How to Kill a Human Being

[73109]

Plus, many say that it is better economically to kill someone. No it isn't. After all the appeals and shit, the average cost to kill someone is about 14 million dollars.

Zook: Yes. I am going to give a shit. What you did was horrible but inflicting pain on you would put me at the same level as that killer.

[Zook]

I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.

[Adami]

I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.

You feel about the child murderer as the child murderer felt about children, you just lack his zeal.

[El Barto]

Ok, say I just slaughtered a bunch of children and laughed the whole time while doing it. I even filmed the whole thing and tortured some of them. Are you seriously going to give two shits whether I feel pain while receiving a lethal injection?

What if he only killed 1?  Or if it was a bunch of adults?  Howzabout instead of torturing them, he read them Proust?  Maybe rather than laughing he recited the Lord's prayer while huffing helium?  As Adami correctly suggested, trying to figure out the severity of an execution based on how we feel about his crime isn't a task we're very well suited to. 

[73109]

I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.

You feel about the child murderer as the child murderer felt about children, you just lack his zeal.

Exactly.

[Chino]

I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.

You feel about the child murderer as the child murderer felt about children, you just lack his zeal.

The child murder is fucked in the head, targeting helpless children and making them and their family suffer. Killing him is not the same. We are eliminating a problem and a threat to society.

Because everyone know matter what their actions deserves respect. If they are being put to death for their crimes against humanity, the least we can do as a "civilized" society is to make sure they don't feel anything when we "rid the world" of their "kind."

Isn't putting them to death the ultimate for direspect to begin with? Why does it matter how we do it?

[El Barto]

Isn't putting them to death the ultimate for direspect to begin with? Why does it matter how we do it?

Well, perhaps, but none of us are supporting the putting them to death part, either.  For the second part, as cliched as it is, I like that maxim that you can judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners.  Personally, I'd prefer to be recognized as one who's merciful, even to those who don't deserve it.  Just a nice quality, IMO. 

[Adami]

I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.

You feel about the child murderer as the child murderer felt about children, you just lack his zeal.

The child murder is fucked in the head, targeting helpless children and making them and their family suffer. Killing him is not the same. We are eliminating a problem and a threat to society.

If they are already in jail, then they are eliminated as a problem and a threat, killing them is no longer necessary.

[ReaPsTA]

If they are already in jail, then they are eliminated as a problem and a threat, killing them is no longer necessary.

Indeed, I'm so glad that Ted Bundy was only put into prison once, and was never ever a problem when he was there.

[Adami]

If they are already in jail, then they are eliminated as a problem and a threat, killing them is no longer necessary.

Indeed, I'm so glad that Ted Bundy was only put into prison once, and was never ever a problem when he was there.

That's a problem with our jail systems. But in that case, why not just execute every single prisoner ever? They may escape, any of them.

[ReaPsTA]

If they are already in jail, then they are eliminated as a problem and a threat, killing them is no longer necessary.

Indeed, I'm so glad that Ted Bundy was only put into prison once, and was never ever a problem when he was there.

That's a problem with our jail systems. But in that case, why not just execute every single prisoner ever? They may escape, any of them.

Two reasons:

 - The cost of most prisoners escaping into society isn't the same as actually killing one of them in a moral sense.

 - The risk of wrongful execution always exists.  In the case of virtually everyone but murderers, the cost of killing someone innocent is too high.

In a sense though, this is more a debate about human life and how/why you value it than anything.  In my opinion, Ted Bundy had the same right to live as... well... nothing.  Even ants build interesting organized civilizations.  Inevitably, you might say that my inability to view Bundy as a human being is the same as him saying his victims 'invited abuse.'  To which I say if you really think brutally murdering dozens of women and dressing pretty are even remotely comparable reasons to dehumanize them, then I'm not sure there's much to talk about.

[Adami]

As I said before, I view justice as removing harm with whatever means necessary. If it's not necessary, it shouldn't be done.

[ReaPsTA]

As I said before, I view justice as removing harm with whatever means necessary. If it's not necessary, it shouldn't be done.

Justice in-and-of itself is a completely subjective thing though.  I don't really find it interesting.  The whole point of the legal system is to reduce the number of murders, right?  So why isn't the death penalty more effective at accomplishing this than life in prison?  You can't escape prison when you're executed.  And at some point the whole "capital punishment doesn't deter" argument makes no sense.  Human beings are evolutionarily wired to avoid death.  So... why is being alive in prison less tolerable than death to the majority of murderers?  Beats me.  I know I don't buy it though.

But I guess what I keep coming back to though is that I really just don't care about these people's right to live.  There's no tragedy to Ted Bundy's death.  So unless executing him would actually lead to a rising of murder rates, why NOT do it?  Why does it matter?

[Adami]

Because he's a human being. I guess we disagree as to what constitutes a human being. You believe you can decide when someone is worthy of death, so do the murderers.

[ReaPsTA]

Because he's a human being. I guess we disagree as to what constitutes a human being. You believe you can decide when someone is worthy of death, so do the murderers.

I already asked this earlier though, how can my motivations to support Ted Bundy's execution and his motivations to murder young women even be possibly compared?  Bundy's actions and the actions of the average college girl are universes apart.

[El Barto]

Your deterrent argument is flawed for a couple of reasons.  Evolution is, by it's very nature, unreliable.  While you and I might be wired to avoid death, there are plenty who aren't.  I grew up with a kid who had absolutely no regard for whether he (or anybody around him) lived or died.  Scariest person I've even known.  Plus, plenty of people who aren't concerned with living or dieing have been to prison and prefer death to confinement.  Last, and perhaps most important,  most people who commit crimes expect to get away with it.  The truth is, it's just not a very good deterrent.  People still kill each other in Texas, Saudi Arabia and China.  People still commit adultery in Iran.  People still smuggle hash out of Turkey. 

[bosk1]

That may all be true, but IMO, you are focusing on the exceptions rather than the "rule," so to speak.

[Adami]

Because he's a human being. I guess we disagree as to what constitutes a human being. You believe you can decide when someone is worthy of death, so do the murderers.

I already asked this earlier though, how can my motivations to support Ted Bundy's execution and his motivations to murder young women even be possibly compared? 

Yes they can be. He had a motivation to see others suffer, those who support him suffering have a motivation to see him suffer, it's just a difference of degree and zeal.

[El Barto]

That may all be true, but IMO, you are focusing on the exceptions rather than the "rule," so to speak.

Indeed, but there are plenty of exceptions.  Put them all together and you find that it's just not an effective deterrent.  Places with high probability of executing murderers don't see any real difference in murder rates. 

[73109]

The child murder is fucked in the head, targeting helpless children and making them and their family suffer. Killing him is not the same. We are eliminating a problem and a threat to society.

Question. If the murder is fucked in the head, wouldn't it be safe to say we should not kill him. I'm going to say some stuff here that may get me into some trouble but I feel as though I need to say it.

I think people that kill/rape children should not be put in jail, nor should they be put to death. Someone who wants to do that stuff is obviously fucked in the first place, and acting on there instincts just as we would a member of the opposite sex. I never understood why throwing someone in jail or killing someone was better than rehabilitation.

[ReaPsTA]

Yes they can be. He had a motivation to see others suffer, those who support him suffering have a motivation to see him suffer, it's just a difference of degree and zeal.

That's about 80% wrong.  It's not about seeing him suffer.  I wouldn't care too much if he suffered, but I wouldn't advocate it and I could never personally do it.  If for some reason I personally had to handle his execution the best I could do would be to hit the button on the electric chair or pull the trigger on a gun.  Relatively quick and to the point.  My top priority is guaranteeing with 100% certainty that he can't kill again.

Your deterrent argument is flawed for a couple of reasons.  Evolution is, by it's very nature, unreliable.  While you and I might be wired to avoid death, there are plenty who aren't.  I grew up with a kid who had absolutely no regard for whether he (or anybody around him) lived or died.  Scariest person I've even known.  Plus, plenty of people who aren't concerned with living or dieing have been to prison and prefer death to confinement.  Last, and perhaps most important,  most people who commit crimes expect to get away with it.  The truth is, it's just not a very good deterrent.  People still kill each other in Texas, Saudi Arabia and China.  People still commit adultery in Iran.  People still smuggle hash out of Turkey.  

I never said the death penalty was a great deterrent or even a good one.  But as much as murderers are universally characterized as thinking they'll get away with it, I'm not sure it's that simple.  Part of the reason so many of them probably think they can get away with it now is because they think they can win in a long appeals battle and avoid the chair with a good defense.  And then you have the guys who are very calculating about it for business or personal reasons.  Chris Simmons used the unlikelyness of getting the death penalty to convince his accomplices.  When you calculate the costs of doing something, you don't just think about the likelihood of punishment, but what happens if the punishment occurs.

I think people that kill/rape children should not be put in jail, nor should they be put to death. Someone who wants to do that stuff is obviously fucked in the first place, and acting on there instincts just as we would a member of the opposite sex. I never understood why throwing someone in jail or killing someone was better than rehabilitation.

Okay then, how do we stop child rapists and murderers from doing what they do?

[El Barto]

Okay then, how do we stop child rapists and murderers from doing what they do?

Quite frankly, we don't.  Part of the cost of living in a free society is that some asshole might stab you for the $12 in your wallet.  What we can do is make sure that they can only do it once.  This can be more easily accomplished by imprisonment and/or rehabilitation.  Capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, and the expense of trying to be as judicious as possible with it, and we're not doing well enough in that regard by the way, is far more than it's worth. 

[bosk1]

The child murder is fucked in the head, targeting helpless children and making them and their family suffer. Killing him is not the same. We are eliminating a problem and a threat to society.

Question. If the murder is fucked in the head, wouldn't it be safe to say we should not kill him. I'm going to say some stuff here that may get me into some trouble but I feel as though I need to say it.

I think people that kill/rape children should not be put in jail, nor should they be put to death. Someone who wants to do that stuff is obviously fucked in the first place, and acting on there instincts just as we would a member of the opposite sex. I never understood why throwing someone in jail or killing someone was better than rehabilitation.

I'm not sure why you think that would "get you into trouble."  But I'll just say in response that, while I understand your intentions are noble, I respectfully disagree, and I disagree because I've been around long enough to know now what I didn't know and didn't want to know at your age:  rehabilitation largely does not work with people who commit certain kinds of crimes.

[ReaPsTA]

Okay then, how do we stop child rapists and murderers from doing what they do?

Quite frankly, we don't.  Part of the cost of living in a free society is that some asshole might stab you for the $12 in your wallet.  What we can do is make sure that they can only do it once.  This can be more easily accomplished by imprisonment and/or rehabilitation.  Capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, and the expense of trying to be as judicious as possible with it, and we're not doing well enough in that regard by the way, is far more than it's worth. 

I understand the first part and completely agree.  Unless you can gather evidence to conclusively prove intent, then you can't arrest people for maybe thinking of committing a crime.  Doesn't work that way.

I'm assuming basically your argument is that performing capital punishment in a way that prevents wrongful executions is more expensive than the benefits we gain from it?

[ClairvoyantCat]

I think people that kill/rape children should not be put in jail, nor should they be put to death. Someone who wants to do that stuff is obviously fucked in the first place, and acting on there instincts just as we would a member of the opposite sex. I never understood why throwing someone in jail or killing someone was better than rehabilitation.

I really can't get behind this.  I mean, I'd say that most people who kill another human being period without a strong motive are kind of fucked in the head.  So, we'd make a distinction for people who killed/raped children, because it's a much more disgusting thing and therefore the person must be fucked in the head?

The Justice system is really also for people who are "fucked in the first place."  It's not about making people pay for doing horrible things to each other as much it is trying to keep people from doing more horrible things to each other in it's own semi-dysfunctional way.  So, even if a person is mentally unstable, in my opinion, you can't really make that distinction and not at least lock them away for the horrible thing that they did just under the assumption that they are too "fucked" to be dealt with in a way that would make everyone safer.

Given, I really only have a real issue with the fact that you mentioned "jail."  Hell, I'm not saying that we should kill kill kill with an objective look into what the person did and disregard the mental state of said person, but in case you didn't know rehab isn't often a very effective system and sometimes, even if the person has mental problems to blame for it, they really need to be in jail, not for the purposes of retribution but for the purposes of keeping people safe. 

[73109]

Then in that case, why don't we put all the pedophiles in a special housing facility with a shit ton of child porn at their disposal. They are out of the way, and they still can get off to their inner sexual instincts. And, we wouldn't even need more porn. There is probably so much out there that some random dude who has a child octopi fetish would be set for life. And no, before you think it, I'm not joking.

[ClairvoyantCat]

So, you're basically suggesting that we have a special jail with child pornography available?  I'm trying to get around the way that you said, "put all the pedophiles in a special housing facility" and I really don't see how this really differs from throwing them in jail.

[73109]

It's pretty much a minimum security jail with child porn, yes.

[ClairvoyantCat]

Really, I thought you said you were against throwing them in jail.  I'm a tad bit confused now. 


Also, you seem to think that providing these people with child porn is going to somehow keep them satisfied.  I don't think these people really work that way, which is why they go out and break the law in the first place.  Also, if they ever want a chance at redeeming themselves and getting out, I don't think it'd really be conducive to making them into people who can live in society again and not fuck things up by simply putting them in a cage where they can feed their addictions. 

[73109]

I agree. I'm all for rehabilitation, and when they are being rehabilitated, they should not been thrown in jail, but they should be kept somewhere, I guess you could call it a jail, but it would be more like a community that you just can't leave. Only for a while. I'm rambling. My main issue is that I don't like seeing society stress people to repress their urges. No matter what they might be. If someone wants to go out and rape a 4 year old, should they? No! But instead of throwing them in jail once they act on their urges, we should help them.

[El Barto]

I'm assuming basically your argument is that performing capital punishment in a way that prevents wrongful executions is more expensive than the benefits we gain from it?

I would say in a manner that prevents wrongful executions and is applied fairly and objectively is more expensive than the benefits.  Yes.  

edit:  And your inbox is full.  Got something to send your way.

[ReaPsTA]

I'm assuming basically your argument is that performing capital punishment in a way that prevents wrongful executions is more expensive than the benefits we gain from it?

I would say in a manner that prevents wrongful executions and is applied fairly and objectively is more expensive than the benefits.  Yes.  

edit:  And your inbox is full.  Got something to send your way.

Deleted a couple messages.  Hit me up.

What you're saying is honestly fair.  At that point it gets more into the details and minutia of the legal system and deterrent qualities, which is stuff I wouldn't claim to understand.

It's pretty much a minimum security jail with child porn, yes.

Minimum security my ass.  If child-rapists aren't being kept in a security with guard towers then something is clearly wrong.

[73109]

What is exactly so scary about a dude that wants to have sex? You stick em in a community to rehabilitate and on the border, you have guards.

[ClairvoyantCat]

What is exactly so scary about a dude that wants to have sex?

Lots of things, really, when it's with a child. 

And also, I really don't see how looking at child porn all day is going to rehabilitate them. 

[73109]

It won't. I'm just saying if you don't want to rehabilitate them for whatever reason, at least let them enjoy their vices.