The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Death sentence is no good.
Imprisonment is no good.
We need a form of sentencing that incorporates punishment. Certain criminals should be stripped of their human rights, and ritualistically made to suffer for 30-40 years at a time. If it drives them insane, rehabilitate them, and then make them suffer some more.
Death sentence is no good.
Imprisonment is no good.
We need a form of sentencing that incorporates punishment. Certain criminals should be stripped of their human rights, and ritualistically made to suffer for 30-40 years at a time. If it drives them insane, rehabilitate them, and then make them suffer some more.
Yes. I certainly did get told... an answer to a question i asked...
Didn't read the thread at all then?
Didn't read the thread at all then?
got told there dr. duck
Interesting reading. Thanks.
Hey Dr Duck, you wanted proof that the Death Penalty is not an effective crime reduction tool, try here:
http://users.aol.com/mcluf/deathp.htm
http://users.aol.com/mcluf/deathp.htm
Dr Duck wrote:
> And if that prison sentence -is- worse than the death penalty, aren't
> we back to 'two wrongs don't make a right', 'an eye for an eye'?
> Surely if prison is worse, the death penalty is the humane option,
> while keeping the killer in jail would exercise the bloodlust for
> revenge?
To be honest though, killing nad keeping in prison are different things. So it would not be life for life in that sense. It would be 2 wrongs don't make a right, but you simply cannot just let a killer go, and the most people, relatives of victims, would say that death is worse, until they realise how much worse prison is.
> And if that prison sentence -is- worse than the death penalty, aren't
> we back to 'two wrongs don't make a right', 'an eye for an eye'?
> Surely if prison is worse, the death penalty is the humane option,
> while keeping the killer in jail would exercise the bloodlust for
> revenge?
To be honest though, killing nad keeping in prison are different things. So it would not be life for life in that sense. It would be 2 wrongs don't make a right, but you simply cannot just let a killer go, and the most people, relatives of victims, would say that death is worse, until they realise how much worse prison is.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Is the use of the death penalty based on similar reasoning to use of
> force in Iraq?
> It's a way of dealing with a threat to innocent lives by extreme, and
> inevitably in some cases fatal, use of force in circumstances where
> other more peaceful means of resolution simply don't seem viable?
Not the same situation. In the case of criminals we already have numerous agencies well equipped and tasked to carry out law enforcement, and even a mass murderer like Shipman, does not pose a threat to the nation's safety or world peace as a whole, obviously.
Each situation needs to be dealt with differently, you cannot say the same logic applies for different situations - though with the death of around 100 000 Kurds, an estimated 10 000 Iraqi prisoners, 600 Gulf War prisoners and several thousand executions Saddam would probably be legible for the death penalty.....
As for viable...if he won't let inspectors look at all the sites then its not a case of peace not "seeming" viable, it isn't. Idiots in America and over here said it wsn't worth going after Osama in 1999 when US intelligence had him pinned to a square mile area - all it would have taken was a special forces unit and that'd been that. But no....we carried on negotiating quietly with the Taliban for him to be extradited, they must've been laughing their turbans off....
~~Belldandy~~
> Is the use of the death penalty based on similar reasoning to use of
> force in Iraq?
> It's a way of dealing with a threat to innocent lives by extreme, and
> inevitably in some cases fatal, use of force in circumstances where
> other more peaceful means of resolution simply don't seem viable?
Not the same situation. In the case of criminals we already have numerous agencies well equipped and tasked to carry out law enforcement, and even a mass murderer like Shipman, does not pose a threat to the nation's safety or world peace as a whole, obviously.
Each situation needs to be dealt with differently, you cannot say the same logic applies for different situations - though with the death of around 100 000 Kurds, an estimated 10 000 Iraqi prisoners, 600 Gulf War prisoners and several thousand executions Saddam would probably be legible for the death penalty.....
As for viable...if he won't let inspectors look at all the sites then its not a case of peace not "seeming" viable, it isn't. Idiots in America and over here said it wsn't worth going after Osama in 1999 when US intelligence had him pinned to a square mile area - all it would have taken was a special forces unit and that'd been that. But no....we carried on negotiating quietly with the Taliban for him to be extradited, they must've been laughing their turbans off....
~~Belldandy~~
Mr. Happy wrote:
> I've said it before, and I am going to say it again, a
> potential criminal does not think of the ultimate repracussions of his
> act, he thinks, at best, of the likelihood of being caught.
I think this depends entirely on the crime in question. With more impulsive acts such as manslaughter or GBH, I would agree. For premeditated crimes such as fraud, grand theft auto, or even perhaops petty theft, I would disagree. If you stood the possibility of a death penatly for stealing a spark plug, the risk would be toally unjustifiable. For smaller crimes, the criminal often knows exaclty where they stand, and what can or cannot be done to them. Consequently, they realise that the risk isn't really that great.
> I've said it before, and I am going to say it again, a
> potential criminal does not think of the ultimate repracussions of his
> act, he thinks, at best, of the likelihood of being caught.
I think this depends entirely on the crime in question. With more impulsive acts such as manslaughter or GBH, I would agree. For premeditated crimes such as fraud, grand theft auto, or even perhaops petty theft, I would disagree. If you stood the possibility of a death penatly for stealing a spark plug, the risk would be toally unjustifiable. For smaller crimes, the criminal often knows exaclty where they stand, and what can or cannot be done to them. Consequently, they realise that the risk isn't really that great.
Belldandy wrote:
> You cannot say anyone's life will be worthless, no matter what they've
> done. Sure, rehabilitation might not work, and nor should some people
> be released for a very long time, but when a society starts deeming
> some people's lives 'worthless' then it's time to get worried.
But some people (see Fuzzy's posts) would regard life imprisonment to be a worse punishment than death. In a way, this suggests to me that a lifetime spent in prison is, in the eyes of people of such opinion, worthless.
> The argument that by killing someone, a person surrenders there right
> not to be killed. Isn't this a bit weird...
I don't know. I've seen a lot of political philosophers claim that people don't have the right to give up their rights. Pesonally, i'm not sure i agree, and i'm yet to see any of them make a really strong argument to back up their belief.
Example: Euthenasia - if someone is in horrific pain, pain that will only end on death, should they be allowed to give up their right to life and commit suicide (or have someone else kill them).
Yes, it's an extreme example, and you could question whether it's really analagous. But i think it is, and i think it shows that in some circumstances whether you agree they should be able to die or not, you have to acknowledge a strong case for allowing individuals to give up their rights.
> When a person kills someone often it is because
> something in them isn't whats considered to be normal, so if society
> were to then allow these abnormal people to be killed then what does
> that imply ?
When someone's beliefs aren't considered 'normal' in the eyes of society, i'm not sure it's right to try to brainwash them into following our own beliefs. Then again, it is probably better than killing them completely, but that's only a small part of the argument.
> Eye for an eye is great, it sates the need many have for revenge, but
> ultimately it's pointless as, even were there to be a death penalty in
> this country, opinion would soon be divided over who faces it - of
> course the single white/black male who kills a pensioners would get
> little sympathy, but what about a woman who kills her abusive husband
> whilst he sleeps ? Even with the mitigating circumstances it's cold
> blooded murder and she'd fry.....
Sure, it would be difficult to draw the line between when to impose the penalty and when not to, but this wopuldn't exactly be the first time two extremes have been balanced. Our very own government is balanced between left and right wing ideologies. Deciding when to imprison for murder is balanced between the act of killing and any 'mitigating circumstances' (ie, self defence). There's so often a need to chose between confilicting ideas, but it is possible to find an acceptable balance instead of chosing one extreme or the other.
> Incidentally, what do you death penalty people want ?
I don't consider myself to be one of the 'death penalty people' - i'll explain at the end of the post...
--------------------- ------------------------
Mr. Happy wrote:
> The death penalty assumes that the ultimate aim of the judicial
> process is retribution, which it is not. Yes, killing someone does
> provide you with the ultimate form of revenge, but it does nothing to
> tackle crime.
It stops them offending again, and in a cold but resource-efficient way.
> I've said it before, and I am going to say it again, a
> potential criminal does not think of the ultimate repracussions of his
> act, he thinks, at best, of the likelihood of being caught.
Fair point, may well be true.
> Well why does the death penalty not reduce crime rates where it is
> enforced?
Not sure where you get your stats to back this up, but i'd be very interested to see them.
> Killing somebody for any reason is
> wrong. I don't care if you think someone forfeits their right to live
> by killing, because they don't...
Ie, you disagree with the point. But that's all it is, a difference of belief (not necessarily with my beliefs - see bottom of post). I'd love to hear you explain the reasoning behind your opinion further though. I mean that, i'm uncertain here, and i'd love to hear a strong defence of the opinion.
> Is it any wonder that from the most disadvantaged social groups come
> the highest percentage of death-row inmates? Killing them doesn't
> solve anything. It just isolates them and their communities and so the
> problem continues.
A very good point.
------------------------ ----------------------
Fuzzy wrote:
> I feel that the death penalty is aimless. Why? It does nothing to
> deter a murderer, as Mr Happy said. They are beyond caring about
> consequences when they kill, for to kill, you really must be mad in
> some form, mentally or physically.
[See what i put in response to Mr Happy's post for my views on this]
> And the death penalty. You kill someone, you get killed. Eye for an
> eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life. Alternatively, you could
> argue 2 wrongs don't make a right.
> But imagine the pain and suffering a
> murderer will go through if they go into the worst jail in Britain for
> twenty years. I know what I'd pick if I had to choose.
And if that prison sentence -is- worse than the death penalty, aren't we back to 'two wrongs don't make a right', 'an eye for an eye'?
Surely if prison is worse, the death penalty is the humane option, while keeping the killer in jail would exercise the bloodlust for revenge?
----------------- ---------------------
I'd like to restate that i'm actually not pro death penalty myself. Personally, i'm undecided but at present would come down on the anti death penalty side of the fence.
However, i can see both arguments, and instead of repeating other peoples' arguments against the death penalty, i only saw a point in offering arguments from the other side of opinion.
Thus i supose i'm really just trying to show people that maybe there are viable arguments in favour of the death penalty as well as against it, and even if we don't agree we can at least try to understand where they're coming from.
And at risk of opening a whole new can of worms (though if anyone does feel the need to go into the issue as a seperate discussion, how about making a fresh topic for it?):
Is the use of the death penalty based on similar reasoning to use of force in Iraq?
It's a way of dealing with a threat to innocent lives by extreme, and inevitably in some cases fatal, use of force in circumstances where other more peaceful means of resolution simply don't seem viable?
Quite enough typing for tonight :^)
DD
> You cannot say anyone's life will be worthless, no matter what they've
> done. Sure, rehabilitation might not work, and nor should some people
> be released for a very long time, but when a society starts deeming
> some people's lives 'worthless' then it's time to get worried.
But some people (see Fuzzy's posts) would regard life imprisonment to be a worse punishment than death. In a way, this suggests to me that a lifetime spent in prison is, in the eyes of people of such opinion, worthless.
> The argument that by killing someone, a person surrenders there right
> not to be killed. Isn't this a bit weird...
I don't know. I've seen a lot of political philosophers claim that people don't have the right to give up their rights. Pesonally, i'm not sure i agree, and i'm yet to see any of them make a really strong argument to back up their belief.
Example: Euthenasia - if someone is in horrific pain, pain that will only end on death, should they be allowed to give up their right to life and commit suicide (or have someone else kill them).
Yes, it's an extreme example, and you could question whether it's really analagous. But i think it is, and i think it shows that in some circumstances whether you agree they should be able to die or not, you have to acknowledge a strong case for allowing individuals to give up their rights.
> When a person kills someone often it is because
> something in them isn't whats considered to be normal, so if society
> were to then allow these abnormal people to be killed then what does
> that imply ?
When someone's beliefs aren't considered 'normal' in the eyes of society, i'm not sure it's right to try to brainwash them into following our own beliefs. Then again, it is probably better than killing them completely, but that's only a small part of the argument.
> Eye for an eye is great, it sates the need many have for revenge, but
> ultimately it's pointless as, even were there to be a death penalty in
> this country, opinion would soon be divided over who faces it - of
> course the single white/black male who kills a pensioners would get
> little sympathy, but what about a woman who kills her abusive husband
> whilst he sleeps ? Even with the mitigating circumstances it's cold
> blooded murder and she'd fry.....
Sure, it would be difficult to draw the line between when to impose the penalty and when not to, but this wopuldn't exactly be the first time two extremes have been balanced. Our very own government is balanced between left and right wing ideologies. Deciding when to imprison for murder is balanced between the act of killing and any 'mitigating circumstances' (ie, self defence). There's so often a need to chose between confilicting ideas, but it is possible to find an acceptable balance instead of chosing one extreme or the other.
> Incidentally, what do you death penalty people want ?
I don't consider myself to be one of the 'death penalty people' - i'll explain at the end of the post...
--------------------- ------------------------
Mr. Happy wrote:
> The death penalty assumes that the ultimate aim of the judicial
> process is retribution, which it is not. Yes, killing someone does
> provide you with the ultimate form of revenge, but it does nothing to
> tackle crime.
It stops them offending again, and in a cold but resource-efficient way.
> I've said it before, and I am going to say it again, a
> potential criminal does not think of the ultimate repracussions of his
> act, he thinks, at best, of the likelihood of being caught.
Fair point, may well be true.
> Well why does the death penalty not reduce crime rates where it is
> enforced?
Not sure where you get your stats to back this up, but i'd be very interested to see them.
> Killing somebody for any reason is
> wrong. I don't care if you think someone forfeits their right to live
> by killing, because they don't...
Ie, you disagree with the point. But that's all it is, a difference of belief (not necessarily with my beliefs - see bottom of post). I'd love to hear you explain the reasoning behind your opinion further though. I mean that, i'm uncertain here, and i'd love to hear a strong defence of the opinion.
> Is it any wonder that from the most disadvantaged social groups come
> the highest percentage of death-row inmates? Killing them doesn't
> solve anything. It just isolates them and their communities and so the
> problem continues.
A very good point.
------------------------ ----------------------
Fuzzy wrote:
> I feel that the death penalty is aimless. Why? It does nothing to
> deter a murderer, as Mr Happy said. They are beyond caring about
> consequences when they kill, for to kill, you really must be mad in
> some form, mentally or physically.
[See what i put in response to Mr Happy's post for my views on this]
> And the death penalty. You kill someone, you get killed. Eye for an
> eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life. Alternatively, you could
> argue 2 wrongs don't make a right.
> But imagine the pain and suffering a
> murderer will go through if they go into the worst jail in Britain for
> twenty years. I know what I'd pick if I had to choose.
And if that prison sentence -is- worse than the death penalty, aren't we back to 'two wrongs don't make a right', 'an eye for an eye'?
Surely if prison is worse, the death penalty is the humane option, while keeping the killer in jail would exercise the bloodlust for revenge?
----------------- ---------------------
I'd like to restate that i'm actually not pro death penalty myself. Personally, i'm undecided but at present would come down on the anti death penalty side of the fence.
However, i can see both arguments, and instead of repeating other peoples' arguments against the death penalty, i only saw a point in offering arguments from the other side of opinion.
Thus i supose i'm really just trying to show people that maybe there are viable arguments in favour of the death penalty as well as against it, and even if we don't agree we can at least try to understand where they're coming from.
And at risk of opening a whole new can of worms (though if anyone does feel the need to go into the issue as a seperate discussion, how about making a fresh topic for it?):
Is the use of the death penalty based on similar reasoning to use of force in Iraq?
It's a way of dealing with a threat to innocent lives by extreme, and inevitably in some cases fatal, use of force in circumstances where other more peaceful means of resolution simply don't seem viable?
Quite enough typing for tonight :^)
DD
I feel that the death penalty is aimless. Why? It does nothing to deter a murderer, as Mr Happy said. They are beyond caring about consequences when they kill, for to kill, you really must be mad in some form, mentally or physically.
And the death penalty. You kill someone, you get killed. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life. Alternatively, you could argue 2 wrongs don't make a right. And personally, what is killing a killer going to do. As Mr Happy, and most others, have said is that it will give short term revenge. But imagine the pain and suffering a murderer will go through if they go into the worst jail in Britain for twenty years. I know what I'd pick if I had to choose.
A comparison can be made to the question : 'Would you rather live an hour of happiness or a lifetime of depression?' I know what I'd pick, and this follows onto another quote, James Bond I believe, but nevertheless still appropriate : 'Life's not living if you don't feel alive', therefore being depressed for a lifetime is nothing on infinitely for an hour, and in inverse, being severly physically and mentally unhappy for an lifetime is so much more vengeful and some would argue, effective in preventing crime, then being in pain for 5 minutes, or being shot (immediate kill, almost no pain)
(I may have gone off topic with the quotes by the way, but I feel they make my point better included. Say if you diasgree, for..erm..future reference)
And the death penalty. You kill someone, you get killed. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life. Alternatively, you could argue 2 wrongs don't make a right. And personally, what is killing a killer going to do. As Mr Happy, and most others, have said is that it will give short term revenge. But imagine the pain and suffering a murderer will go through if they go into the worst jail in Britain for twenty years. I know what I'd pick if I had to choose.
A comparison can be made to the question : 'Would you rather live an hour of happiness or a lifetime of depression?' I know what I'd pick, and this follows onto another quote, James Bond I believe, but nevertheless still appropriate : 'Life's not living if you don't feel alive', therefore being depressed for a lifetime is nothing on infinitely for an hour, and in inverse, being severly physically and mentally unhappy for an lifetime is so much more vengeful and some would argue, effective in preventing crime, then being in pain for 5 minutes, or being shot (immediate kill, almost no pain)
(I may have gone off topic with the quotes by the way, but I feel they make my point better included. Say if you diasgree, for..erm..future reference)
Page: