The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So the Sniper in Washington has been caught, we’ve seen enough news coverage to know that by now, but the media in the US now seem to be focusing on what will happen next, what form of justice will he face?
Before even being found guilty, which is by no means certain that he is yet (although evidence points strongly towards it) people in the street are braying for his blood and even that of his 17 year old accomplice.
Well, as we speak John Allen Muhammad, 41, and John Lee Malvo, 17, are still only Suspects in the Sniper case. They are suspected of killing 10 people, 6 in Maryland, 3 in Virginia and 1 in Washington, but as with all suspects, they are innocent until proven guilty.
America may be breathing a sigh of relief about now, it’s true, but do these killings really warrant a death penalty? Even if the two men are found guilty of all the killings, sentencing them to death will not give the message that killing people is wrong, merely that you can kill people to do away with a problem, just as the sniper was believing to have been doing himself. If killing people is wrong, then surely it should be wrong full stop? Better for the guilty man to live with his work than to die knowing he has accomplished his mission and has an easy way out?
I’ve argued against the death penalty before, but in this case America is going mad trying to get it past in a state that does not normally condone this way of sentencing. To do this would be like saying ‘it doesn’t matter about the laws in your state, we can always over-ride them.’ So why have separate state laws in the first place?
This is the kind of decision that is made on the strength of winning votes or keeping people satisfied enough to vote for you again, it is a decision borne of the hate and the spur of the moment gut feelings felt by all and also by the residue from 9/11. A news report made a note of the fact that a neighbour had mentioned the accused saying they were ‘sympathetic’ to the cause of the Taliban, but it’s perhaps all too convenient for people to believe this was done in relation to the events of last September or had anything to do with it.
One thing is for sure though, people may sleep easier in their beds now, but perhaps they may not feel as safe as they had before these shootings. Should this man be put to death in a country where drive-by shootings and armed robberies are the norm? It doesn’t seem to have helped so far.
Before even being found guilty, which is by no means certain that he is yet (although evidence points strongly towards it) people in the street are braying for his blood and even that of his 17 year old accomplice.
Well, as we speak John Allen Muhammad, 41, and John Lee Malvo, 17, are still only Suspects in the Sniper case. They are suspected of killing 10 people, 6 in Maryland, 3 in Virginia and 1 in Washington, but as with all suspects, they are innocent until proven guilty.
America may be breathing a sigh of relief about now, it’s true, but do these killings really warrant a death penalty? Even if the two men are found guilty of all the killings, sentencing them to death will not give the message that killing people is wrong, merely that you can kill people to do away with a problem, just as the sniper was believing to have been doing himself. If killing people is wrong, then surely it should be wrong full stop? Better for the guilty man to live with his work than to die knowing he has accomplished his mission and has an easy way out?
I’ve argued against the death penalty before, but in this case America is going mad trying to get it past in a state that does not normally condone this way of sentencing. To do this would be like saying ‘it doesn’t matter about the laws in your state, we can always over-ride them.’ So why have separate state laws in the first place?
This is the kind of decision that is made on the strength of winning votes or keeping people satisfied enough to vote for you again, it is a decision borne of the hate and the spur of the moment gut feelings felt by all and also by the residue from 9/11. A news report made a note of the fact that a neighbour had mentioned the accused saying they were ‘sympathetic’ to the cause of the Taliban, but it’s perhaps all too convenient for people to believe this was done in relation to the events of last September or had anything to do with it.
One thing is for sure though, people may sleep easier in their beds now, but perhaps they may not feel as safe as they had before these shootings. Should this man be put to death in a country where drive-by shootings and armed robberies are the norm? It doesn’t seem to have helped so far.
Page:
So the Sniper in Washington has been caught, we’ve seen enough news coverage to know that by now, but the media in the US now seem to be focusing on what will happen next, what form of justice will he face?
Before even being found guilty, which is by no means certain that he is yet (although evidence points strongly towards it) people in the street are braying for his blood and even that of his 17 year old accomplice.
Well, as we speak John Allen Muhammad, 41, and John Lee Malvo, 17, are still only Suspects in the Sniper case. They are suspected of killing 10 people, 6 in Maryland, 3 in Virginia and 1 in Washington, but as with all suspects, they are innocent until proven guilty.
America may be breathing a sigh of relief about now, it’s true, but do these killings really warrant a death penalty? Even if the two men are found guilty of all the killings, sentencing them to death will not give the message that killing people is wrong, merely that you can kill people to do away with a problem, just as the sniper was believing to have been doing himself. If killing people is wrong, then surely it should be wrong full stop? Better for the guilty man to live with his work than to die knowing he has accomplished his mission and has an easy way out?
I’ve argued against the death penalty before, but in this case America is going mad trying to get it past in a state that does not normally condone this way of sentencing. To do this would be like saying ‘it doesn’t matter about the laws in your state, we can always over-ride them.’ So why have separate state laws in the first place?
This is the kind of decision that is made on the strength of winning votes or keeping people satisfied enough to vote for you again, it is a decision borne of the hate and the spur of the moment gut feelings felt by all and also by the residue from 9/11. A news report made a note of the fact that a neighbour had mentioned the accused saying they were ‘sympathetic’ to the cause of the Taliban, but it’s perhaps all too convenient for people to believe this was done in relation to the events of last September or had anything to do with it.
One thing is for sure though, people may sleep easier in their beds now, but perhaps they may not feel as safe as they had before these shootings. Should this man be put to death in a country where drive-by shootings and armed robberies are the norm? It doesn’t seem to have helped so far.
Before even being found guilty, which is by no means certain that he is yet (although evidence points strongly towards it) people in the street are braying for his blood and even that of his 17 year old accomplice.
Well, as we speak John Allen Muhammad, 41, and John Lee Malvo, 17, are still only Suspects in the Sniper case. They are suspected of killing 10 people, 6 in Maryland, 3 in Virginia and 1 in Washington, but as with all suspects, they are innocent until proven guilty.
America may be breathing a sigh of relief about now, it’s true, but do these killings really warrant a death penalty? Even if the two men are found guilty of all the killings, sentencing them to death will not give the message that killing people is wrong, merely that you can kill people to do away with a problem, just as the sniper was believing to have been doing himself. If killing people is wrong, then surely it should be wrong full stop? Better for the guilty man to live with his work than to die knowing he has accomplished his mission and has an easy way out?
I’ve argued against the death penalty before, but in this case America is going mad trying to get it past in a state that does not normally condone this way of sentencing. To do this would be like saying ‘it doesn’t matter about the laws in your state, we can always over-ride them.’ So why have separate state laws in the first place?
This is the kind of decision that is made on the strength of winning votes or keeping people satisfied enough to vote for you again, it is a decision borne of the hate and the spur of the moment gut feelings felt by all and also by the residue from 9/11. A news report made a note of the fact that a neighbour had mentioned the accused saying they were ‘sympathetic’ to the cause of the Taliban, but it’s perhaps all too convenient for people to believe this was done in relation to the events of last September or had anything to do with it.
One thing is for sure though, people may sleep easier in their beds now, but perhaps they may not feel as safe as they had before these shootings. Should this man be put to death in a country where drive-by shootings and armed robberies are the norm? It doesn’t seem to have helped so far.
i dont know wether they should serve the death penalty or not because being put in jail for life and being misarable is alot worse then just dieing...
Think about it!!!
Think about it!!!
Hmm. Isn't George Bush a Christian?
I'm pretty sure he is so by his beliefs shouldn't he have banned the death penatly? What I mean is taking someone's life, justified by law or not, is playing God when it comes down to it. And isn't that a big no-no for Christians?
Hmm, I suppose he can't impose his religious beliefs on the country though...
Anyway. Off the point.
No, they shouldn't be given the death penatly (though they undoubtedly will if they're proven guilty) basically because it's wrong. Who are we to decide who lives and dies? No one, that's who. Taking someones life, whether justified by law or not, is not something we should do. Taking someones life whether justified by law or not, is MURDER. Really it's just as bad as what the Sniper has been doing.
Eye for an eye is a cliché that will be tossed around in this thread. And that too I desagree with. Jurisdiction of death does not come in the form of "he did it to other people so we do it to him". Sounds like something a child would say to a teacher that had broken up a fight...
I'm pretty sure he is so by his beliefs shouldn't he have banned the death penatly? What I mean is taking someone's life, justified by law or not, is playing God when it comes down to it. And isn't that a big no-no for Christians?
Hmm, I suppose he can't impose his religious beliefs on the country though...
Anyway. Off the point.
No, they shouldn't be given the death penatly (though they undoubtedly will if they're proven guilty) basically because it's wrong. Who are we to decide who lives and dies? No one, that's who. Taking someones life, whether justified by law or not, is not something we should do. Taking someones life whether justified by law or not, is MURDER. Really it's just as bad as what the Sniper has been doing.
Eye for an eye is a cliché that will be tossed around in this thread. And that too I desagree with. Jurisdiction of death does not come in the form of "he did it to other people so we do it to him". Sounds like something a child would say to a teacher that had broken up a fight...
He's getting the dealth penalty whoever likes it or not he killed 10 people for christ sakes.
Hmm, one post making the arguments that:
1- Death penalty goes too far in violation of their rights whatever they've done, and
2- Putting them in prison is best because it will let them suffer more
That seems a little contradictory, kind of throwing in any arguments that support the outcome you want.
In a way a bit like the dope head who argues growing the stuff should be legalised because you can use byproducts to make hemp. Like it's why he wants it legalised.
Or perhaps more like US arming Al Quaeda to fight America's battles for them, regardless of the wider moral picture, then finding they've been building up the new problem.
More specifically at issue, while the eye for an eye argument sometimes seems barbaric, and doesn't let us all keep our fingers clean, if these guys are the killers they've condoned (within their own minds and morals) the actions of going around killing people just because you want them dead. They themselves can't exactly complain now someone wants to do just the same thing to them.
And finally a disclaimer - the post probably seems pretty pro-death penalty. My personal opinion is, as is so often the case, undecided. However, most of the good anti-death penatly arguments had been made already, i just wanted to air another side to the argument.
1- Death penalty goes too far in violation of their rights whatever they've done, and
2- Putting them in prison is best because it will let them suffer more
That seems a little contradictory, kind of throwing in any arguments that support the outcome you want.
In a way a bit like the dope head who argues growing the stuff should be legalised because you can use byproducts to make hemp. Like it's why he wants it legalised.
Or perhaps more like US arming Al Quaeda to fight America's battles for them, regardless of the wider moral picture, then finding they've been building up the new problem.
More specifically at issue, while the eye for an eye argument sometimes seems barbaric, and doesn't let us all keep our fingers clean, if these guys are the killers they've condoned (within their own minds and morals) the actions of going around killing people just because you want them dead. They themselves can't exactly complain now someone wants to do just the same thing to them.
And finally a disclaimer - the post probably seems pretty pro-death penalty. My personal opinion is, as is so often the case, undecided. However, most of the good anti-death penatly arguments had been made already, i just wanted to air another side to the argument.
RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Hmm. Isn't George Bush a Christian?
>
> I'm pretty sure he is so by his beliefs shouldn't he have banned the
> death penatly? What I mean is taking someone's life, justified by law
> or not, is playing God when it comes down to it. And isn't that a big
> no-no for Christians?
Yep, Christian, but as you point out he can't impose his wishes on the country - it's not Iraq you know.....
Anyway, they may be innocent until proven guilty but with a)the rifle in their possesion that matches the killing b)the car having holes in the boot to allow a shooter to fire from a closed boot c)them being found in the car d)finger printing matching the 17 year old to the messages e.t.c. then the argument for innocence is dead in the water.
I don't agree with the death penalty, but I don't think it's wrong that some people do.
~~Belldandy~~
> Hmm. Isn't George Bush a Christian?
>
> I'm pretty sure he is so by his beliefs shouldn't he have banned the
> death penatly? What I mean is taking someone's life, justified by law
> or not, is playing God when it comes down to it. And isn't that a big
> no-no for Christians?
Yep, Christian, but as you point out he can't impose his wishes on the country - it's not Iraq you know.....
Anyway, they may be innocent until proven guilty but with a)the rifle in their possesion that matches the killing b)the car having holes in the boot to allow a shooter to fire from a closed boot c)them being found in the car d)finger printing matching the 17 year old to the messages e.t.c. then the argument for innocence is dead in the water.
I don't agree with the death penalty, but I don't think it's wrong that some people do.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> > I don't agree with the death penalty, but I don't think it's wrong
> that some people do.
Very true, wouldn't be a democracy otherwise, the state votes either against or in favour, but what may happen here is that the White House overthrows the state, so why have that vote in the first place?
> > I don't agree with the death penalty, but I don't think it's wrong
> that some people do.
Very true, wouldn't be a democracy otherwise, the state votes either against or in favour, but what may happen here is that the White House overthrows the state, so why have that vote in the first place?
To be honest, I feel the death penalty really doesn't teach anyone anything. The murderer is killed in some way shape or form, and then it's all forgotten, until another mass-murderer decides he wants to play with the minds of some innocent Americans.
Notice that we don't have any (or at least, we don't have many) mass murderers in the UK. That may be for several reasons, but I like to believe it's because people konw they will not be killed, but suffer a worse fate in some of the baddest prisons in Britain. In the USA, that isn't a worry most of the time. Bang, you're dead, no nasty 20/30/40+ years in prison.
Or maybe the UK just isn't full of psycho's.
Nevertheless, I don't think an murderer deserves any sort of constructive rehab on jail, since if they've killed one or many people, they're probably beyond help. But I think the death penalty is inhuman, unproductive, maybe cheap, but all in all, pointless.
Notice that we don't have any (or at least, we don't have many) mass murderers in the UK. That may be for several reasons, but I like to believe it's because people konw they will not be killed, but suffer a worse fate in some of the baddest prisons in Britain. In the USA, that isn't a worry most of the time. Bang, you're dead, no nasty 20/30/40+ years in prison.
Or maybe the UK just isn't full of psycho's.
Nevertheless, I don't think an murderer deserves any sort of constructive rehab on jail, since if they've killed one or many people, they're probably beyond help. But I think the death penalty is inhuman, unproductive, maybe cheap, but all in all, pointless.
RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Hmm. Isn't George Bush a Christian?
If I remeber my Hicks correctly (its been a while) hes a fundementalist Christian (every word is the Gods honest truth)
Dr Duck wrote:
> In a way a bit like the dope head who argues growing the stuff should
> be legalised because you can use byproducts to make hemp. Like it's
> why he wants it legalised.
If anyone is using that as a reason to legalise, then he shouldnt be allowed to smoke! (I'll bet hes the type of guy who sniggers when people in front of him in the petrol station cue buy King Size Rizzla?)
> However, most of the good anti-death penatly arguments had been made
> already, i just wanted to air another side to the argument.
You have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no good pro-death penalty argument :)
Belldandy wrote:
> Yep, Christian, but as you point out he can't impose his wishes on the
> country - it's not Iraq you know.....
Now theres a country Bush can impose his wishes on!
> Hmm. Isn't George Bush a Christian?
If I remeber my Hicks correctly (its been a while) hes a fundementalist Christian (every word is the Gods honest truth)
Dr Duck wrote:
> In a way a bit like the dope head who argues growing the stuff should
> be legalised because you can use byproducts to make hemp. Like it's
> why he wants it legalised.
If anyone is using that as a reason to legalise, then he shouldnt be allowed to smoke! (I'll bet hes the type of guy who sniggers when people in front of him in the petrol station cue buy King Size Rizzla?)
> However, most of the good anti-death penatly arguments had been made
> already, i just wanted to air another side to the argument.
You have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no good pro-death penalty argument :)
Belldandy wrote:
> Yep, Christian, but as you point out he can't impose his wishes on the
> country - it's not Iraq you know.....
Now theres a country Bush can impose his wishes on!
pb wrote:
> Very true, wouldn't be a democracy otherwise, the state votes either
> against or in favour, but what may happen here is that the White House
> overthrows the state, so why have that vote in the first place?
Ah, but in situations like this you'll find that the White House will take the decision solely on legal advice from the AG and his staff. The President cannot decide by his self, and the decision cannot breach the constitution. If the state that finally tries them has the death penalty then thats that.
Oh by the way Fuzzy, the reason we don't have so many mass murderers in the UK is down to the fact that we're a hell of lot smaller country... if we had the same number as America then we'd be in deep trouble. Also, it's pretty clear that the mass murderer's here - like Shipman, the West's, Hindley e.t.c. killed in more subtle ways than daylight shootings, less noticeable. In addition, our approach to major crimes, in most cases, is slow, there's a gradual gearing up from local, county, then national forces, rather than quick leaps from level to level. These two guys were caught by a trucker telephoning information in - we don't have that kind of thing till later on in a case, when it's often to late.
~~Belldandy~~
> Very true, wouldn't be a democracy otherwise, the state votes either
> against or in favour, but what may happen here is that the White House
> overthrows the state, so why have that vote in the first place?
Ah, but in situations like this you'll find that the White House will take the decision solely on legal advice from the AG and his staff. The President cannot decide by his self, and the decision cannot breach the constitution. If the state that finally tries them has the death penalty then thats that.
Oh by the way Fuzzy, the reason we don't have so many mass murderers in the UK is down to the fact that we're a hell of lot smaller country... if we had the same number as America then we'd be in deep trouble. Also, it's pretty clear that the mass murderer's here - like Shipman, the West's, Hindley e.t.c. killed in more subtle ways than daylight shootings, less noticeable. In addition, our approach to major crimes, in most cases, is slow, there's a gradual gearing up from local, county, then national forces, rather than quick leaps from level to level. These two guys were caught by a trucker telephoning information in - we don't have that kind of thing till later on in a case, when it's often to late.
~~Belldandy~~
Page: