everyone realizes that and stops striving for an unattainable goal, then maybe our society can move on and stop playing these subjective games.
Considering that I'd rather have the death penalty than being in prison for 25 or more years ("for life" here in Germany means 25 years in prison, it's probably more in the US), I would rather see such people rot in prison for that many years, because killing them would give them an easy "escape" without them having to think through their actions. Of course they could kill themselves but suicide requires a lot of "courage" to do because you're "programmed" to protect your life.
That's my personal argument against the death penalty (which I don't view as a big enough punishment for things like this). The other argument against death penalty is, of course, innocents who are found innocent only after they're already dead.
I do have to agree that torturing is not something we should do. People will not stop torturing others just because if they get caught then they will too be tortured. They don't think they will get caught, and thus do what their hearts desire. We should have tougher punishment though, like put them all in a different cell with a fat built man named bubba with genital warts who likes young meat. THAT would be the worst thing that could happen in my opinion.
Think about it, what would torturing accomplish?? Kwark put it well. Doing what they did to other people was wrong. Some of you guys would say it would be right to torture them the same way they tortured others. It wasn't right when they did it and it wouldn't be right if anyone else did it (including people in the law system).
These people are human. If you say otherwise then you would be as stupid as shit. EVERYONE deserves human rights, no matter what crime they committed. What these people did was heartless and completely unacceptable but that does not make them not human and not deserving of human rights.
On December 25 2008 01:54 Kwark wrote: Name a single civilised nation which practices corporal punishment in its judicial system.
Singapore, for one.
Fair point. Of all the nations of the world, the following 21 have judicial corporal punishment. Afghanistan, Angola, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgystan, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates (VAR) and Yemen.
Obviously the epoc of the civilised world and an example to the rest of us. I mean seriously, these are the people who think it's a good idea, does that not say something about it?
Kwark thats really dumb, because "wrong" isn't a fact like blue. If you took the scenario in which the kids killed people and compared it to a scenario in which they are killed by vigilantes or by court order, you find that the motives are different. They are NOT the same, and whether motive can affect the validity of the act is up to an individual to decide, an opinion, not a fact.
Lets give some examples here. These kids (presumably) did this for fun, which is like omg the worst thing ever, they totally deserve to have their balls electrocuted 24/7 for the rest of their lives.
A vigilante would do this for justice? You know who else thought they were doing justice to the world? the nazis, or how about the KKK? Sure, it was totally acceptable for a jury in those times to kill me some niggers, why the hell would i allow some monkey to sit next to my son in class?
So yeah, its just as bad. You killed someone when there was a much more peaceful alternative, when there was no real reason for it, where killing would help no one, but yourself of course, who after having those people (tortured) and killed you would probably have a little "faith restored in humanity", you who by the way, if nobody mentioned this in a month, wouldnt even remember it.
All opinions, who are you and I to say that the goal in life is to be happy and not to live as long as possible at all costs, or to achieve fame and fortune, or to reproduce. You can try to offer someone alternative beliefs that they may not have considered, but it's not fact, it's not quantifiable or measurable in anyway. Facts can be used to justify things once you have a motive, but not to create motives.
On December 25 2008 15:22 Cloud wrote: How about the "belief" that you dont have a "goal" in life?
Clarify please.
Im saying that there is no purpose to be in this world, you are not here to make a difference on humanity, you are not here to leave a mark for history, you are not here to be happy, you are not even here to reproduce or look after your peers.
these kids deserve more than the death penalty and life in prison. They need to sentence these kids to slow torture death (so slow that it takes like 10 years to kill them and constantly painful) and give them psychological terror
On December 23 2008 07:57 Savio wrote: Ok, I am curious about one thing. After reading the dialog, I decided firmly that there was no way I was gonna watch that. I thought I was the only one who was gonna feel that way, but I have read many people give the same sentiment while others watched it because they were curious.
So here it is:
Poll: Did you watch the video? (Vote): Yes, I was curious. (Vote): No way, That's too sick.
Also, don't flame anyone for their decision, but please answer honestly.
Watching part of it counts as "watched it".
In case anyone just joined in and missed the poll...
On December 25 2008 14:56 Cloud wrote: You know who else thought they were doing justice to the world?
the nazis
Fail.
Yup epic fail, the Nazis didnt think they were doing justice to the world, but only to their "superior" race, they were selfish mother fuckers who wanted to exterminate every other race that wasnt pure, so in the end they were only doing a favor to themselves, not everyone.
Cloud seriously let it go everyone has their own opinions stop so blindly to show everyone (including myself) that those fuckers dont deserve low painful death or torture and that we are wrong please.
You and some others think they dont, me and some others think they do, either way what they did is bad and they deserve some kind of punishment, not caring what that punishment is.
On December 25 2008 14:56 Cloud wrote: You know who else thought they were doing justice to the world?
the nazis
Fail.
Yup epic fail, the Nazis didnt think they were doing justice to the world, but only to their "superior" race, they were selfish mother fuckers who wanted to exterminate every other race that wasnt pure, so in the end they were only doing a favor to themselves, not everyone.
Cloud seriously let it go everyone has their own opinions stop so blindly to show everyone (including myself) that those fuckers deserve low painful death or torture what we are wrong please.
The Nazi's totally thought they were righteous. They thought the inferior peoples deserved to die to make room for the superiors and that Germany had a claim to European hegemony.
On December 25 2008 14:56 Cloud wrote: You know who else thought they were doing justice to the world?
the nazis
Fail.
Yup epic fail, the Nazis didnt think they were doing justice to the world, but only to their "superior" race, they were selfish mother fuckers who wanted to exterminate every other race that wasnt pure, so in the end they were only doing a favor to themselves, not everyone.
Cloud seriously let it go everyone has their own opinions stop so blindly to show everyone (including myself) that those fuckers deserve low painful death or torture what we are wrong please.
The Nazi's totally thought they were righteous. They thought the inferior peoples deserved to die to make room for the superiors and that Germany had a claim to European hegemony.
Yes, my english is kind of bad but that was what I intented to say, that they werent doing a favor to everyone but only to themselves.
Yeah I'm amazed this case has not gotten more attention here overseas.
Quite frankly I'm completely disgusted by this. I watched the video, and it was one of the worst things I've seen in my life. I strongly urge anyone who has not seen, to make sure they don't. I've seen some horrible things in my time, but that really took the cake. I've seen beheadings, accidents, suicides, and you name it. I just can't stress enough, when I say don't watch this particular video.
I simply don't understand how people can be so cruel. They were laughing about it, and talking casually as they murdered that homeless guy. It wasn't some quick murder either, the guy had to endure 6 minutes of brutal torture until they finally finished him off. All the mean while you can hear him gasping for air, gurgling on his blood, and trying to defend himself but he was too messed up to do anything.
They did this to 21 people overall. Men, Women, and Children. I'm betting this wasn't even one of their more brutal murders. Their first victim wouldn't die, by being bludgeoned with metal rods, so they had to get a hammer to finish the job. So they stuck to using hammers after that..
I really think I've lost all my faith in humanity.
On December 27 2008 08:54 travis wrote: the good news is that all of you are capable of this as well
you just need to be sent through layer after layer of de-sensitivity training.
WHO'S IN? 5 bux a pop i'll train you
With the manner in which is was carried out, I highly doubt everyone is capable of it. Unless you started the de-sensitivity training with someone who is a child.
On December 27 2008 08:54 travis wrote: the good news is that all of you are capable of this as well
you just need to be sent through layer after layer of de-sensitivity training.
WHO'S IN? 5 bux a pop i'll train you
With the manner in which is was carried out, I highly doubt everyone is capable of it. Unless you started the de-sensitivity training with someone who is a child.
thats probably true good thing i have a time machine!
On December 27 2008 09:42 EmeraldSparks wrote: Probably many people are capable of it. Ordinary people are capable of pretty sick things in the right situations.
Like this one guy who dressed up like Santa, went to a christmas party and killed like 8 people, then burnt the house down and then killed himself. (he snaped out after a divorce) He seemed like a nice fella in church though
Source for this I cant give you cause the only source I have is in Spanish
On December 27 2008 08:54 travis wrote: the good news is that all of you are capable of this as well
you just need to be sent through layer after layer of de-sensitivity training.
WHO'S IN? 5 bux a pop i'll train you
You are wrong, and frankly, full of shit. Just because you are crazy enough to be capable of it doesn't mean the rest of the world is as fucked up as you are.
There is nothing unique about these three sacks of shit.
The most pathetic people in society have always murdered and raped and preyed on the weak. Lock them up with the rest of the swine without lifting them on top of the pedestal of horror they so badly crave to rest on.
Why do you think they filmed themselves? How do you think this shit got on the net in the first place?
"Several days later, two 14-year-old boys from Podgornoye, a local village, were attacked as they went fishing. One of the two friends, Andrei Sidyuck, was killed, but a second boy named Vadik Lyakhov managed to escape. He was placed under arrest, suspected of murdering his friend. He was reportedly denied access to counsel and beaten by police during questioning. However, it quickly became clear that he was not responsible for his friend's death, and that the murder was connected with the Dnepropetrovsk murder spree. Vadik сooperated with the investigators to create sketches of the attackers."
From wikipedia
Whats up with that? Thats pretty messed up. You get attacked by the 3 maniacs but the police don't believe you and beat you instead.
On December 22 2008 13:22 EtherealDeath wrote: What The Fuck.
ditto. fucking incredible - and that video was only ONE of many murders they did!? holy fucktits thats just wrong. i'd bash their fucking faces in if i could.
On December 27 2008 10:34 Manifesto7 wrote: Seriously people, do not post the video here. People can use google, or be stuffed. We dont need snuff film links on this website. Use your head.
yeah, sorry about posting at all for those few minutes earlier.
On December 27 2008 10:51 Savio wrote: "Several days later, two 14-year-old boys from Podgornoye, a local village, were attacked as they went fishing. One of the two friends, Andrei Sidyuck, was killed, but a second boy named Vadik Lyakhov managed to escape. He was placed under arrest, suspected of murdering his friend. He was reportedly denied access to counsel and beaten by police during questioning. However, it quickly became clear that he was not responsible for his friend's death, and that the murder was connected with the Dnepropetrovsk murder spree. Vadik сooperated with the investigators to create sketches of the attackers."
From wikipedia
Whats up with that? Thats pretty messed up. You get attacked by the 3 maniacs but the police don't believe you and beat you instead.
On December 27 2008 10:51 Savio wrote: "Several days later, two 14-year-old boys from Podgornoye, a local village, were attacked as they went fishing. One of the two friends, Andrei Sidyuck, was killed, but a second boy named Vadik Lyakhov managed to escape. He was placed under arrest, suspected of murdering his friend. He was reportedly denied access to counsel and beaten by police during questioning. However, it quickly became clear that he was not responsible for his friend's death, and that the murder was connected with the Dnepropetrovsk murder spree. Vadik сooperated with the investigators to create sketches of the attackers."
From wikipedia
Whats up with that? Thats pretty messed up. You get attacked by the 3 maniacs but the police don't believe you and beat you instead.
Its called, improved interrogation techniques.
Ah, the police. They'll always get it right in the end.
i wonder how their parents have grown them up. I mean how can these guys just kill someone then just laugh about it casually, i mean even while they are doing it.
Its like they have no value for life, thats kinda sad
On December 25 2008 01:54 Kwark wrote: Name a single civilised nation which practices corporal punishment in its judicial system. Do you perhaps believe the entire of civilisation has gotten it wrong here? That the concerted move of the englightened world away from retribution and towards prevention and rehabilitation was the wrong way to go?
They would only be treated like they treated others, there is nothing wrong with this.
How they treated others = A How they treated others = wrong A = wrong How we treat them = B How they treated others = How we treat them A = B B = wrong B = "there is nothing wrong with this"?
You have just been logically proved to be an idiot. You have pre-empted the correct argument (that you'd be just as bad as them if you tortured them) with the proof that it is the correct argument as if you were making a point.
I don't know how people like you get yourselves dressed in the morning. Humanity continues to disappoint me.
1. the courtrooms are a joke 2. we aren't civilized at all 3. you throw reason and consequence out of the equation
Jesus christ, i watched like 1 min of the video, and stopped. It's absolutely horrible. It wont stop people from watching it but really wtf. I turned the volume off just to not hear that person scream's.
Seriously, this is one of the worst crimes i've ever watched. I dont know how this people can be dealt with. It's just so gruesome...
The worst thing i think, it's that they have no solution. They're fucked in their minds. There is no way to make them realize what they've done.
chirst...
RIP All victims. Sorry for all relatives of the victims. I hope this will get a good solution.
On December 27 2008 10:34 Manifesto7 wrote: Seriously people, do not post the video here. People can use google, or be stuffed. We dont need snuff film links on this website. Use your head.
The link I posted wasn't the video, it was a link to the "Let me google that for you" page
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I can agree on this regarding from what I know in this case, these guys do not deserve death penalty or life in prison. But if you would do something like this to them where do you draw the line? A lot of mental disturbed people kills others in horrifying ways, should they also be tortured even though they are sick? In times of war tutoring is common, should those who did the act be punished the same way after the war is finished?
I think you need to think about what you are saying.
Except those guys are not mentally ill, they're fucking freaks. Rich kids with an education who kill for pleasure, torture their victims, make jokes and laugh while they do and then let them agonize to death. Innocents, picked at random. The icing on the cake? THEY EVEN SHOWED UP TO THE VITICM FUNERALS WTF...
I'll say it here. I'm normally against the death penalty but what these kids did is worst than a crime, they are animals, nothing more than walking meat, worth less than dogs.
They're still humans. It's just humans aren't as nice as you thought they were.
This. It's unpleasant, but it's reality.
What Kwark said was trite. Intentionally here, but the rest of the stuff he said was also trite. When one wants to apply the word 'human' in a philosophical manner, which of course any matter involving morality will always entail; one does not have to simply use physical and genetic paradigms. I agree it's tricky and dangerous to talk about taking away peoples' human rights. In Kwark's opinion it's impossible. I just wonder why. The concept of human rights is completely arbitrary. Just like any moral law, it's not absolute and separate from humanity. It's ignored by a great deal of humans entirely. It was ignored by nazi scientists and is ignored by robert mugabe and has been ignored by mao and stalin etc.
The concept of human rights, being entirely arbitrary, is therefore entirely down to the decisions of people. It's arguable just like any law. To argue against a philosophical definition of 'human' with a legal or biological definition is irritating to say the least, and pointless to say the most.
On December 23 2008 22:01 frankbg wrote: .... I can't believe you guys are debating whether or not these guys should be sentenced to death....... WOW. These people should be tortured every day of their fucking miserable lives, kept alive and fed by force simply for the purpose of torturing them some more.
I'm with HamerD on this one. Frits and all you bleeding heart fags need to watch the fucking video again. WATCH THE FULL THING. I'd be fucking glad if they were torn to pieces by the crowd. Were these motherfuckers in south america or an arab country, they wouldve been burned alive on the streets. Hell, I'd fucking do it myself with no remorse. Joy? No. Sense of duty? Yes.
Death penalty is too soft for those monsters.
I can agree on this regarding from what I know in this case, these guys do not deserve death penalty or life in prison. But if you would do something like this to them where do you draw the line? A lot of mental disturbed people kills others in horrifying ways, should they also be tortured even though they are sick? In times of war tutoring is common, should those who did the act be punished the same way after the war is finished?
I think you need to think about what you are saying.
Except those guys are not mentally ill, they're fucking freaks. Rich kids with an education who kill for pleasure, torture their victims, make jokes and laugh while they do and then let them agonize to death. Innocents, picked at random. The icing on the cake? THEY EVEN SHOWED UP TO THE VITICM FUNERALS WTF...
I'll say it here. I'm normally against the death penalty but what these kids did is worst than a crime, they are animals, nothing more than walking meat, worth less than dogs.
They're still humans. It's just humans aren't as nice as you thought they were.
This. It's unpleasant, but it's reality.
What Kwark said was trite. Intentionally here, but the rest of the stuff he said was also trite. When one wants to apply the word 'human' in a philosophical manner, which of course any matter involving morality will always entail; one does not have to simply use physical and genetic paradigms. I agree it's tricky and dangerous to talk about taking away peoples' human rights. In Kwark's opinion it's impossible. I just wonder why. The concept of human rights is completely arbitrary. Just like any moral law, it's not absolute and separate from humanity. It's ignored by a great deal of humans entirely. It was ignored by nazi scientists and is ignored by robert mugabe and has been ignored by mao and stalin etc.
The concept of human rights, being entirely arbitrary, is therefore entirely down to the decisions of people. It's arguable just like any law. To argue against a philosophical definition of 'human' with a legal or biological definition is irritating to say the least, and pointless to say the most.
Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights.
What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. Torturing them is still wrong.
On December 27 2008 10:51 Savio wrote: "Several days later, two 14-year-old boys from Podgornoye, a local village, were attacked as they went fishing. One of the two friends, Andrei Sidyuck, was killed, but a second boy named Vadik Lyakhov managed to escape. He was placed under arrest, suspected of murdering his friend. He was reportedly denied access to counsel and beaten by police during questioning. However, it quickly became clear that he was not responsible for his friend's death, and that the murder was connected with the Dnepropetrovsk murder spree. Vadik сooperated with the investigators to create sketches of the attackers."
From wikipedia
Whats up with that? Thats pretty messed up. You get attacked by the 3 maniacs but the police don't believe you and beat you instead.
Its called, improved interrogation techniques.
Actually, it's enhanced interrogation techniques which is just another word for torture.
EDIT: A youtube video explains in a quite humerous way.
On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote: Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights.
I'm not saying these people should have different human rights, the word 'same' is wrong in this instance. I'm saying they should have no human rights because the word 'human', for the purposes intended here, shouldn't apply to them.[/QUOTE]
On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote: 1. What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. 2.What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. 3.Torturing them is still wrong.
1. I agree with you 2. It wasn't just the fact that they committed torture... 3. My colleague at work suggested: give them the choice of either imprisonment in the dark cell with the loom and the 2 meals a day paying for their own upkeep or execution. If the latter is torture then execute them. It's a pretty weak form of torture if it is torture anyway.
On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote: Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights.
I'm not saying these people should have different human rights, the word 'same' is wrong in this instance. I'm saying they should have no human rights because the word 'human', for the purposes intended here, shouldn't apply to them.
On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote: 1. What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. 2.What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. 3.Torturing them is still wrong.
1. I agree with you 2. It wasn't just the fact that they committed torture... 3. My colleague at work suggested: give them the choice of either imprisonment in the dark cell with the loom and the 2 meals a day paying for their own upkeep or execution. If the latter is torture then execute them. It's a pretty weak form of torture if it is torture anyway.
Their act wasn't espcially inhuman. I don't see why you think doing bad shit disqualifies you from human rights. It's as if you can't reconcile humanity with evil acts. Hate to break it to you but humanity isn't as nice as you think it is. They're as human as the rest of us.
If the intention of life imprisonment is not to torture them but to protect the rest of society from them then it doesn't matter if it is a mild form of torture, something which I'd question anyway.
On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote: Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights.
What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. Torturing them is still wrong.
The golden rule is probably the best ethical rule of thumb that society has. In my view, it's a two-way street: 1) Do unto others as you would have done unto you (or at least don't do unto others as you would not have done unto you), BUT the flip side is: 2) Expect to be done unto you what you would do unto others.
In other words, if I kill someone else, I have relinquished my "human right" to be protected from death. I have said, "I expect to kill others," and Echo says, "I expect others to kill me." Precisely likewise, if I torture someone else, I have relinquished my "human right" to be protected from torture, etc.
There is no ethical problem with torturing someone who has tortured. You are dealing with him according to his own value system, since he has rejected yours.
(One could try to argue that the person who tortures a torturer is now himself a torturer, etc., but that would be sophistry. If someone seriously wants to argue that point, I'll take it up.)
On December 29 2008 00:48 qrs wrote: (One could try to argue that the person who tortures a torturer is now himself a torturer, etc., but that would be sophistry. If someone seriously wants to argue that point, I'll take it up.)
Well this is a simple argument...
When someone tortures someone else, that means they are the torturer in that case. So if you torture these three teenagers, you will be a torturer as well. It won't have as bad a connotation because of the terrible acts they committed of course, but arguing that you aren't a torturer is moronic - you lose by the definition of torturer alone.
On December 29 2008 00:48 qrs wrote: (One could try to argue that the person who tortures a torturer is now himself a torturer, etc., but that would be sophistry. If someone seriously wants to argue that point, I'll take it up.)
Well this is a simple argument...
When someone tortures someone else, that means they are the torturer in that case. So if you torture these three teenagers, you will be a torturer as well. It won't have as bad a connotation because of the terrible acts they committed of course, but arguing that you aren't a torturer is moronic - you lose by the definition of torturer alone.
Right. I am not going to dispute the semantics of the word torturer. It's just that focusing on "the definition of torturer" is missing the point.
Here's my argument: The morality of the golden rule (the way I interpret it) dictates: "act towards others the way you expect them to act towards you". If I torture someone who has not tortured others, I am establishing a certain standard that others now have the right to treat me by. Yes, that gives them the right to torture me.
If I torture someone who has tortured others, I am not establishing a standard for how I treat non-torturers. The distinction is not hair-splitting, IMO--it's a simple one. If you would expect me to torture you, given the chance, you have the right to torture me. If you would expect me not to (expect in both senses: you do not want me to, and I have not shown that I would), then you do not have that right.
On December 29 2008 00:48 qrs wrote: In other words, if I kill someone else, I have relinquished my "human right" to be protected from death. I have said, "I expect to kill others," and Echo says, "I expect others to kill me." Precisely likewise, if I torture someone else, I have relinquished my "human right" to be protected from torture, etc.
i must fully agree with this statement. They lose their human right the moment they dont respect another person's human rights.
WOW I was for the death penalty but then I had a discussion with some friends and they convinced me that the death penalty was wrong. But this just makes me believe in it again. These sick fucks deserve to be told that they are going to be electrocuted, just so they can cry out the fucking penis for weeks to come up to that date, and then told it's canceled. Then the prison should do it to them again. (keeping them in isolation in between fake execution times)
On December 29 2008 02:57 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote: WOW I was for the death penalty but then I had a discussion with some friends and they convinced me that the death penalty was wrong. But this just makes me believe in it again. These sick fucks deserve to be told that they are going to be electrocuted, just so they can cry out the fucking penis for weeks to come up to that date, and then told it's canceled. Then the prison should do it to them again. (keeping them in isolation in between fake execution times)
I used to be for the death penalty also but then I realized I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in a cell. I think labor camps are the way forward, cheaper and more brutal than massive prisons and they can actually get some use out of them.
On December 29 2008 02:57 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote: WOW I was for the death penalty but then I had a discussion with some friends and they convinced me that the death penalty was wrong. But this just makes me believe in it again. These sick fucks deserve to be told that they are going to be electrocuted, just so they can cry out the fucking penis for weeks to come up to that date, and then told it's canceled. Then the prison should do it to them again. (keeping them in isolation in between fake execution times)
I used to be for the death penalty also but then I realized I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in a cell. I think labor camps are the way forward, cheaper and more brutal than massive prisons and they can actually get some use out of them.
On December 29 2008 02:37 Cloud wrote: You dont lose your right to whatever when you violate that same right of another person, have you ever like studied just a bit of law?
This has nothing to do with the law of whatever country or countries you have in mind. It has to do with universal ethics. Laws do not create rights; they (hopefully) try to reflect them.
Now, perhaps you don't agree with my interpretation of what I call "universal ethics" or perhaps you don't agree that such a thing even exists, but don't appeal to spurious authority please.
As far as I am concerned, one cannot claim to have a double standard apply to himself. He cannot violate a law(/right) and claim protection from that same law(/right). If you don't like the idea of "losing your right to whatever" how about "waiving your right to whatever"? It comes down to the same thing.
On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote: Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights.
I'm not saying these people should have different human rights, the word 'same' is wrong in this instance. I'm saying they should have no human rights because the word 'human', for the purposes intended here, shouldn't apply to them.
On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote: 1. What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. 2.What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. 3.Torturing them is still wrong.
1. I agree with you 2. It wasn't just the fact that they committed torture... 3. My colleague at work suggested: give them the choice of either imprisonment in the dark cell with the loom and the 2 meals a day paying for their own upkeep or execution. If the latter is torture then execute them. It's a pretty weak form of torture if it is torture anyway.
Their act wasn't espcially inhuman. I don't see why you think doing bad shit disqualifies you from human rights. It's as if you can't reconcile humanity with evil acts. Hate to break it to you but humanity isn't as nice as you think it is. They're as human as the rest of us.
If the intention of life imprisonment is not to torture them but to protect the rest of society from them then it doesn't matter if it is a mild form of torture, something which I'd question anyway.
On December 28 2008 10:29 Kwark wrote: Their act wasn't espcially inhuman.
That's an opinion, and one that imo most people would disagree with. Like I said, humanity in this situation is an arbitrary philosophical concept.
Uncontrolled, greatly unsympathetic, carefree violence is not something humans propagate. It IS something homo sapiens sapiens can propagate though. Those sorts of acts are simply add odds with any sort of human society- they are quintessentially un-human...inhuman.
Humanity, being a social creature, would be nowhere if each of us acted with such a lack of restraint. So much is that the case, that I would refuse to call them human simply on the basis that they don't act like a sane human acts.
On December 28 2008 10:29 Kwark wrote: humanity isn't as nice as you think it is
That's a presumptuous statement. I've seen loads of terrifying shit on the internet. Less felonies in real life but I've seen what they do in Africa etc. Most humans ARE as nice as I think. Most humans are good, in that if they CAN help someone, and it won't inconvenience them to help them; then they will. That is, by any definition in my mind, as good as anyone needs to be to be called good.
All violence borne out of necessity and despair, and mental illness, doesn't qualify the perpetrators as being 'not nice' imo. The only thing that qualifies someone as being 'not nice' is enjoying causing pain to other creatures, when unprovoked. To be honest I think a very, very small fraction of humans in this world actually come under that category. And for most of those people, they can control their desires because they understand cooperation and tact. For the group that have sick desires, and actually commit the crimes, and especially for those that have no remorse or sympathy, I either call them mentally ill or inhuman. I think you are probably too cynical about people. Apathy is what most people exhibit and that's not 'not nice'.
On December 28 2008 10:29 Kwark wrote: f the intention of life imprisonment is not to torture them but to protect the rest of society from them then it doesn't matter if it is a mild form of torture, something which I'd question anyway.
I don't understand this sentence. My position on criminal justice is that it should NEVER be about punishment, and only ever about prevention. I don't hate these murderers or want to punish them, to pay back the grief they caused; only to snuff them out as a cancerous growth on humanity, or at least sequester them from society at no cost. I don't understand the bit about questioning.
On December 29 2008 02:37 Cloud wrote: You dont lose your right to whatever when you violate that same right of another person, have you ever like studied just a bit of law?
This is a philosophical discussion that cannot be solved by facts alone. Saying 'that's the rules' just doesn't cut it. You have to explain why.
On December 29 2008 02:37 Cloud wrote: You dont lose your right to whatever when you violate that same right of another person, have you ever like studied just a bit of law?
This is a philosophical discussion that cannot be solved by facts alone. Saying 'that's the rules' just doesn't cut it. You have to explain why.
sorry qrs hit it first
This is not a philosophical discussion, this is law, its written and it has to be obeyed.
On December 29 2008 02:37 Cloud wrote: You dont lose your right to whatever when you violate that same right of another person, have you ever like studied just a bit of law?
This has nothing to do with the law of whatever country or countries you have in mind. It has to do with universal ethics. Laws do not create rights; they (hopefully) try to reflect them.
Now, perhaps you don't agree with my interpretation of what I call "universal ethics" or perhaps you don't agree that such a thing even exists, but don't appeal to spurious authority please.
As far as I am concerned, one cannot claim to have a double standard apply to himself. He cannot violate a law(/right) and claim protection from that same law(/right). If you don't like the idea of "losing your right to whatever" how about "waiving your right to whatever"? It comes down to the same thing.
You know, we have a system a little more complex than hammurabi's, there are laws that tell you what to do when you break other laws, we dont have a single universal law.
On December 29 2008 05:57 Cloud wrote: Laws do not create rights? Well they certainly limit others so that you can have your own rights dont they?
Yes, they enforce rights. That does not mean that they create them. You're essentially saying, "this is what the law says; therefore this is what the law should say," which does not follow at all.
Maybe I'm not understanding you: do you believe in the concepts of right and wrong (or rights and wrongs) as distinct from the actual law? Or do you believe that those are just convenient societal constructs and as such are determined by whatever the law happens to be?
yeah, what qrs says is spot on. People arbitrate the law, not the other way around. The law is just a common ground of arbitration to make arbitration in the justice system unbiased. It's better than having a bunch of judges deciding each case as it comes along, based on their mood or how good their breakfast was. But it is nothing more than a device to standardize arbitration. It's still entirely arbitrary. Which is why debates like this are not solved by saying 'dems the rules'.
Just out of curiosity, HamerD, is there really any way to determine which offenders qualify as 'inhuman' under your definition? I realize the slippery slope argument is a relatively poor one, but allowing torture, or the death penalty, or whatever happens to be the subject of discussion, in only the 'worst' cases seems to be setting yourself up for disaster.
Also, I have to disagree strongly with the idea of the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. The whole point of the rule is to determine whether you should commit an action based on the possible reactions, not to justify actions based on previous ones. Torture is wrong because I don't want to be tortured. Torture doesn't become right because he did it first. If we follow that logic out far enough, it simply degenerates into a 'he started it' justification for most anything.
On December 29 2008 06:16 HamerD wrote: It's better than having a bunch of judges deciding each case as it comes along, based on their mood or how good their breakfast was.
You'd guess that with the amount these judges get paid they'd be able to in fact judge, but i guess its really fucking hard lol
On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Just out of curiosity, HamerD, is there really any way to determine which offenders qualify as 'inhuman' under your definition? I realize the slippery slope argument is a relatively poor one, but allowing torture, or the death penalty, or whatever happens to be the subject of discussion, in only the 'worst' cases seems to be setting yourself up for disaster.
Ok so firstly I don't think anyone should be legally allowed to torture anyone. Why do people think that?! I just said that I wouldn't step in if these murderers were being tortured or lynched.
Secondly, it would have to be general consensus. And for me inhumanity would come very late on in the scale of atrocities. Repeated, remorseless, random, violent murders in which the killers are enjoying themselves and NOT insane would for me instantly qualify the murderers as inhuman. All other instances would be very difficult. I don't think execution should even be thought of as a way to go with most murders. I'm not saying it's an open and shut thing, but what the hell ever is? Sliding scales are what the justice system deals in. Juries have sliding scales of sentence very often don't they?
On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Also, I have to disagree strongly with the idea of the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. The whole point of the rule is to determine whether you should commit an action based on the possible reactions, not to justify actions based on previous ones. Torture is wrong because I don't want to be tortured. Torture doesn't become right because he did it first. If we follow that logic out far enough, it simply degenerates into a 'he started it' justification for most anything.
Yes I agree that torture is wrong. Torture to any creature is wrong. I completely disagree with, and am disgusted by, and would always intervene in cases of dogs and cats being tortured. With pretty much any animal being tortured. But your first part about the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. Ok I completely understand where you are coming from.
But there is such a fundamental difference between:
a) killing someone for random pleasure
b) killing someone to stop them from killing other people for random pleasure
That to call both of them simply killing, is moronic.
On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Just out of curiosity, HamerD, is there really any way to determine which offenders qualify as 'inhuman' under your definition? I realize the slippery slope argument is a relatively poor one, but allowing torture, or the death penalty, or whatever happens to be the subject of discussion, in only the 'worst' cases seems to be setting yourself up for disaster.
Ok so firstly I don't think anyone should be legally allowed to torture anyone. Why do people think that?! I just said that I wouldn't step in if these murderers were being tortured or lynched.
Secondly, it would have to be general consensus. And for me inhumanity would come very late on in the scale of atrocities. Repeated, remorseless, random, violent murders in which the killers are enjoying themselves and NOT insane would for me instantly qualify the murderers as inhuman. All other instances would be very difficult. I don't think execution should even be thought of as a way to go with most murders. I'm not saying it's an open and shut thing, but what the hell ever is? Sliding scales are what the justice system deals in. Juries have sliding scales of sentence very often don't they?
I guess I'm a bit confused on the point you're trying to clarify here. You oppose torture, you don't think it should be legal, but you wouldn't have a problem if it was used in this situation because it's super bad?
And as far as the general consensus goes, that's what we have now. And the death penalty is abused all the time. Case in point: Texas. You claim that the death penalty should be reserved for only the most heinous, inhuman, unrepentant, etc criminals, yet I guarantee you there's dozens of lawmakers, politicians, judges, and so forth, who think that's what's happening right now.
On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Also, I have to disagree strongly with the idea of the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. The whole point of the rule is to determine whether you should commit an action based on the possible reactions, not to justify actions based on previous ones. Torture is wrong because I don't want to be tortured. Torture doesn't become right because he did it first. If we follow that logic out far enough, it simply degenerates into a 'he started it' justification for most anything.
Yes I agree that torture is wrong. Torture to any creature is wrong. I completely disagree with, and am disgusted by, and would always intervene in cases of dogs and cats being tortured. With pretty much any animal being tortured. But your first part about the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. Ok I completely understand where you are coming from.
But there is such a fundamental difference between:
a) killing someone for random pleasure
b) killing someone to stop them from killing other people for random pleasure
That to call both of them simply killing, is moronic.
But the contrast you're pointing out there is a false dilemma. If the only option was to either shoot the guys in the head, or to let them out to continue murdering, of course it would be justified. But that's not the situation. You have to justify killing them rather than simply imprisoning them, not killing them rather than letting them go.
On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Just out of curiosity, HamerD, is there really any way to determine which offenders qualify as 'inhuman' under your definition? I realize the slippery slope argument is a relatively poor one, but allowing torture, or the death penalty, or whatever happens to be the subject of discussion, in only the 'worst' cases seems to be setting yourself up for disaster.
Ok so firstly I don't think anyone should be legally allowed to torture anyone. Why do people think that?! I just said that I wouldn't step in if these murderers were being tortured or lynched.
Secondly, it would have to be general consensus. And for me inhumanity would come very late on in the scale of atrocities. Repeated, remorseless, random, violent murders in which the killers are enjoying themselves and NOT insane would for me instantly qualify the murderers as inhuman. All other instances would be very difficult. I don't think execution should even be thought of as a way to go with most murders. I'm not saying it's an open and shut thing, but what the hell ever is? Sliding scales are what the justice system deals in. Juries have sliding scales of sentence very often don't they?
I guess I'm a bit confused on the point you're trying to clarify here. You oppose torture, you don't think it should be legal, but you wouldn't have a problem if it was used in this situation because it's super bad?
And as far as the general consensus goes, that's what we have now. And the death penalty is abused all the time. Case in point: Texas. You claim that the death penalty should be reserved for only the most heinous, inhuman, unrepentant, etc criminals, yet I guarantee you there's dozens of lawmakers, politicians, judges, and so forth, who think that's what's happening right now.
On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Also, I have to disagree strongly with the idea of the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. The whole point of the rule is to determine whether you should commit an action based on the possible reactions, not to justify actions based on previous ones. Torture is wrong because I don't want to be tortured. Torture doesn't become right because he did it first. If we follow that logic out far enough, it simply degenerates into a 'he started it' justification for most anything.
Yes I agree that torture is wrong. Torture to any creature is wrong. I completely disagree with, and am disgusted by, and would always intervene in cases of dogs and cats being tortured. With pretty much any animal being tortured. But your first part about the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. Ok I completely understand where you are coming from.
But there is such a fundamental difference between:
a) killing someone for random pleasure
b) killing someone to stop them from killing other people for random pleasure
That to call both of them simply killing, is moronic.
But the contrast you're pointing out there is a false dilemma. If the only option was to either shoot the guys in the head, or to let them out to continue murdering, of course it would be justified. But that's not the situation. You have to justify killing them rather than simply imprisoning them, not killing them rather than letting them go.
Edit: Formatting
Ok firstly, I think torture is morally wrong. I think stealing is morally wrong. But I don't really care if I see someone stealing from Primark, because I know they are morally wrong (they use sweatshops etc). Same goes for the torture of these guys. I wouldn't want to watch it, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't really give a shit if it happened. I'd just walk on by.
Secondly, you asked me how I would imagine one could decide whether certain criminals are inhuman or not. I said by consensus. You then simply took the method I suggested and, because it is similar to the method used to determine whether Texan criminals get the death sentence, attempted to lump both concepts together. I don't think it works...I don't agree with the Texas death sentence system. And as far as the actual situation in Texas is concerned, it's no easy thing to deal with to be honest. I can't really get involved in American law though, so try to rephrase the argument, especially if I have misunderstood you.
Thirdly, your point about the false dilemma is totally acceptable but you were shooting at a target I didn't present. I was simply saying that saying 'you are just a killer if you kill a killer' is a little too simple for my taste. I wasn't bringing the concept of life imprisonment into it.
That whole concept is well: do these murderers warrant spending any money to keep them alive? I think no. So I think the cheapest way of sequestering them from society is the best. Dark room, 1 loom, make t shirts to pay for their meals, no healthcare; extra money to the families of victims. But then if that is torture they should just be killed. I don't think it's right to actually spend money keeping them alive, because as I said before, I don't think they deserve human rights.
On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Just out of curiosity, HamerD, is there really any way to determine which offenders qualify as 'inhuman' under your definition? I realize the slippery slope argument is a relatively poor one, but allowing torture, or the death penalty, or whatever happens to be the subject of discussion, in only the 'worst' cases seems to be setting yourself up for disaster.
Ok so firstly I don't think anyone should be legally allowed to torture anyone. Why do people think that?! I just said that I wouldn't step in if these murderers were being tortured or lynched.
Secondly, it would have to be general consensus. And for me inhumanity would come very late on in the scale of atrocities. Repeated, remorseless, random, violent murders in which the killers are enjoying themselves and NOT insane would for me instantly qualify the murderers as inhuman. All other instances would be very difficult. I don't think execution should even be thought of as a way to go with most murders. I'm not saying it's an open and shut thing, but what the hell ever is? Sliding scales are what the justice system deals in. Juries have sliding scales of sentence very often don't they?
I guess I'm a bit confused on the point you're trying to clarify here. You oppose torture, you don't think it should be legal, but you wouldn't have a problem if it was used in this situation because it's super bad?
And as far as the general consensus goes, that's what we have now. And the death penalty is abused all the time. Case in point: Texas. You claim that the death penalty should be reserved for only the most heinous, inhuman, unrepentant, etc criminals, yet I guarantee you there's dozens of lawmakers, politicians, judges, and so forth, who think that's what's happening right now.
On December 29 2008 07:59 HamerD wrote:
On December 29 2008 07:27 Lucktar wrote: Also, I have to disagree strongly with the idea of the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. The whole point of the rule is to determine whether you should commit an action based on the possible reactions, not to justify actions based on previous ones. Torture is wrong because I don't want to be tortured. Torture doesn't become right because he did it first. If we follow that logic out far enough, it simply degenerates into a 'he started it' justification for most anything.
Yes I agree that torture is wrong. Torture to any creature is wrong. I completely disagree with, and am disgusted by, and would always intervene in cases of dogs and cats being tortured. With pretty much any animal being tortured. But your first part about the golden rule being used in a retaliatory sense. Ok I completely understand where you are coming from.
But there is such a fundamental difference between:
a) killing someone for random pleasure
b) killing someone to stop them from killing other people for random pleasure
That to call both of them simply killing, is moronic.
But the contrast you're pointing out there is a false dilemma. If the only option was to either shoot the guys in the head, or to let them out to continue murdering, of course it would be justified. But that's not the situation. You have to justify killing them rather than simply imprisoning them, not killing them rather than letting them go.
Edit: Formatting
Ok firstly, I think torture is morally wrong. I think stealing is morally wrong. But I don't really care if I see someone stealing from Primark, because I know they are morally wrong (they use sweatshops etc). Same goes for the torture of these guys. I wouldn't want to watch it, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't really give a shit if it happened. I'd just walk on by.
Silence is as good as assent. If you would allow it to happen without speaking out, without giving a shit, then you don't really believe it's morally wrong.
On December 29 2008 09:05 HamerD wrote:Secondly, you asked me how I would imagine one could decide whether certain criminals are inhuman or not. I said by consensus. You then simply took the method I suggested and, because it is similar to the method used to determine whether Texan criminals get the death sentence, attempted to lump both concepts together. I don't think it works...I don't agree with the Texas death sentence system. And as far as the actual situation in Texas is concerned, it's no easy thing to deal with to be honest. I can't really get involved in American law though, so try to rephrase the argument, especially if I have misunderstood you.
Sorry, forgot you were from the UK; I shouldn't assume that everybody's familiar with the US justice system. What I'm saying is that a consensus system is what we have now in determining whether the death penalty is administered. In Texas, either people tend to be vindictive, bloodthirsty, or just 'tough on crime,' as they love to put it. Either way, the state of Texas contributes a ridiculous percentage of the US executions.
The point I'm trying to make is that a consensus doesn't work, because when people get involved in the particulars of a case, they get emotionally involved. Every murder is horrible, and every one causes immense suffering for the family members involved. A consensus system leads to the death penalty being just another means of punishment.
On December 29 2008 09:05 HamerD wrote:Thirdly, your point about the false dilemma is totally acceptable but you were shooting at a target I didn't present. I was simply saying that saying 'you are just a killer if you kill a killer' is a little too simple for my taste. I wasn't bringing the concept of life imprisonment into it.
Fair enough. From my perspective, the target of the killing is immaterial in determining its morality or lack thereof. I'm not saying that there isn't justifiable homicide, in self-defense and so forth. But if I believe that the death penalty is immoral, and I do, then I believe that executing the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs is just as wrong as executing anyone else. If an action is immoral, the object of that action is immaterial. And the fact that the object may be of little value does not deminish the immorality of the action.
On December 29 2008 09:05 HamerD wrote:That whole concept is well: do these murderers warrant spending any money to keep them alive? I think no. So I think the cheapest way of sequestering them from society is the best. Dark room, 1 loom, make t shirts to pay for their meals, no healthcare; extra money to the families of victims. But then if that is torture they should just be killed. I don't think it's right to actually spend money keeping them alive, because as I said before, I don't think they deserve human rights.
You could ask that same question of every person in the criminal justice system of any country on earth. And if you were honest, you'd answer 'no' a large portion of the time. Obviously, this doesn't mean that we should drag them outside and shoot them in the head to rid the state of their expense. The prison system exists to keep criminals out of society. Part of that job is to provide food, shelter, even entertainment, in some cases, to people who objectively don't deserve it.
But whether they deserve the care isn't the point. The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do.
On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote: But whether they deserve the care isn't the point.
I don't see how it's not.
The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do.
You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial.
Also, the choice isn't one between protecting society by torturing them to death and not protecting society by arming them, funding them and letting them loose. There are options between the two, like prison.
On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote: The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for.
This makes no sense. The debate is over whether or not the criminal justice system should do <this> or <that>, so appealing to it does nothing.
i made a friend watch it and tell me how it is, here is his feedback:
him: FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK him: HOLY SHIT him: THEY JUST PUT THE SCREW DRIVER IN HIS EYE him: AND JABBED IT AROUND FOR LIKE 10 seconds him: this guy is laying in the woods him: gurgling on his own blood him: and his face is all caved in me: =[ him: they are now stabbing his stomach him: with a screwdriver him: how can a human do this man? me: do u regret it him: yo i dont regret anything.. u live once him: might as well watch someone get murdered [LOL] him: dude holy fuck him: they just stabbed him in the eye him: like 30 times him: wtfffffffffff ihim: i wonder if he can even feel it anymore =[ him: .. they are like laughing
On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote: The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for.
This makes no sense. The debate is over whether or not the criminal justice system should do <this> or <that>, so appealing to it does nothing.
This "debate" is on whether or not these people are human or inhuman and if they deserve human rights. Not on what the justice system should do. :/
The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do.
You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial.
So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc. What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?'
On December 29 2008 13:02 zizou21 wrote: HOLY SHIT
I HVE NO OTHER WORDS
i made a friend watch it and tell me how it is, here is his feedback:
him: FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK him: HOLY SHIT him: THEY JUST PUT THE SCREW DRIVER IN HIS EYE him: AND JABBED IT AROUND FOR LIKE 10 seconds him: this guy is laying in the woods him: gurgling on his own blood him: and his face is all caved in me: =[ him: they are now stabbing his stomach him: with a screwdriver him: how can a human do this man? me: do u regret it him: yo i dont regret anything.. u live once him: might as well watch someone get murdered [LOL] him: dude holy fuck him: they just stabbed him in the eye him: like 30 times him: wtfffffffffff ihim: i wonder if he can even feel it anymore =[ him: .. they are like laughing
Same reaction a friend of mine had :S he puked all over his floor though
On December 29 2008 10:32 Kwark wrote: HamerD, silent inaction is consent.
Also, the choice isn't one between protecting society by torturing them to death and not protecting society by arming them, funding them and letting them loose. There are options between the two, like prison.
nobody said they should be tortured to death.
more like tortured untill their dead, but not letting them die from it.
On December 29 2008 10:32 Kwark wrote: HamerD, silent inaction is consent.
Let's get this straight. I wouldn't WANT it to happen to them, but if it did happen to them, I wouldn't give a shit. There wouldn't be any moral outrage. I am morally outraged by torture of any creature, but to be honest my moral outrage of their being tortured would be surpassed by my moral outrage of their actions. I wouldn't vote to make torturing torturers the law. So I don't 'consent' to it.
Consent is inextricably linked to power...if I could stop the killers from being tortured with one wave of a hand, I might consider it. Anything more, let them burn I say. Also, silent inaction is a tautology.
On December 29 2008 10:32 Kwark wrote: HamerD, silent inaction is consent.
Also, the choice isn't one between protecting society by torturing them to death and not protecting society by arming them, funding them and letting them loose. There are options between the two, like prison.
nobody said they should be tortured to death.
more like tortured untill their dead, but not letting them die from it.
Well, on the subject of torturing them or w/e people were saying, i think they should just be locked away in a harsh prison, like no luxury stuff, my friends brother is in prison for something minor yet they have PC[no inet] ps2, tvs etc in their room, i wouldn't want these guys to get that treatment, instead just give them the basics.
I haven't actually watched the video, i got linked a while back not knowing what it was and just saw a guy with a log on him, when i was told what the link was, i swiftly closed that shit :\ sounds really bad stuff
edit; come to think of it, i wouldn't wish anyone the death penalty, not even these guys, they'd suffer a lot less being locked away for the rest of their lives to reflect on what they did, killing them would be giving them the easy way out.
On December 29 2008 10:32 Kwark wrote: HamerD, silent inaction is consent.
Also, the choice isn't one between protecting society by torturing them to death and not protecting society by arming them, funding them and letting them loose. There are options between the two, like prison.
nobody said they should be tortured to death.
more like tortured untill their dead, but not letting them die from it.
You're an idiot.
I might be an idiot but at least i'm not a monkey that considers himself an owl.
On December 29 2008 10:32 Kwark wrote: HamerD, silent inaction is consent.
Also, the choice isn't one between protecting society by torturing them to death and not protecting society by arming them, funding them and letting them loose. There are options between the two, like prison.
nobody said they should be tortured to death.
more like tortured untill their dead, but not letting them die from it.
You're an idiot.
I might be an idiot but at least i'm not a monkey that considers himself an owl.
"Now landing in Dnepropetrovsk" - Welcome to Ukraine, enjoy your stay. Oh.. and if you feel lonely don't hesitate, give us a call we will introduce you to our lovely youths.
All jokes aside, this is actually a mirror image of the youth nowadays, the apathy for everything. "They were bored and thus started killing people whilst filming it all on their mobile phones" What can I say... killing them wouldn't be enough, leaving them in prison to rot and be raped multiple times daily - Yes.
On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote: But whether they deserve the care isn't the point.
I don't see how it's not.
The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do.
You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial.
So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc.
Yes, precisely that.
What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?'
To sever that connection, one has to ignore his obligations implied by that connection. Society owes nothing to a man who acts as if he owes nothing to society.
If you want a more nuanced view than all-or-nothing, I'll allow that there are different mutual obligations in an organized society, each of which can be independently severed. If someone does not pay his taxes, he forfeits the right to any benefit that is paid for by tax money. If someone murders, he forfeits his right to life. Especially heinous murders? Well, if by heinous, you mean that the murderer has violated some further right than the right to life, then that is what he has forfeited. If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured.
It's a simple view of things, but an eminently just one, in my opinion. I don't see why you seem to hold of "rights" that cannot be forfeited.
On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote: But whether they deserve the care isn't the point.
I don't see how it's not.
The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do.
You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial.
So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc.
What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?'
To sever that connection, one has to ignore his obligations implied by that connection. Society owes nothing to a man who acts as if he owes nothing to society.
If you want a more nuanced view than all-or-nothing, I'll allow that there are different mutual obligations in an organized society, each of which can be independently severed. If someone does not pay his taxes, he forfeits the right to any benefit that is paid for by tax money. If someone murders, he forfeits his right to life. Especially heinous murders? Well, if by heinous, you mean that the murderer has violated some further right than the right to life, then that is what he has forfeited. If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured.
It's a simple view of things, but an eminently just one, in my opinion. I don't see why you seem to hold of "rights" that cannot be forfeited.
Simply put, a society that functions as you propose would cease to function rather quickly. Anyone who steals forfeits the right to own property? Anyone who cheats on his taxes can no longer use any publicly funded service? Seriously? How far are you willing to take this view? Anyone who looks in somebody else's mailbox forfeits the right to privacy?
I don't care how 'just' this idea is, it just doesn't work. At the risk of sounding cliche, Gandhi had a pretty good point when he said, 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'
On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote: But whether they deserve the care isn't the point.
I don't see how it's not.
The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do.
You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial.
So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc.
Yes, precisely that.
What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?'
To sever that connection, one has to ignore his obligations implied by that connection. Society owes nothing to a man who acts as if he owes nothing to society.
If you want a more nuanced view than all-or-nothing, I'll allow that there are different mutual obligations in an organized society, each of which can be independently severed. If someone does not pay his taxes, he forfeits the right to any benefit that is paid for by tax money. If someone murders, he forfeits his right to life. Especially heinous murders? Well, if by heinous, you mean that the murderer has violated some further right than the right to life, then that is what he has forfeited. If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured.
It's a simple view of things, but an eminently just one, in my opinion. I don't see why you seem to hold of "rights" that cannot be forfeited.
Simply put, a society that functions as you propose would cease to function rather quickly. Anyone who steals forfeits the right to own property? Anyone who cheats on his taxes can no longer use any publicly funded service? Seriously? How far are you willing to take this view? Anyone who looks in somebody else's mailbox forfeits the right to privacy?
I don't care how 'just' this idea is, it just doesn't work. At the risk of sounding cliche, Gandhi had a pretty good point when he said, 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'
I'll grant that taken to the extreme, strict justice may not be a good way to run a society. Still, from the point of view of ethics and what you might call "natural" human rights, I maintain that someone who doesn't respect a particular right of others loses the ability to claim it for himself.
As for society-established human rights, in accordance with your point, obviously there must be some middle ground. I concede that a society where one theft makes you a lifelong felon would be unworkable; on the other hand, one where murder is punished by a fine would be just as bad. The precise details of the law are for society (via its legislators) to write. Presumably its guidelines are pragmatic: what law will benefit society as a whole the most. But even if pragmatism is the rule, I am not convinced that society as a whole stands to benefit from keeping murderers alive.
On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote: But whether they deserve the care isn't the point.
I don't see how it's not.
The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do.
You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial.
So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc.
Yes, precisely that.
What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?'
To sever that connection, one has to ignore his obligations implied by that connection. Society owes nothing to a man who acts as if he owes nothing to society.
If you want a more nuanced view than all-or-nothing, I'll allow that there are different mutual obligations in an organized society, each of which can be independently severed. If someone does not pay his taxes, he forfeits the right to any benefit that is paid for by tax money. If someone murders, he forfeits his right to life. Especially heinous murders? Well, if by heinous, you mean that the murderer has violated some further right than the right to life, then that is what he has forfeited. If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured.
It's a simple view of things, but an eminently just one, in my opinion. I don't see why you seem to hold of "rights" that cannot be forfeited.
Simply put, a society that functions as you propose would cease to function rather quickly. Anyone who steals forfeits the right to own property? Anyone who cheats on his taxes can no longer use any publicly funded service? Seriously? How far are you willing to take this view? Anyone who looks in somebody else's mailbox forfeits the right to privacy?
I don't care how 'just' this idea is, it just doesn't work. At the risk of sounding cliche, Gandhi had a pretty good point when he said, 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'
I'll grant that taken to the extreme, strict justice may not be a good way to run a society. Still, from the point of view of ethics and what you might call "natural" human rights, I maintain that someone who doesn't respect a particular right of others loses the ability to claim it for himself.
As for society-established human rights, in accordance with your point, obviously there must be some middle ground. I concede that a society where one theft makes you a lifelong felon would be unworkable; on the other hand, one where murder is punished by a fine would be just as bad. The precise details of the law are for society (via its legislators) to write. Presumably its guidelines are pragmatic: what law will benefit society as a whole the most. But even if pragmatism is the rule, I am not convinced that society as a whole stands to benefit from keeping murderers alive.
Well, I guess that's where we just have a fundamental disagreement. Human rights are something I see as intrinsic, owed absolutely independent of one's behavior or conduct. I understand your view, I just can't agree with a view that thinks of rights as something to be earned. *shrug*
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.bestgore.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/dnepropetrovsk-maniacs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.wvwnews.net/images/teaser/cat_eyes_seen-unseen.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.moviewallpapers.net/images/wallpapers/1971/a-clockwork-orange/a-clockwork-orange-3-1024.jpg)
