Gang founder turned peace activist executed...discuss...
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > Gang founder turned peace activist executed...discuss...
Posted on Dec 13, 2005 08:21 am
dbmasters
Administrator Since: Apr 03, 2002
us.rd.yahoo.com//mymod/ld...on_tookie_dc_32
Stanley "Tookie" Williams is executed for the murder of four people. he turned very anti-gang (suppossedly) and peace activist so people wanted mercy for him. "Redemption" they all kept saying...
What say ye?
Personally, as I understand it, before redemption one must have atonement, and he never owned up to his crimes and accepted responsibility, so how can we forgive?
I say it was a just execution, though death is always unfortunate.
Come on coolo, let me have it... ;-)
[ Back to Top ]
Dec 13, 2005 08:52 am While I am generally opposed to the death penalty, I think if anyone deserves it, it would be someone such this who killed for sport and profit.
I am also not sure I see the validity of someone's seeing the err of their ways only after they are sentenced.
Dec 13, 2005 09:03 am Quote:
I am also not sure I see the validity of someone's seeing the err of their ways only after they are sentenced.
Them's wise words, you have a good point. it's kinda funny, I have sat in jail for a fews days a couple times, and it's funny, EVERYBODY in jail finds God and stuff...but always seem to forget all that once released.
TallChapAnswer:On a good day, lipstick.Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004
Dec 13, 2005 11:05 am Please don't perceive this as an attack on anyone's faith! That's really not what I'm about....
1970's: My sister's ex, and his brothers, attacked and killed a guy (at they guys stag night...nice). They all were given life sentences (all are now free...), and one - the psycho of the bunch - was "detained at Her Majesty's pleasure." No death penalty in Britain since the sixties. Basically, that means that you are in prison until the Queen personally pardons you - which rarely happens. As I mentioned, this guy was a total maniac. Two drinks, and he wants to fight everyone....He goes to jail, then suddenly becomes all religious. Good behaviour, and a few well placed letters and he's back on the streets. I can't believe that the law allows this! Because someone has found "personal salvation" doesn't make them less dangerous. I don't care what they say.
So Williams' sudden renouncement of violence and gangs seemed a little transparent. Obviously the supreme court, and the governor didn't buy it.
Dec 13, 2005 11:20 am In my typical wishy-washy fashion, I would say that I wouldn't want to be the one to pull the switch, but at the same time I think this guy got what he had coming.
Dec 13, 2005 11:22 am actually, no switch was flipped, a neddle was inserted.
Not that I am splitting hairs or anything...
Dec 13, 2005 11:25 am Furthermore...it's great that he had turned anti-gang while in prison. That's the least he could do. Does that atone the four deaths he purposefully caused? No. He said he was a changed man, but Gov. Arnold was exactly right...how could he be changed man without ever having admitted to doing anything wrong in the first place.
Hopefully he at least made right with The Man in his last few minutes. Pray for his soul, if you're that way.
Dec 13, 2005 11:27 am I was taking literary license. Figuratively speaking.
utopiandramadoMember
Since: May 27, 2004
Dec 13, 2005 12:33 pm I think the death penalty is wrong. I don't think that you can make the situation any better by killing the person that committed the crime. I agree that it is sad that the guy never apologized for what he did, but if he was just given life in prison he would be paying the price...not as much as the people he killed but still.
Dec 13, 2005 12:41 pm Quote:
but if he was just given life in prison he would be paying the price
Yeah, but then I'd be paying the price too, and so would you...and that's not fair either. it costs a lot to keep epople in prison thanks to the hi standard of living they must keep to not be "cruel".
utopiandramadoMember
Since: May 27, 2004
Dec 13, 2005 12:51 pm I've read somewhere that it actually will cost the taxpayers more to go through the process of having someone executed then it is to keep them in prison. And besides, is there a price on doing what is right?
Dec 13, 2005 12:56 pm I've read a lot of stuff, if you work the numebrs right you can make any statistic say anything. At least executing someone is a one time fee, not year after year after year of supporting someboyd that is a threat to society.
Quote:
And besides, is there a price on doing what is right?
Yes, the price of an execution. This guy was directly or indirectly a part of destroying thousands upon thousands of lives, I dunno, man, I have a very hard time feeling bad about his death.
I totally respect the value of life, really, but he had proven he did not...
Burn in hell, that's all I got to say to him.
Dec 13, 2005 01:07 pm Quote:
I've read somewhere that it actually will cost the taxpayers more to go through the process of having someone executed then it is to keep them in prison. And besides, is there a price on doing what is right?
That is true. It costs about 2 mil. per execution including a public defender and appeals.
Conversely, the national average price of incarceration is about 30K/ year.
Making your break-even point 66 years and 8 months.
The morality of death penalty is a tough one.
If one of my familiy members was killed I think I want an eye for an eye.
My wife's father was actually murdered when she was 18. About 2 years ago the murderer was killed in prison. Her reaction upon hearing the news was empty. She felt no better for it and would have preferred he spent his life in jail. The reality is he would have been parolled before long so they could make room for all the hippies who get life sentences for selling mushrooms or making meth.
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Dec 13, 2005 01:08 pm He was on death row for 24 years. That is unacceptable. They should have killed him 20 years ago! What about the families of the people he killed? 24 years is a long time to wait to see this through (justice for the families).
This is not about an accidental death, this is about someone that brutally killed several people. I for one could care less what he did after the fact. The only way to be sure that he will not take another life is to take his.
Dec 13, 2005 01:12 pm To an extent I agree. Psychologists say the foundation of your personality is establish by the time you are 3 years old.
If you seek to murder people, something has gone askew at the very core of your being.
I doubt that changes much in the span of a single lifetime.
Dec 13, 2005 01:13 pm Quote:
That is true. It costs about 2 mil. per execution including a public defender and appeals.
Well, that's the sign of a bigger problem, there is no reason that should cost more than $50...
Dec 13, 2005 02:25 pm They should just give me the 2 mil, and I'll give the dude who deserves it a $4, .50 cal springfield to the head.
Was that morbid? I think it was. Well, if you went the religious route on "Tookie"... I'd say that's awesome that he's a changed man and found God and all that, if that's truly the case. But if he dies unforgiven, or dies forgiven it doesn't matter to us, as long as he dies. If he truly found God, then part of being a Christian is repenting of your sins. If he murdered those people, he should have repented. Which he didn't, evidently.
Also, where's the lesson if they just let him go?
I say let God be his judge. Kudos to Arnold for making a tough decision.
TallChapAnswer:On a good day, lipstick.Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004
Dec 13, 2005 02:27 pm Kill 'em all, and let their gods sort them out.....
Dec 13, 2005 03:59 pm I say, when its proven, and no doubt with confession and good evidence...kill the sucka. ENDOF.
Same goes for rapists, perverts and child molesters.
I also suggest for the money embezellers, and non-violent criminals LIKE this i.e. where no harm or physical damage has been done, we SHOULD find another way to punish them than prison. If someone is clever enough to defraud a company or such like, USE the swines in a useful way...DONT cost us all money by locking them up.
As I say, for some crimes - we should just kill the bastards...endof. I know if someone perpetrated such a crime against my family (the ones I Spoke of above)I would have no hesitation in flikcing the switch/injecting the needle, shooting the punk with my own hands...similarly, I know locking up fraudsters and other criminals who steal from amjor companies IS NOT the way to go...especially when they are in with these types of scum of society...but, I DONT have the alternative answer!!!
Not ideal I know but there MUST be a better solution.
Anyway, with regards to this guy...I dont know the story. If it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, with some proper forensic/dna/good evidence he done it - then fine..hope he rots in hell. If not, I dont think its so clear cut but aye, its a dilema.
Anyways..my opinion.
Coco.
Dec 13, 2005 04:52 pm Yes, I don't agree with how the punishment is dealt out right now as well. Although, I must say the government is getting slightly wiser as far as using criminals in the hacker society.
Dec 13, 2005 06:13 pm as i told my friend, this whole situation sent me into a tailspin of confusion. you see, while i am completely against the death penalty, i am all for arnie continuing to be a merciless killer.
whats a guy to think!
Dec 13, 2005 06:49 pm ah..hahahaha... Terminator 4 anyone?!? It'd have been way cooler had they put some sunglasses on arnold and let him do it with a handheld grenade launcher.
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Dec 13, 2005 06:58 pm as far as a dollar mark the cost of a public defender shouldn't really count as they are a waged emplyee of the county so they would cost basically the same except maybe some extra research expenses.
"due diligence" can sometimes create budgets that look a lot like what most of us would call "use it or lose it."
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Dec 14, 2005 04:07 am Quote:
Come on coolo, let me have it... ;-)
Well, lets see, where to start... let me talk about this in the abstract. In concept, I definitely believe in the death penalty for anyone who murders someone else. I also believe in the death penalty for anyone who rapes someone else. However in practice, I also think it is morally outrageous if we ever kill one innocent person due to the death penalty. And since I don't have much faith in our justice system, especially police and DAs, I can definitely see people being wrongly executed, due to laziness, or convenience, or just making sure that someone pays even if it isn't the right person. So, to sum it up, I agree in theory, oppose it in practice.
In the case of Tookie Williams, I don't think it matters if he was co founder of the crips. I don't think it matters if he did good deeds while in prison. All that matters is if he killed the people he is convicted of killing. I don't necessarily equate the two, because in my mind, it is quite possible to be convicted without actually having committed the crime. This is why I don't buy all this nonsense about he didn't admit to it, therefore he is not repentent about it and doesn't deserve to live. In my mind it is quite possible that he didn't do the crime and if that is the case, he shouldn't be repetent for it. If I was convicted wrongly, I would proclaim my innocence until the day I died. I would not lie and admit guilt just to save my life.
But with all that being said, he very well may have committed the murders he is convicted of, and if that is the case then I believe he should die. They say that the death penalty makes us just as bad as the criminals. To me there is a difference between killing an innocent individual and a murderer.
But in all honesty, it's sad we have to have this discussion. I really hate death when it is perpetrated on one human by another.
Dec 14, 2005 06:24 am Well, how about that, we agree on this subject, pretty much anyway...that makes two things we agree on.
I would suggest however that the fact he is a Crips founder does matter, not in the legal sense regarding this case and his resulting death because of it, but more in painting a complete picture of the damage to society that has been caused, either directly or indirectly by this person.
Dec 14, 2005 09:40 am An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Not that I agree with what he did, or think he should have gotten off.
I just don't like the whole situation.
Can't we all just get along and stop killing eachother?
Dec 14, 2005 09:45 am While I appreciate that thought of getting along and all that, perhaps he should have thought of that before killing somebody. Remember, he committed the initial killing, nobody else.
I believe there has to be consequences for your action that are equal to the crime committed. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Simply turning the other cheek leaves people with the feeling that they don't have to answer for their actions. If nobody would commit such crimes against their fellow man, there would be no "eye for an eye". He brought it on himself, it was not thrust upon him.
In my opinion.
utopiandramadoMember
Since: May 27, 2004
Dec 14, 2005 10:58 am I agree that he definilty brought this on himself and I don't think anyone is suggesting that he should just get away with it. There are alternate methods of bringing a murderer to justice besides killing them. Its just a savage way to take care of a problem.
Dec 14, 2005 11:05 am I think it's far less savage to the remainder of society. Who gives a crap how savagely HE is treated, screw him, he didn't care about his victims, it's the law abiding citizens that should worried about more than the killer...as far as I am concerned once sombody commits a crime of that magnitude, they forego their rights as a human being...game over, they lose.
Obviously many disagree, many do agree, it's one of those hot button issues that people make much more complex than it really has to be.
I have no time, energy or patience worrying about the dignity of life or the rights to humane treatment of somebody, anybody, that murdered people. They do not deserve such consideration...they are subhuman.
Dec 14, 2005 03:07 pm by the way, i think arnold's losing it. did you see that press conference? "Fry Him." thats all he said! that's it! two days of deliberation...
Dec 14, 2005 04:02 pm Arnie to be fair, was never gonna say anything else with a catchphrase like "I'll be back" !!
Agree with dB on this one...frying the sucka is the way to go.
Coco.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Dec 14, 2005 06:19 pm Quote:
I would suggest however that the fact he is a Crips founder does matter, not in the legal sense regarding this case and his resulting death because of it, but more in painting a complete picture of the damage to society that has been caused, either directly or indirectly by this person.
in all honesty, the fact that he started the crips does not bother me that much. Given the situation in parts of LA, there was gonna be gangs no matter what. I don't think any harm other people did as a crip or gang member can or should be associated with him. If he didn't start the crips, someone else would have. I think the indirect harm should be placed on the environment and conditions rather than the individual this time. The direct harm should still be placed on the individual.
Dec 14, 2005 06:24 pm ohhhh, well, I am not going to get into any great debate, but I entirely disagree with the "it wouldhave happened anyway" mentality...people are going to kill each other anyway, so why prosecute this one person...dangerous way to think.
Dec 14, 2005 06:34 pm This shoulda been dealt with while Jerry Brown was guvna and Arnie was still doing pumpin iron videos. The murders were comitted in 1979, and he shoulda fried in oooohhh...1980 at the latest. I agree that it is terrible that any innocent person be executed, but when there is no doubt, it should not take 25 years and cost the taxpayers millions of $$.
chrisgMember
Since: Mar 08, 2004
Dec 15, 2005 10:10 am Real quick. Don't post much but figured I would add my 2 cents.
He was the leader of the crips. I just don't think it's possible at all that it he could be innocent like coolo said. I think the 4 people he killed was just what he got caught at killing. He was the leader of the crips. If you think for a second that a member more or less the leader didn't kill 4 people then you give the benefit of the doubt alot better then I could.
Yo me it just sounds like he was just trying to not be excecuted from day one. Every action he's made was trying to not do that. He couldn't admit to the killings because people would then jump right in without a doubt and say kill him. The peace activist stuff was for the same reason.
If he wants to start preaching the Bible and all saying he had repent then he should also read the part that says eye for an eye.
Killing 4 people in cold blood, there isn't a better reason then that for an execution. Execute him I say.
You want the price of execution to go down then lets go back to courthouse hangings. Doesn't cost that much to build a gallow.
Flashmannot the brightest spark...Member
Since: Sep 13, 2005
Dec 15, 2005 04:53 pm Some of these comments amaze me!
I'm with Tadpui here.
For people like us to be saying 'they should have killed him sooner' or 'he deserved to die' or even trying to equate a punishment to a crime like murder is futile.
Once we start to dole out 'justice' based on our own unique social conditioning we are making exactly the same mistake as those extremist regimes we now regard as unacceptable.
It's time we looked at the root causes of large scale crime (poverty, ignorance, lack of social opportunity) instead of taking the symptoms at face value.
There will always be crime and criminals. They should punished. But lets not forget that most people are a direct product of their social environment.
Long live the Utopian dream...
Dec 15, 2005 04:59 pm Honestly, I couldn't friggin care less what the "social environment" is that they came from, they KILLED somebody. Everybody, regardless of environment, has the free will to make choices, he made a BAD decision by ANY moral standard. Sure, bad childhoods, poverty, lack of education and all that makes it hard, most everybody has their challenges in life, it IN NO WAY excuses their crime or makes them somehow immune to punishment. You take a life, your life gets taken.
This leftie friggin "let's understand the criminal" thing is crap.
Dec 15, 2005 05:26 pm "I believe there has to be consequences for your action that are equal to the crime committed. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Simply turning the other cheek leaves people with the feeling that they don't have to answer for their actions. If nobody would commit such crimes against their fellow man, there would be no "eye for an eye". He brought it on himself, it was not thrust upon him."
I definitly agree with you. When I said "Can't we all just get along and stop killing eachother?" I meant EVERYONE. I don't think he should have gotten off by any means.
I also don't think he should have killed people. But I think most people in here will agree with that.
Dec 15, 2005 06:06 pm Flashman, I believe the opposite of what you said is true. The root cause of the problem is lack of moral fiber and crime, whatever you want to call it, and the symptoms are often poverty, ignorance, and lack of social opportunity.
You put a criminal in a wealthy neighborhood, he'll still steal. You put a disadvantaged person in college who has a drive to make something of himself, he will, regardless of what he has to do to make it possible, succeed.
Flashmannot the brightest spark...Member
Since: Sep 13, 2005
Dec 15, 2005 06:12 pm (sections is quotation marks are taken from db's earlier post)
I don't think I've made myself quite clear.
My point about social conditioning was made in response to the way the media and people in general focus on the physical effects of crime and not the causes. I must stress that I am not justifying this particular case OR murder with that argument as I do not know enough about it. The fact is that this man for whatever reason (leaving out the 'leftie crap')committed murder and has failed scoiety by making a 'bad descision'.
The specifics of the current case aside I feel taken aback by comments like 'you take a life, your life gets taken' but then your argument sounds logical, and perhaps we can take it a little further?
If you follow that logic to its 'logical' conclusion then the exacter of justice should also die. Take a life, life gets taken. In the general sense, and I am not talking about specific cases here, how can you claim to put so much value on life (enough to warrant taking one) when at the same time you seem to value it so little.
You have rightly decided that the killer must be punished. For his crime you choose death. This is an ambiguity I would challenge you to find a logical, rational and reasonable answer for.
At the same time you are underpinning you argument with a personal concept of justice. Of course, you are entitled to this opinion. But the practical implications of combining human life with human justice are dangerous. As we see from twentieth century history one culture's concept of the vlaue of human life can be very different to another. Surely, when so much is at stake as a human life we should stand back from the brink instead of confusing one man's legal execution with another man's murder.
You are quite right to say that killers MUST be punished. But there is little evidence to say that the death penalty reduces crime rates. Most murders are crimes of passion, spur of the moment affairs. In light of this the death penalty's 'detterant' value becomes redundant.
You say you 'couldn't care less' what social environment they come from' but you quite rightly care that they DID kill someone. With regard to crime in general, not murder specifically, even if you don't beleive that people are a prouduct of their environment you have to admit that crime rates are higher in poorer areas, and unless you are willing to cite inherent genetic factors as being the casue of crime perhaps it would be useful to understand what moitvates people to make the choice to committ a criminal act.
Free will, as you say is something that we are all in posession of. I use the social argument to highlight the idea that if potential criminals found themsleves to be products of a different lifestyle, perhaps many would not even have to make that difficult choice of 'free will'; shall I commit this crime or not?
I hope I've made it clear that my 'leftie crap' is not a get out clause that ignores the concept of free will.
I do not say lets 'understand the criminal' I say lets understand the class of society that produces him. Surely Db you'd agree that if you know your enemy, you are better equipped to defeat him?
p.s nothing personal of course. I just like talkin smack.
Dec 15, 2005 06:25 pm The difference between a man (or woman) that killed four innocent people and a man (or woman) that kills somebody by order of the state as a punishment for murder are two vastly different things and can not even come close to being compared. One is the protector of law and the other the breaker of law...big difference in my book. I quote the book of Genesis when I say "whoso shedeth mans blood, by man should his blood be shed." While obviously not everybody believes in God and therefore the Bible, but regardless of the book's believability that single verse still rings true with me.
I am not really up on the statistics of whether or not the death penalty reduces crime or not, but one can most certainly agree it does reduce the number of criminals.
I absolutely do believe people are a product of their environment, that much is obvious. What I do not believe is that it is any sort of excuse or justification for actions. Society has rules, one chooses to follow those rules or not, if they choose not to, well, one reaps what one sows...
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Dec 15, 2005 06:44 pm Quote:
But there is little evidence to say that the death penalty reduces crime rates
Since he was executed I will give the guarantee that it has been reduced by one. This was not a crime of passion, it was cold blooded murder and I am firm on my opinion that this guy needed to pay the ultimate price. Would you still stand behind your opinion if he was not executed, got out (or not), and killed someone else? How would you feel about it if it was one of your loved ones that was killed by this guy? Prison should be about rehabilitation and in this case I don't believe that he could be rehabilitated.
Dec 15, 2005 07:42 pm i was just watching the schwarzeneggar press conference again, and i didnt even notice that he was wearing a viking helmet when he said 'fry him.'
Flashmannot the brightest spark...Member
Since: Sep 13, 2005
Dec 16, 2005 08:24 am For my part I can't say what I'd do if he murdered a friend of mine. I feel it's right to protect society from people like him, but it's not right for human beings to determine the true nature of such a subjective term as justice.
Yous say that by execution there's one less murderer. But by that very action you are creating a society of people that condone taking a human life.
I wonder how many of you advocates would really have the courage to put a syringe into a man you'd never met.
Ha! The fact that Arnie is a state governor and makes comments like 'fry him' whilst sporting a piece of Norse military headgear is a surely a testimony to the state of modern democracy.
Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
Dec 16, 2005 08:36 am Again, you are equating the taking of an innocent life with the taking of a life of somebody that knowingly broke a law of the land that carried said punishment and has proven himself a threat to society at large. That is a very dangerous thought process. I do condone the taking of a life of somebody that has proven themselves a threat to society by knowingly and willingly taking somebody elses life.
But then, the same alleged hypocracy exists with people who feel taking the life of an unborn baby is OK but think the death penalty is wrong...not saying you personally believe that because I don't know, but it is a pattern I have noticed among many people against the death penalty.
The dude killed somebody! How anyone can sit and defend it feeling he shouldn't be killed just astounds me...the same way my position astounds you...it just make absolutely positively no sense at all to me...I just can not comprehend...
He KILLED people. Game over. May he burn in hell.
It's one of those subjects that nobody will ever change my mind about and I will never change anyone elses...it's a hung jury (ah, punny). The opposite view just makes zero sense to me.
Flashmannot the brightest spark...Member
Since: Sep 13, 2005
Dec 16, 2005 08:58 am Yeah db your right about that!
We are coming from different angles. I understand your line of argument and it is indeed a valid one though I heartly disagree with it. In my view life should not be taken unless there is a direct and imeediate threat from an aggressor.
As for abortion I'm against it unless both the mother and baby are sure to die.
I really value these discussions. It's good to have some stimulating debate!
I shall respectfully agree to disagree.
Dec 16, 2005 09:07 am Quote:
As for abortion I'm against it unless both the mother and baby are sure to die.
OK, you are not a totally leftie pinko then, that's good :-)
Agree to disagree, I can live with that.
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Dec 16, 2005 11:10 am Quote:
Agree to disagree, I can live with that.
Cheers fella's. Can't expect much more than that on a debate like this.
Just don't be killin' nobody in dbMastersville or BeerHunterton or you can expect to get "fried".
Dec 16, 2005 07:58 pm my take on the death penalty is weird and simple and also complicated.
basically, i agree with the principle of an eye for an eye, because that 'revenge urge' is hardwired--it comes straight out of the animal world in a way, and it is very natural and justified in some ways.
i think execution, though, is terrifying on so many levels. that we do it, and that the executed know what is about to happen to him--which is a form of hideous psychological torture. every time theres an impending execution i involuntarily imagine that dude's final hours ticking down. what he must be doing, what he must be feeling. sure he doesnt deserve mercy, i know. but you put yourself in his place and you realize: "holy ****. holy ****." imagining this sort of thing on execution day can flip you out, the weight of such a thing. what it would be like to live through those final moments. its disgusting. its disgusting that no one apparently thinks about this. the first time i did, i was a kid in 4th grade, telling everyone at school 'i heard theyre going to KILL a guy today!' not like excited about it, more jsut weirded out. i watched the clock. thought about what it must be like, in my childlike way, to go through that. i didnt care what the guy had done. something was just messed up. because foreknowledge of death was fundamentally horrifying.
my solution is impractical, but it would satisfy my conflicts: running man. my solution is to either imprison the guy for life or else if a death penalty is really deserved and wanted, to release this person who has been sentenced to death and then grant licenses to the victims family to hunt and kill that person.
i dont want the blood on society's hands. its your beef, your pain, as the victim. if you want to execute him, go ahead. how much more satisfying.
because one thing that really bothers me is that with executions, the family gets to feel 'right' about it. no. your thirst for revenge is natural, yes, but you should not walk away from it feeling like you're completely in the right or even justified in the eyes of 'god' by doing it. that is insulation from what has just occurred in reality. i say you dont get to go home all cozy-minded and have soup like its all 'perfectly ok' that the society is set up to enable you to vicariously (safely) live out your reciprocal killing-urge. its a complicated thing. so why dont YOU do the kill, so that you can really feel what it is, exactly, that you, yourself, are doing? pushing it over to the state kind of absolves you (in your mind) of any wrongdoing, but the fact of the matter is that you are killing someone. which is fine. just know what it is.
obviously this is a retarded idealistic idea, and i am not seriously suggesting it. it is more to illustrate a complex of feelings i have about this, feelings which are at odds. its good to at least voice this, bcause however impractical it is, it is pute. is a return to the law of nature, the way it always had been before civilization.
Dec 16, 2005 07:59 pm dont take that wrong guys, im not criticizing anyone. as with most things, i just feel two ways about it, and here it my synthesis.
Dec 16, 2005 09:38 pm I have always been a big fan of the idea of the movie "Escape from New York". THAT is how to imprison people, a don't kill 'em, ya just let them all kill themselves...
Dec 17, 2005 09:31 am [quote] my solution is impractical, but it would satisfy my conflicts: running man. my solution is to either imprison the guy for life or else if a death penalty is really deserved and wanted, to release this person who has been sentenced to death and then grant licenses to the victims family to hunt and kill that person.
[/quote]
That'd make ME happy if somebody killed one of my family members....heh. A tad morbid and neanderthal? yes.
Funny how in countries where the punishment doesn't fit the crime, crime rates are so much lower (lose a hand for stealing, etc). Maybe if the punishment for premeditated murder was a certain amount of torture before death, people wouldn't go out and kill pizza guys for the $40 they have on them.
[edit] or maybe the psychological torture fortymile mentioned is enough? How could you pay for your sin of killing another human being? Do good works? Give everything you have to the poor? No. You have to die.
Dec 17, 2005 02:15 pm "Maybe if the punishment for premeditated murder was a certain amount of torture before death, people wouldn't go out and kill pizza guys for the $40 they have on them."
--the final oh, lets say 11 months before your execution date would be an eternity of pure psychological hell. i am no supporter of the death penalty.
i never thought punishments were deterrents for 'big' crimes anyway. you get some guy who commits a major, major crime and chances are that he would have committed it anyway. many violent acts are like sudden appetites that flare up, probably accompanied by a little unreasonable voice that says 'i can get away with this.' they 'steal' you and all sense from you as you commit them.
anyway, forget about the idea of making the perpetrator "pay," says i. there is no payment when someone is killed. how is making someone suffer and die payment for the loss of your loved one?
a sad thing about murder is that it makes monsters out of the victims families as well. bad mojo infection. killer of sanity and soul spreading from person to person eating them up inside. the family will pose behind righteousness. every time i see someone crying and saying 'i want you to burn in hell' to the killer, i actually stop liking that person on the spot. i understand the reaction, but i dont know man.
