We are such proponents of a culture of life that...

**sharrukin** · 05-23-2005, 23:35

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Bad things are happening to the murderer.

Then why wish evil on someone simply because they are not willing to forgive and forget? She had someone close to her murdered and does not want good things to happen to him. That she should be angry and bitter at this is hardly a surprise. She at least made the point that she had no ill will towards the man's sister even if she is not willing to delay justice on her behalf.

**kiwitt** · 05-24-2005, 00:11

"Forgivenness" is not needed in a country where "revenge" is more important, i.e. the legalisation of the "Death Penalty". I am not surprised by the attitude shown here.

BTW: I do not support the death penalty. The State "killing" people may only justify in small-minded people that "killing" is OK, when someone does something wrong. If the government can do it why shouldn't I.

**sharrukin** · 05-24-2005, 01:38

Originally Posted by kiwitt

"Forgivenness" is not needed in a country where "revenge" is more important, i.e. the legalisation of the "Death Penalty". I am not surprised by the attitude shown here.

BTW: I do not support the death penalty. The State "killing" people may only justify in small-minded people that "killing" is OK, when someone does something wrong. If the government can do it why shouldn't I.

You shouldn't kill because the state takes away the right of vengeance and promises to enforce justice in it's place.

The state must kill either way! By failing in it's duty to protect citizens or by executing those who deserve to die. The state, by letting murderers, rapists and child molesters walk free is just as responsible for what it fails to do (stop criminals) as it is for what it does do (executions). The Death Penalty prevents any further killing on the part of the one executed and that is enough for me. If it should deter others then that's just an added bonus, but not really the point.

And no forgiveness is not yet mandated in most nations, nor should it be. The offender is the one who should ask for forgiveness and it can always be withheld.

**kiwitt** · 05-24-2005, 02:09

Don't kill them just put them away.

If it costs too much, make them pay for their accomodation, out of their assets ceased. i.e. if he has 20 years to serve he has to pay back $600,000 dollars. ($30,000 for each year served). If he has no money, make him work it off in Prison and then after while on parole and thereafter.

We probably should do this to all criminals. Make them pay for their time served. User Pays . he he :D

**sharrukin** · 05-24-2005, 03:53

Originally Posted by kiwitt

Don't kill them just put them away.

Why not execute them? Why should we spend any more time on them than we must?

Originally Posted by kiwitt

If it costs too much, make them pay for their accomodation, out of their assets ceased. i.e. if he has 20 years to serve he has to pay back $600,000 dollars. ($30,000 for each year served). If he has no money, make him work it off in Prison and then after while on parole and thereafter.

We probably should do this to all criminals. Make them pay for their time served. User Pays . he he :D

And after he kills someone while out on parole or 7 years later? Why not just get rid of him?

**Proletariat** · 05-24-2005, 02:47

Originally Posted by sharrukin

The state, by letting murderers, rapists and child molesters walk free is just as responsible for what it fails to do (stop criminals) as it is for what it does do (executions). The Death Penalty prevents any further killing on the part of the one executed and that is enough for me.

What does the death penalty do to keep criminals from killing that life without chance of parole does?

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-24-2005, 02:53

or maybe we could apply just a little common sense . . .

Just when I thought you were making sense for once

**ichi** · 05-24-2005, 03:21

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Just when I thought you were making sense for once

I got too close to the edge and got scared

ichi

**PanzerJaeger** · 05-24-2005, 03:28

Johnson, 40, was convicted of breaking into Hutslar's Anderson home, beating and stomping on her, then setting a fire to hide his crime. The state has said he admitted to the killing but changed his story after his conviction.

Proletariat this doesnt have anything to do with the culture of life movement. Do I need to explain the difference between an aborted baby and this guy?

I dont really care how the liver thing is dealt with, but he needs to be dead at the end of all this.

**sharrukin** · 05-24-2005, 03:48

Originally Posted by Proletariat

What does the death penalty do to keep criminals from killing that life without chance of parole does?

Well 'life without chance of parole' doesn't put an end to their worthless lives.
And since there is in reality no such thing as life without chance of parole, it in fact prevents them from getting out after twenty years and killing again. The mythical 'life without chance of parole' exists only in arguments against the death penalty and is usually then never heard from again.

**Kanamori** · 05-24-2005, 00:13

"What I am saying is that we should reserve our sympathy for those who were victims of violent crimes not those who commit them."

The sypathy is not for the convict, rather it is for the sister.

"Not sure why they couldn't take his liver now, but if that is not possible then they should put it off until it is and then execute him."

Because, that would kill him, and personally, I would not like the state to execute someone by having contaminated blood or by starving to death without bile, whichever comes first.

The problem I find with his request is that organ donation is given to the top of the list first, not where she is. If he wants to donate his liver, good for him, all the power to him. That's one less spot that his sister has to wait for anyways.