The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
On Monday the Oklahoma bomber, Tim McVeigh, was executed for the murder of 180 people. A huge number of moral and ethical issues are raised in this punishment. So, the question is, should he have been killed?
Well I personally think that, no, he should not have been killed. Let me explain my point of view. I happen to believe that no one; NO ONE deserves to die. No matter what they’ve done and how they have acted it is just not right to take away a persons life like that. Decreeing who lives or dies is like playing God. Ask any morally correct human or any Holy person and they will give you this answer. Playing God is wrong. And we are effectively doing this.
Another point would be the fact that he actually WANTED to die. By executing him they’ve granted his wishes which is basically wrong. Isn’t it? This guy killed 180 people in one swoop. So why the Hell are they granting him his wish? Killing him is the easy way out for him. He’s escaped the public’s wrath (mostly) and can now rot peacefully in Hell.
Death for Timothy McVeigh is not much of a punishment. He had a quick and painless death. All he would have felt was a p***k where the needle went in. He received three drugs. One to put him unconscious, one to collapse his lungs and finally one to stop his heart. It was all over in a split second for him. More of a punishment for him would have been to actually meet and look the relatives of the people he killed in the eye and say he was sorry, would have been much harder. Much more punishing. Much more PAINFUL for him to do this than to have been put to death.
So why else shouldn’t have he been killed? Well there’s the fact that, no matter what court sanctions it, no matter if it’s inside the law or outside, execution is still MURDER. Killing someone because a court has sanctioned it is no different from killing someone because they killed your brother or something like that. They’re lowering themselves to his level by executing him.
What has been gained by this? By killing him I mean. What the hell has it solved? It doesn’t bring back the people who were killed. It doesn’t help anyone... apart from journalists. It may help ease the pain felt by the families of the ones who were killed (although it shouldn’t) But most critically of all: There is still some blind spots in the case of the Oklahoma bomb. By killing the only known participant then we’re still going to not know some, perhaps, critical pieces of information.
Killing Tim McVeigh was both stupid and irresponsible, it should not have been done. I feel very strongly about this and that is why I have gone to the trouble of writing this piece.
RBS
Well I personally think that, no, he should not have been killed. Let me explain my point of view. I happen to believe that no one; NO ONE deserves to die. No matter what they’ve done and how they have acted it is just not right to take away a persons life like that. Decreeing who lives or dies is like playing God. Ask any morally correct human or any Holy person and they will give you this answer. Playing God is wrong. And we are effectively doing this.
Another point would be the fact that he actually WANTED to die. By executing him they’ve granted his wishes which is basically wrong. Isn’t it? This guy killed 180 people in one swoop. So why the Hell are they granting him his wish? Killing him is the easy way out for him. He’s escaped the public’s wrath (mostly) and can now rot peacefully in Hell.
Death for Timothy McVeigh is not much of a punishment. He had a quick and painless death. All he would have felt was a p***k where the needle went in. He received three drugs. One to put him unconscious, one to collapse his lungs and finally one to stop his heart. It was all over in a split second for him. More of a punishment for him would have been to actually meet and look the relatives of the people he killed in the eye and say he was sorry, would have been much harder. Much more punishing. Much more PAINFUL for him to do this than to have been put to death.
So why else shouldn’t have he been killed? Well there’s the fact that, no matter what court sanctions it, no matter if it’s inside the law or outside, execution is still MURDER. Killing someone because a court has sanctioned it is no different from killing someone because they killed your brother or something like that. They’re lowering themselves to his level by executing him.
What has been gained by this? By killing him I mean. What the hell has it solved? It doesn’t bring back the people who were killed. It doesn’t help anyone... apart from journalists. It may help ease the pain felt by the families of the ones who were killed (although it shouldn’t) But most critically of all: There is still some blind spots in the case of the Oklahoma bomb. By killing the only known participant then we’re still going to not know some, perhaps, critical pieces of information.
Killing Tim McVeigh was both stupid and irresponsible, it should not have been done. I feel very strongly about this and that is why I have gone to the trouble of writing this piece.
RBS
Page:
He deserved to die.
That bomb killed little children in a nursery.
He said that they were casualties of a greater cause.
That's sick. Truely sick.
Mind you, killing hims was a bit of a waste, wasn't it? They should have used him for medical research.
That bomb killed little children in a nursery.
He said that they were casualties of a greater cause.
That's sick. Truely sick.
Mind you, killing hims was a bit of a waste, wasn't it? They should have used him for medical research.
Quite frankly I find it ironic that the USA allowed (until Dubyah Bush got in) the IRA to fundraise over there.
Yet as soon as they are the victim of domestic terrorism, they scream and demand the death penalty.
Morons
Yet as soon as they are the victim of domestic terrorism, they scream and demand the death penalty.
Morons
RastaBillySkank wrote:
But no, I wouldn't want him to pay with his life. I'd want
> him to sit down opposite me, look me in the eye and say that he was
> sorry. That would be more of a punishment than death.
That is not always going to happen in McVeigh case he never once said he was sorry. The only problem with capital punnishment is that the is only the chance you end up killing the wrong guy. We have many cases of this is recent years with the advent of DNA advances. In Mcveigh's case he is guily, he admits he is guilty why pay the millions of pounds which could be better spend on health care and education on keeping him alive.
What they should have done is killed him in the same manner as he killed his victims not put him asleep and then painlessly put him to death.
But no, I wouldn't want him to pay with his life. I'd want
> him to sit down opposite me, look me in the eye and say that he was
> sorry. That would be more of a punishment than death.
That is not always going to happen in McVeigh case he never once said he was sorry. The only problem with capital punnishment is that the is only the chance you end up killing the wrong guy. We have many cases of this is recent years with the advent of DNA advances. In Mcveigh's case he is guily, he admits he is guilty why pay the millions of pounds which could be better spend on health care and education on keeping him alive.
What they should have done is killed him in the same manner as he killed his victims not put him asleep and then painlessly put him to death.
Papa Santos wrote:
> No matter how much Dubya Bush claimed the execution was 'Justice'
> not 'Vengeance' the only reason they stuck the needle in McVeigh was
> so America could show that they were winning the battle against the
> terrorists. None of the relatives of McVeigh's victims enjoyed
> watching him die; it was quite the opposite in fact.
I don't
> agree with Capital violence in principal, yet everybody can say that
> when they look at the world through morals. When a tragedy strikes
> much closer to home, it puts a completely different slant on things.
> Imagine someone you really cared for was abducted, raped and killed
> by a thug you never knew. I'm sure deep within, you'd want him to
> pay for his actions in the most severe way possible.
Most
> probably with his life.
Good post.
But no, I wouldn't want him to pay with his life. I'd want him to sit down opposite me, look me in the eye and say that he was sorry. That would be more of a punishment than death.
> No matter how much Dubya Bush claimed the execution was 'Justice'
> not 'Vengeance' the only reason they stuck the needle in McVeigh was
> so America could show that they were winning the battle against the
> terrorists. None of the relatives of McVeigh's victims enjoyed
> watching him die; it was quite the opposite in fact.
I don't
> agree with Capital violence in principal, yet everybody can say that
> when they look at the world through morals. When a tragedy strikes
> much closer to home, it puts a completely different slant on things.
> Imagine someone you really cared for was abducted, raped and killed
> by a thug you never knew. I'm sure deep within, you'd want him to
> pay for his actions in the most severe way possible.
Most
> probably with his life.
Good post.
But no, I wouldn't want him to pay with his life. I'd want him to sit down opposite me, look me in the eye and say that he was sorry. That would be more of a punishment than death.
No matter how much Dubya Bush claimed the execution was 'Justice' not 'Vengeance' the only reason they stuck the needle in McVeigh was so America could show that they were winning the battle against the terrorists. None of the relatives of McVeigh's victims enjoyed watching him die; it was quite the opposite in fact.
I don't agree with Capital violence in principal, yet everybody can say that when they look at the world through morals. When a tragedy strikes much closer to home, it puts a completely different slant on things. Imagine someone you really cared for was abducted, raped and killed by a thug you never knew. I'm sure deep within, you'd want him to pay for his actions in the most severe way possible.
Most probably with his life.
I don't agree with Capital violence in principal, yet everybody can say that when they look at the world through morals. When a tragedy strikes much closer to home, it puts a completely different slant on things. Imagine someone you really cared for was abducted, raped and killed by a thug you never knew. I'm sure deep within, you'd want him to pay for his actions in the most severe way possible.
Most probably with his life.
or sorry i replied to the wrong topic there, i thought it was the survivor topic, sorry! i know this might be a sensitive subject so really sorry.
to be honest with ya, iahvnt got a clue WTF you are talking about.
Doesn't anyone have any comments on this whatsoever?!
On Monday the Oklahoma bomber, Tim McVeigh, was executed for the murder of 180 people. A huge number of moral and ethical issues are raised in this punishment. So, the question is, should he have been killed?
Well I personally think that, no, he should not have been killed. Let me explain my point of view. I happen to believe that no one; NO ONE deserves to die. No matter what they’ve done and how they have acted it is just not right to take away a persons life like that. Decreeing who lives or dies is like playing God. Ask any morally correct human or any Holy person and they will give you this answer. Playing God is wrong. And we are effectively doing this.
Another point would be the fact that he actually WANTED to die. By executing him they’ve granted his wishes which is basically wrong. Isn’t it? This guy killed 180 people in one swoop. So why the Hell are they granting him his wish? Killing him is the easy way out for him. He’s escaped the public’s wrath (mostly) and can now rot peacefully in Hell.
Death for Timothy McVeigh is not much of a punishment. He had a quick and painless death. All he would have felt was a p***k where the needle went in. He received three drugs. One to put him unconscious, one to collapse his lungs and finally one to stop his heart. It was all over in a split second for him. More of a punishment for him would have been to actually meet and look the relatives of the people he killed in the eye and say he was sorry, would have been much harder. Much more punishing. Much more PAINFUL for him to do this than to have been put to death.
So why else shouldn’t have he been killed? Well there’s the fact that, no matter what court sanctions it, no matter if it’s inside the law or outside, execution is still MURDER. Killing someone because a court has sanctioned it is no different from killing someone because they killed your brother or something like that. They’re lowering themselves to his level by executing him.
What has been gained by this? By killing him I mean. What the hell has it solved? It doesn’t bring back the people who were killed. It doesn’t help anyone... apart from journalists. It may help ease the pain felt by the families of the ones who were killed (although it shouldn’t) But most critically of all: There is still some blind spots in the case of the Oklahoma bomb. By killing the only known participant then we’re still going to not know some, perhaps, critical pieces of information.
Killing Tim McVeigh was both stupid and irresponsible, it should not have been done. I feel very strongly about this and that is why I have gone to the trouble of writing this piece.
RBS
Well I personally think that, no, he should not have been killed. Let me explain my point of view. I happen to believe that no one; NO ONE deserves to die. No matter what they’ve done and how they have acted it is just not right to take away a persons life like that. Decreeing who lives or dies is like playing God. Ask any morally correct human or any Holy person and they will give you this answer. Playing God is wrong. And we are effectively doing this.
Another point would be the fact that he actually WANTED to die. By executing him they’ve granted his wishes which is basically wrong. Isn’t it? This guy killed 180 people in one swoop. So why the Hell are they granting him his wish? Killing him is the easy way out for him. He’s escaped the public’s wrath (mostly) and can now rot peacefully in Hell.
Death for Timothy McVeigh is not much of a punishment. He had a quick and painless death. All he would have felt was a p***k where the needle went in. He received three drugs. One to put him unconscious, one to collapse his lungs and finally one to stop his heart. It was all over in a split second for him. More of a punishment for him would have been to actually meet and look the relatives of the people he killed in the eye and say he was sorry, would have been much harder. Much more punishing. Much more PAINFUL for him to do this than to have been put to death.
So why else shouldn’t have he been killed? Well there’s the fact that, no matter what court sanctions it, no matter if it’s inside the law or outside, execution is still MURDER. Killing someone because a court has sanctioned it is no different from killing someone because they killed your brother or something like that. They’re lowering themselves to his level by executing him.
What has been gained by this? By killing him I mean. What the hell has it solved? It doesn’t bring back the people who were killed. It doesn’t help anyone... apart from journalists. It may help ease the pain felt by the families of the ones who were killed (although it shouldn’t) But most critically of all: There is still some blind spots in the case of the Oklahoma bomb. By killing the only known participant then we’re still going to not know some, perhaps, critical pieces of information.
Killing Tim McVeigh was both stupid and irresponsible, it should not have been done. I feel very strongly about this and that is why I have gone to the trouble of writing this piece.
RBS
Page: