The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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...
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!!!
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: