The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Discuss :-)
Page:
Tim McVeigh, was executed for the murder of 180 people. A huge number of moral and ethical issues are raised in that action.
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. 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 the ground.
Death for Timothy McVeigh was 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 was been gained by that? By killing him I mean. What the hell did it solved? It didin't bring back the people who were killed. It didn't help anyone... apart from journalistsa although it may have helped ease the pain felt by the families of the ones who were killed.
Most critically of all though: There are still even today 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, vital pieces of information.
I myself can't see any defence of the killing of him. And I'm only using him as an example because he's the one I knew most about. But what I've said goes for any capital punishment. People should not be killed under the jurisdiction of courts. Never.
Anyway, what the hell is gained by it? OK, tax payers money isn't "wasted" but one person, another of God's creatures has been eliminated... but not by natural selection. By another human being. A judge when it coems down to it.
Like I said, two wrongs do not make a right, especially not in the case of capital punishment.
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. 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 the ground.
Death for Timothy McVeigh was 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 was been gained by that? By killing him I mean. What the hell did it solved? It didin't bring back the people who were killed. It didn't help anyone... apart from journalistsa although it may have helped ease the pain felt by the families of the ones who were killed.
Most critically of all though: There are still even today 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, vital pieces of information.
I myself can't see any defence of the killing of him. And I'm only using him as an example because he's the one I knew most about. But what I've said goes for any capital punishment. People should not be killed under the jurisdiction of courts. Never.
Anyway, what the hell is gained by it? OK, tax payers money isn't "wasted" but one person, another of God's creatures has been eliminated... but not by natural selection. By another human being. A judge when it coems down to it.
Like I said, two wrongs do not make a right, especially not in the case of capital punishment.
I have to disagree with you there, I think people who are obviously a danger to society should be killed, that way they don't detract from society anymore by costing taxpayers money.
Then again, many people have died and been found innocent later. This was largely before DNA testing mind you.
Then again, many people have died and been found innocent later. This was largely before DNA testing mind you.
No, they don't. Capital Punishment. You kill one person because he killed another person. And even in cases where the person killed more than one other person, IT IS STILL NOT RIGHT TO TAKE ANOTHER'S LIFE.
Yes they do!
Example: You kill two dogs to save a city.
I rest my case.
Example: You kill two dogs to save a city.
I rest my case.
Discuss :-)
Page: