Death Sentence

Yeah, we have a case like that in Belgium too. His trial is currently ongoing as a matter of fact. Just yesterday he smiled widely and waved at the cameras. He disrespects everyone, from the families, jury, judge to even his own lawyer. Oh, and the thing he's being put on trial for is murdering and wounding toddlers in a creche. And one of the caretakers of that creche. And a random old woman. All planned out meticulously. I really don't see the benefit of lifetime imprisonment in cases like this where his guilt has been proven.

 

You know it reminds me of Hannibal Lector. He's the type of impossible to rehabilitate case, who has escaped prison too much to let live. Fictional, I know, but there are a number of cases I've seen in documentaries where these people should be killed because they ultimately have no chance of changing their behaviour and enjoy what they do.

But that's a case by case scenario type of thing. I know some should be killed to eliminate the threat indefinitely, but it would be such a hard process to determine who deserves death over the other, the line we put in place would be either too easily surpassed or too easily avoided. So, I don't know a 'happy' medium in capital punishment.

 

I though I put in the description but i didnt. I updated my post with the story so you understand better.

 

Even then, I still wouldn't agree with him being put to death. Forgive me, but it just doesn't matter what someone does. I am 100% against execution. Of course what they did is wrong, but if we execute them because they executed someone or someones, we're doing the same thing they did.

Just imprison them for life. Like GS said, it's cheaper.

I'm sorry.

 

No. We are not doing what he did. He had no reason to kill 3 people. What he did intentionally should cost his life since he took 3 others. Do you think it's fair to have the innocent die and let the killer live (for reasons like this)? That doesn't make sense. and who cares if its cheaper?!?! Money shouldn't be and issue when it come to stuff like this. You're not really backing up what you say. I think you don't like it because it's just "death". We are NOTHING like those freak killers out there when it comes to execution in the proper way. I want you to read this and tell me these guys don't deserve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs
Reason: For good "Memories"

I'm not upset, just a little... confused. =P

 

Honestly, for as young as they are, I think even life imprisonment here is too much. I think anywhere between 20 and 30 years would be enough. Life imprisonment I think would be fair to people who are 40+ and have already established a life. However, the killers were only, what, 19 or 20 when apprehended? With expert help, I think they could have become non-violent people when released from prison (had it not been life imprisonment). And, yes, I read the whole article.

Yup, I'm ready for any insults you guys have for me regarding that statement. Go for it.

 

Growing up, I thought the death penalty was barbarian, inhumane, and unfit for such a great country like America. In recent years, I've thought it necessary for several reasons: I thought it was cheaper (which it isn't, like GS pointed out), some criminals deserve it (but how do we decided that), we're 100% sure that the executed is guilty otherwise we wouldn't execute it (but I was wrong on that, too) and our prisons are overcrowding. Over time, I've ended up countering my own points. It isn't cheaper; far from it. In fact, if I would be in support for the death penalty, I would want a rehaul of how we do it to cut spending in it.
Who deserves it...is a tough one. Obviously, a thief doesn't. But a murderer? Possibly. But how many victims justify it? Does the manner of murder matter? And even then, is death a sufficient punishment? I'm not too savvy on the process, but does it hurt them enough that they repent in their final moments or is it a painless death? That's not a punishment (unless you believe the person will end up in Hell which a) I don't and b)unless you're God Himself, you cannot be 100% sure the executed will end up in those fiery pits).
I had always assumed that we saved the death penalty for those that considered so guilty that there was 0 chance whatsoever that there was a mistake. That was a fantasy. In today's culture and some states, the death penalty is something to be proud of (who was that governor who prided himself in how many criminals his state was executed?). What about that case in Texas where a man robbed a store and the owner ended up shot to death, the man arrested, and one of his accomplices claimed he shot him? The man pleaded guilty to the robbery, not guilty to the shooting and was convicted based on a strand of hair that matched his hair color. Despite his request for the execution to be postponed until the hair could be tested to assure that it was his, then-Governor Bush allowed him to be executed (In Bush's defense, he was not notified that there was a way to accurately test the hair, but the science wouldn't be ready for another year). The man was executed earlier this year (he was executed in 1999 or 2000), the hair was revealed to be the murdered storeowner after a university requested to test it.
As for the overcrowding, I think that we should focus on the people that shouldn't there such as those on trumped-up drug charges (here's looking at you, potsmokers). Overall, I'd like an entire prison reform.
Years ago, I was an opponent of the death penalty.
Less years ago, I was neutral.
Even less time ago, a supporter.
Now, I'm a definite opposed.

As for the "money shouldn't matter when it comes to morals" thing. It shouldn't, but in a country, money is important. I'm not saying money > morals, but you can't run a country if you disregard the financial aspect of decisions.

 

For the love of god! *Sigh* ...there is no need for insults but I and most will think your statements are 100% wrong and rediculous. You have sympathy for crazy killers like that that don't even want it. Killers don't get second chances and don't deserve it. Do they have to kill more than 26 people to not want to do it anymore? Your statements are wrong and you have no support. I actually think you even watching the actual murder online would have an effect on you which is very scary. DO NOT FEEL SORRY FOR PEOPLE LIKE THAT. I think you should watch the video. They smile and laugh and have fun with it. I heard watching the video is life changing...

 

As for chosing the ones that desarve it..
There are diferent kinds of murderer, there is passionate (every person is capable of doing it, in the wrong scenario) : You killed someone because you were really angry, sure it's bad, but not as bad as scheming for a long time, planing not get cought etc..
There is a chance that "you are responsible for someone's death" (as a car accidenty) , is very less offencing.
There are those that you plan in attecipation (this are the most offencing).

Even between those that you plan there are degrees.. If you are a serial killer it means you have a pattern (you need to kill 3+ victims with something in common) they are obviously worse, as they are prone to do it again, different than someone that has killed once.
There are "Special victms" as: Women, children, etc
There are crimes that are against the criminal system: Killing Cops, Lawyers, some that will testify, etc..

There are criminals that "have emotion" and others that don't psychopats don't feel like we do, so the chance of recovering is low , there are those however that "feel" and mostly feel good about what they have done.
So sure there are easy ways to differency the type of murder.

@Boy Wonder: As far as this thief goes there is a principle in the justice that states that "When you commit a crime, you are responsable for the other crimes done in the proccess"
If you try to robb someone, that person ends up defending themselves and they die, you're responsible, if you and a whole gang rob a bank and OTHER guy shotts someone and they die , everyone from the gang are charged as murderers , sometimes they cut deals with the others so they testify against who really did it, but only because they could be charged as well that it is a bargain chip. So If someone died even though the guy didn't shott, when he robbed that store he was aware that his actions could endanger others.

 

I can honestly say that I don't agree with Amaury's ideals pertaining to this specific matter. However, I believe everyone should be entitled to their own opinion. But before I continue, can I ask you a question? You say you've "heard" the video is life changing. So have you actually seen it yourself?

If the answer is no, I don't believe you should be telling others to watch a video you yourself haven't seen. Maybe after you watch it you can tell him it's "life changing" based on your own opinions rather than hearsay. I don't agree with blindly pushing something onto someone to change their ideals when you have no idea what it actually is.

As far as the murderers, I agree, they shouldn't get second chances. People who kill for fun aren't going to suddenly realize they don't like it, or change their ways. But like I've said, that's something that we happen to agree upon. Not everyone will, nor should, have the same concepts and ideals. It's ridiculous to try and change someones mind on a matter like this. Now, if it were trying to get someone to switch pop brands, that's fine. But when it comes down to situations like this, you should just agree to disagree. You can't change someones opinion so easily.

 

I don't want him to watch it, I'm not forcing him to and I don't expect him to watch it. I have seen reactions and people crying over it and brutally blurred parts. I have also seen pictures of them hurting animals. I just want him to realize how serious it is. I just find having sympathy for killers like this is just nonsense and I can't help but to at least try to have him open his eyes to see what we are dealing with. Yes it is an opinion. It's an opinion I had never tried to change from someone. I mean just 20 years of prison for the most brutal killings of 26 victim as a hobby. That's just not normal or being nice... it's quite scary.

 

As far as I see, Amaury only stated that there is no justification for execution. Honestly I'd rather criminals like this be executed. But, be it life in prison, or execution, we won't have to worry about that criminal anymore. Unless on the off chance a jailbreak were to occur.

As for the twenty year sentence, that is a definite mistake by our judicial system. Had the choice been up to me I would have executed the criminal on sight. Rather than wasting time with a trail and allowing a decision like this to come to pass. I think one life doesn't make up for twenty-six, so why not make the total count twenty six plus one. I honestly don't think a kill shot would hurt for too long. So as long as you don't miss it couldn't be declared "cruel." One criminal, one bullet, twenty-six bodies. To me that adds up to a simple solution. But, like I said, some people have different views. I can't tell you not to try and change them, but for the most part it's useless. Neither us nor Amaury are "right" on the matter, as what is "right" is decided by each individual.

And I don't think it's a matter of "sympathy" on Amaury's part, so much as the belief that all life is too valuable to throw away. Even going by this thought though, i'd have to agree that twenty-six lives must have more joint value, than the one life that took them away. I digress, you can't change what someone believes so easily. Just agree to disagree.

 

If we execute them, aren't we doing what they did?

We can say they deserve it, but in many cases of school shootings, the attackers have been students who were bullied, so in their minds, the victims deserved it.

So does executing them because "they deserve it" make us better than the criminals?

 

I didnt read anything Amaury said so i didnt respond to anything he said. What Im trying to say is people like that DO NOT deserve to be on this earth and live there life like nothing happened. Greater or equal punishment should be addressed.

No we are not. I dont care what they do with stuff like that. Sick people like those maniacs dont deserve to be living on this Earth. Yes? we are better than criminals when it comes execusion They kill animal and people and animal for the hell of it or for fun with no care so why should we? We shouldn stop oursleves from doing what should be right just to be the bigger man.

 

Okay, i'm gonna start off by saying, if you've not read any of Amaury's content, then how do you think you have the right to try to contradict his statements. Let alone, how would you even know that he was against execution. Did you just randomly pick a post to reply to? If you want to contradict someone, you should at least have the common courtesy to read all of their prior posts. Maybe there's something there that's important, and you didn't even see it.

Now, on to the matter at hand. I agree that people like this don't deserve to live, or rather, they deserve to die. But, should they be sentenced to a life sentence or even a twenty year sentence, how could you possibly think they're living their life like nothing happened? Obviously, they'd be in prison for starters. If nothing happened, they wouldn't be. Everyone would know about their crimes, and they'd be shunned, etc. If nothing happened, no one would know of/remember the crimes. To say they'd live life as nothing ever happened is an inaccurate statement.

Take a minute right now to just read that last quote right there. I want you to read over it and tell me how many things are wrong with it. I'll go ahead and point them out for you.

First off, the truth is, we are doing what they did when you strip it down to the basic principles. We are choosing to take another life, because we see it fit. Secondly, you don't care what they do with stuff like what? Lastly, yes, some of these criminals are indeed sick, but not the kind you're thinking of. Sometimes these people have gone through some things that neither you or I could possibly comprehend. Pain and emotion building up to the point that they snap. So you're saying that people who have been tormented by this cruel world don't deserve to be living here? I agree, they should have been living somewhere where the world isn't so awful it led them to insanity. This does not apply to each and every one of these individuals. Some people are indeed just freaks who enjoy taking or ruining another human beings life.

We're no better than the criminals at all. The only difference is, they enjoyed taking another persons life.

Sorry, I just had to break this down directly to this portion here. Let me go ahead and quote the part i'll be directing my post towards first, "so why should we?" Yes. Why should we care? Why should we show any kind of emotion, because obviously the killer did not. So why should we. Why should we be hesitant to place that man in the chair, to strap that man to the table, to hang that man in the gallows? Why should we care? I'll tell you why, not caring about taking that criminals life would make us no better than the criminal him/herself. Most criminals like this are defined as "sociopaths" and this means that they carry no emotions whatsoever. They don't care about things like you or I. Say they have a younger sibling. If one of us had a younger sibling, we'd more than likely harbor some form of emotion towards them. A sociopath will not carry any emotion. To them it's just another mass of space they happen to pass by everyday. So, saying that we shouldn't care is saying we should be the same as the criminals we'd be executing. It's a ridiculous concept. When one must take the life of another human being, one should cry, one should fear, and one should feel.

And to address the second sentence in this quote, "We shouldn't stop ourselves from doing what should be right just to be the bigger man." I cannot agree with this statement. I cannot and will not agree that it is or ever will be right to take the life of another human being, no matter the circumstance. It's not about "being the bigger man," it's about having standards and morals. Just because you declare that it is the "right" thing to do, doesn't justify taking another human life. What you think is right, may not be true for the next person. If I had a choice to either shoot a man or watch him murder my family, I'd take the shot. Not because it was the right thing to do, not because it was just cause. Because I made a choice based on my emotions. My emotions told me that I care more about my family than this man, and I would kill him. Now, if you think for a second it wouldn't tear me up inside, having to take the life of another human being without prior time to prepare my own mentality, you're wrong. There's no possible way I wouldn't feel badly about having to take another persons life.

So, we may agree that the death penalty should be enacted; however, you've shown me that our views as to why differ greatly. It's quite easy to talk about how someone should be killed, but if it was you in that room, holding the lever, would you, or rather, could you pull that lever?

 

I don't remember saying anything to him I thought I was talking to Yut. ( I get on about once a day in the morning) Anyway it's your opinion against mine. Don't try and point out errors you think i have that's not fair. That's just what I think. I was only trying to continue the conversation with yut to get a reason out of why he thinks the way he does which he still hasn't said only because its "death" i just don't think people like that shouldn't be let off the hook so easily. I stopped reading after you were mocking my post. Don't do that. Like you said let's agree to disagree. I'm only responding back to the questions you guys are asking me and I'm giving you "my" answer. Respect my opinion. I gave you my reasons. I'm not fight your guys'.

 

Putting a criminal to death doesn't make you just as bad. I don't know how the hell it would.

Some random Joe on the street decides to kill two kids. Those kids' lives were taken away from them and they'll never get it back. But hey, it's all fine for that Joe because he gets to live and go to prison where other people do the same.

Once you've taken away an innocent person's fundamental right to live, the boundary is drawn. It doesn't matter how barbaric society would dub it, that person needs to suffer the same pain as that child did so he'll understand as he's slowly dying that it's not a good feeling to know that you're about to die when you don't want to. They'll never truly understand otherwise.

Think of it like a police officer. Some ******* is beating the **** out of his wife, so the police officer then beats the **** out of him. You're not equivalent to the bad guy in this situation for giving someone a taste of their own medicine. The person understands the pain their victim went through.

It makes sense on the other end, however, seeing as how life in prison is everyone's personal hell.

It's a very rough choice, to either kill the murderer or send him to reality's hell, but I guess it can work both ways.

 

Okay, first off, i'm sorry for assuming you knew that Amaury is Yut. Secondly, I don't want to read the rest of your post. Actually, I read your whole post, because I don't think it's right to reply to someone without doing so. Lastly, everything I could or would say after this is pointless, as i'd only be saying what I said in my previous post. Please go back and read the whole thing, so you might understand why I would criticize your post.

Okay, not sure if you read my post or not so I'll just say it again. If you strip down an execution to it's basic principles, it's basic concept, then you are murdering another human being. Nothing justifies taking another persons life. I don't care how many they've killed, nothing will justify taking another humans life. Now, there's a difference here between justification and human emotions. Because human emotions tell us that the criminal deserves to die. As with which I agree. The fact remains though, there are no justifiable causes for slaying another person.

For a second here, i'm going to pretend i'm not an atheist. I'm going to force myself to believe in heaven and hell. Now. Those two kids go to heaven, because they've done no wrong. Joe stays down in prison until the day he dies. What's the difference in spending the rest of his life in this hell and going on to the other?

Now, back to being atheist. Let's say there is no heaven, and no hell. No afterlife whatsoever. The two kids are gone, forever. They can't come back. So, the first thing you want to do is kill Joe. How is that punishment? He'll be gone. He won't think, he won't suffer, he'll be gone. So rather than that, let's keep him in a prison for the rest of his life. There "this and that" happens to him, and he lives out the rest of his days in a suffering hell.

That's more or less very similar to the same mentality that those criminals you're talking about have. Also, what you're referring to is torture, of which I do not approve. Acting like that to the criminals is . . . your basically looking at him through a two-way glass window, and he's taking over you. Pretty soon, you start to realize that window isn't a window. You're staring into a mirror. Basically what i'm saying is, if you act like the criminal would, you're turning into the criminal.

Tell me exactly how beating someone up is related to killing them? In what world would you consider the two even remotely related. Obviously if you beat them to death it would turn to murder. If not, they'll survive. This analogy is an irrelevant statement to the case at hand. Battery is batter, murder is murder. Don't confuse the two.

I actually agree with you on this one. It can work both ways.

 

It's the "eye for an eye" ideology. You punch someone undeserving, you get punched. You kill someone undeserving, you get killed.

You can equalize it with other punishments, like community service or prison (for both of those examples). It's just easier to do it "eye for an eye," however, and I won't subject myself to "humans are above those acts of barbarism" because it can justified through the idea that if you kill a bad guy who killed a good guy, you may have saved anyone else from suffering from that person.

It's just like when the U.S. navy went and took out Osama Bin Laden. He's responsible for murder of people who are undeserving, so we killed him because for that, he WAS deserving.

 

Okay, wow . . . Where to start. I guess at the beginning. The old "eye for an eye" ideology is pretty good, in fact, I like it. But, be it an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, there is no reason good enough for taking someones life that could serve as an accurate justification.

Just because others may or may not have suffered because of that person, doesn't justify killing him. Most would declare it as "the right thing to do" but in all honesty, right and wrong are concepts decided on by the individual. This goes on to lead to your next analogy. Yes, the U.S. Navy took out the threat known as Osama Bin Laden. It was the right thing to do. I think so, you think so, and everyone in America (give or take a few) thinks so. But, there are people over in Iraq who think we're the evil ones. In their eyes we were wrong to do what we did, and that they were right. Basically, there is no "right and wrong" there's only do's and don'ts. You do what you believe in, you don't do anything you're against. This is the truth behind the concept of "right and wrong". What's right for you, may not be for me.

In summary, it's never "right" to take a human life. You are taking a human life because it's what you believe in. That is not justification. That is self-satisfaction. You can buck up and give yourself a pat on the back for doing what you believe.