people that should really be dead...

[triumphant cracker]

really dead,as in i want to put a rusty bullet in their head.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...260,full.story
^^this guy needs to be dead...no question about it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-suitcase.html
^^ how can someone do this to a poor kid?...


i think the death penalty should be mandatory on the first offence, then there would be less of that happening...

right?

i dont expect a mass of replies,but it would be nice to know what your thoughts are.

[bigspenda73]

actually, as my friend swiggs told me the other day, it seems better to put them in prison and make sure the inmates know what they did.

[XTR1000]

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...child_cyclist_

[triumphant cracker]

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1471000.php/Man_admits_to_car_attack_and_rape_of_child_cyclist _

wtf!!...oh my god...he def needs a bullet...first offence or not.

[triumphant cracker]

actually, as my friend swiggs told me the other day, it seems better to put them in prison and make sure the inmates know what they did.

well...if they are dead,then we dont spend money on them,and they can read it in the news what happened or on tv....

thin the herd out more i say.

[b-rabbit]

make them do gladiator shit or the running man or something

[bikes]

Octomom.

[Parasurama]

actually, as my friend swiggs told me the other day, it seems better to put them in prison and make sure the inmates know what they did.

well...if they are dead,then we dont spend money on them,and they can read it in the news what happened or on tv....

thin the herd out more i say.

Actually, an execution costs more on average than life in prison due to the numerous appeals and other procedural difficulties.

[wufwugy]

paging dexter

yes the death penalty does cost more than life imprisonment, but the real problem is that capital punishment is not infallible enough and not public enough. if capital punishment were brought only to those convicted with insurmountable evidence that determines there could not be a mix up, and if it were public like crucifixion it would be a great great thing

[triumphant cracker]

well said wufwugy...i'm kinda partial to beheadings...those have so much more impact on someone ...imho.

[Parasurama]

Should people really be held responsible for their decisions though? I mean can it truly (scientifically) be said that we are actually in control of what we do? There are so many incalculable factors that go into who we are, not the least of which is something we are wholly incapable of controlling: our genes. It's fine if we look at prison and capital punishment as deterrents, but advocating them as punishment seems problematic.

[Pig_Vomit]

Defs general population prison. Let the cons sort it out.

That or cage fights to the death.

Maybe make them fight vicious animals?

…I’m thinking a bear.

[1984Softy]

Should people really be held responsible for their decisions though? I mean can it truly (scientifically) be said that we are actually in control of what we do? There are so many incalculable factors that go into who we are, not the least of which is something we are wholly incapable of controlling: our genes. It's fine if we look at prison and capital punishment as deterrents, but advocating them as punishment seems problematic.

A lot of lawyers talk like you.
I say if you aren't responsible for your own actions who is?
If your genes are making you rape or kill people then I would kill you just to keep you from having children and spreading those genes around.

Softy

[Parasurama]

Should people really be held responsible for their decisions though? I mean can it truly (scientifically) be said that we are actually in control of what we do? There are so many incalculable factors that go into who we are, not the least of which is something we are wholly incapable of controlling: our genes. It's fine if we look at prison and capital punishment as deterrents, but advocating them as punishment seems problematic.

A lot of lawyers talk like you.
I say if you aren't responsible for your own actions who is?
If your genes are making you rape or kill people then I would kill you just to keep you from having children and spreading those genes around.

Softy

Ha I didn't mean to sound like a lawyer, I think it's a very interesting philosophical problem, and I'm not trying to convince a jury by confusing them.

You say "if you aren't responsible for your actions who is?" I don't see why someone has to be responsible. Is someone responsible for an earthquake, hurricane, or tsunami? Obviously these are extreme examples but it's fascinating to think about how biased we are to assume people are responsible for what they do.

Also note I wasn't arguing against the death penalty, but it seems to me a huge joke (and possibly immoral) to think of it as a punishment, especially since (although this may just be personal preference) I think life imprisonment would be far worse. "I would kill you just to keep you from having children." Yeah ok, I don't really have a problem with this but like wufwugy said you'd need a good amount of evidence.

Just one more interesting thought, why do you suppose the genes for promoting this kind of behavior have survived for so long? Humans do terrible things to each other, and it's not detrimental to their survival as a species.

[Chelle]

There can always be the cheap way to kill them. A gun, and a grave out in the desert.

[sil693]

just lock them all in a big secure warehouse together, no clothes, no food, no water, no toilets etc. give them nothing at all and film the fun fun times for all the world to see.

then we could all take bets on who gets bummed and/or eaten first.

[WillburForce]

keep them alive, then get medieval on them. stick them in a really small box for a few years.

[a500lbgorilla]

most of the expenses with the death penalty are insurance. if a guy gets a splinter getting into the electric chair cha-ching $$$$$$.

[Stacks]

Parasurama: It sure sounds like your arguing on the side of fate/destiny? Pulling some Donnie Darko protruding spear of destiny shit?

I would like to think I'm responsible for my actions. I'm making the decision to type this, post it, grab a soda from the fridge, as they are making the decision to rape, kill, torture, etc. Sure some individuals are going to have other factors that maybe aid in their decisions. A mentally disturbed individual is more likely to commit such heinous crimes than mentally healthy individuals. However, their action still affected other individuals and should hold consequences. They are, in my opinion, still responsible for their decisions and actions, and should be held accountable. To argue whether the punishment should be capital punishment or incarceration is really of little importance to me. I don't have any real opinions on whether I would rather see someone experience the death penalty or spend life in prison. But to say they shouldn't be held responsible just seems off to me.

[triumphant cracker]

Should people really be held responsible for their decisions though? I mean can it truly (scientifically) be said that we are actually in control of what we do? There are so many incalculable factors that go into who we are, not the least of which is something we are wholly incapable of controlling: our genes. It's fine if we look at prison and capital punishment as deterrents, but advocating them as punishment seems problematic.

A lot of lawyers talk like you.
I say if you aren't responsible for your own actions who is?
If your genes are making you rape or kill people then I would kill you just to keep you from having children and spreading those genes around.

Softy

Ha I didn't mean to sound like a lawyer, I think it's a very interesting philosophical problem, and I'm not trying to convince a jury by confusing them.

You say "if you aren't responsible for your actions who is?" I don't see why someone has to be responsible. Is someone responsible for an earthquake, hurricane, or tsunami? Obviously these are extreme examples but it's fascinating to think about how biased we are to assume people are responsible for what they do.

Also note I wasn't arguing against the death penalty, but it seems to me a huge joke (and possibly immoral) to think of it as a punishment, especially since (although this may just be personal preference) I think life imprisonment would be far worse. "I would kill you just to keep you from having children." Yeah ok, I don't really have a problem with this but like wufwugy said you'd need a good amount of evidence.

Just one more interesting thought, why do you suppose the genes for promoting this kind of behavior have survived for so long? Humans do terrible things to each other, and it's not detrimental to their survival as a species.

so...what you're saying is you are not responsible for posting the jibberish you spewed out?....i know i am....i'm responsible for everything that i do,say,done,gonna do,gonna say....are you saying i'm not responsible for calling you an nincompoop with fucked up veiw of life....ok..cool...shame on you for making me say that...shame on you....

[Robb]

For sex crimes, especially against small children, castration with a rusty gardening tool seems about right. Then sil's secure warehouse.

[Parasurama]

Stacks: Of course you would like to think you are responsible for your actions, and on the level of small actions like grabbing a soda from the fridge, it certainly seems very realistic to you that you are consciously choosing to get the soda. On the level of the state of mind and general situation leading to you grabbing a soda, there is clearly much that is out of your control. You may be genetically driven to prefer sugary carbonated beverages. You are mentally gifted enough to make a decent living so that you can afford the soda and the fridge. You also likely (I don't want to make any assumptions) had opportunities earlier in your life allowing you to develop your mental potential to an adequate degree. I could go on but I'm sure you get my point.

Our society rewards people for many desirable traits and actions that could essentially be accidents, such as good looks, height, charisma, intelligence, a drive to succeed, hitting a ball over a fence, and raising a daughter without abusing her. Our society also punishes for the opposite traits and actions. On a cosmic scale, it seems obvious to me that these actually are accidents, but my argument is merely that more research is needed into what drives our choices.

Evolutionarily, it is useful to hold people responsible for their actions. In this way, societies are strengthened and desirable traits are proliferated while undesirable traits are eliminated or subdued. I believe this is why it "seems off" to not hold people responsible for their actions. One more point: would it not seem off to hold a newborn responsible for the circumstances of his birth? I don't see that we should view the course of an entire life or even the entire life of a species differently.

Again, I'm not arguing against locking people up or executing them. I just think we should be honest about why we're doing these things. We see that certain actions and traits are bad for the well-being of society, of our species, and we wish to prevent these actions and remove these traits. To punish is to say these people, actions, and traits are bad or wrong in and of themselves, which is something I cannot say confidently.

Cracker: cool bro

[Stacks]

It's undeniable that things such as genes/traits and the environment in which you were either raised or subjected to plays a modest role in determining the makeup on one's character, and subsequently likely influences one's decisions. However, it can't possibly be the only driving force in what causes a person to act in a specific manner. Some kids are beaten and grow up to beat their kids. Some kids are beaten and grow up to resent individuals who beat children, and therefore start charities to aid abused children. Some poor individuals lose their drive and motivation to make a better life for themselves, and continue to live impoverished. Some "rise above" it and change their circumstances. I believe it really just depends on the individual and their logic and reasoning for the choices they decide to make.

Even regardless of the debate on whether they have control of their actions or not, if we aren't going to hold them accountable for their actions, what are we to do as a society? If we aren't removing individuals who make poor choices from society, regardless of the means in which we do that, then couldn't we potentially fail as a society? You could use the argument that creatures do bad things to other creatures, and so on and so forth, and that it's nature. While this is obviously true, letting a human act without repercussion for his actions would be much more dangerous than letting an animal like a lion or bear act in whatever manner they please.

I think it's inevitable that an individual should be punished for their decisions, which is the same as being held accountable for their actions. Whether it's the government doing the punishing or the swifter arm of vigilantes is unimportant. They will still be held accountable, and should in my opinion. The damage they caused is still real, and the problems that could arise if they aren't punished is still a pretty serious threat.

Also, I understand that you said you are not against removing individuals for society, whether by imprisonment or whatever the case may be. And while I believe I understand your reluctance to call it punishment, that's exactly what it is. Whether we are saying that these people are inherently bad individuals because of their skewed logic, or the manner in which they were raised is pretty insignificant. We agree individuals should be removed from society if and when they choose to act in a manner that negatively impacts society. As I said, whether it be by the government locking them up for life, or some Dexter type individual taking the law into his own hands, they will (and should) be removed. Regardless of whether they are inherently bad people or not, and regardless of their reasoning/motives, they are essentially being punished. They are receiving this treatment because of the actions they committed. Had they not acted in that manner, they would not have experienced this. Had you not broken the window, your father wouldn't have spanked you. Had you not raped that 5 year old, you would not be in prison. It makes no difference whether the consequences they experience is given in the name of punishment or under the veil of deterrence.

[bikes]

Who the fuck writes paragraphs in the commune. Keep that shit in BC or post cliffs.

[Pig_Vomit]

just lock them all in a big secure warehouse together, no clothes, no food, no water, no toilets etc. give them nothing at all and film the fun fun times for all the world to see.

then we could all take bets on who gets bummed and/or eaten first.

This with bears imo.

[bjsaust]

I think it works either way.

If they're responsible for their actions then its punishment.

If they're not responsible for their actions, then its removing them from society where they're a danger to others (because they cant help it right).

[ChrisBCritter]

Seriously, WTF is going on in this thread?

[Parasurama]

I think it works either way.

If they're responsible for their actions then its punishment.

If they're not responsible for their actions, then its removing them from society where they're a danger to others (because they cant help it right).

Right, it works either way, BUT the distinction is important because if it's not punishment we can do it before the crime is committed.

Stacks: I understand where you're coming from but I just don't think we really have a good way to determine why people make the choices they do. What happens in your brain when you make a decision? Fundamentally, it's a chemical process--who has control over this? I guess you could believe in a "soul" but this idea is problematic as well--why would there be a soul that made terrible decisions or hurt other people?

It's also not a valid argument to say "what would happen to our society if people were not responsible for their actions?" You have to first prove that our society is valuable or something worth preserving.

[bigred]

Oh shit, someone read a book on philosophy. I really, really dumb book.

I'd apologize for that but I can't be held responsible for my actions. Damn chemicals making me do stuff.

[Stacks]

I really, really dumb book.

accidentally?

[bigred]

I really, really dumb book.

accidentally?

Epic Bigred Fail

Nice Double Post, you should be dead