The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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. 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. Disagree? Well why does the death penalty not reduce crime rates where it is enforced? Because it's far too remote a proposition to enter the thinking of your potential criminal. A far more effective crime deterrent is thus something that will make the potential criminal think he has a very high percentage chance of being caught - a national DNA database for instance - and not the death penalty.
I say that because certain people argue that the Death penalty is a crime deterrent, something that it clearly is not. It is also morally wrong on a fundamental level. 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, and while people think that killings will continue. I think one of the main reasons for killings such as these is a feeling of detachment from society and from the state. Such a feeling is only perpetuated when the state can legally kill and you cannot. These people need to be rehabilitated, not punished. Until a society realises why people become killers, it cannot hope to prevent this happening. In order to rehabilitate you need to bring that person into the community instead of isolating them.
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.
I say that because certain people argue that the Death penalty is a crime deterrent, something that it clearly is not. It is also morally wrong on a fundamental level. 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, and while people think that killings will continue. I think one of the main reasons for killings such as these is a feeling of detachment from society and from the state. Such a feeling is only perpetuated when the state can legally kill and you cannot. These people need to be rehabilitated, not punished. Until a society realises why people become killers, it cannot hope to prevent this happening. In order to rehabilitate you need to bring that person into the community instead of isolating them.
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.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Because life imprisonment is a huge drain on government resources,
> particularly if you are of the opinion that their life will be
> worthless in jail anyway, consider rehabilitation not to be an option
> because of the genuine risk to -innocent- citizens, and follow the eye
> for an eye argument.
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.
The argument that by killing someone, a person surrenders there right not to be killed. Isn't this a bit weird, the old "eye for an eye" reasoning ? 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 ?
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.....
Incidentally, what do you death penalty people want ? Hanging, electric chair, lethal injection, or gas ? Maybe firing squads should be made up eh ? And how does ending someone's life make anything any better, and just where do we stop what we call murder ? You see, I accept that in the past there have been people, in Ireland, Africa and elsewhere that, for various reasons, our government have decided that the world would be much better off without, and these people have died.
I can understand why, but it doesn't mean I like it. No one should have to die, but they do. Enough people die without us adding to it unecessarily.
~~Belldandy~~
> Because life imprisonment is a huge drain on government resources,
> particularly if you are of the opinion that their life will be
> worthless in jail anyway, consider rehabilitation not to be an option
> because of the genuine risk to -innocent- citizens, and follow the eye
> for an eye argument.
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.
The argument that by killing someone, a person surrenders there right not to be killed. Isn't this a bit weird, the old "eye for an eye" reasoning ? 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 ?
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.....
Incidentally, what do you death penalty people want ? Hanging, electric chair, lethal injection, or gas ? Maybe firing squads should be made up eh ? And how does ending someone's life make anything any better, and just where do we stop what we call murder ? You see, I accept that in the past there have been people, in Ireland, Africa and elsewhere that, for various reasons, our government have decided that the world would be much better off without, and these people have died.
I can understand why, but it doesn't mean I like it. No one should have to die, but they do. Enough people die without us adding to it unecessarily.
~~Belldandy~~
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> You have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no good
> pro-death penalty argument :)
Because life imprisonment is a huge drain on government resources, particularly if you are of the opinion that their life will be worthless in jail anyway, consider rehabilitation not to be an option because of the genuine risk to -innocent- citizens, and follow the eye for an eye argument.
But hey, that's no good pro-death penalty argument because you disagree with it, right? Big man?
It'd have been quite dumb for me to spout about people offering reasoning they don't believe in just because it gets to an end result they like, then to do exactly the same thing myself, so i kept it to stuff that i considered pursuasive.
How about if i actually try to spell out what i was putting in my first post a little more clearly for you:
Reason for not giving death penalty (maybe not -your- reason, if we can try to keep this in mind? Yes?) - It infringes the killer's rights.
Perhaps somebody takes the opinion that an individual should be able to determine what they consider to be their own rights, within the limits of what rights society is prepared to grant.
Person kills someone - a clear statement that they consider that people don't have the right not to be killed.
Thus he rejects his right not to be killed.
Thus killing him doesn't infringe on any of his rights.
Thus to someone adhering to the fundamental assumptions on which the argument is based - that the problem with the death penalty is the infringement on the rights of whoever is to be killed and that people have the right to give up their own rights - the death penalty is okay.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean there's no good argument.
I hope that was clear to you this time.
> You have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no good
> pro-death penalty argument :)
Because life imprisonment is a huge drain on government resources, particularly if you are of the opinion that their life will be worthless in jail anyway, consider rehabilitation not to be an option because of the genuine risk to -innocent- citizens, and follow the eye for an eye argument.
But hey, that's no good pro-death penalty argument because you disagree with it, right? Big man?
It'd have been quite dumb for me to spout about people offering reasoning they don't believe in just because it gets to an end result they like, then to do exactly the same thing myself, so i kept it to stuff that i considered pursuasive.
How about if i actually try to spell out what i was putting in my first post a little more clearly for you:
Reason for not giving death penalty (maybe not -your- reason, if we can try to keep this in mind? Yes?) - It infringes the killer's rights.
Perhaps somebody takes the opinion that an individual should be able to determine what they consider to be their own rights, within the limits of what rights society is prepared to grant.
Person kills someone - a clear statement that they consider that people don't have the right not to be killed.
Thus he rejects his right not to be killed.
Thus killing him doesn't infringe on any of his rights.
Thus to someone adhering to the fundamental assumptions on which the argument is based - that the problem with the death penalty is the infringement on the rights of whoever is to be killed and that people have the right to give up their own rights - the death penalty is okay.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean there's no good argument.
I hope that was clear to you this time.
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~~
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!
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.
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?
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~~
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.
He's getting the dealth penalty whoever likes it or not he killed 10 people for christ sakes.
Page: