# White supremacist executed for Texas dragging



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

White supremacist executed for Texas dragging



> By MICHAEL GRACZYK
> updated 1 hour 26 minutes ago
> 
> HUNTSVILLE, Texas  White supremacist gang member Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed Wednesday evening for the infamous dragging death slaying of James Byrd Jr., a black man from East Texas.
> ...


 
burn in hell, you fucking piece of shit.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Fucking grim. Justice has been dealt though.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

you know what really gets me? he cried... what a goddamned pussy. the man he killed
died an EXTREMELY brutal death, and this pansy ass gets a needle, which specialist claim is pain free, and he is fucking crying. crying baby bitch

his death brings nothing, but his tears make me laugh.


----------



## Blake1970 (Sep 22, 2011)

Fantastic news!


----------



## Bigfan (Sep 22, 2011)

Fuck the death penalty, this guy deserves to be the prison bitch of a large black man


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

murakami said:


> you know what really gets me? he cried... what a goddamned pussy. the man he killed
> died an EXTREMELY brutal death, and this pansy ass gets a needle, which specialist claim is pain free, and he is fucking crying. crying baby bitch
> 
> his death brings nothing, but his tears make me laugh.



Most experts will tell you a very high percentage of lethal injection executions are excruciating - though by the time the injection which kills you is administered your tear ducts wouldn't work, whether you can feel or not, I believe, so that's not the reason for his tears.

His pain (be it physical or metal) makes you laugh? Really? Christ. That's about as good an anti-death-penalty advert as I conceive. Mirth in vengeful pain. I'm astonished. Really.


----------



## murakami (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Most experts will tell you a very high percentage of lethal injection executions are excruciating - though by the time the injection which kills you is administered your tear ducts wouldn't work, whether you can feel or not, I believe, so that's not the reason for his tears.
> 
> His pain (be it physical or metal) makes you laugh? Really? Christ. That's about as good an anti-death-penalty advert as I conceive. Mirth in vengeful pain. I'm astonished. Really.


 
dont take it the wrong way. i do not literally laugh at his demise. i am saying it's quite ironic that he would cry when his death is much less painful than being dragged on rugged terrain, having your skin and limbs rip off while you're still alive.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 22, 2011)

I approve.


----------



## DVRP (Sep 23, 2011)

It's a little disappointing to me when someone does something as terrible as that, and just gets to die from a lethal injection, but don't get me wrong. I'm glad the sick sob is gone.


----------



## drgamble (Sep 23, 2011)

Texas prisons end special final meals for those about to be executed after lawmaker complains - The Washington Post

Apparently, his final meal request was such that they are no longer taking final meal requests from Death Row inmates.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 23, 2011)

drgamble said:


> Texas prisons end special final meals for those about to be executed after lawmaker complains - The Washington Post
> 
> Apparently, his final meal request was such that they are no longer taking final meal requests from Death Row inmates.



Now I'm normally the first person to say 'fuck prisoners, they should learn the hard way', however if you are going to execute someone, you need to have some respect about it. Giving a man a last meal of his choice is the least you can do in that situation. Taking that from people just seems wrong. There is no honour at all in that sort of killing. If this man wants to abuse that right, then so be it, his loss, however it shouldn't then be taken from others. He's already taken the rights of one man, his legacy needn't take more.


----------



## AxeHappy (Sep 23, 2011)

I've always thought the final meal thing was fucking bullshit myself. 

If their is tax money for shit like that, fuck the guy sentenced to death and give the homeless some fucking food.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Sep 23, 2011)

There is no honor in ANY sort of killing. The death Penalty is never justice, just revenge. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 23, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> There is no honor in ANY sort of killing. The death Penalty is never justice, just revenge. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.



I disagree. But I can completely see where you're coming from.


----------



## murakami (Sep 23, 2011)

i find it highly offensive that asshole took advantage of the last meal tradition. he ordered all that food and didn't even eat it. an asshole to the bitter end.

death was truly to good for him. they should have drowned him.


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 23, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> I've always thought the final meal thing was fucking bullshit myself.
> 
> If their is tax money for shit like that, fuck the guy sentenced to death and give the homeless some fucking food.



Same, they surrenderred their rights to humanity and ANY priveledges when they decided they could commit such attrocities. Bad enough you can't harm someone who breaks into your house nowadays without being taken in for assault.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 23, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Bad enough you can't harm someone who breaks into your house nowadays without being taken in for assault.



Well you can... It's acceptable force that marks where you're breaking the law, no?


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 23, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Well you can... It's acceptable force that marks where you're breaking the law, no?



Depends where you live, in Canada, you can't hurt them. The Liberal gov't put that one in a while ago. While stepping on your rights, the criminals still have their own. Fancy stuff that. Our government was worried criminals are people too apparently, more so than the victim even.

Doesn't have much to do with justic though, unlike this thread (which is good, imo).


----------



## chronocide (Sep 24, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Depends where you live, in Canada, you can't hurt them. The Liberal gov't put that one in a while ago. While stepping on your rights, the criminals still have their own. Fancy stuff that. Our government was worried criminals are people too apparently, more so than the victim even.
> 
> Doesn't have much to do with justic though, unlike this thread (which is good, imo).



Not even so much as restraint? Or whilst under threat? That would be preposterous, certainly. 

People get up in arms about how you can be charged for harming an intruder in your own home in the UK, but the case they're always taking precedent from is when a farmer shot a teenage robber who was running away in the back with a shotgun.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 24, 2011)

The degree to which you can defend yourself and your property from an intruder in the US depends on the state. Here in my state, Illinois, you pretty much have to exit quietly out the back door if someone breaks in, because you're all sorts of legally liable for anything that happens. In Texas or Arizona, though, have fun getting shot, burglars!

EDIT TO ADD: I'm pretty sure that in Illinois, if someone attacks you with a knife, if you disarm him and defend yourself with _his_ knife, *you're* the one who's breaking the law and is legally liable. Assault with a deadly weapon, and all. Apparently once you take his knife, you're supposed to stick it in your pocket or throw it in a gutter or whatever. I don't know. I'm pretty drunk right now.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 24, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Same, they surrenderred their rights to humanity and ANY priveledges when they decided they could commit such attrocities. Bad enough you can't harm someone who breaks into your house nowadays without being taken in for assault.



The only final they should be getting a cockmeat sammich from big bubba.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 24, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> The only final they should be getting a cockmeat sammich from big bubba.


 
Yeah, call that big dude from THE GREEN MILE!!!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 24, 2011)

That is a fucking grim death, what a fucked up guy. Can't say I'm opposed to the sentence.


----------



## Rick (Sep 24, 2011)

Peace out, ya punk bitch. Enjoy hell.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Sep 24, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> There is no honor in ANY sort of killing. The death Penalty is never justice, just revenge. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.



I disagree. Not only do I think the death penalty is fine, I think it should be extended to other crimes beyond just murder...AND I think the person should die in the manner that landed them there. Tie him to something and drag him down a street. Makes you think twice about whether or not you want to do something to someone, and if you don't think about it and you just do it, then in my opinion you get exactly what you deserve


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 24, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I disagree. Not only do I think the death penalty is fine, I think it should be extended to other crimes beyond just murder...AND I think the person should die in the manner that landed them there. Tie him to something and drag him down a street. Makes you think twice about whether or not you want to do something to someone, and if you don't think about it and you just do it, then in my opinion you get exactly what you deserve



I wholeheartedly disagree.
Non of the murderers think twice of the consequences.
People who can think rassionally and sane enough would not commit something like that anyways.

I always think that people like that racist asshole should be put on work till they die for the people who they hurt.

Like if they are white supremasists, let them repair, build streets for the black suburbs, let them work like 12 hours a day for the people they where hating.
Well that would be a punishment. Death, is a relief compared to that.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 24, 2011)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah, call that big dude from THE GREEN MILE!!!



I was referencing Harold and Kumar


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Sep 24, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree.
> Non of the murderers think twice of the consequences.
> People who can think rassionally and sane enough would not commit something like that anyways.
> 
> ...



I agree that murderers don't think about it..all the more reason to kill them. I do think the ones who don't get the death penalty should be put to good use. Community work, scientific testing, organ donation..whatever one could use a human for but wouldn't want to potentially strain, stress, or harm decent people. Of course it would have to be on a case by case basis and whatnot but I think death or community service should be the only two options given. And when I say death penalty I don't mean wait on death row for 20 years..I mean as soon as the gavel comes down, you're taken off so arrangements are made, IF they can't do it right on the spot. This way we get to either remove idiots from the planet ASAP, or put them to some sort of good use for the benefit of others.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 24, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I agree that murderers don't think about it..all the more reason to kill them. I do think the ones who don't get the death penalty should be put to good use. Community work, scientific testing, organ donation..whatever one could use a human for but wouldn't want to potentially strain, stress, or harm decent people. Of course it would have to be on a case by case basis and whatnot but I think death or community service should be the only two options given. And when I say death penalty I don't mean wait on death row for 20 years..I mean as soon as the gavel comes down, you're taken off so arrangements are made, IF they can't do it right on the spot. This way we get to either remove idiots from the planet ASAP, or put them to some sort of good use for the benefit of others.



Good use is the only way fo rme. It also prevents death thru wrong decisions.


----------



## murakami (Sep 25, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree.
> Non of the murderers think twice of the consequences.
> People who can think rassionally and sane enough would not commit something like that anyways.
> 
> ...


 
i think your idea will work in a perfect world. though i am not knocking it, ideally it would be best if the criminal worked off his dept, basically a ball and chain for the majority of his life. however, criminals break parole, they break curfew, and they even skip out town. we don't have the resources to constantly check up on these assholes if they're doing the job or not.

i bet you 100% that they would be slacking in the job they're doing though, which makes the whole purpose of their workmanship pointless. they won't learn anything, just think it sucks that they have to kick a tire and pick up shit.

time is money, and one prick who doesn't care of what he's fixing, cleaning will just make whatever city he's suppose to clean a half assed looking one. unless we have a guy whipping his ass i mean... but again, i don't think we have enough man power to constantly check up on each criminal and forcing him to work hard.


----------



## ZEBOV (Sep 25, 2011)

I think he should have been dragged to death.


----------



## that short guy (Sep 25, 2011)

should've tied him up poured gas on him and let him burn. prepare him for what awaits after he's dead.


----------



## ZEBOV (Sep 25, 2011)

^Or that too.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 25, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Depends where you live, in Canada, you can't hurt them. The Liberal gov't put that one in a while ago. While stepping on your rights, the criminals still have their own..



Yup. That's why they are the criminals and we aren't.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 25, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> And when I say death penalty I don't mean wait on death row for 20 years..I mean as soon as the gavel comes down, you're taken off so arrangements are made, IF they can't do it right on the spot. This way we get to either remove idiots from the planet ASAP, or put them to some sort of good use for the benefit of others.



So the 230+ Death Row acquittals since the 70's would have been executed and that's just hard luck?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Sep 25, 2011)

chronocide said:


> So the 230+ Death Row acquittals since the 70's would have been executed and that's just hard luck?



I did say it was a case by case basis. In situations where there isn't a shadow of a doubt who did it..instant death. No appeals, no waiting on death row, taken right into a room and a gun to the head, IF there isn't a more elaborate death in store for those special maniacs who kill others in elaborate ways.


----------



## murakami (Sep 25, 2011)

i agree. more time shouldn't be wasted on these lifeless scum. the courts time is extremely important and delays in important cases result in witnessess forgetting their original testimonies, evidence getting lost or improperly used which gets them thrown out of court etc...

all these super criminals who are mainly serial, tend to have multiple cases which result in them having multiple life sentences. if they're guilty of the first case, then just take them in the back and end it. there are so many assholes awaiting trial and the ones that post bail can easily just run away and get sweeped under the radar if their court date is months away. yes, i am aware that criminals can be denied bail, but not all of them.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Sep 25, 2011)

While I wholeheartedly agree that he was a lowlife piece of shit and lethal injection was too good for him etc etc etc, I think it's a little twisted the kind of pleasure some of you seem to be getting from the news of his death.

Words cannot describe how much stories about hate crimes, like this, make my blood boil. Death is the least the fucker deserved, and I'd never disagree with the sentence given the circumstances. But on the other forum I post on (MusicRadar) I'd get crucified for so much as mentioning the death penalty, let alone going to some of the rather sadistic extremes I've just seen.

Don't really know what to think.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Sep 25, 2011)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah, call that big dude from THE GREEN MILE!!!



You can't, he was executed.


----------



## Dvaienat (Sep 25, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> There is no honor in ANY sort of killing. The death Penalty is never justice, just revenge. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.


 
Agreed. 

Whilst vengeance is the instinctive reaction to a crime like this, humans are capable of much more.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 25, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I did say it was a case by case basis. In situations where there isn't a shadow of a doubt who did it..instant death. No appeals, no waiting on death row, taken right into a room and a gun to the head, IF there isn't a more elaborate death in store for those special maniacs who kill others in elaborate ways.




Everyone sentenced to death is done so because "there isn't a shadow of doubt". Until there is.


----------



## MikeH (Sep 25, 2011)

Good. Glad he's dead. You can call me a heartless neanderthal for all I care. Fucker deserved every bit of that and then some.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Sep 25, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Everyone sentenced to death is done so because "there isn't a shadow of doubt". Until there is.


Not true..many just have the evidence stacked against them. Forensics, witnesses, and an actual tape isn't the same as "all this evidence suggests it and it's more likely than not seeing as though there is little if any proof on the accused defense"


----------



## groph (Sep 25, 2011)

MikeH said:


> Good. Glad he's dead. You can call me a heartless neanderthal for all I care. Fucker deserved every bit of that and then some.



Indeed. There's too much other shit out there to give a fuck about then whether or not a sadistic racist murderer had a productive trip through the justice system in Texas.

I'm glad the murderer was sentenced, at the very least. How else do you respond to that kind of hatred? It's deeply saddening that the motive to tie a black man to a truck and drag him through the dirt to a gruesome death is still out there. The fact that you'd set aside all of your victim's humanity and subject him to that pain and terror brought on by an irrational fear and hatred makes you and the others responsible deserving to be regarded towards with nothing but sadness, Lawrence Brewer. Not pity, not hatred, just pure regret. I hope if you have children they will see that you were wrong so that they may live their lives as complete humans.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 25, 2011)

chronocide said:


> So the 230+ Death Row acquittals since the 70's would have been executed and that's just hard luck?



There's an interesting question raised when one considers just what society in general considers a fair price paid for certain things.

We could have many less innocent deaths in the US by eliminating private vehicle ownership. However, society views those deaths as a necessary adjunct to ensure people can travel as they wish. 

There are many safeguards in place which must be surmounted before one gets sentenced to death, many more than a child has when hit by a bad driver. Indictment, jury trial, evidence... none of those are small potatoes. 

So, given how much more protected a death row inmate is than the victim of a bad driver, I have to ask... Should society be allowed to decide that something is in its best interests, even if innocent people might die?

----

BTW, I've avoided this thread because every time I read the subject line, I read it as, "White Supremacist Executed for Prolonged Torture/Murder of Person He Didn't Even Know." 

That's the perspecitve with which I read the posts....


----------



## rythmic_pulses (Sep 26, 2011)

The needle was too good for that guy, Race crime is disgusting and you only ever seem to encounter it in the Southern parts of America, but good riddance to him, I hope this will be a lesson to other scum like him.

But still I can't help but think that they should get rid of the death penalty also, most of the victims families still say that the Death Penalty isn't good enough, there really isn't any justice when someone murders a member of your family and the perpetrator is either sentenced to life without parole or the death penalty so what is justice?


----------



## chronocide (Sep 26, 2011)

Explorer said:


> There's an interesting question raised when one considers just what society in general considers a fair price paid for certain things.
> 
> We could have many less innocent deaths in the US by eliminating private vehicle ownership. However, society views those deaths as a necessary adjunct to ensure people can travel as they wish.
> 
> ...



Fatal car accidents are not comparable to premeditated killings.

Since the possibility of simply imprisoning people until they die exists, risking the execution of one single innocent person is utterly unacceptable.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 26, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Fatal car accidents are not comparable to premeditated killings.
> 
> Since the possibility of simply imprisoning people until they die exists, risking the execution of one single innocent person is utterly unacceptable.



Actually, they do plan on fatal car accidents. They just don't know upon whom that fatal death will descend. 

And in that way, risking the death of thousands of innocent people is utterly acceptable when considering automobile operation.

I know that you don't want one to be able to draw the parallel, but the point is, US society already has many examples where a few deaths are accepted as the price for making things work. 

Blacklung and accidental death for mine workers, versus cheap coal, is another example. 

Here's an article dealing with the same idea:

EPA knocks $900,000 off value of a life - US news - Environment - msnbc.com

You might not like it, but not liking a fact doesn't make it untrue.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 26, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Actually, they do plan on fatal car accidents. They just don't know upon whom that fatal death will descend.
> 
> And in that way, risking the death of thousands of innocent people is utterly acceptable when considering automobile operation.
> 
> ...



The faulty automobile designs and driving regulations should have not an impact on if a violent murderer should be killed or not. Both can be revised and lifes could be saved. Same goes for the coal-mine or gold-mine workers, bakers, Industrial workers who inhale epoxy the whole day etc. Most of it is a question of profit, and not a price for the human freedom or the quality of life.

When a judge or jury or whoever decides that death penalty is the the right thing to do, their decision is made in the name of the citizens. Well, I do not agree on this decision, and I think death is not a penalty, but a disqualification. I don't think that a murderer just get killed and suddenly we all are fine. Let them work and be productive till they die. The government has no right to kill. Killing someone with your own will makes you a criminal. Killing in the name of government a hero. I don't like this duality.


----------



## The Reverend (Sep 26, 2011)

An interesting parallel: The guys who killed that man took pleasure in the act, and in his death.

Certain members here are taking pleasure in one of those guys' death. 

Who's 'better'?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 26, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> An interesting parallel: The guys who killed that man took pleasure in the act, and in his death.
> 
> Certain members here are taking pleasure in one of those guys' death.
> 
> Who's 'better'?




I personally wouldn't take 'pleasure' in his death, but I wouldn't feel a shred of remorse for him and I think the world is better off without him. If that makes me bad then so be it I don't really care.


----------



## Jontain (Sep 26, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> An interesting parallel: The guys who killed that man took pleasure in the act, and in his death.
> 
> Certain members here are taking pleasure in one of those guys' death.
> 
> Who's 'better'?


 
To go out on a limb I would say us.

I dont agree that someone who actively wishes to hurt and kill others based on their race deserves to be treated with the respect that they do not show others.

We are happy that a hate filled racist fucker this world could do without is dead and gone.

The guys who killed him were happy that their victim was dead, gone and had suffered because he was black, not because he was evil or even that he caused them any harm. No, because he was black.

To put it simple 'do onto others as you would have them do unto you', I may not be religeous but that quote stands in my logic. If someone desides that they think it is 'right' to take anothers life they should accept that its 'right' for another to take their life. 

However if someone wishes to be racist I also think that is up to them and also fine (its not how I think but I strongly believe people should express their own opinion), if they do not like people of different ethnicity that is 'their' decision and no one elses to make, however the very moment this racism turns to race hate and actions of race hate then these people no longer deserve 'their' beliefs to be unquestioned.


----------



## murakami (Sep 26, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> An interesting parallel: The guys who killed that man took pleasure in the act, and in his death.
> 
> Certain members here are taking pleasure in one of those guys' death.
> 
> Who's 'better'?


 
i don't think anyone here really gets any literal pleasure from his death. i think we can all agree and are relieved that the family of the man, who was dragged, can have some comfort knowing that this sort of crime will be taken seriously.

considering it was a hate crime, they should be able to sleep a little better knowing that the people who were attacking only blacks were caught. living in a place and knowing your race is a target, thats really scary.


----------



## BigPhi84 (Sep 26, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> An interesting parallel: The guys who killed that man took pleasure in the act, and in his death.
> 
> Certain members here are taking pleasure in one of those guys' death.
> 
> Who's 'better'?




Ah, come on, Rev. You're one of cooler members on this board, and that's why I won't let you slip by with such a bad comparison...


Certain members here are taking pleasure in one of those guys' death. 

I ate a big mac today.

Who's 'better'?



I dunno. Maybe it's just my philosophy in life, but I don't feel like I'm "better" or "worse" than any other person on this planet. Sure, decisions that I've made in my life have put me in certain places, but I feel like we're all walking in the same direction. Some of us might be walking faster than others, some of us might be further ahead or behind, but that does not connote "better or worse" to me. Yeah, I know, it's a pretty Hippie way to view the world.


----------



## Nimgoble (Sep 26, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> An interesting parallel: The guys who killed that man took pleasure in the act, and in his death.
> 
> Certain members here are taking pleasure in one of those guys' death.
> 
> Who's 'better'?



'Better'. Exactly correct. We are, because we say so. Any judgement on the matter is in accordance with our respective, subjective scales.

The man who was executed took pleasure in his actions because they were fulfilling his racist ideology.

We are taking "pleasure" in the fact that this man is dead because he violated some very serious values that some of us hold.

He's lucky there are some people who believe that even murderers like him should be treated with some degree of respect. My own opinion of what should be done with people like this man is much...harsher.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 26, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> *The government has no right to kill.* Killing someone with your own will makes you a criminal. Killing in the name of government a hero. I don't like this duality.



That's an interesting assertion in bold. I think it's your opinion, but if not, could you provide some legal backup to that statement?

The point is, whether you agree or not with the laws passed by a representative democratic republic, that's what happens when a democratic republic decides on laws collectively. One citizen might not agree with all laws. 

You don't agree with the laws of another country? Well, there's not much chance you'll be able to change those laws, since you're not a citizen. Sorry, friend.

To take your example in red (very dramatic, incidentally! Well done!), let's say someone decides to kill your mother. That person would be a criminal, according to your example. Let's say you kill that person before they kill your mother. Are you a criminal?

It sounds like you aren't capable of a nuanced view regarding the different reasons for taking a life. If another country had representatives who were trying to kill children in your streets, and your country attacked the country's government in order to stop such action, you hold that your government is acting as a criminal. 

I think you're wrong. Your country also probably thinks you are wrong... although it's possible that they have never gone to war against any other country. I doubt it, though.

Anyway, you come across as youthful and idealistic. I hope you remain so, and that you are never put in the position I posited where you become a horrible criminal in order to stop another criminal. Hopefully the laws of your country recognize the nuances and differences between murder and other forms of taking a life.


----------



## Mr Violence (Sep 27, 2011)

I don't agree with the death penalty. Like Chrono said: There's no doubt, until there is.

Maybe in the situation where the defendant says, "Yep. I did it. Kill me. I deserve it," and all of the evidence supports it, maybe then I'd say it's okay.

For the most part, if 1 innocent man dies, we fail. *That is an unacceptable* scenario. And I guarantee it has happened.





On another note though, and I'm not sure why this bothered me the most: The issue with the last meal. Does it bug anyone else that government makes such sweeping, general solutions to very specific incidents?

Why are we completely incapable of moderation? The dude's not going to eat all that shit, and the people who granted him 65 lbs. of food are fucking idiots. Why couldn't they just say, "Hey man, you can get a few things, but we're not bringing you all this ridiculous shit."

Nope, instead we abolish it completely. That's fucking stupid. This is why I hate government and I hate working for the government. It's like burning down the house because you have a mouse in the wall. Everything has to be black and white, and that bugs the fuck out of me.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying a convicted murderer deserves a last meal or doesn't. I'm criticizing the way decisions are made in government. And invariably, it is completely clownshoes.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 28, 2011)

Mr Violence said:


> For the most part, if 1 innocent man dies, we fail. *That is an unacceptable* scenario. And I guarantee it has happened.



Does that apply to motor vehicle use as well?

To those who feel there is equivalence between being glad the wheels of justice caught up with a sadistic murderer, and the sadistic murderer, I have a question.

What the fuck?

Here's what you're saying:

Sociopath who tortures and kills a random person

=

Person who is glad that a convicted torturer/murder had his sentence carried out.

If you really feel there is no difference between those two, I can only imagine how much strain that lack of discernment causes in interpersonal relationships for you.

(Hey, Mr. Violence! Today... no separation of thoughts, and it's all for you! *laugh*)


----------



## Mr Violence (Sep 28, 2011)

Since you quoted me, I'm not sure if you're referring to me with your question. I don't equate the two. At all.

I'm personally happy that there's one less sociopathic lunatic around.




I was just saying if a man convicted guilty is put to death but he was actually innocent, that's unacceptable.



And I'm counting the equals sign as a separation.


----------



## Loomer (Sep 28, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Everyone sentenced to death is done so because "there isn't a shadow of doubt". Until there is.



Either that, or high melanin levels. 

My first thought at seeing this was basically my prejudiced sense of humour going "What, they executed a white guy for killing a black guy? Is this Opposite Day in the South?!"


----------



## chronocide (Sep 28, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Does that apply to motor vehicle use as well?



This comparison still doesn't stand up ol' chum. Regardless of how much you want to draw the parallel, cynically factoring in the chances of accidental deaths that may be caused by a manufacturing saving, or simply of allowing motor vehicle use at all, is not equal to a planned killing (with lots and lots of money spent in pursuing it) of a specific person. Not at all.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 28, 2011)

Explorer said:


> That's an interesting assertion in bold. I think it's your opinion, but if not, could you provide some legal backup to that statement?
> 
> The point is, whether you agree or not with the laws passed by a representative democratic republic, that's what happens when a democratic republic decides on laws collectively. One citizen might not agree with all laws.
> 
> ...



Well, you are not making a point by misusing my words.
I am against execution, and I see it as a crime against the human rights. I have the right to think whatever i want to, and I can be against your local laws too.I never see you bitching about the US putting it's nose in foreign affairs and causing deaths and chaos. So you are not in a position to bitch about me thinking about your laws.
I am from Germany, and my country did terrible things. This was enough to learn a very important lesson about humanity.

The sentence you quoted from my post points out a double standard. I will act and kill if someone attacks me or some other innocent people. But this is an act of protection, and has an emotional motiv.

OTOH, a criminal who has been caught is not a loose cannon anymore. There is no reason to exterminate a life as a payment for another life. At the end, it's not 0, but 2 deaths. The law is not emotional. Therefore, not important how you or I feel about a criminal, the law should strive the make the best out of this person, and protect the others outside from the dangerous behaviour.

I am not young anymore, nor i am naive. I also do not like your attempts to make my points invalid by arguing on my personal character, life, age, nationality etc.

It's like me ignoring all your post because you being arrogant, cynical, and mostly too rethroic driven, all just to win in internets. But no, I read all your posts and agre/disagree on their content.


----------



## guitarister7321 (Sep 28, 2011)

I say his execution should have been by dragging him to death with his own truck.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 28, 2011)

Mr Violence said:


> Since you quoted me, I'm not sure if you're referring to me with your question. I don't equate the two. At all.



Oh my god! I wasn't at all attributing to you the equivalance! I apologize... but now we know why I use the four dashes, don't we? *laugh*

However, I was questioning your assertion that if one innocent person dies in a process, then that's too many innocent deaths. Where do you stand on automobile use, given the huge amount of deaths which were not the result of criminal proceedings? Are all those deaths acceptable slop in the system?



daemon barbeque said:


> I never see you bitching about the US putting it's nose in foreign affairs and causing deaths and chaos. So you are not in a position to bitch about me thinking about your laws.
> 
> The sentence you quoted from my post points out a double standard. I will act and kill if someone attacks me or some other innocent people. But this is an act of protection, and has an emotional motive.



You might have missed them, but I have written about many specific examples. One area I have written about more than once, and which deals with US intervention in external politics leading to death and chaos, is the actions of the Reagan administration setting up Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, funding groups like Shining Path and others who use narcotrafficking and kidnap & ransom as money sources (Iran/Contra, remember), and a host of other evils. I'm definitely not an apologist for the US government, and feel that Reagan created many of the enemies of the United States every time he decided he didn't like the rule of law in the US and decided to do things illegally.

Was that enough, along with a search, to establish my bona fides and my right to take part in this discussion? 

What I was criticizing is the rampant accusations on the part of many that any taking of life is murder. The law recognizes many different definitions of taking a life, and doesn't classify them all as murder. It seemed logical to demonstrate some gray areas. 

I understand that you killing to protect others doesn't make you a horrible murderer... but I've been arguing that all along, and haven't used strong words and made judgments about those who would kill in ways which are lawful. The question is... do you also understand that there are gray areas when taking a life? Or, are you a potential horrible murderer? I've argued you're not, and I still maintain so. 

I also don't believe that abortion is murder, although I think that current German law still has criminal penalties for that (not generally enforced, but still on the books). However, I know that German law does allow self defense, as well as defense of others. 

----

Anyway, I understand. A lot of you believe the US, and its citizens, are wrong to execute criminals. Noted!


----------



## groph (Sep 28, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Anyway, I understand. A lot of you believe the US, and its citizens, are wrong to execute criminals. Noted!



Just to chime in, a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of people actually enjoy killing others, so surely none of us are really happy that there is such a thing as capital punishment. Same general principle as abortion. No, liberals don't LIKE killing babies, they just think that women should have control over their bodies. Women who get abortions surely don't ENJOY getting them, just like most of us probably would rather not kill people to punish them. Unfortunately, it's probably too goddamn expensive to rehabilitate them, if that's even possible. I'll go out on a limb and assume that most "gun totin, Bible thumpin, yee-haw free market, anti-commie Republicans*" don't take joy in killing criminals. Joy is far removed from ideas of justice, however.

As far as the quoted material goes, how would you define a criminal? Obviously, someone who breaks the law is a criminal, and it's not hard to see why one would believe it is a just punishment to kill an individual who violated the liberty and autonomy of another person in the worst way (murder), especially through such a brutal means. What I'm getting at is that those who criticize the US often seem to be anti-capitalists/socialists/Marxists/feminists/extreme left wing in some regard so they have entirely different beliefs about what property should be, what human rights are, what democracy is, etc. and therefore have an entirely different view as to who criminals are. Suddenly most of your political leaders, CEOS, and straight white men (involuntarily implicated) are the criminals. "Theft" depends on property ownership/wealth distribution, and "murder" depends on who has more power over the other (and thus gets into debates over what "power" is).

It's a lovely mess. I'm of the opinion that we should stay out of each others' hair, that the only truly righteous wars are totally defensive in nature (this depends on how much of a fuck you give about being righteous, mind you), that no state with any semblance of power and influence in the world is a saint, especially the really powerful ones, that we call "genocide" " American/Canadian History," that there is a power imbalance in the world, but the power imbalance could certainly be worse, much worse, and that let's face it, we've got the capability to end human life on Earth so little feely-good sentiments of a blissful utopia don't really matter that much in the face of that destructive potential, which something like capital punishment pales in comparison to. I think people should constantly be in outrage, I don't care what it's over, really, it's just good that people give a fuck about something, whatever it is because that's all you can really do. 

The problem is who decides who gets to kill and get away with it. If someone can put it any simpler than that, please do, I like being wrong. I'm not against justice, and nobody is in the right to kill a black man for being black. Bear in mind that the government that keeps you warm at night can also smash through your front door and detain you, all they need is an excuse to enact martial law. Not to say that they'd do that because they're a bunch of malicious bastards, but really, who'd stop them? God?

EDIT: This isn't pointing fingers at anyone in this thread, I'm just venting.









* political stereotypes are funny, take your finger off the neg-rep button, right-wingers


----------



## Mr Violence (Sep 29, 2011)

Explorer said:


> However, I was questioning your assertion that if one innocent person dies in a process, then that's too many innocent deaths. Where do you stand on automobile use, given the huge amount of deaths which were not the result of criminal proceedings? Are all those deaths acceptable slop in the system?



Different story. I'm referring only to the death penalty and the active decision to take someone's life.

Accidental automobile death is different on too many levels to make the comparison. Unless I'm mistaking what you're saying.


----------



## AxeHappy (Sep 29, 2011)

According to my bosses at the bus company I work for there is no such thing as an accident. Just careless driving and collision.

But, the death penalty is bullshit for so many reason and there really is no logical justification for it whatsoever. I genuinely feel sorry for people who do try to defend it with logical reasoning as they always get destroyed.

On a gut reaction level though it's pretty win...


----------



## Explorer (Sep 29, 2011)

@Mr. Violence - I understand you not believing they are equivalent (acceptable innocent deaths due to slop versus a careful and considered process to execute criminals). 

I view them as the same thing, society believing there is a benefit to certain things, even if innocent lives are lost. 

The question then becomes... is there a way to determine if innocent lives due to sloppiness is more or less acceptable than innocent lives being lost in spite of due diligence?

If someone sold food which only killed a random percentage of those who consumed it, and that particular food was *known* to kill a certain percentage, then it would be a strange argument to say that because it wasn't known exactly *who* would die, those lives lost are okay. Or, rather, it's strange to me. 

That's okay that we disagree on this point. You hold the same view regarding traffic deaths which society previously held about the effects of cigarette smoke. As time went on, it became clear that there was more of a financial burden on the state than previously supposed, and then attitudes and the law changed. 

Renzoip noted on my User page:

- Defending the status quo does not make you neither mature nor realist - renzoip

To say that I'm defending the status quo is to miss the point of what I'm saying... in addition to being stated in a poorly constructed sentence. You're dismissing what I'm saying as my just being a blind sheep, going along because it's always been that way. 

I really do believe:

The recidivism rate for convicted and executed murderers is zero, while both those who make parole and those who escape often re-offend (a polite way of saying they kill more people).

There are already causes of innocent death which are considered acceptable in society, purely for the sake of convenience. Those deaths don't generate much debate because those who would be inconvenienced otherwise just dismiss considering those deaths as negative or important.

Sorry if you thought I was just repeating talking points without actually thinking them through. I assure you, I don't just cut and paste crap, and I am definitely not a sheep.


----------



## Nonservium (Sep 30, 2011)

I remember when all this went down. My neighbors at the time were from Jasper. They were so embarrassed by all this. I think they actually knew the guy that died if I recall correctly. While I generally disagree with the death penalty on some things, there are crimes that are incredibly horrific that go above and beyond and in those cases I think it's acceptable. That being said, cases like Troy Davis and the guy Governor Perry has gone to great lengths to cover up should've been stopped and reconsidered. Since the laws are there to serve us as a community, the community should have some say to stop them when enough doubt has surfaced. 

What this guy did, there's no explanation for that which will ever make sense. His crime will follow that community where ever they go. Even now if you mention East Texas to me this crime is what comes to mind first. Something this horrific leaves a scar on the entire community. I'm not sure that death was a proper option for him but I know allowing him to live a comfortable life in prison at the expense of the rest of us who have to live with the stigmas created by his actions is unacceptable as well.

I think, like most things, we as a society are sorely lacking in the proper tools to deal with extreme cases in a manner that is wholly acceptable to all. Things like an eye for an eye are what allowed us to tame ourselves in ages past when we lived in much smaller communities and the idea of a global community was completely foreign. Back then, people were very different, they were much closer to nature and death was a very real force to be dealt with daily. We've vastly outgrown nearly every institution we've created, that much is clear every time I read the news.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 30, 2011)

DVRP said:


> It's a little disappointing to me when someone does something as terrible as that, and just gets to die from a lethal injection, but don't get me wrong. I'm glad the sick sob is gone.


 
True... Does seem too good for him, though, no?


----------



## Mr Violence (Sep 30, 2011)

Explorer said:


> If someone sold food which only killed a random percentage of those who consumed it, and that particular food was *known* to kill a certain percentage, then it would be a strange argument to say that because it wasn't known exactly *who* would die, those lives lost are okay. Or, rather, it's strange to me.



On this point, I'd say that the negligence of not making all the food safe is also completely unacceptable. But in this case it should a small decision making body.

The number of automobile drivers is vastly greater and while I don't think it's fair that innocent deaths occur here either, there are steps to be taken that wouldn't abolish anything. Brings me to my previous point about solving problems with sweeping, generalized solutions.

We could ban car use and that'd stop it, but that's no reasonable solution as so much in our country rides on automotive usage. We could make the driving tests less lenient and more frequent than once in a lifetime. We could crack down on shitty drivers because we all know there are tons of them.

No, I'm not implying innocent lives being lost are ever acceptable. In some situations it happens more often and not on purpose, though. The death penalty is a very exacted sentence. In that situation alone, I would not follow through unless there was no doubt about it. I feel as though if a man claims he's innocent, it's worth keeping him in jail forever but not killing him.

All because of the question, "What if he is innocent?" It's not worth making that mistake.

Hopefully that cleared up my line of thinking a little. As always, it's a pleasure to debate with you, sir.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Sep 30, 2011)

Explorer said:


> The recidivism rate for convicted and executed murderers is zero, while both those who make parole and those who escape often re-offend (a polite way of saying they kill more people).



The problem is the Parole, not the life of the criminal. If you keep Murderers inside forever, ther wouldn't be a problem. Why to commit the same crime you trying to avoid or punish?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 30, 2011)

chronocide said:


> This comparison still doesn't stand up ol' chum. Regardless of how much you want to draw the parallel, cynically factoring in the chances of accidental deaths that may be caused by a manufacturing saving, or simply of allowing motor vehicle use at all, is not equal to a planned killing (with lots and lots of money spent in pursuing it) of a specific person. Not at all.


 
I'd say cigarette sales are closer than allowing the use of motor vehicles... 

But even then, not quite...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 30, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> The problem is the Parole, not the life of the criminal. If you keep Murderers inside forever, ther wouldn't be a problem. Why to commit the same crime you trying to avoid or punish?


 
Kinda true... What would he learn if he's dead?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Sep 30, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Kinda true... What would he learn if he's dead?


Apparently learning wasn't his strong point..that's WHY he's dead


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 30, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Kinda true... What would he learn if he's dead?



I don't see a guy like this changing his ways and building an orphanage.


----------



## murakami (Sep 30, 2011)

trust me, if he had the funds he'd construct a church nuturing children to hate on other races.


----------



## Explorer (Sep 30, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> The problem is the Parole, not the life of the criminal. If you keep Murderers inside forever, ther wouldn't be a problem. Why to commit the same crime you trying to avoid or punish?


 
More accurately, the problem would be that people love a good redemption story. 

There is definitely the chance that someone may turn their life around. In those cases, American society wants to offer such individuals a road back to rejoin society. 

Often though, those who want to be on such parole boards are more committed to the idea of redemption than to listening to the facts in the individual case with discernment. They are not following the civil standard of law, in terms of what is most likely to happen, and barring release if there is any doubt whatsoever about someone having changed. 

The sentence structure of that last part was unclear. Were you trying to ask, "Why are you imposing the same punishment (lawful ending of life) for the identical crime (unlawful murder)?" If that was the question, my answer would be, you're asking a leading question and imposing definitions which are inaccurate.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 1, 2011)

Explorer said:


> More accurately, the problem would be that people love a good redemption story.
> 
> There is definitely the chance that someone may turn their life around. In those cases, American society wants to offer such individuals a road back to rejoin society.
> 
> ...



You mean, if a certain amount of people defines an act as " not a crime", like the death sentence, it is suddenly not a crime anymore?
Well than the Nazis didn't do a crime because %90 people gave their vote!, no?

There is no lawful killing. Killing is a crime. We all know it. You know it. You just want "unwanted" and dangerous people to disappear, and support the idea of getting rid of them. I say, everyone has the right to live and a Government should not have the right to kill anyone. 

Here in Europe, we don't execute people, it works, and the crime rates are less. You are definetly doing something wrong, that is for sure.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Oct 1, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> You mean, if a certain amount of people defines an act as " not a crime", like the death sentence, it is suddenly not a crime anymore?
> Well than the Nazis didn't do a crime because %90 people gave their vote!, no?
> 
> There is no lawful killing. Killing is a crime. We all know it. You know it. You just want "unwanted" and dangerous people to disappear, and support the idea of getting rid of them. *I say*, everyone has the right to live and a Government should not have the right to kill anyone.
> ...



And that's the issue. Who's to say that "all life is precious and shouldn't be snuffed out"? On a topic like this I don't think either person can be completely right because we're just arguing moral views. Personally I believe that some people deserve to die and when they prove themselves to be a threat to the greater good they void their right to live. Others don't feel the same way. Which one is right? Who's to say?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 1, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> And that's the issue. Who's to say that "all life is precious and shouldn't be snuffed out"? On a topic like this I don't think either person can be completely right because we're just arguing moral views. Personally I believe that some people deserve to die and when they prove themselves to be a threat to the greater good they void their right to live. Others don't feel the same way. Which one is right? Who's to say?



I feel the same as you.  To me it's merely taking natural selection into our own hands.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Oct 1, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I feel the same as you.  To me it's merely taking natural selection into our own hands.



Humans depend on the "survival of the fittest" idea in many ways, why should this be any exception? Some don't see it that way, just my personal opinion.


----------



## murakami (Oct 1, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Humans depend on the "survival of the fittest" idea in many ways, why should this be any exception? Some don't see it that way, just my personal opinion.


 

i in no way see this as survival of the fittest. maybe if we lived in a world like "the road" or "fallout" then yes. but we still live in a world with civl standards and people still cannot adapt to the fact that we share this world with others. if you cant live with other humans based on color, morals etc... then we are going to have a shit storm of a fight. 

putting this guy to bed, i don't think it'll push others to think differently of hating other races. no matter how many times we kill a terrorist, another terrorist will fill his/her position... so yeah, his death is a moot point. it wont bring any good or bad from it. but i fear that if no punishment were given to this man, it would cause a racial war amongst the normal folk around town.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Oct 1, 2011)

murakami said:


> i in no way see this as survival of the fittest. maybe if we lived in a world like "the road" or "fallout" then yes. but we still live in a world with civl standards and people still cannot adapt to the fact that we share this world with others. if you cant live with other humans based on color, morals etc... then we are going to have a shit storm of a fight.
> 
> putting this guy to bed, i don't think it'll push others to think differently of hating other races. no matter how many times we kill a terrorist, another terrorist will fill his/her position... so yeah, his death is a moot point. it wont bring any good or bad from it. but i fear that if no punishment were given to this man, it would cause a racial war amongst the normal folk around town.



You can't fix stupid. I know that I shouldn't kill people because the outcome would impact me in a negative way. Otherwise I might be more likely to think it as an option in certain situation..but I don't because I know there will be possible outcomes I'd rather not put myself into. For those too stupid to think about these things and their mindset is "fuck it..I'm going for it" they've proven that they're not mentally fit to exist in this society. Of course in my opinion. Just two sides to the issue. Some feel murder is murder, some people don't feel the same way


----------



## Explorer (Oct 1, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> You mean, if a certain amount of people defines an act as " not a crime", like the death sentence, it is suddenly not a crime anymore?
> Well than the Nazis didn't do a crime because %90 people gave their vote!, no?



Actually, regarding the first part, yes. If whatever majority passes a law, or if it is a non-democratic regime, then you can have slavery and other such things legally. 

Your example of the National Socialist part is incorrect, because they invaded other countries. Other nations were content to let the Nazis doe what they wanted as long as it was within German borders. It was the Nazi invasions into other countries which led to the Second World War. 

Sudan is a country which currently allows slavery, to give a current example.

----

It seems you're making the case for taking away the sovereignty of a nation because you don't agree with their internal politics and laws. That's a weird juxtaposition considering how bad we both considered the interventionist politics of the US, and of which I gave examples earlier. 

Personally, I think that one should act consistently with one's beliefs and ethics, and to be willing to take one's chances in front of a court. In international matters, the World Court and the UN act as that sort of court, with human rights being larger concerns. So, if a country invades another country in order to stop a genocide, and then asks for forgiveness, it's like a person killing someone who was about to harm/kill a third party. They will likely get acquitted. 

----

Personally, it makes me feel a little ill to think that this racist piece of shit is being used as some kind of poster child for defending the preciousness of life, especially since he decided it was okay to snuff a ni***r purely because of race. You might as well have chosen all those Nazis in hiding which were found by Israeli manhunters as an example of how everyone is worthy of life....


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 2, 2011)

My thoughts on bigots, racists, homophobes, pedophiles, murderers and rapists getting the death penalty for their heinous crimes:


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 2, 2011)

Is it okay to cross Samuel Jackson movie quotes like that? Because I can think of some awfully appropriate Uncle Tom's Cabin memes that could use some making. 

SLJ, peace be upon his bald pate eternally, aside, I think in 100,000 years whatever we are or replaces us will look back and say, "What fucking barbarians." I think execution is like torture, which most agree violates some basic human right.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 2, 2011)

How jacky boy went from that to Snakes on a Plane I don't know


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 2, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Is it okay to cross Samuel Jackson movie quotes like that? Because I can think of some awfully appropriate Uncle Tom's Cabin memes that could use some making.
> 
> SLJ, peace be upon his bald pate eternally, aside, I think in 100,000 years whatever we are or replaces us will look back and say, "What fucking barbarians." I think execution is like torture, which most agree violates some basic human right.




My concern for his basic rights went out the window when he did the same to his victim. Whatever his b.s. reasoning, the fact remains that his right to ANYTHING went right out the window when he up and dragged a guy with a truck on a highway to the point that there wasn't much left, just because his victim was black. He was found guilty, and all parties knew this beyond a shadow of a doubt, and as a result, no last minute stays or the like were filed.

If you wanna run around killing random people for the hell of it, your own life is forfeit. Why is that a hard concept for people to understand? He knew the law, knew that here in the US, you kill, you die, gave not a f**k about it, and still killed out of sheer malice and contempt, and would have lost 0 seconds of sleep about it. Don't want this guy in contact with any other human being out of concern for humanity as a whole.

His tears of sadness wasn't for the victim, but for his own sorry ass.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 2, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Actually, regarding the first part, yes. If whatever majority passes a law, or if it is a non-democratic regime, then you can have slavery and other such things legally.
> 
> Your example of the National Socialist part is incorrect, because they invaded other countries. Other nations were content to let the Nazis doe what they wanted as long as it was within German borders. It was the Nazi invasions into other countries which led to the Second World War.
> 
> ...



Again, you misuse my words. I didn't talk about wwII, I talked about what Nazi regime did in his own borders. It was not right. You call him a racist piece of shit, but would you not call him like that if he wouldn't attack other countries? He decided to kill whatever didn't fit him and he had the votes. No it was not right and that's my point! Laws do not have to right. We have so many stupid laws that prevent the human integrity and evolution.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 2, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Humans depend on the "survival of the fittest" idea in many ways, why should this be any exception? Some don't see it that way, just my personal opinion.



So you mean all the people who where been killed by murderers or foreign military or secret services where not fit? That's why it was okay to die? Well that argument goes both sides than. Why do you bother with people killing other people? They where fitter and killed the not so fit one. Case closed? No?

What happens if you get a death penalty without proper evidence? there are many well prsented cases like that. So you just die because you where not fit enough to show that you where innocent?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 2, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> And that's the issue. Who's to say that "all life is precious and shouldn't be snuffed out"? On a topic like this I don't think either person can be completely right because we're just arguing moral views. Personally I believe that some people deserve to die and when they prove themselves to be a threat to the greater good they void their right to live. Others don't feel the same way. Which one is right? Who's to say?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rightsmber 3


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 2, 2011)

ghstofperdition said:


> My concern for his basic rights went out the window when he did the same to his victim. Whatever his b.s. reasoning, the fact remains that his right to ANYTHING went right out the window when he up and dragged a guy with a truck on a highway to the point that there wasn't much left, just because his victim was black. He was found guilty, and all parties knew this beyond a shadow of a doubt, and as a result, no last minute stays or the like were filed.
> 
> If you wanna run around killing random people for the hell of it, your own life is forfeit. Why is that a hard concept for people to understand? He knew the law, knew that here in the US, you kill, you die, gave not a f**k about it, and still killed out of sheer malice and contempt, and would have lost 0 seconds of sleep about it. Don't want this guy in contact with any other human being out of concern for humanity as a whole.
> 
> His tears of sadness wasn't for the victim, but for his own sorry ass.



So you not caring about a stranger's basic rights =/= that dude not caring about a stranger's rights? Because minus the hate crime, both of your attitudes are frighteningly alike.

I'm not accusing you of anything, of course. We both know that you (and I, for that matter) are not the kind of people typically involved with hate crimes. 

I'm just asking everyone to boil it down to its simplest form. Is violating someone's rights the best way to make up for a previous violation? There's a basic inequality in that formula. I honestly think this is one of the thousands of age-old societal conventions that civilization at large either cannot or will not reconsider. There are so many brilliant people, imagine what we could design, if I may include myself, and accomplish for the future. 

As hard as it may seem to you to express your views on this, it is equally hard for me to express how unbalanced this seems to me, on a purely rational level. I can understand all the emotional motives, but if I were to be responsible for making that kind of decision, I just don't think I'd find a way to twist the issue around in my head where the essential principles of capital punishment add up.

EDIT: Just wanted to comment on something else that caught me ol' eye. 



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> And that's the issue. Who's to say that "all life is precious and shouldn't be snuffed out"? On a topic like this I don't think either person can be completely right because we're just arguing moral views. Personally I believe that some people deserve to die and when they prove themselves to be a threat to the greater good they void their right to live. Others don't feel the same way. Which one is right? Who's to say?



No one can make that statement. although a Christian friend of mine once made a brilliant argument based on existence trumping nonexistence, and thus there being inherent value in life. I wish I could repeat what it was that he said, because it was extremely thought-provoking, and unusual in that he didn't evoke a higher power or imaginary force.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into that horrible, sentence by sentence deconstruction of what you said. I hate that about the internet. The thing about existence was that the number of things that don't exist are infinite, while by comparison the things that do exist are so rare as to be inconsequential in The Greater Scope Of Things. Thus, due to their rarity, they hold an innate worth, as being the rarest object 'in existence' (I'm so damn pleased with my clever use of words ). If you apply that to life, and then to higher life forms (I'm including all other primates), you see that humans sit atop a sort of pyramid of worth, and as such, we should treasure each other as literally walking miracles.

It's a very Zen-like, kinda New Age way to look at things, which is really at odds with how I generally think, but I thought you might find it amusing, at least, Drakkar.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 2, 2011)

ghstofperdition said:


> My concern for his basic rights went out the window when he did the same to his victim. Whatever his b.s. reasoning, the fact remains that his right to ANYTHING went right out the window when he up and dragged a guy with a truck on a highway to the point that there wasn't much left, just because his victim was black. He was found guilty, and all parties knew this beyond a shadow of a doubt, and as a result, no last minute stays or the like were filed.
> 
> If you wanna run around killing random people for the hell of it, your own life is forfeit. Why is that a hard concept for people to understand? He knew the law, knew that here in the US, you kill, you die, gave not a f**k about it, and still killed out of sheer malice and contempt, and would have lost 0 seconds of sleep about it. Don't want this guy in contact with any other human being out of concern for humanity as a whole.
> 
> His tears of sadness wasn't for the victim, but for his own sorry ass.



I understand it totally. What I don't understand it that you or any other person want's to have the right to take another one's live by law. Why?

He could serve the black community in prison by cooking for homeless, making clothes, digging pole wholes etc.

My main objection to death sentence is because 

a) It's irreversible, and many where executed without proper evidence.
b) Killing because somone killed is obnoxious. if killing is a bad thing why we do it in the first place
c)The prisoner can be productive and used for the community. This also would give a chance to an innocent prisoner to go out and live.


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 2, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I understand it totally. What I don't understand it that you or any other person want's to have the right to take another one's live by law. Why?
> 
> He could serve the black community in prison by cooking for homeless, making clothes, digging pole wholes etc.
> 
> ...




Simple, you get what you give. If your measure of life is to take what you want by force and wreak havoc on the general populous of people that can play by the rules, then you don't deserve the life that was given to you. Remove the problem indefinitely and there won't be one. 

a) Link? Yeah it can happen, but NOWHERE near the level you are thinking of. However, feel free to post some links and educate me. Perhaps I just haven't seen enough stats to believe that that argument is anything more than tinfoil hat rhetoric.

b)Because they need to experience the pain and suffering that they inflicted on others. The pros of this are two-fold:
-It helps with the healing process of the victim's family for this very reason.
-It serves as a reminder to both the prisoner and the population as a whole that there are still stiff consequences for you actions, and that you still are not above the law, whatever your excuse may be. 

c) I'd be willing to give them a one year stay after sentencing in order to prove their case. Beyond that, you're dead man walking. And tell me something.....how is doing things like carrying out hits, smuggling drugs/toilet hooch, or raping people in any way productive to society? All life in prison does is just tell them that they don't have anything to lose and therefore can do what they please. Not to mention teaches them to be a better criminal.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Oct 2, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> So you mean all the people who where been killed by murderers or foreign military or secret services where not fit? That's why it was okay to die? Well that argument goes both sides than. Why do you bother with people killing other people? They where fitter and killed the not so fit one. Case closed? No?
> 
> What happens if you get a death penalty without proper evidence? there are many well prsented cases like that. So you just die because you where not fit enough to show that you where innocent?



You've clearly just taken the base value of what I said and ran with it. In the human world we rely on survival of the fittest...and that doesn't always mean the physically fit. Mental strength, social strength, etc play a much higher part. Those who possess intelligence and the skill to utilize it go far and those who don't "have the goods" tend not to fare as well. In this case murder proves that the murderer isn't in that class because he chose to make an unintelligent decision..it has no bearing on the person who was killed. And our wars, no matter the reasons behind them, DO prove survival of the fittest. America has a superior military, they go in and take over, America was stronger. Humans may do things in a more convoluted way but it's basically just following the laws of nature to some extent.


I also said murder should be for cases in which it's clear who did it, and when one has shown to be a repeated offender. A murder case in which it must be left to a jury is different from a case where the murderer clearly did it (video, etc) coupled with the fact that they have a rap sheet a mile long. Constant bad choices land you in a worse predicament.


I can't stress enough in a thread like this that you are trying to argue a point of view that's just as valid as the other sides..it all depends on how you look at it. Mind you when I'm giving my opinion I'm not stating it makes more sense then yours, this is just the way I see it.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 2, 2011)

I just figure on a fundamental level, there is so much evil in this world we must grab it by the nuts and destroy it, instead of letting it run rampant throughout society.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 2, 2011)

@DBBQ - Sorry if you didn't want WWII to be brought up when talking about the Nazis. You picked a pretty bad example if you wanted to discuss just what happens inside a single country, as they were limited to such.

However... I did point out that other countries stayed out of Nazi Germany's internal politics until they started invading other places, and even then it took a while. 

I even went on to discuss other countries like Sudan.

Further, I also discussed interventions for both good and bad reasons for invasions/interventions, and the World Court, the UN, and other sundry matters, when it came down to doing so for reasons of human rights. I thought I had addressed your points.

----

I promise you sincerely, I'm trying to respond to your points fully, but you keep getting caught up on minutiae and arguing about it. Skip the part about the Nazis invading other places. Go to where I talk about interfering/intervening in other countries due to human rights. 

I'm happy to have a discussion, and although we might want to avoid points like "Hitler was great if you just focus on the painting and being a vegetarian," I think we could cover some interesting ground talking about international differences.

Cheers!


----------



## Curt (Oct 2, 2011)

I've always kind of been a firm believer in the whole an eye for an eye concept.

I think they should have chained his ass up to the back of his own truck and dragged him down the same road.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 2, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> Anyway, I'm not going to get into that horrible, sentence by sentence deconstruction of what you said. I hate that about the internet. The thing about existence was that the number of things that don't exist are infinite, while by comparison the things that do exist are so rare as to be inconsequential in The Greater Scope Of Things. Thus, due to their rarity, they hold an innate worth, as being the rarest object 'in existence' (I'm so damn pleased with my clever use of words ). If you apply that to life, and then to higher life forms (I'm including all other primates), you see that humans sit atop a sort of pyramid of worth, and as such, we should treasure each other as literally walking miracles.


 
Why exactly are rare things worth more than common things? That's just as subjective as whether or not taking a life is immoral. "The Greater Scope of Things" could probably give a shit less if the rarest thing in the entire universe is completely snuffed out. It isn't going anywhere.

Not taking sides, just sayin' . I'm still undecided where I stand on this issue as a whole.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 2, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I don't see a guy like this changing his ways and building an orphanage.


 
Fair enough. Just figured it's just too easy a way out for such a douchebag.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 2, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> And that's the issue. Who's to say that "all life is precious and shouldn't be snuffed out"? On a topic like this I don't think either person can be completely right because we're just arguing moral views. Personally I believe that some people deserve to die and when they prove themselves to be a threat to the greater good they void their right to live. Others don't feel the same way. Which one is right? Who's to say?





WarrelDane said:


> Heroes and rapists they all have nice faces but who decides? Who defines? Who draws the lines?



That made me think of that song immediately.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 2, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> So you mean all the people who where been killed by murderers or foreign military or secret services where not fit? That's why it was okay to die? Well that argument goes both sides than. Why do you bother with people killing other people? They where fitter and killed the not so fit one. Case closed? No?
> 
> What happens if you get a death penalty without proper evidence? there are many well prsented cases like that. So you just die because you where not fit enough to show that you where innocent?



Well have you ever heard the saying, "What goes around comes around"?

Not to say that the ones killed in the incidents you described weren't fit, per se. They just kind of caught a raw deal. But that doesn't mean the ones that did it won't receive some sort of come-uppance thereby making them unfit by the same logic to which you just responded.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 2, 2011)

Explorer said:


> @DBBQ - Sorry if you didn't want WWII to be brought up when talking about the Nazis. You picked a pretty bad example if you wanted to discuss just what happens inside a single country, as they were limited to such.
> 
> However... I did point out that other countries stayed out of Nazi Germany's internal politics until they started invading other places, and even then it took a while.
> 
> ...



I normally put all my thoughts straight out, so not including WWII in my original post should have been accepted as it is But i see your point and I will be more careful with my examples.
If you bring up human rights, we end up beating the shit out of the US and UK for their actions in the last 70 years. I also would point out the "VETO"s the US use anything against Israel an their obnoxious policies. That alone is a huge kick in the human right's nutts. The UN and other organisations have no power against US, UK, Israel or Germany. The system will not bite the hand of the master.

Sudan is terrible, and as we like to keep Africa in trouble, we decide to let them do what they do. Same goes for Kongo. Everything what looks like an intervention is not a real one. We give them weapons, we sell goods, we are all happy. 

Kosovo and Bosnia for instance. It took so long to react there, after so many people where already killed with a genocide in mind. Same thing in Cyprus in the 70s. Britain should keep peace but just didn't (That reminds me the fourties in Palastine somehow)

But I would come back to the point of execution. Killing in order to stop an act of murder, to prevent your own death or others you chose to protect is not an act of crime. It's self protection,way of life, nature. But an already "stopped" criminal is no offence anymore. Keep him inside, away and let him be labor. His death bring absolutely nothing. I don't even see how it should bring confort to the family. Knowing that the criminal is locked forever, have to live in 2m2 room behind a cage for the next 20/60 years is enough of a revenge. Killing someone with an injection can't be a punishment vs the life long prison. 365 times 40 days of suffering vs minutes of pain before death. 


Look at South Africa. What would became of South Africa if Mandela would have been executed?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 2, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Well have you ever heard the saying, "What goes around comes around"?
> 
> Not to say that the ones killed in the incidents you described weren't fit, per se. They just kind of caught a raw deal. But that doesn't mean the ones that did it won't receive some sort of come-uppance thereby making them unfit by the same logic to which you just responded.



So they where both not fit. The victim got killed, and the murederer got caught, and than killed  We survive because we where not involved. All these don't serve the "survival of the fittest" motto at all  The Humanity is so out of the nature and it's rules, all we need is some money or easy job in a very calm place to survive. We don't have to be fit in anything. Look at one of the biggest goofs ever. W. !  He survived two terms, and still not convicted for any of his crimes. He is not fit in anything at all


----------



## Explorer (Oct 2, 2011)

Okay, so to boil it down to your main point, you don't see why one would execute a criminal who had already been stopped from committing further crimes. That's a fair question.

Looking at it from a self defense standpoint, one can only inflict force as long as an attacker is a threat. Going beyond that is an offense in itself. 

The reason execution is viewed as necessary in order to stop the threat of a convicted murder is that there have been too many well publicized cases in which someone convicted to life imprisonment for murder has gotten out and managed to kill again. Some of those cases were even sentenced to life without parole. 

Due to some of the horrible crimes subsequently committed by those who were supposedly to be held for life, the US public has little faith that anything short of the death penalty will stop such things from happening again. That lack of faith has even scuttled the election of a Presidential candidate who was governor of a state whose furlough program allowed such a "life without parole" murder to get out for weekends.

In that particular instance, while on furlough that person twice raped a local woman after pistol-whipping, knifing, binding, and gagging her fiancé. He then stole the car belonging to the man he had assaulted. 

I can understand you not understanding the context into which one might assert the effectiveness of imprisoning someone for life. Unfortunately, this is only one instance in a long line of such which have affected American perceptions of how effective "life sentence without possibiity of parole" actually is. 

Now, with that background, I'll answer your question:

The reason US citizens agree with executing a prisoner who has already been convicted and imprisoned is because there has already been enough proof to the contrary regarding life imprisonment being an effective deterrent to that person killing innocent people again. Only the death penalty is viewed as completely stopping them.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 2, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Fair enough. Just figured it's just too easy a way out for such a douchebag.



Death isn't an easy way out. Not at all. Dying knowing you will never reconcile your regrets is a punishment in itself. Not saying that it should be considered a punishment, but death regardless of pain is no easy way out.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 2, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Okay, so to boil it down to your main point, you don't see why one would execute a criminal who had already been stopped from committing further crimes. That's a fair question.
> 
> Looking at it from a self defense standpoint, one can only inflict force as long as an attacker is a threat. Going beyond that is an offense in itself.
> 
> ...



I totally agree with the sentiments and skepticism of the American people, and would advice to make the parole system bullet proof, as the Jury system and other systems that may cause an innocent man end up executed without proper evidence. That would save more lives than killing someone in fear of him/her getting out some day, although he/she shouldn't.

Really, I can't see the solution in killing. It's the easy way out, and it's the dirty way out. If killing is a bad thing, we should't do it ourselves, with or without the law's permission.

I think I can't contribute more to this thread  Thank you all for the nice debate.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 2, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Death isn't an easy way out. Not at all. Dying knowing you will never reconcile your regrets is a punishment in itself. Not saying that it should be considered a punishment, but death regardless of pain is no easy way out.



I think that depends on whether or not you have a conscience and whether or not you believe in a god(s). Although I suppose if some god exists neither of those will mater as you'll still face some consequence.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 3, 2011)

Just putting this out there, but do the anti-death penalty duders here think that people who _would_ be sentenced to death should not only get life without parole instead, but also solitary confinement for the entire sentence? A murderer in prison still has plenty of opportunities to murder, but the victims would be other prisoners. Is that an acceptable loss, or would solitary confinement be the solution? Would a lifetime in solitary be considered too cruel and unusual? Do supporters of the death penalty ever use this in their arguments? This forum is pretty much the only place I've seen people argue about capital punishment at length (lol), and it hasn't come up yet.

Just wonderin' what everyone thinks.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 3, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Just putting this out there, but do the anti-death penalty duders here think that people who _would_ be sentenced to death should not only get life without parole instead, but also solitary confinement for the entire sentence? A murderer in prison still has plenty of opportunities to murder, but the victims would be other prisoners. Is that an acceptable loss, or would solitary confinement be the solution? Would a lifetime in solitary be considered too cruel and unusual? Do supporters of the death penalty ever use this in their arguments? This forum is pretty much the only place I've seen people argue about capital punishment at length (lol), and it hasn't come up yet.
> 
> Just wonderin' what everyone thinks.



I think as long as murderers and rapists put together and kept together, the outcome of any conflict wouldn't be seen as a big loss. But as soon as you get into prison, you are under the wings of the government. If they do their job right, the problems could be kept at minimum.

It's indeed cruel to keep somene behind the bars for his entire life. But that's the price of being too dangerous, and proven to be uncontrollable outside.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 3, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Just putting this out there, but do the anti-death penalty duders here think that people who _would_ be sentenced to death should not only get life without parole instead, but also solitary confinement for the entire sentence? A murderer in prison still has plenty of opportunities to murder, but the victims would be other prisoners. Is that an acceptable loss, or would solitary confinement be the solution? Would a lifetime in solitary be considered too cruel and unusual? Do supporters of the death penalty ever use this in their arguments? This forum is pretty much the only place I've seen people argue about capital punishment at length (lol), and it hasn't come up yet.
> 
> Just wonderin' what everyone thinks.



Depends on the nature of the crime. Mostly I'd say if you're willing to execute someone, then solitary confinement is probably the wiser option. Some people are too dangerous to be around other people full stop. That said, personally I'd rather be put to death than spend a lifetime locked in a single cell with little human contact.


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 3, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Just putting this out there, but do the anti-death penalty duders here think that people who _would_ be sentenced to death should not only get life without parole instead, but also solitary confinement for the entire sentence? A murderer in prison still has plenty of opportunities to murder, but the victims would be other prisoners. Is that an acceptable loss, or would solitary confinement be the solution? Would a lifetime in solitary be considered too cruel and unusual? Do supporters of the death penalty ever use this in their arguments? This forum is pretty much the only place I've seen people argue about capital punishment at length (lol), and it hasn't come up yet.
> 
> Just wonderin' what everyone thinks.




Refer to my infamous, updated prison model. It's not solitary confinement, which is cruel (I speak from literal experience), but there's no physical human contact, and thus no physical crimes can be admitted, all while being financially self-sufficient and good for the economy. My problem has always been with the ancient way we approach punishment, both capital and otherwise, and further back in this thread, I believe, I outlined "The Prison Of The Future." 

Explorer, you know I love you, but I have to call you out so hard on that BS about life-without-parole prisoners getting out, and that being the reason Americans support capital punishment. It's happened a handful of times, and I think we can very clearly see that capital punishment is more about retribution than any rational problem-solving.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 3, 2011)

Americans tend to think of anything which is reported as a major occurrence. I have no doubt that few prisoners get out and klll again... but enough have that I believe it is an accepted truism in American society almost across the board, in the same way that American moms believe that sitting too close to a television can hurt your eyesight, right? 

Hmm... I wonder if any surveys/studies have been done to examine the percentage of those who support the death penalty who are in favor of it on punitive grounds. Interesting idea, although I'm not up to much research tonight after work. I'll be jammed up tomorrow, but there's probably some numbers out there. Post 'em if you've got 'em, of course....


----------

