Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[fuelair]

If the gang-rape can be prevented by capturing the perpetrators instead, isn't that "better" than killing them for the same result ?

No = they would certainly not serve any functional jail time and would still be able to do it again. Dead can't repeat or try for a re-do. That is at the heart of the program I like to refer to as Terminal Education. There is NO recidivism.

 

[fuelair]

Along with those who kill or support the killing an unarmed human being by electrocution or hanging.

I truly hope you never have any friends or family murdered/raped/tortured/equiv. (I hope that for everyone). I prefer being one of the subhumans who wants revenge and wants it hard on the perpetrator. I make no apology at all for this.

 

[Cainkane1]

I personally support the death penalty. Aggravated murder such as rape or some torture slaying for fun makes me positively livid enough to pull the switch on them myself.

In Mississippi a man raped a 3 year old girl and crushed her neck to keep her from talking and when it was time for him to be put in the gas chamber the executioner apparently failed to put in enough gas ;ellets tokill the murderer quickly. The child rapist murderer died in agony and to that I say good.

 

[Belz...]

Actually, it has even more profound implications than that.
People who murder other people need to be dealt with, but they may have thousands of reasons that, while do not justify their act, at least may make their act somehow understandable.
But people who are not even remotely involved in a situation and ask for the murder by death penalty of another human being have no excuse whatsoever.
This is why people who support death penalty may be a step lower in the moral ladder than people who kill 8-year-olds.

That's certainly a very strong opinion, though I would not go that far. At least the people who support the death penalty do not, you know, actually kill 8 year-olds.

 

[Belz...]

No = they would certainly not serve any functional jail time and would still be able to do it again.

Wait a minute. Please define "functional" in this context. I have no clue what you mean by that, unless it's "significant".

But that's beside the point: you can make the prison sentence however long you want. Life without release, for example. You are comparing death with short-term, ineffective prison terms. That's a false dichotomy.

Dead can't repeat or try for a re-do.

Indeed, which is why thieves, smokers and people who run red lights should also be killed. Idem for people who download music instead of buying it, spit on the sidewalk, or cheat on their taxes. Zero recidivism, right ?

That is at the heart of the program I like to refer to as Terminal Education. There is NO recidivism.

And what is the purpose of this program ? Making society safer, or making yourself feel better with the knowledge of someone else's death ?

 

[trustbutverify]

That's certainly a very strong opinion, though I would not go that far. At least the people who support the death penalty do not, you know, actually kill 8 year-olds.

How far would you go?

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[MontagK505]

I truly hope you never have any friends or family murdered/raped/tortured/equiv. (I hope that for everyone). I prefer being one of the subhumans who wants revenge and wants it hard on the perpetrator. I make no apology at all for this.

Actually, sociopath is the politically correct term for sub-human. Sociopath sounds much nicer don't you know?
My favorite revenge fantasies involve a tree-shredder, but being somewhat soft hearted a guillotine would serve the same purpose. It also has the unplanned side effect of being more humane.

 

[MontagK505]

I personally support the death penalty. Aggravated murder such as rape or some torture slaying for fun makes me positively livid enough to pull the switch on them myself.

In Mississippi a man raped a 3 year old girl and crushed her neck to keep her from talking and when it was time for him to be put in the gas chamber the executioner apparently failed to put in enough gas ;ellets tokill the murderer quickly. The child rapist murderer died in agony and to that I say good.

And the fact that you feel good about this doesn't make you a bad person. To the more sanctimonious posters it does suggest you may be a sociopath.

 

[fuelair]

Wait a minute. Please define "functional" in this context. I have no clue what you mean by that, unless it's "significant".

But that's beside the point: you can make the prison sentence however long you want. Life without release, for example. You are comparing death with short-term, ineffective prison terms. That's a false dichotomy.



Indeed, which is why thieves, smokers and people who run red lights should also be killed. Idem for people who download music instead of buying it, spit on the sidewalk, or cheat on their taxes. Zero recidivism, right ?



And what is the purpose of this program ? Making society safer, or making yourself feel better with the knowledge of someone else's death ?

Terminal education is for those who rape, murder, torture, kidnap, mutilate (etc.) others who did not criminally assault or otherwise massively harm them. It has nothing to do with thieves, smokers. speeders, red light runners, drunks, scofflaws (etc) who do not cause major physical or mental harm to their victims, Jail is for the latter with restitution where possible.

It is based on the idea and the personal preference of many of those I agree with that "persons" in that first group need to no longer be able to do the things they chose to do and need to be very much aware as they leave us that they were bad and useless. Of course it should be suggestive to the second listed that they should carefully consider where their current ways might accidentally take them. There is a lot more to this but I have grown tired of going through the same explanations every time someone who is fine with people who did this to others friends/families thinks it is bad to feel this way/want to have this done. That's why I usually note that I hope none of those acts is ever done to their friends or family. I do not want it done to anyone's friends or family and I want those who do those things out of my plane of existence - with extreme prejudice and extreme understanding of how wrong they were to do it. Does not bother my conscience in any way at all. I admit to only one very special bias in this: if they do any of this to a child I would like to send them off myself.

 

[ehcks]

Actually, sociopath is the politically correct term for sub-human. Sociopath sounds much nicer don't you know?
My favorite revenge fantasies involve a tree-shredder, but being somewhat soft hearted a guillotine would serve the same purpose. It also has the unplanned side effect of being more humane.

The strangest part of humane executions is that even the most bloody and gruesome can still be harmless if it's fast enough.

Put the convicted at the end of a rocket-sled track in front of a concrete wall. Have him blindfolded and deafened by noise-cancelling headphones. Shoot another wall of concrete at 'em. Quick, painless, humane.

And yet I can think of no single crimes, and very few specific people, who would deserve this. Most of them killed themselves before they could be caught.

 

[MontagK505]

The strangest part of humane executions is that even the most bloody and gruesome can still be harmless if it's fast enough.

Put the convicted at the end of a rocket-sled track in front of a concrete wall. Have him blindfolded and deafened by noise-cancelling headphones. Shoot another wall of concrete at 'em. Quick, painless, humane.

And yet I can think of no single crimes, and very few specific people, who would deserve this. Most of them killed themselves before they could be caught.

First of all the guillotine is simpler, it doesn't require extensive training to use, you don't need to find a vein etc. Rocket sleds etc. are complex and prone to fail.

Who you think would deserve to be executed, is of course, based on what standards one holds.

I think someone like Cainkane1's rapist who crushes the throat of his three-old victim to keep her from testifying would qualify under my sociopathic, barbaric, standards. A tree shredder is a pleasant fantasy, but a guillotine would serve the same purpose. It also is simpler to use. Having the shredder fail partway thru would be a touch inhumane.

 

[trustbutverify]

And yet I can think of no single crimes, and very few specific people, who would deserve this. Most of them killed themselves before they could be caught.

I'm generally opposed to CP, but sympathetic to arguments for it in cases of crimes of extreme and unusual cruelty. I suspect there are more than a few crimes and specific people (who haven't killed themselves before being caught) falling into that category. Of course, we might disagree on what constitutes extreme cruelty.

 

[MontagK505]

I'm generally opposed to CP, but sympathetic to arguments for it in cases of crimes of extreme and unusual cruelty. I suspect there are more than a few crimes and specific people (who haven't killed themselves before being caught) falling into that category. Of course, we might disagree on what constitutes extreme cruelty.

I think Ted Bundy would qualify for CP. That's the problem, where do you draw the line? I think the world would be a better place if some people were a guest of honor at a funeral. And I'm aware this is a dangerous way to think.

 

[ehcks]

First of all the guillotine is simpler, it doesn't require extensive training to use, you don't need to find a vein etc. Rocket sleds etc. are complex and prone to fail.

I don't like the guillotine because it leaves the brain intact. Any execution I would support essentially instantly destroys the brain, before it's even capable of registering that it's being destroyed.

Who you think would deserve to be executed, is of course, based on what standards one holds.

The problem is that I don't even know what my standards are yet, so for now I'm going with "no one."

I want to see a study from a large number of independent and unconnected medical scientists who determine whether each possible condemned prisoner is mentally capable of feeling empathy and guilt. Only if they can not, under any known form of therapy or treatment, should they be killed.

Only when it is certain to the point of excessiveness that they will never safely return to society should they be killed. And even that doesn't sound good because you're just killing them to save money on prison space.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I think someone like Cainkane1's rapist who crushes the throat of his three-old victim to keep her from testifying would qualify under my sociopathic, barbaric, standards. A tree shredder is a pleasant fantasy, but a guillotine would serve the same purpose. It also is simpler to use. Having the shredder fail partway thru would be a touch inhumane.

Not if you stick them in head first.

 

[MontagK505]

I don't like the guillotine because it leaves the brain intact. Any execution I would support essentially instantly destroys the brain, before it's even capable of registering that it's being destroyed.

<snip>

According to a MD friend of mine, the shock of severing the spinal column would render the condemned unconscious, the same as breaking the neck in the gallows. With the guillotine, the lack of blood pressure in the brain would keep the condemned unconscious until brain death. The guillotine is more certain, unlike the gallows where you might have a sadistic hangman. Lethal injection is easier on the conscience because the condemned usually goes to sleep and never wakes up. Sweet dreams! The guillotine is ugly, messy and it is obvious what has been done. Sometimes the gallows doesn't break the neck and the commended can take several minutes to die while jerking and pooping etc. Not pleasant at all.

 

[MontagK505]

I think someone like Cainkane1's rapist who crushes the throat of his three-old victim to keep her from testifying would qualify under my sociopathic, barbaric, standards. A tree shredder is a pleasant fantasy, but a guillotine would serve the same purpose. It also is simpler to use. Having the shredder fail partway thru would be a touch inhumane.

Not if you stick them in head first.

That's no fun! You might as well use a guillotine. The proper way to execute someone with a tree-shredder is feet first slowly. Although the horror of having your face shoved into a mass of rotating blades would be an exquisite punishment for crimes against humanity or some equivalent. Or even better, you rip off their face and then turn them around for a go feet first. I could go on, but some people might think I'm sociopath.

 

[trustbutverify]

I think Ted Bundy would qualify for CP. That's the problem, where do you draw the line? I think the world would be a better place if some people were a guest of honor at a funeral. And I'm aware this is a dangerous way to think.

Frankly, I wouldn't know how or where to draw that line, and yes, it is dangerous for obvious reasons. I do know that the crimes described in the OP and post #203 would easily qualify.

 

[Cainkane1]

And the fact that you feel good about this doesn't make you a bad person. To the more sanctimonious posters it does suggest you may be a sociopath.

ust because I believe the punishment should fit the crime doesn't mean I'm a sociopath.