Printable View
It must be very comforting to walk away from the problem saying 'the state should not kill' as if that adrressed anything but your own moral beliefs. The problem of course does not then go away. The criminals go on to kill others but of course you can wash your hands of any responsibility for that so it's all right then. You can then claim to be "a good man". I for one am not willing to buy my purity with the blood of the innocent.
Yes you are, since you accept execution of innocents as the price for your own piece of mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Sounds like a plan to me - put maybe we should feed all lawyers to the sharks instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Now what have those poor sharks done to deserve that cruel and unusual diet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
20 years, but not 90 days?
When we talk about live donation of organs the donor does have a say in it. I can donate my kidney to whomever I want (for not charge that is), I can do the same with any other organ I have. I just tend to die of such a case. But if I'm going to die anyway I can just as well do it.
I don't know about donorlists in the US, but I would not be surprised if they were seperate from each other and thus it could easily be that the guy's sister belonged to another list than what his liver would be issued to. Definately not going to help her. Besides not everyone can give everyone an organ, siblings normally can...
The sister needs not suffer because of her brother's actions. And in this case the price to pay is low. I don't care about death penalty discussion in this case as it is already settled, but I find the situation silly.
If his sentence was that important why not execute him as soon as he was convicted?
It is funny how the executions are humane, yet the man needs to go to his death knowing that his sister will likely suffer. Quite humane.
Ouch!Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
sharrukin, please see my sig...
Absolutely nothing - however sharks normally just bite and gulp down their prey - so they won't have to taste the oily slim that ouzzes (SP) off of lawyers in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
~:eek:
The innocent will die one way or the other. It is not an easy thing but we do not live in a fantasy world where we can choose one way and all the good people will live happily ever after. The question is should criminals be the ones who are executed for 'the vast majority' of cases or should we stand by and let innocent people be killed while we prattle on about what moral upstanding folks we are by doing nothing!Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
So instead of eliminating one source of Completely Wrongful Death (read, executing innocents), we'll have two. Actual murder and executions for the innocent.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Great idea! Who's being sanctimonious at the expense of other humans lives again?
Hmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, "doing nothing" holds the moral high-ground over "executing innocent people so I'll feel safer" every day of the week and twice on Sundays...
You yourself admit that if Life w/o Parole worked, it'd be as effective as executing the guilty for the purposes of preventing recidivism.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Yet you're not advocating changing the Parole laws, you're advocating executing the guilty, along with whatever innocents happen to get railroaded in our far from perfect justice system.
Brilliant. And least you didn't take the disgusting and false moral highground.
:dizzy2:
If it worked, then yes it would do that. The problem is that many who are against the death penalty are also against longer prison sentences and enthralled with the idea of rehabilitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Why will you not accept any responsibility for the failure of the justice system to protect the average citizen? That is why it exists in the first place. You say that I would be responsible for the death of innocent people because the system of justice is not perfect and a few will be executed regardless of how careful we are. Well I accept that but say that we need to go ahead anyway because to not do something leaves far more innocents dead. Not a great choice but there it is. You seem to think that the death of those people just isn't your problem because you didn't pull the trigger. I would go for your 'life without parole' if you could point to anywhere on the planet Earth where it actually happens that way!Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Why is facing reality such a big shocker? The world is not a simple place and we do not get to select our choices like we would at a supermarket! And I will leave the moral highground. to those more interested in themselves and the 'oh, so delicate moral decisions they must make'. When you deal with killers, rapists and child molesters you are not dealing with decent people. You let them out onto the street and the result will be misery and heartache and I think we must accept responsibility for that just as much as we do for executions! So no, I will not be 'pure in thought and deed' but at least on my watch there will be fewer innocents in the morgue than there is now!Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Who care is we kill a few innocents ? I just hope never to become one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
They almost killed a "girl" in Indonesia by firing squad, because someone may have put drugs in her luggage, while in the Airport Baggage Handling.
If someone places a bomb in my luggage, while I was distracted or by baggage handlers, I would be deemed a "Terrorist" until proven innocent.
Sorry, killing people is wrong and innocents especially, just for some ideal.
Are Sharks cannibals ? ... i.e. eat their own. Yes ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
What murders, rapists and child molesters do when they get out has nothing to with an ideal. But I guess that isn't your problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
One must ask themselves how many murders are truely repeat offenders - its my belief that while some individuals are beyond reform and should be put to death when their crimes are discovered and adequately proven beyond a doubt that they committed the horrendous deed.
Its my belief that the majority of individuals that have committed murder - did the criminal act in a fit of rage or passion - ie hot blooded murder. And while they should pay for their crime - death is not necessary the answer.
Before society puts a man to death because of his actions - society must first prove beyond a doubt that the individual committed a heinous (SP) act.
If in doubt about the guilt of the individual - they must be set free or given a lighter sentence.
However when you catch them red-handed in their actions - its a lot easier to prove their guilt.
It is my problem. Each has a psychological reason or defect as to why they did it. They are by this definition "mentally disabled". They need treatment, be it drugs, rehabilitation, etc. They pay back what damage they have done. i.e. the victims and society is compensated, by them working it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
A life sentence should be that for murderers. Permanent Sterilisation may be required for repeat sex-offenders.
Some enlightened countries have stopped killing people many years ago and they haven't become lawless.
When a woman is raped or a child, how exactly do you compensate them for what was taken from them? How exactly does a criminal work that off? The answer is that you cannot! Executing the individual who perpetrated the crime will do nothing to change what happened to them, but it will certainly prevent them from ever doing it again to someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
Some enlightened countries were not lawless before they stopped killing people!
True that crime is horrendous, but taking a still life is worse. Society determines what is an appropriate punishment (and in some unenlightened countries (Indonesia for one), that includes the "Death Penalty"). You can not pay anything back.
What I advocate is all criminals pay for their imprisonment term, either while they are in prison (by producing goods) at a rate that equals their costs. I estimate $30,000 per year, plus that again to personal victims and their families.
You simply will not accept responsibility!Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
You simply will not accept responsibility for the criminal justice system.
You will not accept responsibility for what criminals do when released from prison.
Those who are willing to accept such responsibility cannot walk away so easily
It seems that the victims of murder and rape are the invisible people in your worldview.
I am not responsible. I do vote for representatives to Government, who do take responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
There are other's more worthy than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
In a "representative" government, I have no control over the actions of my representative, accept to vote them off at the next election.
Why should I. Are they answerable to me ? I am not above the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
I support "strong" law and order parties. I just don't accept the death penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Never. These are very serious victims and should be looked after, by proper victim support systems. I support the "Victim Support Service" here in New Zealand, by donations.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
As a matter of professional courtesy sharks don't eat lawyers. ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
It appears the woman will not be getting the liver because the doctors advised she would be better off with a full liver, or at least thats what I heard on the news.
Just FYI re: the title of the thread: a proponent is someone who supports something; I think you meant opponents.
~:cheers:
i think she was trying to be ironic or sarcastic.. or maybe some other -ic i don't know about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
And suddenly you talk about all kinds of crimes, instead of murder. ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Yes, no cases of a released murderer killing again in Sweden. Cannot say if they've been arrested for other crimes.
Still waiting for the stastistics...
Just want to add that it is the same for Denmark and Norway as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Combined we might not have a lot of population (merely 19 million or so), but it does prove that the vast majority of OUR murderers (can't talk on behalf of anyone else really) become less deadly.
And a pre-emptive strike here, some murderes have been in prison before they were thrown in for their murder, just not murder.
Thank you. Thought this made it obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
Quote:
Way to go, Awesomica!
Well, we're just gonna go in circles from here.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
You: We're actually saving lives!
Me: We're admitedly killing innocents to do so.
You: But look at the big picture!
Me: Why not let the murderers kill the innocents instead?
You: More people will die that way!
Agree to disagree, I guess.
I do not speak Swedish so my sources for what goes on in that country are rather limited. What I suspect is that the Swedes simply call murder something else. And considering that the death penalty was abolished in Sweden in 1972 I am not sure what your point is? The conditions you take credit existed before the death penalty ended?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
And the reason I did not bother to answer is that it was obvious that what you were saying was not correct and that the thread has run it's course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In his teens Mijailovic began to exhibit violent tendencies. He had several run-ins with the police over possession of knives and harassment of other young people. In 1997 he was arrested and sent to a youth prison for stabbing his father. Ever since he has been receiving treatment for mental health problems and has consequently fallen foul of the systematic cutbacks that have taken place in Sweden’s public sector since the beginning of the 1990s.
Since 1995 many more people suffering from mental illnesses have found themselves with little or no appropriate care. Several Swedish mental health professionals and charities have pointed to Mijailovic’s case as expressing the failures of the country’s psychiatric services. Leif Silbersky, a leading defence lawyer who has experience of other cases involving mentally ill defendants, told BBC News Online, “It is a fantastic and ridiculous situation we’re in. Anna Lindh has to die so that he [Mijailovic] can get psychiatric treatment. There has to be a debate in Sweden about psychiatric care.”
According to statistics from the National Board of Health and Welfare the number of mentally ill homeless people in Sweden has substantially increased since the 1995 reforms. The proportion of homeless people suffering from mental illness increased from 18 percent in 1993 to 35 percent in 1999, a total of some 3,000 people.
In recent years there have been a number of violent attacks on the public by people with mental health problems, although the mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators. Mental health professionals have pointed out that in many cases attacks by the mentally ill are desperate cries for help from people who have not received appropriate care from the public health system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I don't speak Swedish perhaps you could translate the link below for all of us so we can get the details. It may not be as advertised, so I cannot vouch for it.
Two 17 year old men were sentenced for murder to 4 years
They murdered two girls. They assault them, throw them out into the snow and then looted the girls car.
They were not mentally ill according to the Swedes but then there is a new report out telling us that 90% of murders are mentally ill.
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_7518602.asp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
An 18 year old who murdered the owner of a restaurant in Malmö last autumn has been sentenced to eight years in prison. His accomplice, who was also eighteen, will serve five years for serious assault.
On October 3rd 2004 the owners of the restaurant Wendis in Malmö were closing for the night. Mohamed Saeed Omar and Boonrawd Paernkit had hidden in the toilet and, armed with knives, pepper spray and with covered faces, planned to rob the restaurant.
The female restaurant owner was stabbed to death and her husband, Wendi Ma, was stabbed in his eyes.
Mohamed Saeed Omar was found guilty by Malmö district court of the murder and robbery of the female restaurant owner. He was also convicted for the serious assault of her husband.
His friend, Boonrawd Paernkit, was convicted to five years in prison for seriously assaulting Wendi Ma, but found not guilty of murder. Three other friends of the 18 year olds were convicted of attempted robbery and will be put into social care. They were standing outside the restaurant keeping watch during the crime.
According to Tuesday´s Dagens Nyheter the light sentences were due to the two men's age at the time of the crime. If they had been over 21 years of age they would have been seen as adults in the eyes of the law, which would have meant lifetime imprisonment for the murderer and ten years for his accomplice.
Dagens Nyheter´s Ole Rothenborg, who was at the sentencing, said that the only comment the husband had after hearing the court decision was, "it´s not fair" - suggesting that both of the youths should have been convicted for his wife's murder.
"Mohamed Saeed Omar confessed during the trial that he also kicked the woman´s head so hard when she was lying on the floor that he thought he had killed her - but it was the stabbing which killed her," continued Ole Rothenborg.