The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I feel that perhaps my near obsession with annoying the bullying Bell to the point of his behaving like a human being may have perhaps driven you away from me somewhat. This of course worries me, because I want to feel as if we're one big happy family, and so I've had a good hard think about what I could discuss to perhaps win you back over. And then it came to me in a blinding flash; what better to reduce you to a helpless state of belly laughter than a rant about the death penalty!
My mind was been set thinking along this well trodden path by rereading some old articles concerning Timothy McVeigh a.k.a. the Oklahoma Bomber. As you may be aware, he is scheduled was executed for the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma (being known as the Oklahoma bomber may have given that away to you...) which caused the death of 168 people. Actually, as a side issue, do you remember that incident? Most of America (and the world if we're honest) put the incident down to one of the many extremist groups based in the Middle East. The palpable waves of shock throughout the USA at the discovery that it was an American who looked just like everybody else who had planted the bomb would have been rather amusing were it not for the depth of the xenophobia that it revealed. But that is something for another time...
It was the first federal execution in America for something like 30 years (federal law is sort of like national law whereas state law varies from state to state; several people have been executed under state law, especially in Texas which it may not surprise you to learn had Dubya running it prior to his election as President...) and it has caused something of a stir for a number of reasons. The old debate of "Is this murder sanctioned by the law?" was kicked off in earnest, the possibility of televising the execution itself had also been much discussed and rejected (although it was to be shown over closed circuit TV to the families of his victims; anyone care to take bets as to how long it will take for this footage to debut on the Internet?). We have also, and for me and anyone else who despises abuses of power by government bodies, most satisfyingly had the shortcomings of the FBI quite graphically demonstrated as their failure to disclose thousands of (admittedly non-vital) documents delayed the execution and caused much distress to all concerned.
What interests me in the main is the validity of the death penalty itself. It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I am very much in favour of the death penalty. Despite my liberal leanings, I think that in certain circumstances, it is fully justified. And the key phrase there is "in certain circumstances"; these circumstances do need further explanation and definition.
In what circumstances can we justify depriving another human being of their life? Whilst it is tempting to say that we could do so for such things as "Being French in a built up area", "Phoning a computer support line without having a clue how a computer works", and "Being cancerously stupid". However, as this is a reasonably important subject, I shall approach with something resembling the gravity that it deserves.
Firstly we start with the biggie: Murder. Can we justify the old adage "A life for a life"? I would say that we couldn’t. Man is judged by his fellow man (if you want to get all biblical about it) and man's judgment can be flawed when looking at the evidence available. There are many cases of people being executed for crimes that they did not commit, and I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Nor would I do so for the crime of Rape which, utterly degrading and horrific though it certainly is, has the same potential for miscarriages of justice (if not more so) than murder. As to the current crime that is still punishable by death (treason), this is hopelessly outdated in concept and needs radical overhaul if it is to have any relevance.
Now it may appear that I am going back on what I said earlier in that I have dismissed the main crimes that tend to inspire calls for the return of the death penalty. Well, yes I am dismissing them because most of the appeals for its return on these grounds are formed on the basis of retribution and deterrence. As a deterrent, the death penalty does not work, and I would say that the fact that America continues to have a horrendously high murder rate goes some way to proving that. As a means of retribution...well, I refuse point blank to align myself with the sort of person who bays for the blood of a man condemned. The type of person who *demands* the execution of a criminal (family of the victim excluded) is one step away from lynch mob mentality and as a confirmed humanist, I'd like to think that we all have the potential to evolve away from the darker, reactionary side of our psyche. This sort of attitude (however justified it may be at the time) simply serve to propagate intolerance and hatred.
I personally believe that if there are circumstances that justify the execution of another human being (and I shall detail what I believe they are below) then one should ask for this ultimate sanction with reluctance and with sadness that it is necessary to have a person killed for the good of society. I am paraphrasing Clarence Darrow who expressed this with eloquence that I could only hope to aspire to when he defended the killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb in 1924 when I say this. He gave a speech to this effect when summing up his case for not executing the two young men who had committed the savage and senseless murder of a classmate as an intellectual exercise in committing the perfect crime. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment despite the frenzied and angry demands for the death penalty by the state. In my opinion, this is how it should be.
As to the types of crime that actually should be punishable by death, my earlier opinions concerning paedophiles will perhaps give you a clue as to what they should be. Basically, truly monstrous and repeatedly committed offences should be punishable. And no, I am not saying that we should keep releasing people until they have committed sufficient crimes to justify execution. I am referring to Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, and Child Sex Offenders. This is a class of criminal that is pathologically and irreversibly compelled to kill, rape, and abuse. There is nothing that we can do to help them, and there is nothing that they can contribute to society other than what we can learn from them through studying them in order to ensure that this cannot happen again. Once this process of study is complete, they should be put to sleep quickly, quietly and painlessly. Timothy McVeigh's death became a circus sideshow, and as long as this remains the case concerning execution, we have no right to call ourselves a civilised society.
My mind was been set thinking along this well trodden path by rereading some old articles concerning Timothy McVeigh a.k.a. the Oklahoma Bomber. As you may be aware, he is scheduled was executed for the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma (being known as the Oklahoma bomber may have given that away to you...) which caused the death of 168 people. Actually, as a side issue, do you remember that incident? Most of America (and the world if we're honest) put the incident down to one of the many extremist groups based in the Middle East. The palpable waves of shock throughout the USA at the discovery that it was an American who looked just like everybody else who had planted the bomb would have been rather amusing were it not for the depth of the xenophobia that it revealed. But that is something for another time...
It was the first federal execution in America for something like 30 years (federal law is sort of like national law whereas state law varies from state to state; several people have been executed under state law, especially in Texas which it may not surprise you to learn had Dubya running it prior to his election as President...) and it has caused something of a stir for a number of reasons. The old debate of "Is this murder sanctioned by the law?" was kicked off in earnest, the possibility of televising the execution itself had also been much discussed and rejected (although it was to be shown over closed circuit TV to the families of his victims; anyone care to take bets as to how long it will take for this footage to debut on the Internet?). We have also, and for me and anyone else who despises abuses of power by government bodies, most satisfyingly had the shortcomings of the FBI quite graphically demonstrated as their failure to disclose thousands of (admittedly non-vital) documents delayed the execution and caused much distress to all concerned.
What interests me in the main is the validity of the death penalty itself. It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I am very much in favour of the death penalty. Despite my liberal leanings, I think that in certain circumstances, it is fully justified. And the key phrase there is "in certain circumstances"; these circumstances do need further explanation and definition.
In what circumstances can we justify depriving another human being of their life? Whilst it is tempting to say that we could do so for such things as "Being French in a built up area", "Phoning a computer support line without having a clue how a computer works", and "Being cancerously stupid". However, as this is a reasonably important subject, I shall approach with something resembling the gravity that it deserves.
Firstly we start with the biggie: Murder. Can we justify the old adage "A life for a life"? I would say that we couldn’t. Man is judged by his fellow man (if you want to get all biblical about it) and man's judgment can be flawed when looking at the evidence available. There are many cases of people being executed for crimes that they did not commit, and I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Nor would I do so for the crime of Rape which, utterly degrading and horrific though it certainly is, has the same potential for miscarriages of justice (if not more so) than murder. As to the current crime that is still punishable by death (treason), this is hopelessly outdated in concept and needs radical overhaul if it is to have any relevance.
Now it may appear that I am going back on what I said earlier in that I have dismissed the main crimes that tend to inspire calls for the return of the death penalty. Well, yes I am dismissing them because most of the appeals for its return on these grounds are formed on the basis of retribution and deterrence. As a deterrent, the death penalty does not work, and I would say that the fact that America continues to have a horrendously high murder rate goes some way to proving that. As a means of retribution...well, I refuse point blank to align myself with the sort of person who bays for the blood of a man condemned. The type of person who *demands* the execution of a criminal (family of the victim excluded) is one step away from lynch mob mentality and as a confirmed humanist, I'd like to think that we all have the potential to evolve away from the darker, reactionary side of our psyche. This sort of attitude (however justified it may be at the time) simply serve to propagate intolerance and hatred.
I personally believe that if there are circumstances that justify the execution of another human being (and I shall detail what I believe they are below) then one should ask for this ultimate sanction with reluctance and with sadness that it is necessary to have a person killed for the good of society. I am paraphrasing Clarence Darrow who expressed this with eloquence that I could only hope to aspire to when he defended the killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb in 1924 when I say this. He gave a speech to this effect when summing up his case for not executing the two young men who had committed the savage and senseless murder of a classmate as an intellectual exercise in committing the perfect crime. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment despite the frenzied and angry demands for the death penalty by the state. In my opinion, this is how it should be.
As to the types of crime that actually should be punishable by death, my earlier opinions concerning paedophiles will perhaps give you a clue as to what they should be. Basically, truly monstrous and repeatedly committed offences should be punishable. And no, I am not saying that we should keep releasing people until they have committed sufficient crimes to justify execution. I am referring to Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, and Child Sex Offenders. This is a class of criminal that is pathologically and irreversibly compelled to kill, rape, and abuse. There is nothing that we can do to help them, and there is nothing that they can contribute to society other than what we can learn from them through studying them in order to ensure that this cannot happen again. Once this process of study is complete, they should be put to sleep quickly, quietly and painlessly. Timothy McVeigh's death became a circus sideshow, and as long as this remains the case concerning execution, we have no right to call ourselves a civilised society.
Page:
The problem with actual Life sentences is that there isn't anough money or space to house all the people who would get it.
Put them in an arena with gladiatorial weapons, and let them see each other off. Same result, but huge money making potential. Plus of course, nobody has to feel guilty about administering the lethal injection.
Ancient Rome was civilised, and it was acceptable back then. I suspect we wouldn't get away with it these days though...
Ancient Rome was civilised, and it was acceptable back then. I suspect we wouldn't get away with it these days though...
It strikes me as unreasonable that the British justice system can make you swear on the Bible that you've going to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth when giving evidence, and then take this evidence to form a judgement condemning a person to death when the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
Therefore, the death penalty would make a greater mockery of justice than it already can be from time to time.
I prefer permanent incarceration. (And I mean PERMANENT, no chance of parole, ever). The cost of this could be offset by making life-term prisoners work for a living by addressing envelopes, sewing mailbags, deleting e-mail addresses from spam houses. I.E. all those menial tasks that would free up time for the free workforce to do something more productive.
To encourage them to work, high voltage electric shocks could be applied should they slack off a bit, the voltage determined by the heineousness of their crimes.
This keeps them away from society, prevents them ever from committing such crimes again, and could probably be turned into something profitable with a little thought. And most importantly of all, it allows time for mistakes and miscarriages of justice to come to light, even if it's 20 years on from the date of conviction, which is something that would never arise should the death penalty be re-introduced.
I'm against killing people for whatever reason, (even though my baser instincts are all for it in certain cases).
Therefore, the death penalty would make a greater mockery of justice than it already can be from time to time.
I prefer permanent incarceration. (And I mean PERMANENT, no chance of parole, ever). The cost of this could be offset by making life-term prisoners work for a living by addressing envelopes, sewing mailbags, deleting e-mail addresses from spam houses. I.E. all those menial tasks that would free up time for the free workforce to do something more productive.
To encourage them to work, high voltage electric shocks could be applied should they slack off a bit, the voltage determined by the heineousness of their crimes.
This keeps them away from society, prevents them ever from committing such crimes again, and could probably be turned into something profitable with a little thought. And most importantly of all, it allows time for mistakes and miscarriages of justice to come to light, even if it's 20 years on from the date of conviction, which is something that would never arise should the death penalty be re-introduced.
I'm against killing people for whatever reason, (even though my baser instincts are all for it in certain cases).
Very well put together, and worthy of many return posts. I agree with everything you say, bar the last paragraph, which is, of course, the whole point of the post.
While I don't have time at the moment to go through my hesitation to use the death penalty on serious re-offenders, I will try to produce my defence at a later stage. In the meantime, hopefully this will serve to get the ball rolling.
If a serious re-offender such as a serial killer is to be put to death, would a case where they were judged suitable for the penalty have to be 100% certain of the facts and evidence involved and at what point does this penalty become justified? Also, do you try the killer of this prisoner, as they have themselves committed murder (or manslaughter) even if it is at the request of the court.
While I don't have time at the moment to go through my hesitation to use the death penalty on serious re-offenders, I will try to produce my defence at a later stage. In the meantime, hopefully this will serve to get the ball rolling.
If a serious re-offender such as a serial killer is to be put to death, would a case where they were judged suitable for the penalty have to be 100% certain of the facts and evidence involved and at what point does this penalty become justified? Also, do you try the killer of this prisoner, as they have themselves committed murder (or manslaughter) even if it is at the request of the court.
I feel that perhaps my near obsession with annoying the bullying Bell to the point of his behaving like a human being may have perhaps driven you away from me somewhat. This of course worries me, because I want to feel as if we're one big happy family, and so I've had a good hard think about what I could discuss to perhaps win you back over. And then it came to me in a blinding flash; what better to reduce you to a helpless state of belly laughter than a rant about the death penalty!
My mind was been set thinking along this well trodden path by rereading some old articles concerning Timothy McVeigh a.k.a. the Oklahoma Bomber. As you may be aware, he is scheduled was executed for the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma (being known as the Oklahoma bomber may have given that away to you...) which caused the death of 168 people. Actually, as a side issue, do you remember that incident? Most of America (and the world if we're honest) put the incident down to one of the many extremist groups based in the Middle East. The palpable waves of shock throughout the USA at the discovery that it was an American who looked just like everybody else who had planted the bomb would have been rather amusing were it not for the depth of the xenophobia that it revealed. But that is something for another time...
It was the first federal execution in America for something like 30 years (federal law is sort of like national law whereas state law varies from state to state; several people have been executed under state law, especially in Texas which it may not surprise you to learn had Dubya running it prior to his election as President...) and it has caused something of a stir for a number of reasons. The old debate of "Is this murder sanctioned by the law?" was kicked off in earnest, the possibility of televising the execution itself had also been much discussed and rejected (although it was to be shown over closed circuit TV to the families of his victims; anyone care to take bets as to how long it will take for this footage to debut on the Internet?). We have also, and for me and anyone else who despises abuses of power by government bodies, most satisfyingly had the shortcomings of the FBI quite graphically demonstrated as their failure to disclose thousands of (admittedly non-vital) documents delayed the execution and caused much distress to all concerned.
What interests me in the main is the validity of the death penalty itself. It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I am very much in favour of the death penalty. Despite my liberal leanings, I think that in certain circumstances, it is fully justified. And the key phrase there is "in certain circumstances"; these circumstances do need further explanation and definition.
In what circumstances can we justify depriving another human being of their life? Whilst it is tempting to say that we could do so for such things as "Being French in a built up area", "Phoning a computer support line without having a clue how a computer works", and "Being cancerously stupid". However, as this is a reasonably important subject, I shall approach with something resembling the gravity that it deserves.
Firstly we start with the biggie: Murder. Can we justify the old adage "A life for a life"? I would say that we couldn’t. Man is judged by his fellow man (if you want to get all biblical about it) and man's judgment can be flawed when looking at the evidence available. There are many cases of people being executed for crimes that they did not commit, and I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Nor would I do so for the crime of Rape which, utterly degrading and horrific though it certainly is, has the same potential for miscarriages of justice (if not more so) than murder. As to the current crime that is still punishable by death (treason), this is hopelessly outdated in concept and needs radical overhaul if it is to have any relevance.
Now it may appear that I am going back on what I said earlier in that I have dismissed the main crimes that tend to inspire calls for the return of the death penalty. Well, yes I am dismissing them because most of the appeals for its return on these grounds are formed on the basis of retribution and deterrence. As a deterrent, the death penalty does not work, and I would say that the fact that America continues to have a horrendously high murder rate goes some way to proving that. As a means of retribution...well, I refuse point blank to align myself with the sort of person who bays for the blood of a man condemned. The type of person who *demands* the execution of a criminal (family of the victim excluded) is one step away from lynch mob mentality and as a confirmed humanist, I'd like to think that we all have the potential to evolve away from the darker, reactionary side of our psyche. This sort of attitude (however justified it may be at the time) simply serve to propagate intolerance and hatred.
I personally believe that if there are circumstances that justify the execution of another human being (and I shall detail what I believe they are below) then one should ask for this ultimate sanction with reluctance and with sadness that it is necessary to have a person killed for the good of society. I am paraphrasing Clarence Darrow who expressed this with eloquence that I could only hope to aspire to when he defended the killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb in 1924 when I say this. He gave a speech to this effect when summing up his case for not executing the two young men who had committed the savage and senseless murder of a classmate as an intellectual exercise in committing the perfect crime. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment despite the frenzied and angry demands for the death penalty by the state. In my opinion, this is how it should be.
As to the types of crime that actually should be punishable by death, my earlier opinions concerning paedophiles will perhaps give you a clue as to what they should be. Basically, truly monstrous and repeatedly committed offences should be punishable. And no, I am not saying that we should keep releasing people until they have committed sufficient crimes to justify execution. I am referring to Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, and Child Sex Offenders. This is a class of criminal that is pathologically and irreversibly compelled to kill, rape, and abuse. There is nothing that we can do to help them, and there is nothing that they can contribute to society other than what we can learn from them through studying them in order to ensure that this cannot happen again. Once this process of study is complete, they should be put to sleep quickly, quietly and painlessly. Timothy McVeigh's death became a circus sideshow, and as long as this remains the case concerning execution, we have no right to call ourselves a civilised society.
My mind was been set thinking along this well trodden path by rereading some old articles concerning Timothy McVeigh a.k.a. the Oklahoma Bomber. As you may be aware, he is scheduled was executed for the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma (being known as the Oklahoma bomber may have given that away to you...) which caused the death of 168 people. Actually, as a side issue, do you remember that incident? Most of America (and the world if we're honest) put the incident down to one of the many extremist groups based in the Middle East. The palpable waves of shock throughout the USA at the discovery that it was an American who looked just like everybody else who had planted the bomb would have been rather amusing were it not for the depth of the xenophobia that it revealed. But that is something for another time...
It was the first federal execution in America for something like 30 years (federal law is sort of like national law whereas state law varies from state to state; several people have been executed under state law, especially in Texas which it may not surprise you to learn had Dubya running it prior to his election as President...) and it has caused something of a stir for a number of reasons. The old debate of "Is this murder sanctioned by the law?" was kicked off in earnest, the possibility of televising the execution itself had also been much discussed and rejected (although it was to be shown over closed circuit TV to the families of his victims; anyone care to take bets as to how long it will take for this footage to debut on the Internet?). We have also, and for me and anyone else who despises abuses of power by government bodies, most satisfyingly had the shortcomings of the FBI quite graphically demonstrated as their failure to disclose thousands of (admittedly non-vital) documents delayed the execution and caused much distress to all concerned.
What interests me in the main is the validity of the death penalty itself. It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I am very much in favour of the death penalty. Despite my liberal leanings, I think that in certain circumstances, it is fully justified. And the key phrase there is "in certain circumstances"; these circumstances do need further explanation and definition.
In what circumstances can we justify depriving another human being of their life? Whilst it is tempting to say that we could do so for such things as "Being French in a built up area", "Phoning a computer support line without having a clue how a computer works", and "Being cancerously stupid". However, as this is a reasonably important subject, I shall approach with something resembling the gravity that it deserves.
Firstly we start with the biggie: Murder. Can we justify the old adage "A life for a life"? I would say that we couldn’t. Man is judged by his fellow man (if you want to get all biblical about it) and man's judgment can be flawed when looking at the evidence available. There are many cases of people being executed for crimes that they did not commit, and I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Nor would I do so for the crime of Rape which, utterly degrading and horrific though it certainly is, has the same potential for miscarriages of justice (if not more so) than murder. As to the current crime that is still punishable by death (treason), this is hopelessly outdated in concept and needs radical overhaul if it is to have any relevance.
Now it may appear that I am going back on what I said earlier in that I have dismissed the main crimes that tend to inspire calls for the return of the death penalty. Well, yes I am dismissing them because most of the appeals for its return on these grounds are formed on the basis of retribution and deterrence. As a deterrent, the death penalty does not work, and I would say that the fact that America continues to have a horrendously high murder rate goes some way to proving that. As a means of retribution...well, I refuse point blank to align myself with the sort of person who bays for the blood of a man condemned. The type of person who *demands* the execution of a criminal (family of the victim excluded) is one step away from lynch mob mentality and as a confirmed humanist, I'd like to think that we all have the potential to evolve away from the darker, reactionary side of our psyche. This sort of attitude (however justified it may be at the time) simply serve to propagate intolerance and hatred.
I personally believe that if there are circumstances that justify the execution of another human being (and I shall detail what I believe they are below) then one should ask for this ultimate sanction with reluctance and with sadness that it is necessary to have a person killed for the good of society. I am paraphrasing Clarence Darrow who expressed this with eloquence that I could only hope to aspire to when he defended the killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb in 1924 when I say this. He gave a speech to this effect when summing up his case for not executing the two young men who had committed the savage and senseless murder of a classmate as an intellectual exercise in committing the perfect crime. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment despite the frenzied and angry demands for the death penalty by the state. In my opinion, this is how it should be.
As to the types of crime that actually should be punishable by death, my earlier opinions concerning paedophiles will perhaps give you a clue as to what they should be. Basically, truly monstrous and repeatedly committed offences should be punishable. And no, I am not saying that we should keep releasing people until they have committed sufficient crimes to justify execution. I am referring to Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, and Child Sex Offenders. This is a class of criminal that is pathologically and irreversibly compelled to kill, rape, and abuse. There is nothing that we can do to help them, and there is nothing that they can contribute to society other than what we can learn from them through studying them in order to ensure that this cannot happen again. Once this process of study is complete, they should be put to sleep quickly, quietly and painlessly. Timothy McVeigh's death became a circus sideshow, and as long as this remains the case concerning execution, we have no right to call ourselves a civilised society.
Page: