toldailytopic: Is it always wrong to kill another human?

[Rusha]

We have the capability to stop people from killing again without killing them. That is the purpose of high security prisons.

Is there a possibility that they can escape and reoffend?

How is killing them mercy for the victims?

It's not ... it's acknowledgment FOR the victims that what happened to them was wrong.

It is, however, merciful for the survivors of the victim's family and future victims.

It is simple vengeance, and we all know much that really helps, it does not alleviate the pain at all, all it accomplishes is the destruction of another life.

IF this is the case, why on earth not allow them to be free? How is imprisoning them (which leaves them as a threat to society) any less vengeful than the DP?

So according to you, their pain is healing the victims somehow?

Nope ... not their pain, and not *the* victim. Their ability to NEVER harm another person is healing for the victim's family, friends and loved ones. For the rest of society, it is the equivalent of destroying a threat BEFORE the threat can complete it's devastation.

I think that is severely misguided, taking pleasure in their pain is ultimately a form of sadism.

No pleasure ... there is nothing pleasurable about individuals suffering at the hands of murdering scumbags.

Want to get past the pain? Forgive them, that is something they do not know what to do with and it puts the tragedy in the past.

This isn't about my forgiveness or that of society. Forgiveness is those who are personally harmed by the murderer. Protection is for those of us who wish to keep others from going through the pain that the family and friends of the murder victims have to live with for everyday of the rest of their lives.

I want to stamp out at least the threat of a small portion of that pain ... in the same way you handle a tumor. You remove it.

 

[resurrected]

Cruelty implies that you do it for the sake of inflicting suffering on the person for your own satisfaction.

cru·el
/ˈkro͞oəl/Adjective
1.Causing pain or suffering: "I can't stand people who are cruel to animals".

You wouldn't suffer if you were locked up?

I would.

Nor is it inhumane to imposing those restrictions as long as you have another set of purposes, which is to rehabilitate the prisoner.

in·hu·mane
/ˌin(h)yo͞oˈmān/Adjective
Without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.

Sorry, if I'm locked up I'm still suffering

 

[resurrected]

It happens but is not as permanent as execution . . . is it?

Let's see, I'm innocent, falsely accused and convicted, thrown in prison with the dregs of society, removed from my wife, children, parents, miss seeing them grow and being a part of their lives, comforting them in sickness and somewhere down the road, long years later, I get released.


You don't think the changes will be permanent?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Let's see, I'm innocent, falsely accused and convicted, thrown in prison with the dregs of society, removed from my wife, children, parents, miss seeing them grow and being a part of their lives, comforting them in sickness and somewhere down the road, long years later, I get released.

You keep right on moving those goalposts . . . don't you?

You don't think the changes will be permanent?

Nothing is more permanent than death . . . yes?

 

[Selaphiel]

Is it merciful to risk imprisoning someone who is innocent?

It is a tragedy when it happens, but at least it is somewhat reversable. I do not have to offer a perfect solution, I have to offer one that is better.

As for your last post on cruelty and inhumanity, now you are simply engaging in sophistry. By the definitions you use there, you could argue that the practice of medicine of cruel and inhumane.

Is there a possibility that they can escape and reoffend?

There is always a theoretical possibility. But you have to weigh that ridiculously miniscule possibility up against your solution, which is to end a human life.

It's not ... it's acknowledgment FOR the victims that what happened to them was wrong.

You need to kill them to achieve that? The necessity for the death penalty does not follow from the need to acknowledge that the offense was wrong.

It is, however, merciful for the survivors of the victim's family and future victims.

How so? The thing with vengeance is that it is ultimately unsatisfactory, nothing is achieved by it.

Nope ... not their pain, and not *the* victim. Their ability to NEVER harm another person is healing for the victim's family, friends and loved ones. For the rest of society, it is the equivalent of destroying a threat BEFORE the threat can complete it's devastation.

Which is practically achieved with imprisonment, and if it is not, we improve our prisons. Your solution is however to kill them.

No pleasure ... there is nothing pleasurable about individuals suffering at the hands of murdering scumbags.

What on earth does that have to do with my statement? You are describing gruesome forms of execution that you seemingly would like to see. To what end?

This isn't about my forgiveness or that of society. Forgiveness is those who are personally harmed by the murderer. Protection is for those of us who wish to keep others from going through the pain that the family and friends of the murder victims have to live with for everyday of the rest of their lives.

Forgiveness is superior to vengeance. If they want healing, then work on forgiving the offender (not saying that is something that one can necessarily do immediately, but it actually works).
As for protection, that is virtually achieved by prisons. We have the capability to build prisons that are virtually impossible to escape from. You want to kill a whole lot of people, as well as risking the killing of a signficant amount of people who turn out to be innocent, to make up for a theoretical probability that is absolutely miniscule.

I want to stamp out at least the threat of a small portion of that pain ... in the same way you handle a tumor. You remove it.

Except that they are not tumors, they are still human beings.

 

[resurrected]

You keep right on moving those goalposts . . . don't you?

Does it make you uncomfortable when I speak in specifics instead of generalities? :idunno:

Nothing is more permanent than death . . . yes?

Right. While I've been in prison, my parents have died, many of my loved ones have died....

 

[Rusha]

No, it isn't. You seem alright with risking the execution of an innocent person. Sad

In the same way that you are *alright* with allowing them to continue to live so they can murder more innocent people ...

There is ALWAYS the risk of executing an innocent person . . . no? Better to side with being safe . . . than . . . sorry.

Was Ted Bundy or Richard Allen Davis innocent? Would society be safer if they were allowed to live knowing there is a possibility of escape?

What about Larry Singleton? Would Roxanne Hayes be dead by his hands had he been executed rather than REFORMED and released after his lovely prison vacation?

Executions are ALWAYS about retribution (justice) . . . not . . . protection.

In the same way that killing a rapist in the middle of his attack is ALWAYS retribution, rather than self defense.

Did he murder anyone after he was convicted and locked up?

Of course not ... because he was executed.

What do you have to say of about these escapees?

Convicted Murderers Escape Alabama Prison

Are the innocent ever executed?

Have I argued that it's okay to execute the innocent? Nope ... I haven't. You, OTOH, are arguing that it is fine to keep them alive even when it has been proven beyond any doubt that they are guilty.

I wish to protect society from murderers. You wish to protect murderers even IF there is no doubt they committed the crime.

 

[resurrected]

It is a tragedy when it happens, but at least it is somewhat reversable. I do not have to offer a perfect solution, I have to offer one that is better.

As for your last post on cruelty and inhumanity, now you are simply engaging in sophistry. By the definitions you use there, you could argue that the practice of medicine of cruel and inhumane.

What could be more cruel or inhumane than denying someone their freedom? :idunno:

 

[Silent Hunter]

What could be more cruel or inhumane than denying someone their freedom?

Taking their life.

/thread

 

[Silent Hunter]

In the same way that you are *alright* with allowing them to continue to live so they can murder more innocent people ...

Was Ted Bundy or Richard Allen Davis innocent? Would society be safer if they were allowed to live knowing there is a possibility of escape?

What about Larry Singleton? Would Roxanne Hayes be dead by his hands had he been executed rather than REFORMED and released after his lovely prison vacation?

In the same way that killing a rapist in the middle of his attack is ALWAYS retribution, rather than self defense.

Of course not ... because he was executed.

What do you have to say of about these escapees?

Convicted Murderers Escape Alabama Prison

Have I argued that it's okay to execute the innocent? Nope ... I haven't. You, OTOH, are arguing that it is fine to keep them alive even when it has been proven beyond any doubt that they are guilty.

I wish to protect society from murderers. You wish to protect murderers even IF there is no doubt they committed the crime.

:yawn:

One emotional appeal after another . . .

Got anything substantive?

 

[resurrected]

Taking their life.

Yes, a dreadful thing to contemplate. Quick, permanent and final.

vs


a lifetime of suffering while being denied your freedom.

Every day

every hour

every minute

 

[resurrected]

:yawn:

One emotional appeal after another . . .

Got anything substantive?

lazy, SH :nono:


there was nothing emotional about Rusha's post


If you're just here to troll, I'll be happy to report you

 

[Rusha]

:yawn:

One emotional appeal after another . . .

Got anything substantive?

Of course. Rather than reading the source I supplied which disproves your claim that society is safe when murderers are kept alive, you dismiss my examples as *emotional*.

It would not matter how many examples I cited of murderers escaping from prison or individuals such as Singleton being released so he can go on to murder. Your focus is on keeping the guilty alive even though it is possible for them to re-offend.

You shrug off the deaths committed at their hands as part of life and focus on protecting them. Where is your concern for their future victims and the family members whose lives are forever changed, devastated and even ruined?

 

[Selaphiel]

What could be more cruel or inhumane than denying someone their freedom? :idunno:

Imprisonment takes away certain freedoms. Death penalty takes away all freedom. Their restrictions have a reason, it is not motivated by cruelty. They may take away some of your freedoms at hospitals and mental institutions as well, however the intention of those restrictions is not cruelty.

 

[Rusha]

Imprisonment takes away certain freedoms. Death penalty takes away all freedom. Their restrictions have a reason, it is not motivated by cruelty. They may take away some of your freedoms at hospitals and mental institutions as well, however the intention of those restrictions is not cruelty.

Why would you assume this is about cruelty rather than protection of society?

What is preferable? Having a proven murderer be executed or allowing the proven murderer to murder again because he/she has been allowed the opportunity by virtue of imprisonment?

 

[Selaphiel]

I wish to protect society from murderers. You wish to protect murderers even IF there is no doubt they committed the crime.

False dichotomy. It is not an either or situation. It should be possible to work for the rehabilitation of the prisoner as well on forgiving the offender while making sure society is protected against them as long as they remain a threat to society.

What is preferable? Having a proven murderer be executed or allowing the proven murderer to murder again because he/she has been allowed the opportunity by virtue of imprisonment?

See above. You are working with a false dichotomy.

 

[Silent Hunter]

lazy, SH

:yawn:

No less so than you constantly moving the bar . . .

there was nothing emotional about Rusha's post

Every bit of her post was an appeal to emotion and consequences.

If you're just here to troll, I'll be happy to report you

Give it your best shot. I've been nothing but on topic the whole time.

 

[Rusha]

False dichotomy. It is not an either or situation.

Actually it is an either or situation.

Can dead murderers ever reoffend? Can LIVING murderers ever reoffend?

It should be possible to work for the rehabilitation of the prisoner

Not *all* criminals can be rehabilitated. Nor should we try to rehabilitate certain offenders.

as well on forgiving the offender while making sure society is protected against them as long as they remain a threat to society.

Forgiveness is not for me or you, but rather for the VICTIMS and the victim's surviving family members and friends.

The only way to alleviate a deadly *proven* threat is to permanently remove it.

 

[resurrected]

No less so than you constantly moving the bar . . .

Rather, you call it that to mask your discomfort at facing specifics instead of generalities.

Every bit of her post was an appeal to emotion

explain how this is an appeal to emotion:

"What about Larry Singleton? Would Roxanne Hayes be dead by his hands had he been executed rather than REFORMED and released after his lovely prison vacation?"

Give it your best shot. I've been nothing but on topic the whole time.

Except when you're asked uncomfortable questions.

Then you troll.

 

[resurrected]

The only way to alleviate a deadly *proven* threat is to permanently remove it.

Take off and nuke the site from orbit?