Two Plus Two Newer Archives - This is why I'm for the death penalty.

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- Politics (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)

- - This is why I'm for the death penalty. (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=556192)

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
Im in favor of death penalty and long prison sentences because the high cost of error of releasing known murderers that may not be as rehabilitated that we would like to think they are far exceeds the cost of having them in prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't this be achieved by having no chance of release for members who commit a certain type of crime (with the exception, of course, that if they are found to be innocent the go free)?

[ QUOTE ]
Im talking about my defense of the death penalty, and I assure you it has nothing to do with revenge, its what I feel is the proper solution for the society in dealing with some murderers. I believe that the judges in the trials and appeals needed before someone can be executed are level headed and therefore will avoid sentencing people to death based on pity revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the cost/risk of them committing future crimes can be eliminated by having no parole eligibility and the cost of going through the rigorous process you describe above has been shown to exceed the cost of keeping someone in prison for life. What do you gain by killing them?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great. I oppose the death penalty as a form punishment because in a modern society it has high cost of error (ethically), enormous costs and little utility. I oppose most long prison sentences for the same reasons.

And then you can debate against that if you wish, and how you can avoid revenge casting a fairly heavy shadow on the death penalty arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im in favor of death penalty and long prison sentences because the high cost of error of releasing known murderers that may not be as rehabilitated that we would like to think they are far exceeds the cost of having them in prison.

Im talking about my defense of the death penalty, and I assure you it has nothing to do with revenge, its what I feel is the proper solution for the society in dealing with some murderers. I believe that the judges in the trials and appeals needed before someone can be executed are level headed and therefore will avoid sentencing people to death based on pity revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of your goals would not be met by life in prison without the possibility of parole? I would argue that life in prison w/out possibility of parole + all proceeds from prisoner's required "work" in prison to go to victims' family would meet your goals equally well and provide an added benefit over the death penalty.

Too often i think death penalty support is just a masked frustration with the current system of criminal justice (i.e. prison is too easy, too many appeals, etc.)

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im in favor of death penalty and long prison sentences because the high cost of error of releasing known murderers that may not be as rehabilitated that we would like to think they are far exceeds the cost of having them in prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't this be achieved by having no chance of release for members who commit a certain type of crime (with the exception, of course, that if they are found to be innocent the go free)?

[ QUOTE ]
Im talking about my defense of the death penalty, and I assure you it has nothing to do with revenge, its what I feel is the proper solution for the society in dealing with some murderers. I believe that the judges in the trials and appeals needed before someone can be executed are level headed and therefore will avoid sentencing people to death based on pity revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the cost/risk of them committing future crimes can be eliminated by having no parole eligibility and the cost of going through the rigorous process you describe above has been shown to exceed the cost of keeping someone in prison for life. What do you gain by killing them?

[/ QUOTE ]

The last paragraph that you quoted was a response to tame deuces that also opposes long prison sentences (In Norway the longest sentence you can get is 21 years, and in reality that means you are free after 13-14 years max), while Im in favor of life without parole and also death penalty in some cases.

What we gain from killing them? Well they are out of the system, and not a concern to anyone annymore. When they are executed they are finally history, they are not part of society or this world anymore, and we can move on.

And Im not saying that the death penalty is a neccessity, but I feel it is appropiate at times. If someone is sentenced to life in prison with 0 % chance of getting out we have made sure that society are safe from him just as much as when he is executed, but I do feel there are times when having the person executed is the most appropiate solution.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
So prison when we are "beyond reasonable doubt", and death penalty when "there is no doubt what so ever". Videotape, DNA, confession and such sometimes makes the case 100% slam dunk, and there is no way whatsoever that anyone will think that the person is innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely. I'm against the death penalty in all cases. The innocent-probability in a case shouldn't decide if he is executed or not.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]

The last paragraph that you quoted was a response to tame deuces that also opposes long prison sentences (In Norway the longest sentence you can get is 21 years, and in reality that means you are free after 13-14 years max), while Im in favor of life without parole and also death penalty in some cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Sure, the basic maximum sentence you can get in Norway is 21 years, but additionally there is something called "forvaring" (English term?) that allows life sentences. Forvaring can be extended until infinity every 5 years.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

Yeah, thats why I asked you if your feelings on the matter was moral or practical. As it is about moral it was kind of redundant to even discuss the practibility of it as you would not find it acceptable in any cases.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
innocent people get killed by the death penality though, not just bad people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically not a single executed person has been proven with DNA evidence to have been innocent of the convicted crime.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
innocent people get killed by the death penality though, not just bad people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically not a single executed person has been proven with DNA evidence to have been innocent of the convicted crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

This means absolutely nothing (for a wealth of reasons.)

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
What we gain from killing them? Well they are out of the system, and not a concern to anyone annymore. When they are executed they are finally history, they are not part of society or this world anymore, and we can move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

A life sentence puts takes them out of society as well, at lower cost to society than a super extensive conviction/appeals process that even you admit is necessary to ensure only the "right" people are given the death sentence. I'd rather have them "in the system" (but off my streets) at significantly lower cost and with no risk that they will be released.

[ QUOTE ]
And Im not saying that the death penalty is a neccessity, but I feel it is appropiate at times. If someone is sentenced to life in prison with 0 % chance of getting out we have made sure that society are safe from him just as much as when he is executed, but I do feel there are times when having the person executed is the most appropiate solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes execution "more appropriate" when you admit that safety objectives can still be met at lower cost through life sentences without parole?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thought I'd bump this so it could get a little more love. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
innocent people get killed by the death penality though, not just bad people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically not a single executed person has been proven with DNA evidence to have been innocent of the convicted crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

This means absolutely nothing (for a wealth of reasons.)

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I was just pointing out that you cannot say people have been innocently executed when nobody has been proven to be innocently executed. This doesn't mean confirm anything beyond that small point, however. It takes some heavy willful ignorance to believe that ANY mandate won't have failings from time to time.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The principle is exactly the same, and Im pretty sure you know it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Now I don't even know what we are talking about anymore. I certainly don't think criminal punishment is about revenge, that is a principle most civilized societies left behind hundreds of years ago. Though I'm sure many get their kicks out of believing it is and like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with revenge exactly? Not that I think the criminal justice system should be about "revenge" entirely, but ask yourself what "justice" means in this case...

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

Clearly, revenge/retribution are a component of the criminal justice system. The question is what weight should we give to it. For what it's worth, I would say that the four main justifications for criminal justice are/should be:
1) Removal (public safety --- remove criminals from society to prevent further harm)
2) Retribution/Revenge
3) Rehabilitation
4) Deterrence

Capital Punishment does not accomplish #1 any better than life in prison w/out parole, it accomplishes 2, does not accomplish 3, and it is HIGHLY questionable whether it helps with 4 in any appreciable way greater than prison terms. So, ultimately, it boils down to retribution.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The principle is exactly the same, and Im pretty sure you know it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Now I don't even know what we are talking about anymore. I certainly don't think criminal punishment is about revenge, that is a principle most civilized societies left behind hundreds of years ago. Though I'm sure many get their kicks out of believing it is and like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with revenge exactly? Not that I think the criminal justice system should be about "revenge" entirely, but ask yourself what "justice" means in this case...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think retributive justice (crudely referred to as 'revenge' here) is necessarily something to scoff at. I'm happy when people who do bad things are punished, and I suspect most other people are too. Imagine a hypothetical world where we could find some terrible criminal monster like Dennis Rader and give him some kind of ankle bracelet that we could know, with 100% certainty, would prevent him from killing again. Let's say we've also concluded, somehow, that Rader is 100% un-rehabilitatable. And by some magic, we've also managed to conclude that it's completely impossible someone will ever repeat his crimes. Given this, should we allow him to live a free and unencumbered life, sans punishment, despite the fact that he's caused so much pain, suffering, and misery in his community? Our hypothetical has magically addressed the concerns about deterrence and rehabilitation -- but I many people would be comfortable letting Rader go free in such a hypothetical. And I think the answer is clear as to why most people wouldn't be comfortable, and it's because I think a 'just' society would necessarily have to punish someone like Rader, justified by the simple notion that he deserves it. And I would be surprised if many people would disagree with this.

That isn't to say I approve of severe forms of physical punishment, but I'm a firm believer that getting what's 'deserved' is part (and probably only a part) of achieving justice. Having said that, I think especially important for a moral society to try to balance desert with fairness. For example, I may think a rapist deserves to sit in prison for 10 years for their crime, but if we've only been punishing other rapists to 1 year in prison, we should probably take that into consideration. There are other factors to take into consideration as well. But I think desert is one of those factors we should take into consideration, and I think we can defend retributive justice once we accept the Rader-type hypothetical and the concept of just desert.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think retributive justice (crudely referred to as 'revenge' here) is necessarily something to scoff at. I'm happy when people who do bad things are punished, and I suspect most other people are too. I mean, imagine a hypothetical world where we could find some terrible criminal monster like Dennis Rader and give him some kind of ankle bracelet that we could know, with 100% certainty, would prevent him from killing again. Let's say we've also concluded, somehow, that Rader is 100% un-rehabilitatable. And by some magic, we've also managed to conclude that it's completely impossible someone will ever repeat his crimes. Should we allow him to live a free and unencumbered life, sans punishment, despite the fact that he's caused so much pain, suffering, and misery in his community?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he could possibly lead a free and unencumbered life even if he's not imprisoned/killed. How many people would sell him a place to live? Food? How pleasant will his life be?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he could possibly lead a free and unencumbered life even if he's not imprisoned/killed. How many people would sell him a place to live? Food? How pleasant will his life be?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 6 billion people on this planet; I'm sure there are a couple of billion who have never heard of the guy.

How pleasant is Whitey Bolger's life? If it's unpleasant at all, it's only because he's bothered by consistently trying to escape law enforcement. Perhaps a better question would be "how pleasant was White Bulger's life for the decades the Boston Police ignored him"? I obviously don't know the guy, but given his reported lifestyle, the answer is: very. Even when he was a fugitive, he apparently lived a happy life living with friends in Louisiana before he ostensibly left the country.

In case my point isn't clear, Bulgar was a criminal, murderer, feared gangster, etc. who pretty much ran South Boston for a couple of decades. You can surely Google him up for a list of all the brutal [censored] he did to people for twenty or thirty years. It was absolutely no secret to anyone what he did and what his lifestyle was like, and yet he had no problem running a convenience store where people shopped, finding friends, buying food, socializing, etc. He had a family. A house. He worked on political campaigns. Took vacations. Had millions of dollars. And then the feds finally came after him after a couple of decades, and he disappeared and is apparently living it up with his mistress in Europe. Why is that? Let's try this Socratically.

I understand, you know some ridiculous ACist talking points. That's cute. Maybe you could try thinking critically about this one for a little bit, though. pvn and Boro may or may not have this answer for you, try PMing them I guess.

I suppose half of me isn't intending to be a huge douche, so I'll go ahead and just let the cat out of the bag and answer this for you: the notion that bad people (even ones who commit terrible crimes and horrid acts of inhumanity) won't be able to live a happy life after said acts because "people won't sell them a place to live" or "sell food to them" is hilarious on its face, and is completely contradicted by no less than thousands of contemporary examples, I'm sure. I'm sure you're actually aware of all this, had you thought about it for more than a moment or two. Of course, ACtarding is more fun, so why bother with thinking and such.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

Why is the United States the only modern, developed, democratic country with regular use of the death penalty?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the United States the only modern, developed, democratic country with regular use of the death penalty?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. I was hoping someone would address that question when I posted the facts. In case someone missed them, here they are again:

- In 2006, 91 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the USA.

- Ten countries since 1990 are known to have executed 58 prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime – Afghanistan, China, Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, USA and Yemen.

From amnesty.com

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
- Ten countries since 1990 are known to have executed 58 prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime – Afghanistan, China, Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, USA and Yemen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good list to be on IMO; always nice be mentioned with Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia on a survey of who uses a questionable punishment tactic.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thought I'd bump this so it could get a little more love. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

I'm dissappointed this thread has gone in a different direction than I'd hoped. I guess I kind of suck at these things.

How about this. Does anyone agree/dissagree with the above statement? Is it a completely retarded statement? Why or why not? Is there any action a person can take against another human being/beings that they should deserve to lose their lives for? Is stuff of this nature is more appropriate for SMP?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
innocent people get killed by the death penality though, not just bad people.

[/ QUOTE ]

name one. there isnt a single documented case of an innocent person being executed. Even if there has been, how do you trade off that extremely rare happenstance versus the innocent lives that the guilty would have taken if not executed, and those innocen ts that would have died if not for the deterrent effect (most recently estimated as 72 innocent lives saved per execution).

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thought I'd bump this so it could get a little more love. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

I'm dissappointed this thread has gone in a different direction than I'd hoped. I guess I kind of suck at these things.

How about this. Does anyone agree/dissagree with the above statement? Is it a completely retarded statement? Why or why not? Is there any action a person can take against another human being/beings that they should deserve to lose their lives for? Is stuff of this nature is more appropriate for SMP?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are getting few responses to your question because the anti-death penalty crowd has no answer that is consistent with their stance. It is patently obvious that some people commit acts and would continue to commit acts that are so reprehensible that they dont deserve to live in a civilzed society.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
and those innocen ts that would have died if not for the deterrent effect (most recently estimated as 72 innocent lives saved per execution).

[/ QUOTE ]

Source/link?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
It is patently obvious that some people commit acts and would continue to commit acts that are so reprehensible that they dont deserve to live in a civilzed society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily part of the anti-death penalty crowd, but that's what prison is for.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and those innocen ts that would have died if not for the deterrent effect (most recently estimated as 72 innocent lives saved per execution).

[/ QUOTE ]

Source/link?

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, it was 74 per year

theres also a WSJ article but it is nearly identical and requires a subscription

"Roy Adler and Michael Summers, both professors at Pepperdine University, have analyzed the relationship between the number of U.S. executions by year and the number of murders in the year thereafter for 1979-2004. They relied on raw data supplied by the Death Penalty Information Center and the FBI"

"They have documented a relationship between capital punishment and the future rate of homicide. When executions leveled off, the professors found, murders increased. And when executions increased, the number of people murdered dropped off. In a year-by-year analysis, Adler and Summers found that each execution was associated with 74 fewer murders the following year. "

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is patently obvious that some people commit acts and would continue to commit acts that are so reprehensible that they dont deserve to live in a civilzed society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily part of the anti-death penalty crowd, but that's what prison is for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would disagree becuase even though they are removed from society, the criminal still gets to live. There are individuals that don't deserve to live out the rest of their days when they so callously denied that right to their victims.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thought I'd bump this so it could get a little more love. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, am I being leveled? It was quoted because I'm impressed with how succinctly hypocritical one earnest statement can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't realize you meant it in that way. Do you mind elaborating?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thought I'd bump this so it could get a little more love. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, am I being leveled? It was quoted because I'm impressed with how succinctly hypocritical one earnest statement can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't realize you meant it in that way. Do you mind elaborating?

[/ QUOTE ]
Person A places such little value on Person B's life that he enables Person B's death. Money2Burn then places such little value on Person A's life that he enables Person A's death. Hilarity ensues.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thought I'd bump this so it could get a little more love. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, am I being leveled? It was quoted because I'm impressed with how succinctly hypocritical one earnest statement can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't realize you meant it in that way. Do you mind elaborating?

[/ QUOTE ]
Person A places such little value on Person B's life that he enables Person B's death. Money2Burn then places such little value on Person A's life that he enables Person A's death. Hilarity ensues.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think there's a difference between someone intentionally taking another person's life maliciously without provocation and someone's life being taken as a consequence of a heinous murder?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thought I'd bump this so it could get a little more love. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, am I being leveled? It was quoted because I'm impressed with how succinctly hypocritical one earnest statement can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't realize you meant it in that way. Do you mind elaborating?

[/ QUOTE ]
Person A places such little value on Person B's life that he enables Person B's death. Money2Burn then places such little value on Person A's life that he enables Person A's death. Hilarity ensues.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think there's a difference between someone intentionally taking another person's life maliciously without provocation and someone's life being taken as a consequence of a heinous murder?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure I do. But I'm also not going to pretend that the second version isn't just the same "evaluate value of human life, if value < X then terminate" algorithm that the first one used.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of that, he'll get his 15 appeals, he'll cost the state several millions just in court costs, and he'll probably still die in prison before his execution comes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to frustrated by the appeals process.

But you also agree that over 100 innocent people were released who had been sentenced to death wrongly. These people may have spent 10-15 years in prison appealing their case.

You say it works because they were released.

So... am I wrong to sense that you think the long and expensive appeals process is wrong? Yet, you seem to think it has saved innocents from being killed, no?

Just curious...

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is patently obvious that some people commit acts and would continue to commit acts that are so reprehensible that they dont deserve to live in a civilzed society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily part of the anti-death penalty crowd, but that's what prison is for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would disagree becuase even though they are removed from society, the criminal still gets to live. There are individuals that don't deserve to live out the rest of their days when they so callously denied that right to their victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I think death may be less of a punishment then life in prison. But opinions may vary greatly about this.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]

Personally I think death may be less of a punishment then life in prison. But opinions may vary greatly about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the arguments against death sentences are also arguments against (the majority of) v/ long prison sentences.

We choose Love or Hatred on a Daily basis

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with revenge exactly? Not that I think the criminal justice system should be about "revenge" entirely, but ask yourself what "justice" means in this case...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think retributive justice (crudely referred to as 'revenge' here) is necessarily something to scoff at. I'm happy when people who do bad things are punished, and I suspect most other people are too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm generally saddened when people are hurt (even if they may well "deserve" it), and may I say I think God is saddened too.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a hypothetical world where we could find some terrible criminal monster like Dennis Rader and give him some kind of ankle bracelet that we could know, with 100% certainty, would prevent him from killing again. Let's say we've also concluded, somehow, that Rader is 100% un-rehabilitatable. And by some magic, we've also managed to conclude that it's completely impossible someone will ever repeat his crimes. Given this, should we allow him to live a free and unencumbered life, sans punishment, despite the fact that he's caused so much pain, suffering, and misery in his community? Our hypothetical has magically addressed the concerns about deterrence and rehabilitation -- but I many people would be comfortable letting Rader go free in such a hypothetical. And I think the answer is clear as to why most people wouldn't be comfortable, and it's because I think a 'just' society would necessarily have to punish someone like Rader, justified by the simple notion that he deserves it. And I would be surprised if many people would disagree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to disagree with that perspective, and see zero value in adding to the suffering present in an already greatly suffering world. If someone is no longer capable of doing harmful, evil things to others, then in my opinion there is no value in making that person suffer. All that would do, in my view, would be to increase the total amount of suffering in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
That isn't to say I approve of severe forms of physical punishment, but I'm a firm believer that getting what's 'deserved' is part (and probably only a part) of achieving justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Achieving justice" by concentrating on the negative side of the equation is a seductive mirage, especially since we cannot ensure that good people are rewarded by good things happening for them to balance the scales. Evil things happen routinely to good people, and good people are frequently unrewarded for their good deeds in this world (though they may be rewarded in the hereafter); so by focusing on punishing evil, we tip the scales in the world towards a greater amount of evil than good occurring in the world as a whole. As if evil doesn't already outweigh the good in this world!

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I think especially important for a moral society to try to balance desert with fairness. For example, I may think a rapist deserves to sit in prison for 10 years for their crime, but if we've only been punishing other rapists to 1 year in prison, we should probably take that into consideration. There are other factors to take into consideration as well. But I think desert is one of those factors we should take into consideration, and I think we can defend retributive justice once we accept the Rader-type hypothetical and the concept of just desert.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point about relative justice, but IMO humans should not be trying to play God or the role of Universal Arbiter of Justice by meting out retribution for evil acts.

When humans try to achieve that, in addition to the tainting of results which often occurs due to bias or limited perspective, there is the basic truth that we have far less power to do greatly good things for people than we have the power to do to greatly evil things to them.

Retribution, while admittedly attractive in some fashion, is a lower human emotion which we should strive to suppress and overcome. There is no way to achieve true justice in this world, and by enacting punishments purely for the sake of trying to achieve some abstract sense of justice, the human race descends deeper overall into hatred, pain and misery.

Will not the person upon whom punishment or vengeance is enacted, frequently feel that it is unfairly applied to them? So they will harbor resentment and possibly try to seek vengeance of some sort of their own (which may even be possibly misdirected against innocent targets). Thus the vicious cycle continues.

The Buddha said: "Only by love can hatred be appeased or dissolved; never by hatred can hatred be appeased". What type of a future world do we wish to see? A world in which the cycle of hatred and retribution continues indefinitely, or a world in which humans eventually move beyond that?

I wonder how many among us happened to feel any compassion or sorrow whatsoever for Saddam Hussein, when the tyrant was hanged? As evil as his deeds were, he still probably somehow felt justified with his actions in life, and his death was a personal tragedy on grand scale for him. Even tyrants are deservant of some degree of compassion. As Samuel Clemens wrote: "Who, if anyone, prays for the Devil? Yet what sinner is more in need of our prayers than he?"

Just as Jesus forgave those who tormented him, we should strive to feel and give love even to those who despise and mistreat us. This is the highest human spiritual potential, and pragmatically speaking, it is the only way the human race will be spared on this Earth once the proliferation of technologies of mass destruction become far more developed and proliferated. Even if you disagree with the spiritual points I am hoping to convey, a focus upon retribution and hatred will ultimately destroy the human race if that focus is not widely supplanted by the spirit of compassion and mercy. This is so because the human-focused power to destroy is always greater than the human-focused power to create. So if equal portions of love and hatred are everpresent in the human race, then when the power to destroy grows great and widespread enough, the human race must eventually self-destruct. By focusing upon the retribution motif, the total sum of pain, suffering and resentment in this world is increased. Attempting to achieve "justice" by increasing the amount of suffering and resentment in the world, only pushes the human race a bit closer to this dire precipice which looms so threateningly in the not-so-tremendously-distant future.

What I believe to be necessary necessary, if the human race is to survive long-term, is for the higher motif of love and forgiveness to surpass the baser urge for retribution or vengeance.

If we wish the human race to survive, the message of love and forgiveness as embodied and displayed by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior should become our focus and aspiration. This is true for pragmatic and worldly reasons, so I won't even talk now about potential benefits in the afterlife.

A world in which love overcomes hatred would also be a better place in which to live, wouldn't it? Presently the struggle between love and hatred rages on, as it has for milennia. Which side would you most like to see win that struggle?

Every little thing counts, and I think the human race would be acting very wisely by trying to increase the amount of love and gratitude in the world rather than by increasing the amount of hatred and resentment in the world. When someone feels mistreated or unfairly punished (and who often does not?), it often does not end there. That person goes on and ends up passing that hatred to others by doing something bad to others (even if unawares, or even if those others are not to the actual source of their resentment. On lesser scale, when someone feels cranky due to unpleasant things having happened to them, they often treat others more poorly).

So this is the quandary the human race is in. The choice is open to all of us. I suggest looking at the gift of pure love that Jesus gave us all, but even if you are not religious, we have that choice before us on a daily basis. Do we choose Love, or do we choose Hatred? Whichever we choose, the actual effects of our choices ripple outward endlessly in an interconnected universe.

Well, thanks to everyone for reading.

Re: We choose Love or Hatred on a Daily basis

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with revenge exactly? Not that I think the criminal justice system should be about "revenge" entirely, but ask yourself what "justice" means in this case...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think retributive justice (crudely referred to as 'revenge' here) is necessarily something to scoff at. I'm happy when people who do bad things are punished, and I suspect most other people are too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm generally saddened when people are hurt (even if they may well "deserve" it), and may I say I think God is saddened too. Why should your God trump someone else's God who may not be saddened? Or an atheists beliefs? I'm not the least bit saddened when a cop killer/serial killer/mass murderer is executed. And isn't your God "an eye for an eye" proponent? 

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a hypothetical world where we could find some terrible criminal monster like Dennis Rader and give him some kind of ankle bracelet that we could know, with 100% certainty, would prevent him from killing again. Let's say we've also concluded, somehow, that Rader is 100% un-rehabilitatable. And by some magic, we've also managed to conclude that it's completely impossible someone will ever repeat his crimes. Given this, should we allow him to live a free and unencumbered life, sans punishment, despite the fact that he's caused so much pain, suffering, and misery in his community? Our hypothetical has magically addressed the concerns about deterrence and rehabilitation -- but I many people would be comfortable letting Rader go free in such a hypothetical. And I think the answer is clear as to why most people wouldn't be comfortable, and it's because I think a 'just' society would necessarily have to punish someone like Rader, justified by the simple notion that he deserves it. And I would be surprised if many people would disagree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to disagree with that perspective, and see zero value in adding to the suffering present in an already greatly suffering world. If someone is no longer capable of doing harmful, evil things to others, then in my opinion there is no value in making that person suffer. All that would do, in my view, would be to increase the total amount of suffering in the world. First, you can never guarantee that without death. Second, revenge can be cathartic and decrease the suffering of families of victims so your claim that there is a net increase in suffering is not supported. 

[ QUOTE ]
That isn't to say I approve of severe forms of physical punishment, but I'm a firm believer that getting what's 'deserved' is part (and probably only a part) of achieving justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Achieving justice" by concentrating on the negative side of the equation is a seductive mirage, especially since we cannot ensure that good people are rewarded by good things happening for them to balance the scales. Evil things happen routinely to good people, and good people are frequently unrewarded for their good deeds in this world (though they may be rewarded in the hereafter); so by focusing on punishing evil, we tip the scales in the world towards a greater amount of evil than good occurring in the world as a whole. As if evil doesn't already outweigh the good in this world! You have subjectively declared revenge to be evil. You have no right to do that for others. 

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I think especially important for a moral society to try to balance desert with fairness. For example, I may think a rapist deserves to sit in prison for 10 years for their crime, but if we've only been punishing other rapists to 1 year in prison, we should probably take that into consideration. There are other factors to take into consideration as well. But I think desert is one of those factors we should take into consideration, and I think we can defend retributive justice once we accept the Rader-type hypothetical and the concept of just desert.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point about relative justice, but IMO humans should not be trying to play God or the role of Universal Arbiter of Justice by meting out retribution for evil acts.

When humans try to achieve that, in addition to the tainting of results which often occurs due to bias or limited perspective, there is the basic truth that we have far less power to do greatly good things for people than we have the power to do to greatly evil things to them. how is that a basic truth? 

Retribution, while admittedly attractive in some fashion, is a lower human emotion which we should strive to suppress and overcome. All emotions are equal, none is lower than any other. They are all just chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Emotions evolved because they turned out to be beneficial to the species. Your declarative ranking of emotions is subjective. There is no way to achieve true justice in this world, and by enacting punishments purely for the sake of trying to achieve some abstract sense of justice, the human race descends deeper overall into hatred, pain and misery. see "increase in suffering above" 

Will not the person upon whom punishment or vengeance is enacted, frequently feel that it is unfairly applied to them? Of course, and so what? So they will harbor resentment and possibly try to seek vengeance of some sort of their own (which may even be possibly misdirected against innocent targets). Thus the vicious cycle continues. It only continues if you allow it to continue. 

The Buddha said: "Only by love can hatred be appeased or dissolved; never by hatred can hatred be appeased". What type of a future world do we wish to see? A world in which the cycle of hatred and retribution continues indefinitely, or a world in which humans eventually move beyond that? Wishing evil away doesnt work, and we will never move beyond the necessity of punishment. 

I wonder how many among us happened to feel any compassion or sorrow whatsoever for Saddam Hussein, when the tyrant was hanged? I sure didn't. As evil as his deeds were, he still probably somehow felt justified with his actions in life, His personal justifications are irrelevant in the context of a society. and his death was a personal tragedy on grand scale for him. Even tyrants are deservant of some degree of compassion. Depends on the tyrant. As Samuel Clemens wrote: "Who, if anyone, prays for the Devil? Yet what sinner is more in need of our prayers than he?"

Just as Jesus forgave those who tormented him, we should strive to feel and give love even to those who despise and mistreat us. No, we shouldnt, and citing one persons opinion (if he was even a real person) is just that, one opinion. It carries far less weight than societies opinion. If society wants to be influenced by his opinions, fine, but others in society can work to change that. This is the highest human spiritual potential, and pragmatically speaking, it is the only way the human race will be spared on this Earth once the proliferation of technologies of mass destruction become far more developed and proliferated. Even if you disagree with the spiritual points I am hoping to convey, a focus upon retribution and hatred will ultimately destroy the human race if that focus is not widely supplanted by the spirit of compassion and mercy. That may well be true, but wishing it away has never worked. Punishing it away has. This is so because the human-focused power to destroy is always greater than the human-focused power to create. So is natures, so what? So if equal portions of love and hatred are everpresent in the human race, then when the power to destroy grows great and widespread enough, the human race must eventually self-destruct. By focusing upon the retribution motif, the total sum of pain, suffering and resentment in this world is increased. see discussion above. Attempting to achieve "justice" by increasing the amount of suffering and resentment in the world, only pushes the human race a bit closer to this dire precipice which looms so threateningly in the not-so-tremendously-distant future.

What I believe to be necessary necessary, if the human race is to survive long-term, is for the higher motif of love and forgiveness to surpass the baser urge for retribution or vengeance.

If we wish the human race to survive, the message of love and forgiveness as embodied and displayed by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior should become our focus and aspiration. This is true for pragmatic and worldly reasons, so I won't even talk now about potential benefits in the afterlife. take it to SMP 

A world in which love overcomes hatred would also be a better place in which to live, wouldn't it? Presently the struggle between love and hatred rages on, as it has for milennia. Which side would you most like to see win that struggle?

Every little thing counts, and I think the human race would be acting very wisely by trying to increase the amount of love and gratitude in the world rather than by increasing the amount of hatred and resentment in the world. When someone feels mistreated or unfairly punished (and who often does not?), it often does not end there. That person goes on and ends up passing that hatred to others by doing something bad to others (even if unawares, or even if those others are not to the actual source of their resentment. On lesser scale, when someone feels cranky due to unpleasant things having happened to them, they often treat others more poorly). I like the Beatles too, but its songs, not the real world. 

So this is the quandary the human race is in. The choice is open to all of us. I suggest looking at the gift of pure love that Jesus gave us all, but even if you are not religious, we have that choice before us on a daily basis. Do we choose Love, or do we choose Hatred? Whichever we choose, the actual effects of our choices ripple outward endlessly in an interconnected universe.

Well, thanks to everyone for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: We choose Love or Hatred on a Daily basis

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with revenge exactly? Not that I think the criminal justice system should be about "revenge" entirely, but ask yourself what "justice" means in this case...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think retributive justice (crudely referred to as 'revenge' here) is necessarily something to scoff at. I'm happy when people who do bad things are punished, and I suspect most other people are too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm generally saddened when people are hurt (even if they may well "deserve" it), and may I say I think God is saddened too. Why should your God trump someone else's God who may not be saddened? Or an atheists beliefs? I'm not the least bit saddened when a cop killer/serial killer/mass murderer is executed. And isn't your God "an eye for an eye" proponent? 

 I'm not saying my belief of God should trump soimeone else's belief, yet regardless of God, I am saddened when I see another human suffering, as I feel it is often needless and have some degree of empathy for that person. Theye for an Eye" motif was replaced with Jesus' instructins and example. The Christian paradigm is forgiveness not retribution ("eye for an eye" comes from the old Judaic religion, before the advent of Jesus Christ). 

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a hypothetical world where we could find some terrible criminal monster like Dennis Rader and give him some kind of ankle bracelet that we could know, with 100% certainty, would prevent him from killing again. Let's say we've also concluded, somehow, that Rader is 100% un-rehabilitatable. And by some magic, we've also managed to conclude that it's completely impossible someone will ever repeat his crimes. Given this, should we allow him to live a free and unencumbered life, sans punishment, despite the fact that he's caused so much pain, suffering, and misery in his community? Our hypothetical has magically addressed the concerns about deterrence and rehabilitation -- but I many people would be comfortable letting Rader go free in such a hypothetical. And I think the answer is clear as to why most people wouldn't be comfortable, and it's because I think a 'just' society would necessarily have to punish someone like Rader, justified by the simple notion that he deserves it. And I would be surprised if many people would disagree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to disagree with that perspective, and see zero value in adding to the suffering present in an already greatly suffering world. If someone is no longer capable of doing harmful, evil things to others, then in my opinion there is no value in making that person suffer. All that would do, in my view, would be to increase the total amount of suffering in the world. First, you can never guarantee that without death.

 True, but you can reduce the risk greatly. Also, you can guatrantee that by inflicting misery on another you increase the suffering in the world[/i] 

Second, revenge can be cathartic and decrease the suffering of families of victims so your claim that there is a net increase in suffering is not supported. 

 Such catharsis is minimal compared to the real and greater pain of the loss of their loved one, who can never be replaced. It is like putting a single ice cube on a ravaged limb. Further, if they ever look deeper, they will probably eventually come to realize that all that really happened was the amount of suffering went up because their actual loss was in no way restituted, not even by one iota.

[ QUOTE ]
That isn't to say I approve of severe forms of physical punishment, but I'm a firm believer that getting what's 'deserved' is part (and probably only a part) of achieving justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Achieving justice" by concentrating on the negative side of the equation is a seductive mirage, especially since we cannot ensure that good people are rewarded by good things happening for them to balance the scales. Evil things happen routinely to good people, and good people are frequently unrewarded for their good deeds in this world (though they may be rewarded in the hereafter); so by focusing on punishing evil, we tip the scales in the world towards a greater amount of evil than good occurring in the world as a whole. As if evil doesn't already outweigh the good in this world! You have subjectively declared revenge to be evil. You have no right to do that for others. I think it is a spiritual truth. You disagree. OK 

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I think especially important for a moral society to try to balance desert with fairness. For example, I may think a rapist deserves to sit in prison for 10 years for their crime, but if we've only been punishing other rapists to 1 year in prison, we should probably take that into consideration. There are other factors to take into consideration as well. But I think desert is one of those factors we should take into consideration, and I think we can defend retributive justice once we accept the Rader-type hypothetical and the concept of just desert.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point about relative justice, but IMO humans should not be trying to play God or the role of Universal Arbiter of Justice by meting out retribution for evil acts.

When humans try to achieve that, in addition to the tainting of results which often occurs due to bias or limited perspective, there is the basic truth that we have far less power to do greatly good things for people than we have the power to do to greatly evil things to them. how is that a basic truth? I'm trying to say that we have greater power to harm than help others. The followup to that is that if we were to always do the maximum we could actually do to reward others (for good deeds) or punish them (for bad deeds), we would end up meting out far more punishment than reward due to the fact that we have more power to easily harm or destroy than heal or help, e.g. it is easy to kill someone but hard to save their life; it is easier to destroy someone's house than to build them a new house. So we would be effecting unbalanced justice if we always tried to produce just results, because of the constraints we must operate under and our limited (and skewed) powers.

Retribution, while admittedly attractive in some fashion, is a lower human emotion which we should strive to suppress and overcome. All emotions are equal, none is lower than any other. They are all just chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Emotions evolved because they turned out to be beneficial to the species. Your declarative ranking of emotions is subjective. I don't think so. I think there is a hierarchy of emotions, of intellectual accomplishments, of spiritual matters. I think a human being's emotions are more complex and evolved than an animal's emotions. Some human emotions are not available to animals. Some human emotions are not even available to some humans because the emotional development of those humans is not as high as that of others humans. There is no way to achieve true justice in this world, and by enacting punishments purely for the sake of trying to achieve some abstract sense of justice, the human race descends deeper overall into hatred, pain and misery. see "increase in suffering above" Even if the cathartic value equals the extra suffering caused by punishment, the suffering continues in transmuted form, and is passed along to other sentient beings of the universe. Its journey never ends because nothing exists in complete isolation. 

Will not the person upon whom punishment or vengeance is enacted, frequently feel that it is unfairly applied to them? Of course, and so what? So they will harbor resentment and possibly try to seek vengeance of some sort of their own (which may even be possibly misdirected against innocent targets). Thus the vicious cycle continues. It only continues if you allow it to continue. No, I mean, if you punish someone and he feels mistreated or unfairly punished, his misery and resentment will manifest itself by his taking it out on others. That suffering continues, although transformed, and is passed along: its journey does not end where it is initially applied to a sentient being. Even a dog who is severely mistreated or brutally punished may end up biting others, even strangers.

The Buddha said: "Only by love can hatred be appeased or dissolved; never by hatred can hatred be appeased". What type of a future world do we wish to see? A world in which the cycle of hatred and retribution continues indefinitely, or a world in which humans eventually move beyond that? Wishing evil away doesnt work, and we will never move beyond the necessity of punishment. I think we may never move away from having to take some preventative or restrictive measures in order to protect ourselves from aggressive rogue beings among us. I don't think punishment as retribution per se need figure into the formula. 

I wonder how many among us happened to feel any compassion or sorrow whatsoever for Saddam Hussein, when the tyrant was hanged? I sure didn't. I had mixed emotions but could not avoid feeling some sorrow and compassion. All human beings suffer and have feelings. As greatly evil as his acts were, he still probably felt justified, and his world ended most tragically for him. As evil as his deeds were, he still probably somehow felt justified with his actions in life, His personal justifications are irrelevant in the context of a society. 
 no human's life or feelings are entirely meaningless



and his death was a personal tragedy on grand scale for him. Even tyrants are deservant of some degree of compassion. Depends on the tyrant. Merely a matter of degree.

As Samuel Clemens wrote: "Who, if anyone, prays for the Devil? Yet what sinner is more in need of our prayers than he?"

Just as Jesus forgave those who tormented him, we should strive to feel and give love even to those who despise and mistreat us. No, we shouldnt, and citing one persons opinion (if he was even a real person) is just that, one opinion. It carries far less weight than societies opinion. If society wants to be influenced by his opinions, fine, but others in society can work to change that. 
Ok, we disagree. I am leaning to what I see as the most advanced spirituality. 

This is the highest human spiritual potential, and pragmatically speaking, it is the only way the human race will be spared on this Earth once the proliferation of technologies of mass destruction become far more developed and proliferated. Even if you disagree with the spiritual points I am hoping to convey, a focus upon retribution and hatred will ultimately destroy the human race if that focus is not widely supplanted by the spirit of compassion and mercy. That may well be true, but wishing it away has never worked. Punishing it away has. 
 I agree wishing doesn't work, but I don't think punishing usually works either. Forcing someone to be responsible (and perhaps make restitution) for their actions may work, but that is different than pure retribution.
This is so because the human-focused power to destroy is always greater than the human-focused power to create. So is natures, so what? So if equal portions of love and hatred are everpresent in the human race, then when the power to destroy grows great and widespread enough, the human race must eventually self-destruct. By focusing upon the retribution motif, the total sum of pain, suffering and resentment in this world is increased. see discussion above. 
 Yes.
Attempting to achieve "justice" by increasing the amount of suffering and resentment in the world, only pushes the human race a bit closer to this dire precipice which looms so threateningly in the not-so-tremendously-distant future.

What I believe to be necessary necessary, if the human race is to survive long-term, is for the higher motif of love and forgiveness to surpass the baser urge for retribution or vengeance.

If we wish the human race to survive, the message of love and forgiveness as embodied and displayed by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior should become our focus and aspiration. This is true for pragmatic and worldly reasons, so I won't even talk now about potential benefits in the afterlife. take it to SMP If the future survival of the human race may be predicated on shifting from a hatred/retribution motif, to a love/forgiveness motif, then I think crime and punishment is an area where public policy is germane to the discussion. I happen to perceive a religious aspect in this as well, but that aspect needn't concern you deeply for purposes of this discussion. 

A world in which love overcomes hatred would also be a better place in which to live, wouldn't it? Presently the struggle between love and hatred rages on, as it has for milennia. Which side would you most like to see win that struggle?

Every little thing counts, and I think the human race would be acting very wisely by trying to increase the amount of love and gratitude in the world rather than by increasing the amount of hatred and resentment in the world. When someone feels mistreated or unfairly punished (and who often does not?), it often does not end there. That person goes on and ends up passing that hatred to others by doing something bad to others (even if unawares, or even if those others are not to the actual source of their resentment. On lesser scale, when someone feels cranky due to unpleasant things having happened to them, they often treat others more poorly). I like the Beatles too, but its songs, not the real world. I'm afraid I don't know to which song you might be referring.

So this is the quandary the human race is in. The choice is open to all of us. I suggest looking at the gift of pure love that Jesus gave us all, but even if you are not religious, we have that choice before us on a daily basis. Do we choose Love, or do we choose Hatred? Whichever we choose, the actual effects of our choices ripple outward endlessly in an interconnected universe.

Well, thanks to everyone for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

P.S. The use of colors in replying to embedded quoted material is very convenient and saves much juggling of quotes. I am finding it to be a great time-saver.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of that, he'll get his 15 appeals, he'll cost the state several millions just in court costs, and he'll probably still die in prison before his execution comes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to frustrated by the appeals process.

But you also agree that over 100 innocent people were released who had been sentenced to death wrongly. These people may have spent 10-15 years in prison appealing their case.

You say it works because they were released.

So... am I wrong to sense that you think the long and expensive appeals process is wrong? Yet, you seem to think it has saved innocents from being killed, no?

Just curious...

[/ QUOTE ]

You should carefully read every post I've posted in this thread, then get back to me.

Have a nice day.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope this guy frys.

Basicly this past weekend a guy got shot in the head and later died after the UF/FSU football game. He was shot in the head because he asked a couple guys to hurry up who were talking to some people in a car in front of them that was blocking the path when they were trying to leave a parking garage downtown. It's [censored] senseless. Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live. Leathal injection is too humane for this prick.

[/ QUOTE ]

The kid should spend the rest of his days in an 8X8, in my opinion.

The incident happened at 2something am in the morning. Good chance there was some drinkin' going on.

Maybe some hellraising. I went to college, too.

Anyways, maybe the kid in the car didn't say "hurry up". Maybe he said, "Get your n*** black ass out of the F'n way, bitch!".

The black kid, wants to scare the white punk and saw a movie once or twice, fires into the car, gun sideways, barely paying attention to what he is pointing at. Because I'm fairly sure most people, let alone posers, know how to handle a firearm correctly.

Bullet rips thru white kid skull, black kid sh!ts himself and runs.

Change anything at all? And just for the record again, for all you trolling for an argument, I will repeat that the shooter should spend his days in an 8x8.