Murder the Murderer?! - Page 2 - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Z3Ro · 09-26-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

well theres that one aussie dude, uh chopper(?), he's imprisoned for multiple homocides and he is a writer.....i heard they also made a movie about hime recently.....but that's besides the point.......

you know, you guys were discussing the costs of preceedings and whatnot when an execution is decided, but is that not truly, in its greediest manner, nothing but explotation? i mean seriously, you take a man such as Jeffrey Dahmer, or Ted Bundy, J.W. Gacy, Ramirez, etc., the point is that everyone knows these guys were guilty......for one judicial thingy, that is the main trial itself, can easily decide such men as guilty, and a death sentence for such a man would be way cheaper.......but i know that for your everyday murder to be executed, there might be more legal bullshit.....but, in the totality of things, killing a killer is not so horrible (especially when we think about the laws prior 19th century, and vigilante justice)......all this money and whatnot is nothing more than proof that america's legal system is total shit and totally exploits people.......and i personally, if indeed i was imprisoned for murder, would much rather be fried than fucking butt raped in the shower for the rest of my life....

for a justice system to be fair, it should treat all equal so everyone gets an even amount of money wasted on them.

Im not sure whether death is better then life in prison, but indeed I would not dismiss death as an option just yet.

Wicked Lady · 09-26-03

If anyone has ever read any Ayn Rand, she approaches this very subject. Is it ethical to punish someone in the same way as the nature of their crime... Aren't we essentially condoning murder by committing murder? I don't know. This is one of those "which came first: the chicken or the egg questions". I have no opinion either way. If someone murders anyone I give a rat shit about, then I'll blow their head off. End of story.

But regardless of that... if the argument is ethics and humanity.. why should money ever be brought into it? We're talking about the lives of human beings.. victims or murderers. Choosing the most cost efficient route of rehabilitation seems like a shit thing to do.

Dark Messiah · 09-29-03

I don't think the government should have the ability to take anyone's life, because I don't trust them with it. Name me one dictatorship or tyrranical government that rose to power without the ability to legally kill it's opponents. There aren't any. Take away the government's ability to kill, and the chances of a corrupt government coming to power drop a hundred fold. That simple. There are other reasons I'm against the death penalty, but that's the one that's most effective against those who support it.

Bartolino · 09-29-03

DO you want to punish a Killer ? or other bad people ?

DO not kill them ! Bring them all on a isolated island and forget them there !

With all ! Let those bad guys to kill by themsleves. Let them to live in a lawless land alone with others as them.

They have refused the Law ? Good, let them to live in such a place !

No other forms of judgement or justice.

DEFINITIVE !

In the instant you do not respect the laws, then you have no more rights for you.

Sad , but we have to be drastic if we want to save something of this dacadence society.

Wicked Lady · 09-29-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartolino

DO you want to punish a Killer ? or other bad people ?

DO not kill them ! Bring them all on a isolated island and forget them there !

With all ! Let those bad guys to kill by themsleves. Let them to live in a lawless land alone with others as them.

Okay. That's utterly ridiculous. You would always run the risk of having them escape. In addition, you lose any chance of them ever being rehabilitated. And who in their right mind would turn over an island to convicted felons and let them run free. This isn't fucking Australia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartolino

In the instant you do not respect the laws, then you have no more rights for you.

Which brings us right back to the very moral dilemma that was originally brought up. A murderer broke the law by taking the life of another person. We know this is wrong. To punish said murderer for killing someone, we in turn kill the murderer. Is that to say none of us should have rights for condoning the death penalty?

Also... I'm sure you've broken your fair share of laws.. Perhaps we should hang you for jaywalking. Because as you said.. the moment the laws aren't respected is the moment you lose all rights.

DM.. get the rope.

sixxx(sic)six · 09-29-03

but i wanna go to the island! you know for vacationing...it has the bluest waters you'll ever see....

people kill, always will, so why try and fight it morality? murder is far from moral, yet can be justified. the army is of course justified, but so are murders justified by the act of revenge (i.e. a mother killing the man who killed her child)....anyway, some murders are indeed justified, and if vengence is one them, then is not murdering the murder thereby justifiable, but the morality should be taken as thus: murder is immoral, but it is far more immoral to kill a child than it is to kill the man who kills a child?

Wicked Lady · 09-29-03

And who is worthy to make that call? People argue the value of human life. Is it any more of a crime to kill a child than kill an adult? Is it any less of a crime to kill a convict than to kill a law-abiding citizen? Not unless you're an insane hypocrite. You can't argue the morality of the death penalty if you think all the bad people should die and the good ones live. It doesn't work like that.

sixxx(sic)six · 09-29-03

i wasn't saying that all bad people should die, moreover all bad people who are killers, i was just stating that morality is too broad, and as such, when first wondering who it is that is being executed, first consider how immoral their crime was and what kind of character they are....one guy who shot one person vs' one guy who gruesomely mutilated one person, for example....

Wicked Lady · 10-03-03

Why should the nature of the crime have anything to do with the outcome? The reason why murder is illegal is because society has deemed it morally wrong. Is it any more immoral to mutilate and kill.. than it is to just kill? That's the debate. If murder is the crime, and death is the punishment... then why should degrees even be brought into it? You're going in circles.

Phage · 10-04-03

I'm inclined to agree. How do you kill someone a little bit?

Wicked Lady · 10-04-03

You don't. I win. Phage rocks.

Soulfull · 10-04-03

Saying killing is wrong is an issue of 'morality' in itself. Morality isn't black and white. The mind set of a mother who kills her childs rapist/murderer is different to that of a predator who seeks fulfilment from others agony. I would kill anybody who touched my son but I'm not a threat to the general population.

Should we kill them for their perversions? I think only the family of the victim or the victims should be able to answer that question.

sixxx(sic)six · 10-04-03

yes, thank-you.......killing, though it may be just that, does come in differnt degrees as does anything else.....one might question how is killing a child any differemt than an adult, well it is very fucking different.....i think all of us could agree that murder/rape of a child is unquestionably a pure evil act (not trying to go for evil vs' good here).....if you kill an adult, shame on you; if you kill a child, burn in fucking hell you twisted fuck.....i have no sympathy for a man in the chair who harmed a child....i do have sympathy for the man in the chair who killed the man who harmed his child......there is indeed a moral difference........

Dark Messiah · 10-05-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulfull

Saying killing is wrong is an issue of 'morality' in itself. Morality isn't black and white. The mind set of a mother who kills her childs rapist/murderer is different to that of a predator who seeks fulfilment from others agony. I would kill anybody who touched my son but I'm not a threat to the general population.

Should we kill them for their perversions? I think only the family of the victim or the victims should be able to answer that question.

That's a terrible idea. Issues of wrong should never be settled by those that have been wronged. It kind of skews that whole objectivity thing.

Dark Messiah · 10-05-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

yes, thank-you.......killing, though it may be just that, does come in differnt degrees as does anything else.....one might question how is killing a child any differemt than an adult, well it is very fucking different.....i think all of us could agree that murder/rape of a child is unquestionably a pure evil act (not trying to go for evil vs' good here).....if you kill an adult, shame on you; if you kill a child, burn in fucking hell you twisted fuck.....i have no sympathy for a man in the chair who harmed a child....i do have sympathy for the man in the chair who killed the man who harmed his child......there is indeed a moral difference........

You're failing to take into account numerous factors. What if someone kills a child because their brain was fucked up from exposure to radioactive chemicals, and they think the child is the antichrist? And how can you guarantee guilt in any case anyway? The saying "Justice is blind" is there for a reason. Matters of guilt and motive and justification are far to subjective to ever be handled satisfactorily, so they must be abandoned for a clear, objective, and legal look at the matter. Murder has one punishment, rape another, robbery a third, and so on. If the justice system were based on moral grounds and righteous anger and who deserves what, it would collapse faster than a stack of card.

Krendoshazin · 10-05-03

there would be no guilt, in most cases they would be proven insane and unstable by a professional and then commited as criminaly insane to an institute. the basis of a set punishment for a set crime has been something that has been around for ages, but don't forget there are different types of murder, 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, manslaughter (not really murder, but causing death through incompitance), attempted murder.

each basis of the crime is set to a different level on the basis of which it was applied, the whole point is that it -is- based on who deserves what, murder isn't just murder there's 3 main types of murder. we all have our different opinions on what satifactory is for something, some people may want them to recieve the death sentance, some may want them locked away for life.

if a thief steals a small hand-held £20 mirror that was given to you by your mother before she died, to you the sentimental value is irriplaceble, but to the judge it's just a £20 hand-held mirror. for them to pay the damages and get a 6 month sentance would not be justifiable to you. this proves to be an interesting subject.

Soulfull · 10-05-03

Well it's going to be interesting for me this week, I start jury duty. Maybe I should start a diary on here? but that would be illegal.

Dark Messiah, you forget that 'people' already make the decisions. The judicial system is already skewed. When a politician gets three years for a paperwork infringement while paedophiles get 6 months suspended sentences there is something very wrong.

When supreme court judges have no-one to answer to for their comments and decisions, when the wealthy are given more lenient sentences because of their ability to hire armies of lawyers who bend the laws to suite themselves, and lets not forget jury tampering, you can pretty much bet that things will be skewed.

If the victims of a crime were brought together to deliberate on a sentence until they reached a compromise, I think it could work.

Dark Messiah · 10-05-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krendoshazin

there would be no guilt, in most cases they would be proven insane and unstable by a professional and then commited as criminaly insane to an institute. the basis of a set punishment for a set crime has been something that has been around for ages, but don't forget there are different types of murder, 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, manslaughter (not really murder, but causing death through incompitance), attempted murder.

each basis of the crime is set to a different level on the basis of which it was applied, the whole point is that it -is- based on who deserves what, murder isn't just murder there's 3 main types of murder. we all have our different opinions on what satifactory is for something, some people may want them to recieve the death sentance, some may want them locked away for life.

if a thief steals a small hand-held £20 mirror that was given to you by your mother before she died, to you the sentimental value is irriplaceble, but to the judge it's just a £20 hand-held mirror. for them to pay the damages and get a 6 month sentance would not be justifiable to you. this proves to be an interesting subject.

But degrees of murder are based mostly on levels of planning and intent, not how "mean" or "cruel" the murder was, or whether or not the victim deserved it less than other possible victims.

sixxx(sic)six · 10-05-03

but most of your truly "mean" or "cruel" factors were deliberately planned......dahmer, lucas, gacy, bundy, etc....and we do see a higher percentage of "sane" people with sick urges to molest children, and such people sometimes fear for their sake and kidnap a child and possibly kill them.....insane people, chemically wise and what not, has a differnt sort of moral proclamation than a "sane" man who dileberatly planned to harm a child....