[Echoes]

seriously though... silly to say he should be let go if he's not served the proper sentence, but what was the point in killing him? What he was doing may have been preventing more innocents from dying

[paddys wink]

Echoes, on May 6 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

seriously though... silly to say he should be let go if he's not served the proper sentence, but what was the point in killing him? What he was doing may have been preventing more innocents from dying

tell it to the victims families,im sure they would concur(agree)

[Dave. zzz....]

They came, they saw, they concurred...

If keeping him alive to write his little books and anecdotes stops just ONE kid from joining a gang, then that's ONE kid who's less likely to create YET MORE victims and YET MORE relatives of victims.

Compréndez, or are you too self-obsessed in your own little dark far-right corner of shpiel to recognise a counter-argument which has, effectively, chewed upon your beaver?

[viv]

yeh for once i'm with this hooper fool.

[Echoes]

I frankly don't see how you can assert that someone deserves to die whilst simultaneously telling a murderer it's wrong to decide that someone deserved to die. Double standards of gigantic proportions. I can't see how someone who considers themselves a moral being could ever condone someone's death!

[paddys wink]

Echoes, on May 14 2007, 07:53 PM, said:

I frankly don't see how you can assert that someone deserves to die whilst simultaneously telling a murderer it's wrong to decide that someone deserved to die. Double standards of gigantic proportions. I can't see how someone who considers themselves a moral being could ever condone someone's death!

are you a moral person Brads?if so if he shot two of your family in the back you wouldnt want him to fry?

[Echoes]

Course I would, at that moment in time. But society shouldn't indulge my murderous desire having just told the murderer he was wrong to kill. Once we start breaking the absolute ban on killing another human being, why should a murderer not copy the state and start executing 'people that deserve it'?

No killing other humans. not for vengeance, not for convenience, not for gain. end of.

[auburn.kitten]

Echoes, on May 25 2007, 01:00 AM, said:

Course I would, at that moment in time. But society shouldn't indulge my murderous desire having just told the murderer he was wrong to kill. Once we start breaking the absolute ban on killing another human being, why should a murderer not copy the state and start executing 'people that deserve it'?

No killing other humans. not for vengeance, not for convenience, not for gain. end of.

Hum...good point...

[The Phlegmy One!111]

Echoes, on May 25 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

Course I would, at that moment in time. But society shouldn't indulge my murderous desire having just told the murderer he was wrong to kill. Once we start breaking the absolute ban on killing another human being, why should a murderer not copy the state and start executing 'people that deserve it'?

No killing other humans. not for vengeance, not for convenience, not for gain. end of.

I am aganst the death penalty, but you arguement is illogical. You're saying the murderers will copy the state and kill people they think deserve it, by that logic, people should be going around locking other people up because they deserve it, just because the state can, etc.

[Echoes]

I take your point. What I guess I should have said is that the state ought where possible to be a beacon of respect between human beings, not an authoritarian power with say-so over so basic and so fundamentally YOURS as whether you live or die; it should have the modesty to admit that justice can get it wrong sometimes and that putting its prisoners to death gives them no chance of their innocence being proved; it should NEVER be thinking the thoughts 'its cheaper to kill them than to keep them in jail';
It shouldn't offer a scumbag the quick way out; prison isn't a nice place no matter how much people who blatantly have never been tell you otherwise (consider the fact that prison suicide increased by 40 per cent during the 1990s; and finally, if someone wants to change the way they live and live out the rest of their life as a good person - in prison, as presumably they're there for life - a death penalty system is putting a good man under the knife, just for revenge. It's ridiculous. Revenge should not be the guiding principle of our justice system - part of what it means to be British is fair play, forgiveness and a stiff upper lip. A society living under the death penalty is a society where revenge and violence is state inflicted - and society is better off avoiding that.

To expand on the point of opinion I made in a previous post: taking someone's life is fundamental. it's huge. It's more likely to set the bad example if the state does it. That's one reason why the direct comparison to people not running arolund locking each other up doesn't work. Another is the nature of the act - killing someone is an act that lasts an instant; locking them up means feeding them, keeping them hid from society, being able to control them, prevent escapes, etc. It's not something your average murderer would do, so you wouldnt expect any copycatting; and yet we do see the occasional long-term kidnap, e.g. Natascha Kampusch.
I don't want it to sound like I think there's a direct correlation. I see the death penalty, camps like Guantanamo, etc, as contributing to an environment for society that encourages fear, isolation, suspicion, antisocial tendencies; and I don't think society thrives in those conditions.

[The Phlegmy One!111]

I'm on your side and don't think that a government should have the death penalty. However, considering hypotetical identical murders in the US and the UK, the US is no more justified because of the fact that their government has the death penalty. I'm only talking about this - "why should a murderer not copy the state and start executing 'people that deserve it'?", which seems to imply that there is justification. I agree with everyhting else you said though.

[Echoes]

it obviously wouldn't be justified and the other not, if they were actually identical. Hypothetically assuming that the justice always considered the factors that push a man to commit a murder, don't you think that one factor might be the politico-cultural environment the guy was in?

I don't want to overstate the importance of the factor. Fact is, it's almost always going to be negligible compared to other stuff - like how serious the spark was (wife cheating on him, etc), ease of committing the act (access to weapons, access to the victim, opportunity to get away, witnesses), etc. So I'm not saying it's a big deal - just trying to expand on why I put it into my argument in the first place.

[paddys wink]

GET REAL GET EXECUTING THE ONLY EWAY FORWARD WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT