Page 2 of 2

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:11 pm
by Windwalker
Agreed! I'm sure I could liken this to Star Wars in some way, but for the sake of you all I'm not going to. (Accursed Jedi fools.... ahem.)

I blame texas.
I had to turn the Green Mile off halfway through. And then I cried. And all I could think of all night was watching that adorable little man fry. The electric chair is barbaric. (My science teacher informed me that your eyeballs boil before you die. I sincerely hope the individual is not conscious for that part.)

Oooh, did anyone see the Life of David Gale, or whatever it was called? Man, that was hardcore. What was my point? Uh... yeah. Honestly I can't think of a reason to kill someone in the name of Right. Sure, you won't have to feed them. It's better for the taxpayer. The prisons are too full. It stops them from doing it again. But it scares me that some people believe they have the right to choose who lives and who dies, and do so under government approval, for the Good of All and in the name of Righteousness and Justice. If they did it because the devil told them to, well, they're a loony. Killing in the name of Evil seems far less... well, evil, than killing in the name of Good.

Who knows what lurks within the hearts of men?

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:30 am
by Ragnar
daibanjo wrote:he never truly had the opportunity to defend himself against his accusers.
He had ample opportunity. He chose to argue about the colour of the wall paper instead (figuratively speaking), and spent most of the rest of his time making political statements and sacking his defence team. The same as Milosivc.

At Nürnberg, Dönitz, the Führer no less, sat patiently and listened, answered prosecution and defence questions in a sensible, calm manner, did not sack his defence team every two days, and guess what?

He got twenty years in Spandau. If he had acted like Hussein, he would have been hung, as the sentence on Julius Streicher, a co-defendant shows.

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:09 pm
by morgana
Windwalker, you say that we should not have the right to judge who should die and who should not, but what about the case in one of the other topics of abortion? Is that not deciding who should live and who should die when the parents decide to let the baby be born or to abort it? Now I am not saying that all women should have to keep their babies once they become pregnant, as I am very much pro-choice, just an interesting thought that came up.

Do I believe Saddam should have been assasinated? I dunno. Yes he was a scumbag who was cruel to the people he ruled, but look what that place has become since he was removed. In the very least he was an effective ruler, and knew how to keep control of his country. Now it's us over there, and we have proven that we don't know a d**n thing about trying to keep that country in order. So in short, maybe he DID deserve the death penalty, but should WE as Americans have the right to go over there and stick our noses into something that's not our business and thereby make it a million times worse? Perhaps that would be the real question to ask.

As far as the death penalty goes in general, there are good reasons why it should and does exist. For example: pedophiles. They are quite simply incurable. It has been shown time and again that no matter how much time they spend in jail, or seeing a shrink WHILE in jail, when they get released, they go right back out and do it again. And truly, as long as they are in jail and alive, there is ALWAYS the chance for them to get out of jail. It may sound harsh, but pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers in my opinion really SHOULD be put to death, as they are never really cured of that behavior and will ALWAYS be a danger to society. Would any of you really feel that a serial killer who had killed a member of your family, or a rapist who had assaulted you, among many other victims, should still be alive after the fact? I am not speaking ONLY of having your "revenge" or "justice," I am also talking about your personal peace of mind. I honestly don't think that I could function normally in day to day life if I knew that someone who had tried to rape or kill me was still alive with the ability to gain freedom to one day do it all again. Just my personal opinion though. :-?

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:43 pm
by forgotten oceans
Morgana, this is where my pack law instincts kick in. If I'm assaulted said guy better kill me, 'cuase if he doesn't he's dead. If provoked I have no qualms with killing a man. The wonderful thing about Houston is the ship channle, they only drag it if a governer goes missing. ;)

I think we didn't have the right to go over there and kill him like that. Should he have died? Yes. Should we have let the ppl of that land handle everything from start to finish? Yes. Those ppl pose little threat to the US, they don't have the means to envade anyone really, just their nieghbours. It wasn't any of our bussiness, besides, if the ppl over there really wanted him dead, they'd have done it already. Desperate times, desperate measures, they weren't desperate.

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:50 pm
by morgana
Yeah, truthfully Forgotten, I side more with you. If someone tries to hurt me or my close family and friends, they'd better kill me as well, or else they'll end up wishing THEY were dead! While I think it's a nice idea to not NEED a death penalty, realistically, some people are scum and alot of them are scum to the extent that they should not be allowed the privelidge to live, and especially for us taxpayers to have to PAY to keep their sorry butts alive! :evil:

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:26 am
by Jescissa
Morgana wrote:especially for us taxpayers to have to PAY to keep their sorry butts alive
In Nepal if you are put in prison your family are expected to pick up the bill. They can't pay to get you out, but they have to pay for your food and board and if they can't afford to (or have disowned you) you starve.

I might be a bit mean...but I think their way is a lot fairer and it actually makes criminals consider the affect on their loved ones if they commit a crime. If you belong to a poor family you know straightaway that no one can afford to keep you going if you end up in prison so it's best to keep on the straight and narrow (and nobody belongs to a rich family in Nepal).

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:40 am
by Willow
Yeah, some societies have different punishments.

In Iriquois society, if you murdered someone without cause you were tied under a structure and the dcomposing body was placed above you and you had to stay until the body stopped dripping. Pretty gross. In other soceities you would take on responsibility for caring for children and women left behind. but these only work in small tight knit communities.

Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:16 pm
by daibanjo
Sorry I took so long to answer you Ragnar. You make a good point. It's true that Donitz and Goering behaved with dignity while the likes of Streicher became hysterical. The nazi leadership were prisoners of war and were tried by an international tribunal. They were not turned over to the people they had persecuted. That's the difference. Saddam was a prisoner of the coalition and should have been tried by a United Nations court.
What happened made him a victim and did nothing to stabilize the region.
What Saddam and others deserve is not the point. True justice involves how you treat your enemies, not just your friends.