Killing people is the best solution.

I'd probably wait a bit until the FDA cleared some of that up.

What are we talking about?

That's Plan B... and it too frequently results in additional innocent loss of life.

Kenneth McDuff was first convicted for raping and murdering three teenagers on August 6, 1966 " Robert Brand, Mark Dunman, and Edna Louis Sullivan " a crime that became popularly known as the Broomstick Murders.

Although this murdering bastard was sentenced to death; the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision of 1972 spared his life… allowing him to kill again.

He is believed to have killed at least 10 more people, and he was indeed convicted of murdering a couple more.

Fortunately, the SC pulled their heads out of their asses and finally allowed Texas to do what should have been done MANY murders sooner.

There can be absolutely no doubt that pregnant mother of 2, Melissa Ann Northrup’s blood lies on the hands of the do-gooders that didn’t think Kenneth McDuff deserved to die. She and God only knows how many other victims of abduction, rape, torture, and murder are all victims of a belief that even mass murdering monsters like McDuff don’t deserve to die.

Melissa wasn’t just a statistic; she was a human being whose life was infinitely more valuable than that of her murderer.


It wasn’t enough that McDuff had already shot these kids in the face:
Marcus Dunnam

Robert Brand

Before raping, torturing and killing this woman with a broomstick:
Louise Sullivan


The do-gooders thought his life should be preserved, which resulted in these folks and other's forfeiting theirs.

Melissa Ann Northrup

Colleen Reed

Regenia Moore

Valencia Joshua

Brenda Thompson


Clearly: Sometime killing people is the best solution.

None of these people deserved to die… except Kenneth McDuff.

I'd say you were right... except for the exception.

Even if he did deserve to die, does that also mean he deserves to be killed by you?

What an absurd question. It matters little who excises the diseased piece of crap from society... as long as someone does.

Perhaps you should read that post again. Had Kenneth McDuff's original well-deserved death sentence been carried out, it would have prevented him from murdering, pregnant mother of two, Melissa Ann Northrup.

Does anyone here believe that McDuff would have killed Melissa Ann Northrup even if he’d been executed? No? Then how can anyone continue to pretend capital punishment doesn’t prevent crime?

How can anyone’s concern for the sanctity of the murderer’s life exceed their concern for that of the innocent’s? Kenneth McDuff perfectly exemplifies the FACT that there is only one sure method of preventing recidivism.

Fewer Murderers = Fewer Murders

Rhetoric. It matters who you have kill people for you. People remain people despite their worst deeds. Your de-humanising rhetoric cheapens your point.



They can pretend it may be true, if it seems (as some statistics suggest) that it is actually the case. But I don't even care even if it is a deterrent, since I don't believe the end justifies the means anyway, especially in the case of killing people as punishment.


or....
End Justifies Means

There are few means as extreme as death. Hitler seemed happy to use it for lots of reasons you'd find abhorrent, but of course YOUR reasons for using it are perfectly sound.

[/quote]

I have always supported capital punishment,
but your alleged justification does NOT reflect
the reasoning in support of it.
Rather it is that government was created to repel
enemy invasions and raids
and
to execute VENGEANCE upon malefactors;
to HELP us avenge ourselves.

If government fails to do that,
then it falls into default.
It is NOT a debt to SOCIETY;
(let society be damned);
it is a debt to the victim of his abuse;
of the INDIVIDUAL who is being avenged.





David

I agree with you David, to the extent that I think you are right about the motivation behind capital punishment. It's mostly about vengeance, although I'm sure others may hold varying opinions on that. At least I can get a relatively straight and honest argument out of you.

I agree with that too - and I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking retribution or justice when a wrongful act has been committed. I do also think, and actually take comfort in the fact that innocent people (if you don't want to use the word 'society') are then somewhat safer than they would have been if the perpetrator had been set free to go back out on the streets.

But I'm really conflicted about the whole issue- and moreso lately than I used to be. I used to know 100% that I was anti-capital punishment. And I think that I still am - but I've really started to question my definite anti stance on purely moral grounds.

I'm still anti-capital punishment as it has historically been implemented in the US. I do think it's a discriminatory and racistly employed method of punishment and I abhor it for those reasons-still. And I don't think it can ever be fairly and equitably administered in the US until all life is deemed equally valuable - and I think we're still a long way away from that happening.

But as I've been working with people in prisons, some of whom have murdered people, I've really been struck by the thought or sense that I've gotten that their criminal behavior is, in some instances, a compulsion. Yes, totally unplanned and in the heat of the moment. That's what makes it even scarier - and less able for them to control. If they'd been able to control it in the first place - they wouldn't have done these things.
And someone can take all the anger management classes that are available, but if they're either innately prone to, or even have been conditioned by environmental factors (such as these people who were religiously fanatical) to react to stress or perceived wrongs by striking out against other people, or to take justice into their own hands, or even more scarily, to achieve a sense of release or relief which is true of of sexually violent deviants, I just don't see that changing very much.

And it's with real sadness I say this. This is something I've learned in the last two years from working with some of these people. This guy I talked to right before Christmas who's in prison for murder told me he'd been passed by for parole again. He said he would not admit to the details of the murder - he admits murdering the person to the state, and to me, and to anyone who asks- but he won't admit to the details of how the state says he murdered the person- and this is holding up his parole.
Which is a good thing because as we talked, he started talking about his wish to have a relationship with someone when he got out of prison (not with me...with a nonspecific woman somewhere) and he said he hoped that he could find a woman who would not get jealous or make him jealous because he knew that that's what ALL women did and...blah...blah...blah...and I thought - he'll get out and he'll do the same **** again- and he's been in prison for thirty-odd years.

Some people are just really, really damaged. I don't know how or why - but I do know they shouldn't be walking around free. And if you've ever spent time working in a prison of ANY sort - much less a prison for maximum offenders who have murdered someone or are pedophiles...you'd know that's not the answer for their rehabilitation.
Because there's nothing for these people there, and there's nothing for them when/if they get out. Their families have abandoned them. They're put in hostels with other drug users and murderers and pedophiles...they still have their inappropriate urges and their inability to control their impulses- but now they don't have food or shelter (as in prison).
And we wonder why they reoffend.
Sometimes, I really do think it's more merciful to help them end it.
And if you talk to people in prison - those who are not accused of capital crimes themselves (and so don't have to worry about it) are very often in favor of capital punishment.
One guy said to me -'he shouldn't have killed someone if he didn't want to get nailed...it wasn't nice for him to do that'....and he smiled as he said it.

I don't know what the answer is- but I don't think it's as cut and dried as I used to think it was.

If government defaults in its duty to its creators
to avenge victims of crimes,
then the right to do so (incapable of annihilation) reverts to the victim
or to his friends on his behalf.

I support Bill in his statement that it matters not WHO
kills the danger, as long as he IS killed,
thereby making life safer for the rest of us,
including the victim, if he is alive.





David

Eorl,
I surmise that your opposition to capital punishment
is that the criminals whom we woud thereby kill are HUMAN --
i.e., that for some unexplained reason, HUMANs
shoud be immune from the death penalty, merely because
thay belong to the same species as the victim.

I challenge that.
If a human commits an offense, then it becomes appropriate
for the victim thereof or his designee (government or someone else,
if government defaults in its duty)
to avenge the victim -- to get even for him.

THAT is the reason that we created government;
(that and repelling enemy raids or invasions).





David

Libs would rather kill an innocent unborn, which is not human according to their definition, than they would a serial killer. Serial killers have more worth than an innocent unborn child to liberals, they have a more constitutional right to live. And an unborn child threatens them more, and is more dangerous to society, and deserves to die more than a serial killer. Figure it out, I can't. If anybody can, let me know.

I don't think most politically liberal people would rather kill anyone- and most politically liberal people never do.

I think they just view the point where an individual's rights begin and end differently from conservatives.

aidan, when government draws the line of rights, the rights also address protection of life, and when you sanction the right of an individual to take a life, you are also saying the life has no rights whatsoever, you are not respecting life, got that. This is a two way street, not a one way street. You are giving rights to people that infringe on perceived rights or lack of rights on another. We are talking about life here, and life is rated alot higher in the constitution than the right privacy, in my opinion. Fact is privacy is manufactured as a right. I don't pretend to say this is an easy issue, but I find it bizarre to oppose capital punishment, while at the same time sanctioning killing the unborn, which is the most innocent and most unthreatening life amonst us. I think that says something about us as a society, perhaps you do not, but I think it says things that are not very pretty. We have lost our soul, and we need to get it back before we can ever expect to progress positively, otherwise the road is downward.

I totally agree with you. But I think capital punishment, which was sanctioned by the state long before abortion was, paved the way for the mindset in which life, any life, was devalued.

Myself, I would rather an ADMITTED (and that's a really important word for me in my thoughts on this) serial killer was executed before I'd have an abortion. That's for myself. Because of my personal beliefs about any life I have produced and/or carried within me.

But I also realize that I can't begin to understand any other woman's beliefs or needs as she experiences a pregnancy - and if she would rather have an abortion - because she views what is happening within her differently than I do - I don't feel that I have the right to inflict my value judgments on her.

It is complicated. And as I've said, I've seen and learned a lot in the past two years that have influenced my thinking - mostly to make me even more confused about it than I ever thought I was before.

I think you need to look at this from different angle. When the punishment of a criminal that disrespects life, takes life, even takes it in brutal and inhumane ways, such as a serial killer, when the punishment of that person is dumbed down, watered down, that is when you devalue life. If we send people like this to prison where they have a pretty comfortable life in terms of food, medical care, and all basic needs, they are treated far better than their victims. That devalues their crime and disrespects life. Personally, I would not, I could not revel in the death of any person, even a serial killer, such would be extremely sad, however it is society, the law, handing out justice, not any one person. And even a serial killer could repent and make peace with their maker, I believe that, but the punishment by society must be sure and it must be fitting for the crime, that is necessary to maintain an orderly society. I believe the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes, but I think it is appropriate for those.

Another thought in regard to value judgments, we live in a world that increasingly balks at value judgements, as the belief in a God that essentially represents value judgements, that belief becomes less trendy nowadays. We as a society must have value judgements, without them, we are on a downward road. I am not ashamed to stand up for life, and nobody should be. And capital punishment is sad, but it also stands up for the life of the victims. That is alot more important than that of the criminal. They have essentially forfeited their life's value to society by preying upon it and preying upon the lives of innocent people.

I think that can be legitimately argued. But I think it's just as legitimate to argue it from the stance that criminals, and especially serial killers, commit actions that would seem to indicate that they disrespect life, for sure, but actually disrepect of life may NOT be their motivation for their actions.

A lot of times they're operating and acting under a less than sane and rational perspective. I'm not excusing them for their actions- I'm simply pointing out that those of us who are sane and rational in society should and must be held to a higher standard of reasoning and behavior than those whose actions would tell us that they are not sane and rational.
That's only logical.

And part of my problem with capital punishment is exactly the fact that it's punishment that is amped up for certain people who commit certain crimes against certain people.
It's applied inequitably - thus placing seemingly greater value on some lives than others - especially when it comes to race and socioeconomic status of both the victim and the perpetrator.
If a poor black man kills a middle class white woman, he's much more likely to get the death penalty than if he's killed a poor black woman. Thus the white woman's life is seemingly more valuable than the black woman's life.
And a black man who commits a murder against anyone of any race is more likely to be sentenced to death than a white man who commits murder.


But we're also acting much more humanely than these criminals. And we should, shouldn't we?
I think you asked what sort of society we want to be in your last post, and I think this point speaks to that question.

having said all this - I still don't know what the answer is -

Your arguments of inequity of punishment are good ones, I totally believe that is a problem, but that is a side issue from capital punishment, because even if that is taken out as an option, other forms of punishment would still have the same problems of unequal application. Also, there are provisions in the law for mental capacity or insanity. People can be declared innocent by reason of insanity, which I think it should rather be guilty by reason of insanity, and then the punishment or rehabilitation efforts need to be tailored to the case, and mercy needs to be applied to the truly insane.

We live in a very imperfect world, imperfect people, imperfect justice, imperfect solutions to problems, but I don't think all the imperfections should compel us to scrap all the tools at our disposal in our efforts to bring the most reasonable order and tranquility into society.

OK; here goes:
I m gonna speak for myself; no one else.

I recognize the right of any pregnant chic to abort her pregnancy,
in that she is sovereign over her own body.


A chic has a right to NOT give birth, if she does not want to.
An unwelcome embryo has the status of a parasite; an INTRUDER, like a burglar,
a dangerous parasite; that is NOT innocent.
The parasite (be it an embryo, a tapeworm or a deer tick) has no right to be there.

The parasite can become painful and more dangerous with time.
She has the right to defend herself from that
and she did NOT waive that right, by having recreational sex.

The intrusive parasite HAS NO RIGHTS against the victim.

The victim 's right of self defense predominates.

Very insightful post, David. I think the problem has intensified since pop culture has portrayed sex as a recreation first, not primarily for pro-creation. I do not believe that two people in love that are committed to each other in marriage are going to despise the symbol of their love, their child, and kill it. That is not a normal thing to do, it doesn't seem logical to me. It would be akin to killing themselves, symbolically and in reality.