Man planned to eat murder victim

[PureX]

I would submit that for every action there must be an appropriate reaction. Executing deviants such as this man strikes me as the only just and appropriate response to this kind of atrocity.

I know it does, and I understand.

But it only strikes you this way because you grew up watching movies and reading books based on the glorification of violent revenge. It was an easy thrill for Hollywood movie-makers and fiction-writers to create and sell. And the thrill ride they created worked on us because we humans are naturally fascinated by "evil", and violence, and death.

I love John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies as much as anyone, but the sad truth is that the heart and soul of all those movies, and many thousands like them, was the cheap thrill of violent revenge. All the movie-makers did was titillate us with "evil", violence, and death, (because we are automatically titillated by these) and give us an excuse for our titillation by pretending it was "justified".

By now, every generation of American living has been raised with this idea of the justness of violent revenge, and most have never bothered to actually question it intellectually, philosophically, or even practically. It's so ingrained in us that we feel a visceral sense of satisfaction when we see the "bad guy" blown up, or ripped to pieces by bullets, or otherwise violently obliterated (as if obliterating the bad man will obliterate the "badness" he has done). But in real life a violent response to violence only increases violence across the board. And as a result America is now one of the most violent places on Earth even though we have a great legal system and an excellent police force. We have trained ourselves to be violent people, and to think that violence is an appropriate response to whatever action or person we consider "bad", and the inevitable result is more and more violence within our society.

I understand your feelings, but I also understand that you have been trained by Hollywood to feel as you do. But Hollywood was just trying to sell movies, they weren't intending to rationalize social violence. Maybe it's time to take some responsibility for those feelings you have and really consider the viability of allowing them to shape your concept of ethics.

 

[Granite]

I know it does, and I understand.

But it only strikes you this way because you grew up watching movies and reading books based on the glorification of violent revenge. It was an easy thrill for Hollywood movie-makers and fiction-writers to create and sell. And the thrill ride they created worked on us because we humans are naturally fascinated by "evil", and violence, and death.

I love John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies as much as anyone, but the sad truth is that the heart and soul of all those movies, and many thousands like them, was the cheap thrill of violent revenge. All the movie-makers did was titillate us with "evil", violence, and death, (because we are automatically titillated by these) and give us an excuse for our titillation by pretending it was "justified".

By now, every generation of American living has been raised with this idea of the justness of violent revenge, and most have never bothered to actually question it intellectually, philosophically, or even practically. It's so ingrained in us that we feel a visceral sense of satisfaction when we see the "bad guy" blown up, or ripped to pieces by bullets, or otherwise violently obliterated (as if obliterating the bad man will obliterate the "badness" he has done). But in real life a violent response to violence only increases violence across the board. And as a result America is now one of the most violent places on Earth even though we have a great legal system and an excellent police force. We have trained ourselves to be violent people, and to think that violence is an appropriate response to whatever action or person we consider "bad", and the inevitable result is more and more violence within our society.

I understand your feelings, but I also understand that you have been trained by Hollywood to feel as you do. But Hollywood was just trying to sell movies, they weren't intending to rationalize social violence. Maybe it's time to take some responsibility for those feelings you have and really consider the viability of allowing them to shape your concept of ethics.

PureX,

You're a good guy with a lot of insight and I appeciate your observations. But please don't ever patronize me again like you just did. "Hollywood" has little to nothing to do with my opinions, thank you. I understand your point but I'm more than capable of thinking for myself without having to rely on cinema.

 

[PureX]

PureX,

You're a good guy with a lot of insight and I appreciate your observations. But please don't ever patronize me again like you just did. "Hollywood" has little to nothing to do with my opinions, thank you. I understand your point but I'm more than capable of thinking for myself without having to rely on cinema.

I wasn't intending to patronize you, and I don't think it can be done without intent, can it? Maybe it can, if so I'm sorry.

And I disagree that it's so easy to separate ourselves from our culture like that.

The truth is that there is only one logical reason to kill a murderer and that's to make sure that they will not murder someone else. Claims about "justice", and
"balance", and "deterrence" are irrational, and illogical, and have been shown to be ineffective. They come from feelings that we have within us because of our particular culturalization. These feelings make the desire for violent retribution seem "logical" when they aren't. Logic isn't a satiated feeling, and when we sit down and actually think about violent retribution logically, we'll see that it doesn't really make a lot of sense. And we'll also see that a culture that glorifies violent retribution will inevitably and logically become more and more violent. And we in America do have a very violent culture. And it is getting worse.

Violence tends to inspire more violence amongst human beings. It's plain as day to anyone who looks at it without the emotional blinders and rationalizations. Given the fact that increasing violence is not good for any of us, and the fact that we don't need to kill people to keep them from killing others, I would say that to continue to do so is irrational, and even dysfunctional.

How do you counter this without relying on culturally inspired emotionalism?

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

There is no need for incarceration to cost us anything. Prisoners should be made to pay their own way by working. And anyway, this is not a money issue. Lots of people are an economic burden on society, do you propose that we kill them all just because they cost us money?

Maybe part of the problem that is going to come between our perspectives is that we will continue to disagree on what crimes deserve incarceration and what crimes deserve death. I'm not going to go into that that lengthy discussion on this thread.

You want this guy alive. Why? I don't really know. I don't see why he needs or deserves to live nor will you change my mind since I believe in absolutes and you don't.
As far as other people being a burden on our society, I'm not going to discuss that on this thread either. Make a new thread for it if you want to talk about it.

 

[Granite]

I wasn't intending to patronize you, and I don't think it can be done without intent, can it? Maybe it can, if so I'm sorry.

And I disagree that it's so easy to separate ourselves from our culture like that.

The truth is that there is only one logical reason to kill a murderer and that's to make sure that they will not murder someone else. Claims about "justice", and
"balance", and "deterrence" are irrational, and illogical, and have been shown to be ineffective. They come from feelings that we have within us because of our particular culturalization. These feelings make the desire for violent retribution seem "logical" when they aren't. Logic isn't a satiated feeling, and when we sit down and actually think about violent retribution logically, we'll see that it doesn't really make a lot of sense. And we'll also see that a culture that glorifies violent retribution will inevitably and logically become more and more violent. And we in America do have a very violent culture. And it is getting worse.

Violence tends to inspire more violence amongst human beings. It's plain as day to anyone who looks at it without the emotional blinders and rationalizations. Given the fact that increasing violence is not good for any of us, and the fact that we don't need to kill people to keep them from killing others, I would say that to continue to do so is irrational, and even dysfunctional.

How do you counter this without relying on culturally inspired emotionalism?

Apology accepted.

You're right: executing a murderer guarantees he won't commit another crime and that's the biggest motivating factor behind it. And yes, our culture is steeped in violence. My argument for the death penalty isn't based on cultural emotions so much as it is based on my common sense: a murderer is detrimental to society as a whole, represents a very clear danger, and should be dealt with accordingly. The punishment should fit the crime, and if it is a crime against a person, such as kidnapping, rape, or murder, the appropriate penalty doesn't involve--or shouldn't--three square a day for the rest of your life.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

There is no just "answer" for such behavior. And killing is not "balanced" out by more killing. It's time for America to grow up, as most other nations of the world have, and realize that killing people is not a viable solution to our nation's problems.

Who ever suggested putting murderers to death would solve all our nation's probems? It won't, and I rather doubt anybody thinks it will. It'll go a long way toward solving our problem with murderers, though.

 

[PureX]

Maybe part of the problem that is going to come between our perspectives is that we will continue to disagree on what crimes deserve incarceration and what crimes deserve death. I'm not going to go into that that lengthy discussion on this thread.

You want this guy alive. Why? I don't really know. I don't see why he needs or deserves to live nor will you change my mind since I believe in absolutes and you don't.
As far as other people being a burden on our society, I'm not going to discuss that on this thread either. Make a new thread for it if you want to talk about it.

Well, I really don't see how you think you have the right to decide who "deserves" to live. And I'm saddened by the fact you aparently don't see any danger in a human being thinking that he has the right or even the ability to decide who deserves to live, and who doesn't. But since you are so absolutely convinced that you have that right, and that you could not possibly be wrong, then I guess there's no point in bothering to discuss it.

 

[PureX]

Apology accepted.

Thanks.

You're right: executing a murderer guarantees he won't commit another crime and that's the biggest motivating factor behind it. And yes, our culture is steeped in violence. My argument for the death penalty isn't based on cultural emotions so much as it is based on my common sense: a murderer is detrimental to society as a whole, represents a very clear danger, and should be dealt with accordingly.

There are lots of convicted murderers who turn their lives around in prison and become positive teachers and motivators to other prisoners. To claim that just because a person committed the crime of murder, once, that they are forever after a "detriment to society" is just plain untrue. And how are you even going to define such a condition as a "detriment to society", anyway? What criteria are you going to use to determine this?

Also, most convicted murderers don't present any further threat to society. Most of them knew their victims and committed their crimes in a fit of chemically exaggerated passion and would not be likely to do so again even if they had the opportunity. I'm not proposing that we let them lose, I'm only saying that they aren't pulling at the bars and salivating at the thought of butchering another human being. Most of the murderers who have been paroled did not committed another murder. Yes, there are serial killers who can never be free under any circumstances, but most murderers can be freed without killing again. So your argument that murderers are a detriment and danger to society is unsupported on both counts.

The punishment should fit the crime, and if it is a crime against a person, such as kidnapping, rape, or murder, the appropriate penalty doesn't involve--or shouldn't--three square a day for the rest of your life.

Are you basing this claim on logic, or on emotionalism? If on logic, please explain it.

 

[PureX]

Who ever suggested putting murderers to death would solve all our nation's probems? It won't, and I rather doubt anybody thinks it will. It'll go a long way toward solving our problem with murderers, though.

No, it really won't. Because violence inspires violence. The more murderers you kill, and the more public the executions, the more murderers there will be in the future. That's just the way it is. People who see violence as an acceptable form of retribution will be more likely to resort to it at some point in the future.

That's the facts, Jack! (Sorry, I just always wanted to say that. *smile*)

 

[koban]

No, it really won't. Because violence inspires violence. The more murderers you kill, and the more public the executions, the more murderers there will be in the future. That's just the way it is. People who see violence as an acceptable form of retribution will be more likely to resort to it at some point in the future.

That's the facts, Jack! (Sorry, I just always wanted to say that. *smile*)

Negro please!

 

[Emo]

No, it really won't. Because violence inspires violence. The more murderers you kill, and the more public the executions, the more murderers there will be in the future. That's just the way it is. People who see violence as an acceptable form of retribution will be more likely to resort to it at some point in the future.

That's the facts, Jack! (Sorry, I just always wanted to say that. *smile*)

Do you think that people have a basic understanding of right and wrong?


Do you think that people in general fear death?

 

[PureX]

Do you think that people have a basic understanding of right and wrong?

I think people have to be taught what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior within their culture. What is "right" or "wrong" is an individual subjective moral assessment.

Do you think that people in general fear death?

No. I think people in general fear anything they don't understand or control. We only fear death to the degree that we feel we don't understand or control it. The 9/11 terrorists, for example, believed that they understood and controlled their own death, and so they were not afraid of it.

Here's a question for you: do you think a person's hatred and rage can overcome their "fear of death"? Do you think the effects of drugs or alcohol can overcome a person's fear of death? How about excessive or obsessive lust? How about religion, can religion overcome a person's fear of death?

And if all these conditions and more can overcome a person's fear of death, as I believe they routinely do, then the fear of death is not going to be much of a deterrent to murder, is it? Especially since it's exactly these conditions that drive people to kill other people.

 

[Granite]

Thanks.
There are lots of convicted murderers who turn their lives around in prison and become positive teachers and motivators to other prisoners. To claim that just because a person committed the crime of murder, once, that they are forever after a "detriment to society" is just plain untrue. And how are you even going to define such a condition as a "detriment to society", anyway? What criteria are you going to use to determine this?

Also, most convicted murderers don't present any further threat to society. Most of them knew their victims and committed their crimes in a fit of chemically exaggerated passion and would not be likely to do so again even if they had the opportunity. I'm not proposing that we let them lose, I'm only saying that they aren't pulling at the bars and salivating at the thought of butchering another human being. Most of the murderers who have been paroled did not committed another murder. Yes, there are serial killers who can never be free under any circumstances, but most murderers can be freed without killing again. So your argument that murderers are a detriment and danger to society is unsupported on both counts.
Are you basing this claim on logic, or on emotionalism? If on logic, please explain it.

The criteria is this: does this person pose a threat to society based on what they've done in the past? What kind of threat? How severe were past crimes?

I simply don't think rolling the dice with a murderer is wise policy.

 

[PureX]

The criteria is this: does this person pose a threat to society based on what they've done in the past? What kind of threat? How severe were past crimes?

Now we're getting somewhere.

What you're describing, now, is the uniqueness of each situation. Some convicted murderers pose little or no further threat to society, while others pose a very serious danger to any human beings they come in contact with, inside or outside of prison. These are the two extremes between which the vast majority of convicted murderers fall. To choose the most extreme case and use it as justification for a blanket policy of execution is simply not logical or rational. Especially in light of the fact that in doing that, we're certain to increase violence in the society across the board.

I believe there are rare instances in which a human being must be put to death simply for the safety of the rest of society. There are serial killers who kill for pleasure, at random, and will never stop killing as long as they are able. It's logical and reasonable to claim that these killers are just too dangerous to keep alive. But these are the rare extreme.

I simply don't think rolling the dice with a murderer is wise policy.

We humans have to "roll the dice" with every decision we make; especially decisions involving the probability of our own future behavior. There are reasons, though, that as societies have developed, they also found it both wise and necessary to assume innocense until guilt is proven. There are reasons that as societies developed and matured, they chose to rely on objective evidence and unbiased judges and juries rather than the "gut feelings" of politicians, priests, and the common rabble to determine the guilt or innocense of other people. There are reasons why as societies have developed and matured, they have stopped whipping, torturing, hanging, beheading, drawing and quartering, and otherwise violently killing criminals in the public square.

There are REASONS why we don't do these things anymore, and I think we need to figure out what they are and pay attention to the consequences of ignoring them again. And I'm not seeing this happening with most of those who are routinely crying for blood every time they read about some sensational crime in the papers.

And that's why I'm taking the other side.

 

[erinmarie]

Now we're getting somewhere.

What you're describing, now, is the uniqueness of each situation. Some convicted murderers pose little or no further threat to society, while others pose a very serious danger to any human beings they come in contact with, inside or outside of prison. These are the two extremes between which the vast majority of convicted murderers fall. To choose the most extreme case and use it as justification for a blanket policy of execution is simply not logical or rational. Especially in light of the fact that in doing that, we're certain to increase violence in the society across the board.

I feel like people who think like you on this issue have no vested interests in the world. How would you ever be able to determine and weed out the criminals that will reoffend and the criminals that won't?

And in all reality, what about the crime they have committed? Can you, in all seriousness, say that a prison sentence is the appropriate punishment for someone who has taken another person's life? I just don't get that at all.

I believe there are rare instances in which a human being must be put to death simply for the safety of the rest of society. There are serial killers who kill for pleasure, at random, and will never stop killing as long as they are able. It's logical and reasonable to claim that these killers are just too dangerous to keep alive. But these are the rare extreme.

Well, although I've been accused of using hypotheticals too much lately, let's go on ahead anways:
If a man murders a woman, or a child, or his roomate, and is caught and tried for that crime, how is it determined whether or not this man would be a serial killer? Is it fair that his victim's family lives with that horrible loss everyday while he's in prison eating, exercising, taking classes, talking to fellow inmates? Have you ever been to a prison?

We humans have to "roll the dice" with every decision we make; especially decisions involving the probability of our own future behavior. There are reasons, though, that as societies have developed, they also found it both wise and necessary to assume innocense until guilt is proven. There are reasons that as societies developed and matured, they chose to rely on objective evidence and unbiased judges and juries rather than the "gut feelings" of politicians, priests, and the common rabble to determine the guilt or innocense of other people. There are reasons why as societies have developed and matured, they have stopped whipping, torturing, hanging, beheading, drawing and quartering, and otherwise violently killing criminals in the public square.

There are REASONS why we don't do these things anymore, and I think we need to figure out what they are and pay attention to the consequences of ignoring them again. And I'm not seeing this happening with most of those who are routinely crying for blood every time they read about some sensational crime in the papers.

And that's why I'm taking the other side.

That's just silly. There's a HUGE difference between capturing a murderer, finding him guilty through the justice system, and putting him to sleep soundly and swiftly with drugs, and whipping, torturing, hanging etc...etc...

 

[Granite]

Now we're getting somewhere.

What you're describing, now, is the uniqueness of each situation. Some convicted murderers pose little or no further threat to society, while others pose a very serious danger to any human beings they come in contact with, inside or outside of prison. These are the two extremes between which the vast majority of convicted murderers fall. To choose the most extreme case and use it as justification for a blanket policy of execution is simply not logical or rational. Especially in light of the fact that in doing that, we're certain to increase violence in the society across the board.

I believe there are rare instances in which a human being must be put to death simply for the safety of the rest of society. There are serial killers who kill for pleasure, at random, and will never stop killing as long as they are able. It's logical and reasonable to claim that these killers are just too dangerous to keep alive. But these are the rare extreme.
We humans have to "roll the dice" with every decision we make; especially decisions involving the probability of our own future behavior. There are reasons, though, that as societies have developed, they also found it both wise and necessary to assume innocense until guilt is proven. There are reasons that as societies developed and matured, they chose to rely on objective evidence and unbiased judges and juries rather than the "gut feelings" of politicians, priests, and the common rabble to determine the guilt or innocense of other people. There are reasons why as societies have developed and matured, they have stopped whipping, torturing, hanging, beheading, drawing and quartering, and otherwise violently killing criminals in the public square.

There are REASONS why we don't do these things anymore, and I think we need to figure out what they are and pay attention to the consequences of ignoring them again. And I'm not seeing this happening with most of those who are routinely crying for blood every time they read about some sensational crime in the papers.

And that's why I'm taking the other side.

There's a difference between going with superstition and your gut to determine innocence or guilt and recognizing that balance must be restored. That's all I'm after: a balancing of the scales. If life is taken, the appropriate response is not to mollycoddle a perpetrator or let him back into the society he has betrayed and violated.

I see a very big difference between wanton brutality and rendering an appropriate response to a crime. Burning someone at the stake is grotesque and unnecessary; but abuse of a penalty doesn't mean the penalty itself has no value to it.

 

[PureX]

I feel like people who think like you on this issue have no vested interests in the world.

Perhaps that's because you want to feel that way about people who think "like me". Perhaps imagining that we're heartless intellectuals with no vested interest in the world provides you with an excuse for dismissing our ideas without really having to consider them logically instead of emotionally.

How would you ever be able to determine and weed out the criminals that will re-offend and the criminals that won't?

I wouldn't. But then I don't know that my weird neighbor "Wilber" won't go berserk and kill someone tomorrow, either, but I'm not proposing that we kill him first, just in case.

I don't believe that we humans have the right to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. If God wanted us to have this right, he would have given us the ability to know who deserves to live and who doesn't. But we don't know this. We have never known it, and we never will. Thus, it is clear to me that we have no business pretending that we have the right to do what we don't even have the ability to do, accurately.

I know there are lots of people around here who are absolutely certain that they know who deserves to live and who doesn't, but it's exactly because these idiots are always among us that civilized societies have learned the importance of never allowing itself to adopt such an arrogant position. It's because of the horrible abuses of these very same people in the past that we no longer allow them to make or influence such decisions. And instead, we rely on objective principals like "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilt by a preponderance of evidence" to keep our bias, our arrogance, our prejudice, and our lust for blood at bay.

No one can say for sure who will commit the next murder among us. And killing people who have committed murder in the past will not change that fact one little bit. If we killed all convicted murderers, we would eliminate the few who would kill again. but we would also be justifying violent retribution to such a degree that we'd have even more new murderers springing up in our society to take their place. This is why studies on capitol punishment as a deterrent never find any evidence that it's a deterrent. For every killer killed, another takes their place.

And in all reality, what about the crime they have committed? Can you, in all seriousness, say that a prison sentence is the appropriate punishment for someone who has taken another person's life? I just don't get that at all.

I am not in charge of punishing other people for their sins nor their crimes. I'm not the judge of other people's actions, and I don't think in terms of "punishing" people because they do things that I don't like. And neither are you, even if you may like to imagine that you are. I think it's a very big mistake for any society to set up their laws with the idea of "punishment" in mind. That's just going to create a breeding ground for those blood-thirsty idiots that are always among us, waiting for the next orgy of violence to begin so they can finally "shine". Instead, I think we need to look at the legal system pragmatically, rather than ideologically. We lock people up because they refuse to live by the rules, and we let them out when we believe they will live by the rules. It's not about "punishment", it's about maintaining peace, security, and order. God will judge and punish or God won't. That's God's business. In the mean time, we'll remove from our society those who won't live by the rules of that our society has agreed to. It's that simple.

Well, although I've been accused of using hypotheticals too much lately, let's go on ahead always:
If a man murders a woman, or a child, or his roomate, and is caught and tried for that crime, how is it determined whether or not this man would be a serial killer?

He is not a serial killer unless he's killed other people. He will never become a serial killer if he never kills again. I don't understand why you're asking this question. Isn't it obvious that a serial killer would have to have killed people in a series?

Is it fair that his victim's family lives with that horrible loss everyday while he's in prison eating, exercising, taking classes, talking to fellow inmates? Have you ever been to a prison?

Murder is not fair. Murder will never be made fair by killing more people.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Well, I really don't see how you think you have the right to decide who "deserves" to live. And I'm saddened by the fact you aparently don't see any danger in a human being thinking that he has the right or even the ability to decide who deserves to live, and who doesn't. But since you are so absolutely convinced that you have that right, and that you could not possibly be wrong, then I guess there's no point in bothering to discuss it.

I don't see how you get the idea that I alone have the right to decide who deserves to live or die. I guess you missed the whole point of the use of the death penalty. Remember I am for protecting the majority's right to safety as compared to the criminal's right to life.

It also saddens me to see that you believe that the death penalty isn't worth it's use, as a tool of justice, to protect our society against rapists and murderers.

And what makes you so sure that you are absolutely right and that I am absolutely wrong?

 

[erinmarie]

Perhaps that's because you want to feel that way about people who think "like me". Perhaps imagining that we're heartless intellectuals with no vested interest in the world provides you with an excuse for dismissing our ideas without really having to consider them logically instead of emotionally.
I wouldn't. But then I don't know that my weird neighbor "Wilber" won't go berserk and kill someone tomorrow, either, but I'm not proposing that we kill him first, just in case.

Heartless? :think: Intellectual? Maybe. I don't really consider you either really. Although I think sub-consciously you would love to be called either. I don't think this is the type of argument that should be considered solely by examining it logically.

I don't think we would ever have the capacity to prosecute 'future crimes' either (we all saw how Minority Report ended up), but that's hardly what I was getting at. You said that murderers shouldn't be put to death, one of your reasons was that some of these murderers are not repeat offenders...but how do we know that they aren't? How many unsolved murders/rapes are on the books out there? How many missing persons are there!?
And also, a life sentence is not hardly ever a life sentence. Recently in our area a man was released from prison after serving 30 years of his 'life sentence'. He had originally raped a little girl and her mother, and killed the husband/father. Nice. He (as far as any of us know) has not re-offended. But how FRIGGIN fair is that!? Clarify it for me, PureX...do you see it as fair?

I don't believe that we humans have the right to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. If God wanted us to have this right, he would have given us the ability to know who deserves to live and who doesn't. But we don't know this. We have never known it, and we never will. Thus, it is clear to me that we have no business pretending that we have the right to do what we don't even have the ability to do, accurately.

I know there are lots of people around here who are absolutely certain that they know who deserves to live and who doesn't, but it's exactly because these idiots are always among us that civilized societies have learned the importance of never allowing itself to adopt such an arrogant position. It's because of the horrible abuses of these very same people in the past that we no longer allow them to make or influence such decisions. And instead, we rely on objective principals like "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilt by a preponderance of evidence" to keep our bias, our arrogance, our prejudice, and our lust for blood at bay.

No no and no. You're still not hitting the nail on the head. I didn't say that I should, or that you should, or that Knight should, or President Bush should decide the fates of the guilty. That's already laid out, murderers should be put to death.

He is not a serial killer unless he's killed other people. He will never become a serial killer if he never kills again. I don't understand why you're asking this question. Isn't it obvious that a serial killer would have to have killed people in a series?
Murder is not fair. Murder will never be made fair by killing more people.

Sorry I ignored that middle section. You just went on and on and nothing that you said mattered in the least. So what? SO WHAT? The guilty should be punished accordingly. It's just so simple. I think you think about things too much. Maybe you should just try and feel things out rather than sitting there and pondering the grander aspects of the sun and sky.

Oh, and the serial killer comment I had made was in response to what you said about how serial killers should be put to death, the rare extreme cases. You come up with this from an emotional standpoint, based on the fact that these people are dangerous, that they don't deserve to live, that they're a danger to society?
Right, but what I meant was someone that every killer starts somewhere, just because we catch him 'early' doesn't mean that he's not as guilty, or sick as the offender the authorities didn't catch till he ripped up five more victims...

 

[PureX]

It also saddens me to see that you believe that the death penalty isn't worth it's use, as a tool of justice, to protect our society against rapists and murderers.

Well, it has been shown to be of no particular worth. This was not my choice, it's just the way it is. Because violence inspires more violence in human beings, for every murderer you execute, another takes their place, and the deterrence effect is nullified.

And what makes you so sure that you are absolutely right and that I am absolutely wrong?

I'm only telling you the way it is. I don't know what's "right" or "wrong", and I don't really care. I'm only interested in what is, and in what works. The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent, and it's very dangerous for people to pretend that they have the right or the ability to decide who should live and who should die. Societies that use capitol punishment tend to be far more violent overall than those that don't. These are not my opinions about what's "right or wrong", they're just the way it is.