|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 13:13:45 GMT -6
Ok, you might put an innocent person behind bars for the rest of his life. That is bad. But not as bad as actually kill an innocent person. How is it any different if they die in prison? You put an innocent person in prison he and he dies there, what is the difference in how he died? What if some other inmate killed him? How would that be different? Because when society execute an innocent inmate it's murder. Murder is wrong. If we put an innocent in prison and he dies there, it's a terrible mistake. But not murder, not the worst possible crime there is...
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 29, 2009 13:19:42 GMT -6
Quite, and the truth of it all is that when a murder victims heart stops beating the world becomes a more sad and cruel place. But when a murdering scumbags heart stops beating the world gets better. Not much granted, but some. but his family is... If the murderer's family is honest, they will understand that it is the POS who is the source of the pain. After all, it was the POS who put the wheels of death in motion by choosing to kill. Take Richard Cartwright, for example. He was a young man with a beautiful daughter at home. Yet he decided to rob and shoot a man to death. He was offered a deal, but he decided to test his luck at trial and evade responsibility completely. He lost and was juiced. His mom and daughter undoubtedly cried, and I feel especially sad for the daughter as it would suck to have a murderer for a father. Indeed, no kid should have to face the execution of a parent. But whose fault is that? It certainly is not the fault of the State. It was all Richard's fault, and in the end, his family will be much better off with him gone. The same holds true with the families of other DR inmates. To be sure, murder is the most selfish act one can commit, and selfish relatives hurt the family as a whole. Murderers are takers; not givers or lovers.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 13:32:49 GMT -6
If the murderer's family is honest, they will understand that it is the POS who is the source of the pain. After all, it was the POS who put the wheels of death in motion by choosing to kill. Take Richard Cartwright, for example. He was a young man with a beautiful daughter at home. Yet he decided to rob and shoot a man to death. He was offered a deal, but he decided to test his luck at trial and evade responsibility completely. He lost and was juiced. His mom and daughter undoubtedly cried, and I feel especially sad for the daughter as it would suck to have a murderer for a father. Indeed, no kid should have to face the execution of a parent. But whose fault is that? It certainly is not the fault of the State. It was all Richard's fault, and in the end, his family will be much better off with him gone. The same holds true with the families of other DR inmates. To be sure, murder is the most selfish act one can commit, and selfish relatives hurt the family as a whole. Murderers are takers; not givers or lovers. Ok, that's your opinion. Mine is that killing is a wrong thing to do, and therefore it should not be a proper punishment. Wrongness portrayed as being good and lawful doesn't make wrongness right...
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 29, 2009 13:36:12 GMT -6
If the murderer's family is honest, they will understand that it is the POS who is the source of the pain. After all, it was the POS who put the wheels of death in motion by choosing to kill. Take Richard Cartwright, for example. He was a young man with a beautiful daughter at home. Yet he decided to rob and shoot a man to death. He was offered a deal, but he decided to test his luck at trial and evade responsibility completely. He lost and was juiced. His mom and daughter undoubtedly cried, and I feel especially sad for the daughter as it would suck to have a murderer for a father. Indeed, no kid should have to face the execution of a parent. But whose fault is that? It certainly is not the fault of the State. It was all Richard's fault, and in the end, his family will be much better off with him gone. The same holds true with the families of other DR inmates. To be sure, murder is the most selfish act one can commit, and selfish relatives hurt the family as a whole. Murderers are takers; not givers or lovers. Mine is that killing is a wrong thing to do, and therefore it should not be a proper punishment. Do you think all killing is wrong, or is some killing acceptable or even right? What about killing in self defense, for example?
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 14:04:50 GMT -6
Mine is that killing is a wrong thing to do, and therefore it should not be a proper punishment. Do you think all killing is wrong, or is some killing acceptable or even right? What about killing in self defense, for example? Killing in self defense is right, according to me.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Mar 29, 2009 14:10:29 GMT -6
Good. Cause of self defense we have the death penalty. I do not see richard "lil' dickie" cartright out murdering other gay men.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 29, 2009 14:27:17 GMT -6
Do you think all killing is wrong, or is some killing acceptable or even right? What about killing in self defense, for example? Killing in self defense is right, according to me. So we agree that some killing is OK and some killing is not. For instance, we agree with killing in self-defense. While some folks argue that the death penalty is a form of defending society from the particular POS, I think we can agree that such an argument is a bit too attenuated. We should not justify our juicings based on what the POS might do in the future. Rather, any sufficient justification for judicial homicide should be grounded entirely in what the POS did in the past. On principles of retribution, if you will. Now when most people learn of a murder, they want to set the murderer on fire. It is an instinct, not the same as, but similar to, self-defense. To be sure, the death penalty has been part of human society ever since the beginning of recorded history. Indeed, I am sure even cavemen practiced some rough form of capital punishment. While our executions methods have changed, the fundamental principle remains the same. Mainly, when the collective decides to kill in accordance with a predetermined LEGAL process, such a killing falls into the category of killing that is acceptable. Not only is such a killing merely acceptable, it is also right and desirable because it constitutes a manifestation of our humanity and shared social values. Specifically, executions send an unequivocal moral message that murderers are bound by a human code of justice and that unlawful killing is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in our human society.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 15:23:51 GMT -6
Good. Cause of self defense we have the death penalty. I do not see richard "lil' dickie" cartright out murdering other gay men. No. Self defence is about responding to a personal attack. It is not about responding to a possible attack in the nearby future... Copied from Encyclopedia of American law:A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 29, 2009 15:25:38 GMT -6
Do you think all killing is wrong, or is some killing acceptable or even right? What about killing in self defense, for example? Killing in self defense is right, according to me. But is that loving your neighbor as thyself?
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 15:33:22 GMT -6
Agaveman,
Everybody is bound to the same rule: Do not kill without any need to kill. Even policemen and soldiers are trained to try and avoid killing as much as possible. They only kill when there is the absolute need to kill because of self defence. So why should it be morally justified to kill when there is no absolute need to kill? An inmate is behind bars already.
You wrote: "Specifically, executions send an unequivocal moral message that murderers are bound by a human code of justice and that unlawful killing is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in our human society."
My answer to that is: "Executions send a moral message that killing is sometimes acceptable and will be tolerated in our human society."
I don't like that message. To me all killing without direct self defence is wrong...
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 15:36:25 GMT -6
Killing in self defense is right, according to me. But is that loving your neighbor as thyself? I don't know. Maybe some people would choose not to kill out of self defence, because of this "loving your neighbor as thyself." I think I would kill though.... What would you do, if you were attacked, and got the chance to stay alive by killing the attacker?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 29, 2009 15:46:23 GMT -6
Good. Cause of self defense we have the death penalty. I do not see richard "lil' dickie" cartright out murdering other gay men. No. Self defence is about responding to a personal attack. It is not about responding to a possible attack in the nearby future... Copied from Encyclopedia of American law:A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile. Yes but that person being attacked doesn't know their own "near future" when the attack is happening-so a person acting in self defence is preventing their future death. The DP is different though-its about punishing people who have wronged in the past. However, it is evident that some prisoners do still kill in prison regardless of DP or not. In away, for those prisoners who still kill in prison, the DP is preventing other inmates who may not be on DR from being killed by a murderer.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 29, 2009 15:50:55 GMT -6
Agaveman, Everybody is bound to the same rule: Do not kill without any need to kill. Even policemen and soldiers are trained to try and avoid killing as much as possible. They only kill when there is the absolute need to kill because of self defence. So why should it be morally justified to kill when there is no absolute need to kill? An inmate is behind bars already. You wrote: "Specifically, executions send an unequivocal moral message that murderers are bound by a human code of justice and that unlawful killing is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in our human society." My answer to that is: "Executions send a moral message that killing is sometimes acceptable and will be tolerated in our human society." I don't like that message. To me all killing without direct self defence is wrong... A citizen can use excessive force in some states to protect their property, police officer on the other hand cannot use excessive force that isn`t warrented. Police have more ethics to abide by then a citizen. If a police officer was to kill someone like a citizen protecting their land, what would get bad press in the news? A police officer shot someone; or a man protects his family? I`m guessing the former.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 15:54:06 GMT -6
No. Self defence is about responding to a personal attack. It is not about responding to a possible attack in the nearby future... Copied from Encyclopedia of American law:A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile. Yes but that person being attacked doesn't know their own "near future" when the attack is happening-so a person acting in self defence is preventing their future death. The DP is different though-its about punishing people who have wronged in the past. However, it is evident that some prisoners do still kill in prison regardless of DP or not. In away, for those prisoners who still kill in prison, the DP is preventing other inmates who may not be on DR from being killed by a murderer. And I would say that it's better to improve prisons (more guards, by example) than chosing DP.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 29, 2009 15:57:55 GMT -6
Yes but that person being attacked doesn't know their own "near future" when the attack is happening-so a person acting in self defence is preventing their future death. The DP is different though-its about punishing people who have wronged in the past. However, it is evident that some prisoners do still kill in prison regardless of DP or not. In away, for those prisoners who still kill in prison, the DP is preventing other inmates who may not be on DR from being killed by a murderer. And I would say that it's better to improve prisons (more guards, by example) than chosing DP. Granted, but what if those more COs fall victim to a prisoner? What happens then? The DP? More improvement? Or stop them in their tracks i.e. COs using excessive force? Either way the prisoner is going to die through the DP or through excessive force. As per my example.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 29, 2009 16:05:15 GMT -6
How is it any different if they die in prison? You put an innocent person in prison he and he dies there, what is the difference in how he died? What if some other inmate killed him? How would that be different? Because when society execute an innocent inmate it's murder. Murder is wrong. If we put an innocent in prison and he dies there, it's a terrible mistake. But not murder, not the worst possible crime there is... It is the same thing he was removed from society and died as a result, no murder either way. He was given a fair trial and a chance a appeals, if they did not find any wrong doings on the court or find him not guilty then it was not murder. It was no more murder than the accidental killing of an innocent person in war. Both are regrettable but neither are murder. Either way it is simply a terriable mistake and not murder.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 16:05:37 GMT -6
And I would say that it's better to improve prisons (more guards, by example) than chosing DP. Granted, but what if those more COs fall victim to a prisoner? What happens then? The DP? More improvement? Or stop them in their tracks i.e. COs using excessive force? Either way the prisoner is going to die through the DP or through excessive force. As per my example. Well, I personally think that improving prisons can avoid COs from getting murdered. We don't have many murders in our prison system... I know that prisons in the U.S.A. (not all of them) are having problems. But even if the U.S. prisons will be improved, they will never be perfect, that's true. So, to punish an inmates who commmits a crime in prison properly, there are private cells. They could be used for solitary confinement.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Mar 29, 2009 16:07:17 GMT -6
Inmates that are in single cells have committed murder while in prison. Look at thomas silverstein.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 29, 2009 16:09:37 GMT -6
Agaveman, Everybody is bound to the same rule: Do not kill without any need to kill. Even policemen and soldiers are trained to try and avoid killing as much as possible. They only kill when there is the absolute need to kill because of self defence. So why should it be morally justified to kill when there is no absolute need to kill? An inmate is behind bars already. .. Absolute BS. Very often in combat the person who is killed did not even know the other person was there. Read up on ambushes and snipers sometimes. A shot of over a thousand yards is common, who would even know that the sniper was there from that distance?
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 16:10:47 GMT -6
Inmates that are in single cells have committed murder while in prison. Look at thomas silverstein. I believe you. It is a huge problem! I think society needs to investigate these murders, learn from them and try to prevent them.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 29, 2009 16:12:04 GMT -6
Yes but that person being attacked doesn't know their own "near future" when the attack is happening-so a person acting in self defence is preventing their future death. The DP is different though-its about punishing people who have wronged in the past. However, it is evident that some prisoners do still kill in prison regardless of DP or not. In away, for those prisoners who still kill in prison, the DP is preventing other inmates who may not be on DR from being killed by a murderer. And I would say that it's better to improve prisons (more guards, by example) than chosing DP. A guard is a non-professional individual who will do dirty things. A CO would be much better they are professionals who do a hard and dirty job. I do not know of any guards but I am sure there are some becuse I am sure there are dirty people working and hiding as CO's.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 29, 2009 16:13:07 GMT -6
Granted, but what if those more COs fall victim to a prisoner? What happens then? The DP? More improvement? Or stop them in their tracks i.e. COs using excessive force? Either way the prisoner is going to die through the DP or through excessive force. As per my example. Well, I personally think that improving prisons can avoid COs from getting murdered. We don't have many murders in our prison system... I know that prisons in the U.S.A. (not all of them) are having problems. But even if the U.S. prisons will be improved, they will never be perfect, that's true. So, to punish an inmates who commmits a crime in prison properly, there are private cells. They could be used for solitary confinement. And if the criminal in High Security murders a CO? What then?
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 29, 2009 16:13:48 GMT -6
Inmates that are in single cells have committed murder while in prison. Look at thomas silverstein. I believe you. It is a huge problem! I think society needs to investigate these murders, learn from them and try to prevent them. We do it is called the DP. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Mar 29, 2009 16:14:49 GMT -6
I dont see dead inmates out jaywalking, much less murdering.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 16:17:35 GMT -6
And I would say that it's better to improve prisons (more guards, by example) than chosing DP. A guard is a non-professional individual who will do dirty things. A CO would be much better they are professionals who do a hard and dirty job. I do not know of any guards but I am sure there are some becuse I am sure there are dirty people working and hiding as CO's. I am sorry. I didn't even know what CO meant... I think it's "Correctional officer"?
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Mar 29, 2009 16:20:09 GMT -6
Yes. Corrections officers work in prisons. Guards patrol shopping malls. HUGE difference.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 16:20:09 GMT -6
I believe you. It is a huge problem! I think society needs to investigate these murders, learn from them and try to prevent them. We do it is called the DP. Thanks In our country we have other ways to handle this... We use many camera's and many workers, by example. I have never heard of a Co or guard being killed in prison. It might have happened anyway, but it's very rare...
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 29, 2009 16:21:24 GMT -6
Yes. Corrections officers work in prisons. Guards patrol shopping malls. HUGE difference. Ok! Those kind of mistakes are mostly there because of language problems. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Apr 3, 2009 21:00:48 GMT -6
Because when society execute an innocent inmate it's murder. No, it is an accidental death. Murder requires criminal intent.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Apr 4, 2009 18:30:25 GMT -6
If an innocent person is murdered, then it is a tragic mistake and one that the state will have to make up for by nailing the real POS. I'm sure that throughout time we did screw up, its the reason that RI doesn't have the DP anymore. So the state has to be careful and make sure that the execution is of the actual murderer.
|
|