Strange Famous

Erm... for what purpose?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Bentley Little

I stand corrected.

<---- Me bowing head in shame.

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

onetime2

LOL not a problem in the least.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

ironman

This is exactly the kind of things that brings down all the anti-gun arguments, whenever a person wants to kill another, he/she can and he/she will, whether or not he/she has a gun. Almost anything can be used as weapon or a mean to kill somebody, so plaese, don't blame violence or killings on guns. I'm not a gun person, i find it stupid to own one and far too dangerous to me to carry one around, but that doesn't mean i'm in favor of depistolizing the world.

__________________
If I agreed with you we´d both be wrong

Rdr4evr

What do you mean for what purpose?? These animals dont deserve to live, they are wasting space.

DelayedReaction

I think Strange Famous is more concerned about the fact that you want them to die slowly and painfully, rather than at all. Or maybe he/she (sorry, I don't know) was focusing on the death penalty itself.

The crime seems to be premeditated, and I believe the one offender was previously found guilty of violent crimes. In the case of the repeat offendor, if he is found guilty here then he deserves to die. Not tortured, just executed in a painless and clean manner. It is obvious that he cannot contribute to society, and has displayed himself to be a danger to others. He should therefore be removed so that he does not hurt others or burden the taxpayer.

Hell, I'll even provide the bullet.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

tropple

Ban the Bats!

Obviously they are dangerous weapons of mass destruction. Has Representative FeinStein been informed? How about Charles Schumer?

I'm certain that with a little effort we can get them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to investigate the situation.

Whew! it's a good thing that none of the victims had a handgun conveniently kept at the bedside for self-defense, otherwise, they may have been sued for violating the intruders civil rights as well as murdered!

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

Rdr4evr

Nah, I think they did quite a wonderful job on torturing the family of those murdered, as well as the victims themselves. I still say torture them. What is the point of a clean execution, they wont feel a thing, these killers need to suffer.

I say send them over to Iraq and let the fanatics behead them.

Strange Famous

so, if thye dont deserve to live, and I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that... what is the purpose of tortuing them? If you want to kill someone because you judge they are not fit to exist, why slowly beat them to death and port acid in the wounds and all the gruesome things you talk of? If they are judged unfit to live surely you kill them, erase them, as quickly and easily as possible.

What is the value, the benefit, the purpose, of making someone who has caused great pain to others suffer great pain?


A few answers I can deal with

Will it bring back those who died? No.

Will it give their loss any meaning? No.

Will it give their loss any greater dignity? how can it.

Does it make the relatives of the lost feel better? I hope not

Does it deter others? Definitely not.

SO again, I ask, and really want to know, what is the value of giving horrible tortures to the worst criminals?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Bentley Little

It is called punishment.

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

DelayedReaction

Punishment is designed to ensure the perpetrators will not repeat their actions. When the individual is determined to be worthy of death, punishment is no longer warranted because he/she will not be capable of repeating their actions again. A society is judged by how they treat their criminals, and as society has become more advanced, barbaric treatment of the criminal population should decrease. The Founding Fathers understood this principal by eliminating cruel or unusual punishment.

When we execute criminals, we do not punish them. We judge them to be beyond salvage or redemption, and remove them.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

Rdr4evr

You obviously make good points. Im looking at this from more of an eye for an eye perspective. BUT, even though it will not bring the dead back or any of the such you mentioned, I do believe it will make the victim's families feel just slightly better.

This is just personal though, maybe they would not agree. Hell, maybe they would just think prison for life is suitable. But if it were my case, and some ape fuckers murdered my family, the more pain they suffer, the better it would make me feel. If they just get a quick death, they are probably thinking to themselves: "oh, this isnt too bad, we just murdered 6 innocent people with baseball bats slowly and painfully, but atleast we dont have to suffer like them or their families did and will".

Try seriously putting yourself in a situation where your family was murdered in this brutal fashion by some failures. Think about it, and honestly tell me if you would not want them to suffer in the worst way imaginable.

hilbert25

Now imagine that the family is actually religious, say Christian. Not George Bush Christian, but truly and actually following the words of a simple Jewish man who preached forgiveness and love 2000 years ago. Now imagine what they would think about someone getting tortured in their name. Now, I'm not that kind of person, but I can see why someone wouldn't actually want someone brutally murdered to "make them feel better". I myself would want them to suffer, sure, but I would not wish them dead. Then I would be no better than them.

intecel

This happened about 30 mins from where I live.. I have some friends that live in that town.. crazy stuff...

Rdr4evr

You are being a hypocrite. You would wish them to suffer but not killed. Suffering is worse than death, what makes you think it is any better?

The whole argument about you not being better than them by wishing that does not work for me either because you are not wishing for an innocent man to suffer, you are wishing for killer animals to suffer, which is very much a different scenario.

If you truly believe you are a better man, why wish any bad on them at all?

Xell101

Although the prospect of torture does function as one hell of a deterrent, it's too cruel. Ultrasimplistically, hapiness good, unhapiness bad. We differentiate between good and bad for a reason.

tropple

Roast them. Slowly. Sell the coverage on pay-per-view.

Make it available on the internet.

Make the punishment as horiffic and gruesome as possible and make it public. Sell tickets.

Punishment performed in private never as effective as that which is doled out in public.

If a person is scared to death of the consequences, they may reconsider the crime beforehand.

Screw that namby-pamby human rights shit. If they are guilty, let their actions come back to them.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

Bentley Little

Hooray for tropple. One slight disagreement. I think the punishment should be for punishment's sake, rather than for deterrance. Although, after enough of these broadcast punishments, there may just start to be a decrease in the crime rate. Something I think we can all live with...

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

DelayedReaction

If broadcasting punishments had worked, then Rome would have ran out of criminals right after the Colosseum opened up.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

hilbert25

I would not willingly wish evil upon any person, but I realize I'm not that strong. If I were a truly good person, then maybe I'd only wish the murderers find a way to redeem themselves, but I'm not, so thus I'll be realistic and recognize that I'd want them to suffer. I will draw the line at death though.

Does this make me a hypocrite, no. If they are dead, then there is no redemption for them. There's no way for them to change their ways, and there is no possible way for them to ever be useful to society. From an economic point of view, killing them is wasteful when there is a chance they might contribute to society, even against their will. From a non-sectarian religious point of view, there is no possible way for them to find the true religion, whatever it may be, while dead. From a moral point of view, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

For me, nothing is worse than death. Death is the only thing I cannot recover from. Make me a quadrapalegic, and I would probably be broken, but I could still think and there's still hope. As Stephen Hawking has proven, it is still possible to contribute to this world.