Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Georgia prepares to execute the state's smartest man   (cnnradio.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: PSA, U.S. Supreme Court, Peggy Williams, developmental disabilities  
•       •       •

23250 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Feb 2013 at 11:14 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-19 10:55:07 AM  
if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.
 
2013-02-19 10:59:21 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-19 11:12:50 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person.  I have no stance on the vengeance portion of it, because I've never been put in the situation of knowing a victim of murder.
 
2013-02-19 11:14:03 AM  
His sister Peggy calls him Junior . She wrote an affidavit on her brother's behalf - and said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow. Their mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle.

i.ebayimg.com

/Not sure why this came to mind...
 
2013-02-19 11:16:54 AM  
As Christopher Titus suggested, we should stop calling it the death penalty.

Instead, think of it as a really really late term abortion.
 
2013-02-19 11:17:52 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


Cradle to grave.  Womb to cradle.  The new rules don't include bootstraps, but you can find them on sale at Wal-mart for $9.
 
2013-02-19 11:18:46 AM  
Here's to Georgia and yet another set of impossibly strict standards!

Yay!
 
2013-02-19 11:19:20 AM  
I hate this story
 
2013-02-19 11:19:49 AM  
My question is
why is this murdering bastard still alive?
get to it, people!
chop chop
 
2013-02-19 11:20:02 AM  
What's with journalists that have one sentence paragraphs? Are complete thoughts foreign to them?
 
2013-02-19 11:20:52 AM  
Another mentally-ill person being greased by a state that doesn't care how poorly a citizen develops as long as he doesn't go around killing people.

Don't be mentally ill in Georgia (or Arizona) or you'll do hard time for being sick. Or the state will just murder you and call it justice.

Then Jesus said, "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.*"

*"But don't help them get any quicker than they need to."
 
2013-02-19 11:22:07 AM  
Georgia.
on my mind.
 
2013-02-19 11:22:29 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.
 
2013-02-19 11:25:01 AM  
i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-19 11:25:20 AM  

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


Nope, according to them, it's all about life.  They don't qualify it.  I mean, except when someone dares to question about them about life when it's outside the womb.
 
2013-02-19 11:26:21 AM  
FTFA: His sister Peggy...said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow.

Yeah, that'll help.
 
2013-02-19 11:27:15 AM  
Poor bastard.

You know, if his family hadn't TBI'd or CTE'd him (whatever we're calling it now) in the first place, maybe he would have been "slow, reliable Warren" instead of "slow, prone-to-fits-of-murder Warren."

I'm okay with taking him out, but only if his mom and grandpa go too.
 
2013-02-19 11:27:24 AM  
You can't execute retarded people? Hell you might as well give all of the red states a license to kill. Which is pretty much the NRA's mission come to think about it.
 
2013-02-19 11:27:31 AM  

Summoner101: What's with journalists that have one sentence paragraphs? Are complete thoughts foreign to them?


-CNN
-Journalists

Pick one.
 
2013-02-19 11:27:40 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Another mentally-ill person being greased by a state that doesn't care how poorly a citizen develops as long as he doesn't go around killing people.

Don't be mentally ill in Georgia (or Arizona) or you'll do hard time for being sick. Or the state will just murder you and call it justice.

Then Jesus said, "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.*"

*"But don't help them get any quicker than they need to."


So if a mentally impaired individual is murdering people, do we turn him loose, or give him prison without hope for parole?  Doesn't "without hope of parole" sort of define cruel and unusual punishment?  We sure as anything can't help him develop mentally to the point he doesn't pose a continuing risk to society.  I am not being snarky, but I've never figured a good answer for this.
 
2013-02-19 11:27:56 AM  
Farking barbaric.
 
2013-02-19 11:28:07 AM  

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.  ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.  if it's morally wrong to pick and choose which fetus gets born, then it's equally wrong to pick and choose which murdering bastard gets to die.  lock 'em up?  sure.  but you can't kill 'em and still be pro-life.

pro-life is all inclusive and absolutist.  you CANNOT pick and choose - you are either pro-life or not.  thems the rules.  it's also a very difficult philosophy to follow and I have a lot of respect for people who accept it's tenets and follow them....ALL of them.
 
2013-02-19 11:30:04 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


I never got this argument.  Of course you can be pro-life and for the death penalty (I'm neither, but I find this repeated argument completely silly).

You can believe that life is life from conception, and should be protected as any average person.  You can also believe that through evil/illegal action, one can forfeit their life to the state, and be executed.  There's nothing inconsistent about that.  A fetus - if you define it as a human life - can be protected by law because he/she/it is innocent of any crimes.  There's no due process that can take their life.  That protected fetus can be born, grow up, and commit murder.  That willful choice can make their life forfeit to the state.

How is that inconsistent?  It's not an issue of "sacred life".  It's an issue of due process and definition of life.  Again, I'm neither pro-life, nor am I pro-death penalty, but I see this very poor argument over and over, and it's very weak.
 
2013-02-19 11:30:32 AM  

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


If you go with that logic then how do you know that the person aborted wasn't a mass-murderer in the making.  Would they argue Hitler's mom getting an abortion was bad, hell I doubt they would they say Obama being aborted would have been bad and would have cheered loudly.  They pick and choose what is "innocent" and "sacred."  You can tell nothing is sacred or innocent in their eyes as they'll charge 9 year old children as adults for certain crimes.  Innocence only goes as far as it serves their cause of imposing their morality on everyone then it must be brushed aside and turned into evil.
 
2013-02-19 11:31:05 AM  
Hmmm.

Last week farkers were up in arms because IQ tests weren't a real evaluation of intelligence.

This week, some of you are upset because IQ is now an accurate measure of intelligence.
 
2013-02-19 11:31:43 AM  
"..The U.S. Supreme Court has banned executions of mildly mentally retarded people."

WOO HOO! I can't be executed!
 
2013-02-19 11:32:15 AM  

Khellendros: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

I never got this argument.  Of course you can be pro-life and for the death penalty (I'm neither, but I find this repeated argument completely silly).

You can believe that life is life from conception, and should be protected as any average person.  You can also believe that through evil/illegal action, one can forfeit their life to the state, and be executed.  There's nothing inconsistent about that.  A fetus - if you define it as a human life - can be protected by law because he/she/it is innocent of any crimes.  There's no due process that can take their life.  That protected fetus can be born, grow up, and commit murder.  That willful choice can make their life forfeit to the state.

How is that inconsistent?  It's not an issue of "sacred life".  It's an issue of due process and definition of life.  Again, I'm neither pro-life, nor am I pro-death penalty, but I see this very poor argument over and over, and it's very weak.


it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred.  ALL life is sacred.  even the lives of murderers on death row.  they're life is sacred too.  don't believe me?  go read their literature.  its very well defined.
 
2013-02-19 11:32:24 AM  
r2square.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-19 11:32:54 AM  

Weaver95: the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God. ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.


No, it's not.  Not even close.  You're assigning that value to the argument, and it's not the premise at all.  Innocence of the life, particularly related to children, is critical to their viewpoint.
 
2013-02-19 11:33:00 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


So, you're saying it's contradictory to want to spare the innocent and condemn the guilty?
 
2013-02-19 11:33:11 AM  

Weaver95: LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.

i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.


The premise as I had it explained to me is that babies/fetuses (feti?)/zygoats are innocent, while murderers are not.  So it's more "pro-innocent-life."

That's not to say the death penalty still isn't barbaric, though...
 
2013-02-19 11:34:07 AM  

indarwinsshadow: Hmmm.

Last week farkers were up in arms because IQ tests weren't a real evaluation of intelligence.

This week, some of you are upset because IQ is now an accurate measure of intelligence.


I guess I missed that. But I would think than IQ of 70 along with testimony from special ed teachers would be enough to know that he's not firing on all cylinders.
 
2013-02-19 11:34:49 AM  
I'm from Georgia and I am smart enough to not murder anyone.

Subby is a douche.
 
2013-02-19 11:34:53 AM  
And what good does keeping him around do for society as a whole?  It's not like he's going to care after he's dead.
 
2013-02-19 11:35:02 AM  

Khellendros: Weaver95: the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God. ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.

No, it's not.  Not even close.  You're assigning that value to the argument, and it's not the premise at all.  Innocence of the life, particularly related to children, is critical to their viewpoint.


no, i'm telling you how the pro-lifers themselves define their own ideology.  all life is sacred.  ALL life is sacred.  they believe its wrong to take a life under any circumstances, be it abortion or via the death penalty.  this is their belief, and it's all inclusive.  it doesn't allow for the death penalty.
 
2013-02-19 11:35:29 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.


I've told people this before:
Pro-life, pro-death penalty:  Innocence is to be protected; a murderer isn't innocent, so it's okay to sentence him to death.  Fetuses are innocent, thus are to be protected
Pro-choice, anti-death penalty:  People are to be protected; a fetus might be alive, might be human, but it's not a person yet.  A murderer, as horrid as his crime(s) might be, is still a person.

/Pro-choice pro-death penalty.
 
2013-02-19 11:35:36 AM  

The Onion is prophetic: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person.  I have no stance on the vengeance portion of it, because I've never been put in the situation of knowing a victim of murder.


I'm pro choice, and I'm mostly against the death penalty mostly because we've been wrong SO MANY TIMES. And really that's it. I have no moral qualms about executing a rapist, pedophile, or murderer...when we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty. And although our court system is designed to do exactly that, it often fails us. And that works both ways. We've seen the innocent get convicted, and the guilty walk free. Sadly, sometimes this just comes down to a matter of money.
 
2013-02-19 11:35:37 AM  
As subby's headline suggests, he should be sentenced based on the standards of the state, not those of some arugula-eating hipster in New York.
 
2013-02-19 11:35:37 AM  
Georgia's going to execute Bobo the chimp? But who will balance the state budget and perform open heart surgery?
 
2013-02-19 11:36:59 AM  

Mr. Titanium: TheShavingofOccam123: Another mentally-ill person being greased by a state that doesn't care how poorly a citizen develops as long as he doesn't go around killing people.

Don't be mentally ill in Georgia (or Arizona) or you'll do hard time for being sick. Or the state will just murder you and call it justice.

Then Jesus said, "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.*"

*"But don't help them get any quicker than they need to."

So if a mentally impaired individual is murdering people, do we turn him loose, or give him prison without hope for parole?  Doesn't "without hope of parole" sort of define cruel and unusual punishment?  We sure as anything can't help him develop mentally to the point he doesn't pose a continuing risk to society.  I am not being snarky, but I've never figured a good answer for this.


I don't know the answer myself except to say, while I do personally know people who deserve the death penalty for murder, there will always be enough mentally-ill people and innocent people who will be murdered by the state that we can't really have a death penalty.

I know of two cases of murder by rich people in Arizona where the rich people walked away. And yet an obviously mentally-ill person is going to be murdered by Georgia because Georgia doesn't want to pay for its sins of allowing a child to remain in a family THAT REGULARLY BEAT HIM IN THE HEAD WITH A CAST-IRON OBJECT. Georgia could provide three meals and bed in solitary for this guy--should have done so when he proved he couldn't be around people after the first murder--but instead they'll murder him. I wish the DA, the judge and the jury could be REGULARLY BEATEN IN THE HEAD WITH A CAST-IRON OBJECT and see how their behavior changes over, oh say, 10 or 15 years of that kind of abuse. Georgia's Old Sparky would probably be quite busy after a few years.
 
2013-02-19 11:37:16 AM  

Weaver95: it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. even the lives of murderers on death row. they're life is sacred too. don't believe me? go read their literature. its very well defined.


I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.
 
2013-02-19 11:37:25 AM  

Khellendros: Weaver95: the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God. ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.

No, it's not.  Not even close.  You're assigning that value to the argument, and it's not the premise at all.  Innocence of the life, particularly related to children, is critical to their viewpoint.


I've been under the impression that the pro-lifers aren't so much pro-child as they are anti-woman. The logical inconsistency of their arguments seems to fall apart when they want to prevent abortions but also cut the social safety net.

They want to punish women for having sex (or being raped it would also seem).
 
2013-02-19 11:37:55 AM  
xanadian:
The premise as I had it explained to me is that babies/fetuses (feti?)/zygoats are innocent, while murderers are not.  So it's more "pro-innocent-life."

That's not to say the death penalty still isn't barbaric, though...


I've spoken to priests and rabbis about it and each and every single one of them summed up their pro-life stance as 'all life is sacred'.  without fail, without hesitation they have ALL said that to be pro-life means to believe that ALL life is sacred.  no exceptions at all.  all life is sacred.  all of it.  even scum sucking murderers.  especially scum sucking murderers.

now, the weak willed bottom feeders just in it to punish women for having sex - THOSE guys are pro-death penalty.
 
m00
2013-02-19 11:38:52 AM  
His sister Peggy calls him Junior . She wrote an affidavit on her brother's behalf - and said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow. Their mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle.

[2:33] "He would shout 'You stupid retard!' Or 'You dumb-ass!' Junior wouldn't cry, though; he would just stand there and endure it. Junior was often beaten like this, by either Momma or Granddaddy, until he would lose consciousness. He would sleep for hours afterwards."


that'll learn 'em
 
2013-02-19 11:38:54 AM  

Khellendros: Weaver95: it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. even the lives of murderers on death row. they're life is sacred too. don't believe me? go read their literature. its very well defined.

I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.


And then they go pray in a church with a huge sculpture of a man being execurted.
 
2013-02-19 11:39:08 AM  

Whiskey Pete: "..The U.S. Supreme Court has banned executions of mildly mentally retarded people."

WOO HOO! I can't be executed!


If you're mentally capable of realizing you're incapable of being executed, you're mentally capable of being executed.

/goddam windmills
 
2013-02-19 11:39:38 AM  

Weaver95: no, i'm telling you how the pro-lifers themselves define their own ideology.  all life is sacred.  ALL life is sacred.  they believe its wrong to take a life under any circumstances, be it abortion or via the death penalty.  this is their belief, and it's all inclusive.  it doesn't allow for the death penalty.


Of course, that's just the pro-lifers. There aren't too many of those about. There are a lot of confused anti-abortionists, though.
 
2013-02-19 11:39:43 AM  

Khellendros: Weaver95: it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. even the lives of murderers on death row. they're life is sacred too. don't believe me? go read their literature. its very well defined.

I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.


And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'.  period.  its' that simple.

which implies something rather interesting about the pro-lifers who are in favor of the death penalty, don't you think?
 
2013-02-19 11:39:45 AM  

The 4chan Psychiatrist: Summoner101: What's with journalists that have one sentence paragraphs? Are complete thoughts foreign to them?

-CNN
-Journalists

Pick one.


i1.ytimg.com
 
GBB
2013-02-19 11:39:51 AM  

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


But what about an "innocent life" that demonstrates that they are unable to be a part of functional society?
 
2013-02-19 11:40:09 AM  
The pro-lifers have made it quite clear that ALL LIFE IS SACRED, and that death is God's decision, not man's.

That's what they believe. That is the definition of "pro-life." It's not "pro-life, except when..."

Of course this isn't the first time the religious have gone with the "pick and choose" method of believing what they want to believe (see: the bible).
 
2013-02-19 11:40:13 AM  
Why is being developmentally-challenged a valid excuse for murder? Whether you know what you are doing or not, I don't want you in general society if you have tendencies toward killing those around you. You are a danger to others, period.
 
2013-02-19 11:40:46 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


I'm pro-life across the board. The death penalty has caused the death of too many innocent people. Our justice system is too flawed for it to be an option.
 
2013-02-19 11:40:48 AM  
I'd be more compelled by a stay on execution for someone with an exceptionally high IQ. Death row inmate with a 200 IQ? Don't waste it. Give him some reading material, and offer him parole if he can make a major contribution to science.
 
2013-02-19 11:41:25 AM  

Khellendros: Weaver95: it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. even the lives of murderers on death row. they're life is sacred too. don't believe me? go read their literature. its very well defined.

I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.


Too bad that's not in the Bible.
 
2013-02-19 11:42:21 AM  

xanadian: Weaver95: LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.

i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.

The premise as I had it explained to me is that babies/fetuses (feti?)/zygoats are innocent, while murderers are not.  So it's more "pro-innocent-life."

That's not to say the death penalty still isn't barbaric, though...


It appears you're confusing the terms pro life with anti abortion.  The difference is pretty self defining.
 
2013-02-19 11:42:24 AM  
For pro-lifers - as far as I know, there are no regular funeral rights for a miscarriage. If the religion doesn't treat a miscarriage as if it was a human being, how is it a human being by religious standards?
 
2013-02-19 11:42:48 AM  

Brubold: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

I'm pro-life across the board. The death penalty has caused the death of too many innocent people. Our justice system is too flawed for it to be an option.


And that is a valid and consistent point of view.  not to mention being an extremely difficult philosophy to put into practice on a daily basis.
 
2013-02-19 11:43:09 AM  

LarryDan43: You can't execute retarded people? Hell you might as well give all of the red states a license to kill. Which is pretty much the NRA's mission come to think about it.


Nice job on hijacking the thread. I'm a bit disappointed you didn't wedge a reference to Bush or Reagan in though.

What exactly does the NRA have to do with this?
 
2013-02-19 11:43:15 AM  
So the pro-lifers are clearly OK with babies spawned by incest and rape.
 
2013-02-19 11:44:33 AM  
I'd give him two choices: Stay here and die, or go to the Wall and join the Night's Watch.
 
2013-02-19 11:44:59 AM  

Weaver95: And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'. period. its' that simple.


There's your disconnect.  Catholics and Jews make up a fairly small percentage of the Judeo-Christian makeup in this country.  The bulk of those arguing this point are neither Catholic nor Jew.  Talk to one of the tens of thousands of Baptist, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc., etc, that make up the bulk of U.S. Christians, and the primary movers behind the pro-life political movement.  Read their literature and talk to their leaders, particularly those that make up the Evangelical movement.  They will have very different views and reasoning.
 
2013-02-19 11:45:02 AM  
If mental retardation is no impediment to your ability to murder, it should be no impediment to your paying the ultimate price for it. After all, an abortion isn't the taking of a life, it is merely the excise of a mass of tissue. Well, the death penalty is simply abortion on a civic scale. I do concede the point that it should only be used in cases where the identity and guilt of the killer is beyond doubt. But, once you cross that threshold, the murderer should be looked at as no more than a larger mass of cells, having sacrificed their humanity for whatever reason was applicable to them.
 
2013-02-19 11:46:04 AM  
Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty. it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not. if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore. sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed. kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


I think Locke would like a word with you.  Read up on his work on natural rights.
 
2013-02-19 11:46:09 AM  

CygnusDarius: I'd give him two choices: Stay here and die, or go to the Wall and join the Night's Watch.


I think I'd rather choose death.  living out my life on a giant refrigerator, dodging undead and never getting laid?  kill me now, it'd be clean death.
 
2013-02-19 11:46:16 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Too bad that's not in the Bible.


Correct.  Most of what they push isn't there, in word or principal.
 
2013-02-19 11:46:17 AM  
Well think of it this way, if they start executing retarded people now, they will eventually get around to executing all of Congress.
 
2013-02-19 11:46:19 AM  

HAMMERTOE: If mental retardation is no impediment to your ability to murder, it should be no impediment to your paying the ultimate price for it. After all, an abortion isn't the taking of a life, it is merely the excise of a mass of tissue. Well, the death penalty is simply abortion on a civic scale. I do concede the point that it should only be used in cases where the identity and guilt of the killer is beyond doubt. But, once you cross that threshold, the murderer should be looked at as no more than a larger mass of cells, having sacrificed their humanity for whatever reason was applicable to them.


And when we get it wrong? Then what?
 
2013-02-19 11:46:32 AM  
Conservatives -- especially religious ones -- don't apply logic to any of their beliefs.

Dagnabbit, they're against abortions because life is sacred, but they're for the death penalty because POTATO!!!

Now, you just try to take away their guns.
 
2013-02-19 11:46:37 AM  

Virtuoso80: I'd be more compelled by a stay on execution for someone with an exceptionally high IQ. Death row inmate with a 200 IQ? Don't waste it. Give him some reading material, and offer him parole if he can make a major contribution to science.


I have mixed feelings on capital punishment, I do however think the measure should be the humanity of the person and there viability of them to ever become part of a society again.  Not necessarily the seriousness of their crimes.

If a dog is violent and cannot be trained, it should be put down.  It should be similar with people but with a much higher threshhold and much more approaches of rehabilitation being exhausted.
 
2013-02-19 11:46:46 AM  
Meh, one less oxygen thief.
 
2013-02-19 11:46:52 AM  

Khellendros: Weaver95: And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'. period. its' that simple.

There's your disconnect.  Catholics and Jews make up a fairly small percentage of the Judeo-Christian makeup in this country.  The bulk of those arguing this point are neither Catholic nor Jew.  Talk to one of the tens of thousands of Baptist, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc., etc, that make up the bulk of U.S. Christians, and the primary movers behind the pro-life political movement.  Read their literature and talk to their leaders, particularly those that make up the Evangelical movement.  They will have very different views and reasoning.


yes, but they're f*cking heretics and should all be burned at the stake.
 
2013-02-19 11:47:44 AM  

Mr. Titanium: TheShavingofOccam123: Another mentally-ill person being greased by a state that doesn't care how poorly a citizen develops as long as he doesn't go around killing people.

Don't be mentally ill in Georgia (or Arizona) or you'll do hard time for being sick. Or the state will just murder you and call it justice.

Then Jesus said, "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.*"

*"But don't help them get any quicker than they need to."

So if a mentally impaired individual is murdering people, do we turn him loose, or give him prison without hope for parole?  Doesn't "without hope of parole" sort of define cruel and unusual punishment?  We sure as anything can't help him develop mentally to the point he doesn't pose a continuing risk to society.  I am not being snarky, but I've never figured a good answer for this.


You're not being snarky. I agree, this is a hard thing to figure out. However, what I found interesting is that a lot of the articles about this case don't tell you what he's being put to death FOR?
 CNN... they actually took the time to tell you that he's on death row for first shooting his girlfriend to death, and then killing his cellmate.
Truth is, the guy killed another prisoner... with a nail studded piece of wood... and here's the key part... because he thought he didn't have anything to lose.

Think about that. All this "The poor guy only has a 70 iq" stuff. But he was able to conceptualize that what he was doing was wrong, but didn't care.

I'm sorry, but this guy is a danger to everyone, in or out of prison. What should be do? lock him in solitary for the rest of his life? Never let him interact with another human because he can't be trusted not to kill someone out of pure apathy of spirit?

I'm of the opinion there's really no choice here.
 
2013-02-19 11:48:03 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


Hey, it's not like they could turn the guy loose.  This is more merciful than keeping him in a cage until he dies.
 
2013-02-19 11:48:57 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: If you're mentally capable of realizing you're incapable of being executed, you're mentally capable of being executed.


That's quite a Catch.
 
2013-02-19 11:49:30 AM  
The guy kills somebody and gets sent to prison. While in prison he kills some else. fark him.
 
2013-02-19 11:49:57 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


false dichotomy is false
 
2013-02-19 11:50:48 AM  

Weaver95: Khellendros: Weaver95: And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'. period. its' that simple.

There's your disconnect.  Catholics and Jews make up a fairly small percentage of the Judeo-Christian makeup in this country.  The bulk of those arguing this point are neither Catholic nor Jew.  Talk to one of the tens of thousands of Baptist, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc., etc, that make up the bulk of U.S. Christians, and the primary movers behind the pro-life political movement.  Read their literature and talk to their leaders, particularly those that make up the Evangelical movement.  They will have very different views and reasoning.

yes, but they're f*cking heretics and should all be burned at the stake.


But they're the side you're arguing against.  They're the ones that hold that belief you think is inconsistent with their teachings.  It's not.  Your argument will not be accepted by The Other Side, because it misrepresents their position.  Your assertion falls on deaf ears because it's pretty meaningless to the bulk of the people you're leveling the accusation toward.
 
2013-02-19 11:51:58 AM  

sethen320: Why is being developmentally-challenged a valid excuse for murder? Whether you know what you are doing or not, I don't want you in general society if you have tendencies toward killing those around you. You are a danger to others, period.


Which is why they're in prison.
 
2013-02-19 11:52:16 AM  
The first question should be:  Did the person commit the crime?

If yes, then:  Does the person have a basic understanding of right and wrong... understanding that their actions were wrong?

If yes, warm up the chair.


(Actually, a firing squad is known as being quicker, cheaper, more humane and more appropriate for executions. )
 
GBB
2013-02-19 11:52:44 AM  

Weaver95: no, i'm telling you how the pro-lifers themselves define their own ideology.  all life is sacred.  ALL life is sacred.  they believe its wrong to take a life under any circumstances, be it abortion or via the death penalty.  this is their belief, and it's all inclusive.  it doesn't allow for the death penalty.


Well, there's the problem.  You are confusing the Pro-Life movements ideology with the vague term "pro life".  The term "pro life" is used in the abortion debate to differentiate between those that belive abortions are an abomination and those that are "pro choice" in that they believe the mother should be the only one who decides.  The Pro-Life movement believes all life is sacred like you said, they just have the unfortunate position of being equated with a generic term.

It would like saying that a Head-On accident involves someone that can't follow simple directions:
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

but it's not this:
blog.lehighvalleylive.com
 
2013-02-19 11:53:30 AM  
It's too bad we can't go back in time and execute the mother and grand-father.
 
2013-02-19 11:53:34 AM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


People who quote the bible as truth are simply saying "I've stopped thinking".  You can't apply logic to these people's rationale.
 
2013-02-19 11:54:06 AM  

DingleberryMoose: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

false dichotomy is false


Please explain how being pro life and pro death are not mutually exclusive.
 
2013-02-19 11:54:19 AM  
I should also be clear - 'valid' christian religions in this country are the catholic church, Lutherans, eastern orthodox church, Protestants and  Presbyterians.  that's it.  the rest are cults and heretics.  no exceptions.  if you call yourself a 'christian' and aren't a member of a main stream church then you are a heretic and fool.  plus you're probably being scammed out of your life savings.  in my view, 'evangelical' is code word for 'please bring back the holy inquisition and burn me at the stake'.  every time I see an 'evangelical' preaching, I imagine them screaming as they burn in holy fire.

*sigh*

I think I missed my true calling in life.  I wonder if the pagans could use an inquisitor?
 
2013-02-19 11:54:45 AM  

Weaver95: living out my life on a giant refrigerator, dodging undead and never getting laid?


Sounds like marriage.
 
2013-02-19 11:56:24 AM  

Khellendros: But they're the side you're arguing against.  They're the ones that hold that belief you think is inconsistent with their teachings.  It's not.  Your argument will not be accepted by The Other Side, because it misrepresents their position.  Your assertion falls on deaf ears because it's pretty meaningless to the bulk of the people you're leveling the accusation toward.


no, i'm telling you that pro-life means all life is sacred.  ALL life.  even murderers.  the evangelicals who try to say they're pro-life and pro-death penalty are liars, fools and heretics.  f*ck 'em because they're leading you down a false path.
 
2013-02-19 11:56:47 AM  

indarwinsshadow: Hmmm.

Last week farkers were up in arms because IQ tests weren't a real evaluation of intelligence.

This week, some of you are upset because IQ is now an accurate measure of intelligence.


i630.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-19 11:58:24 AM  
Regarding the man he killed in prison.

Our death penalty candidate killed his SLEEPING cellmate... with a nail studded piece of wood... and they think it's because he simply felt that he didn't have anything to lose because he was already in prison for murder.

So... I'm sorry, he clearly understood it was wrong... he simply didn't care.

The more I read on this the more I'm of the opinion that the anti death penalty folk need to choose their battles better. This is a hard one to justify granting him mercy.
 
2013-02-19 11:58:41 AM  
I don't get the headline, subby care to explain?
 
2013-02-19 11:59:43 AM  

sirgrim: sethen320: Why is being developmentally-challenged a valid excuse for murder? Whether you know what you are doing or not, I don't want you in general society if you have tendencies toward killing those around you. You are a danger to others, period.

Which is why they're in prison.


No, its a waste of resources to maintain an individual who is useless to the world. Also, keeping him in prison didn't really help either.
 
2013-02-19 12:00:09 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person.  I have no stance on the vengeance portion of it, because I've never been put in the situation of knowing a victim of murder.


One of the kids I grew up with - one of my closest friends - was murdered when I was 15.  It was rather shocking, because Eugene doesn't (didn't?) really have gang violence to the best of my knowledge.  The man that did it, Conan Wayne Hale, is on death row.

I still do not support the death penalty.  I will never support the death penalty.  Will I be happy when he dies?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  That's irrelevant; that's vengeance, not justice.  Justice would be having him pay for his crimes in a way that betters society, not damages it.

Legalized murder is not acceptable.  Period.

Weaver95: i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.  ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.  if it's morally wrong to pick and choose which fetus gets born, then it's equally wrong to pick and choose which murdering bastard gets to die.  lock 'em up?  sure.  but you can't kill 'em and still be pro-life.

pro-life is all inclusive and absolutist.  you CANNOT pick and choose - you are either pro-life or not.  thems the rules.  it's also a very difficult philosophy to follow and I have a lot of respect for people who accept it's tenets and follow them....ALL of them.


DING DING DING, we have a winner.

 

Khellendros: I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.


You're thinking of the PROTESTANT view on life.  The CATHOLIC stance on life is just as anti-death-penalty, or at least the one outlined by JPII was.  That's one reason why I support this new-found thought process of changing the language from pro-life and pro-choice to something else.  A consistent pro-life ethic encourages the sanctity of life at ALL stages.
 
2013-02-19 12:02:56 PM  

hinten: I don't get the headline, subby care to explain?


The murderer is a retard, hence the rest of the people in Georgia are dumber retards.
 
2013-02-19 12:03:05 PM  
Warren Hill grew up in rural Georgia with an IQ of 70.

This explains why Jimmy Carter is going to bat for him. He obviously is one of the few who voted fro JC to be re-elected.
 
2013-02-19 12:03:14 PM  

sethen320: No, its a waste of resources to maintain an individual who is useless to the world.


So we should execute everyone with profound developmental disabilities and those who become seriously disabled?
 
2013-02-19 12:03:20 PM  

Bell-fan: Regarding the man he killed in prison.

Our death penalty candidate killed his SLEEPING cellmate... with a nail studded piece of wood... and they think it's because he simply felt that he didn't have anything to lose because he was already in prison for murder.

So... I'm sorry, he clearly understood it was wrong... he simply didn't care.

The more I read on this the more I'm of the opinion that the anti death penalty folk need to choose their battles better. This is a hard one to justify granting him mercy.


The thing about mercy is that its usually not an easy thing to grant.
 
2013-02-19 12:03:32 PM  
I'm pro-death so I'm getting a kick outta this thread.
 
2013-02-19 12:04:56 PM  
thread is completely DERPED. I guess it's appropriate.
 
2013-02-19 12:06:28 PM  

Carn: DingleberryMoose: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

false dichotomy is false

Please explain how being pro life and pro death are not mutually exclusive.


First, the terms don't equate, but you know that.  Secondly, the more common pro-life belief is that everyone's life is his/her own and the end of that life can only be sanctioned by that person.  This sanctioning may come in many forms, one of which is committing a crime where the death penalty may be applied.

Being pro-life (generally) indicates that one thinks of a fetus as being a human person from some moment between conception and birth and believes that person should enjoy the same protection of the law that those of us who've already been born enjoy. That person's life should be protected until they do something that warrants lifting that protection, like violating the protection of another person.

In other words, you have the right to life until you forfeit that right through your own heinous actions.

Note that these are not necessarily what I believe, but I've lived around this mindset long enough to tell you it's not unreasoned by the people who hold it, and it's a deeply held set of beliefs.
 
2013-02-19 12:06:53 PM  

doubled99: thread is completely DERPED. I guess it's appropriate.


Haven't been through many Benghazi threads, have you? This is thread just has a light whipped DERP topping, by comparison.
 
2013-02-19 12:08:59 PM  

Exception Collection: Legalized murder is not acceptable. Period.


If it's legal, it's not murder.
 
2013-02-19 12:09:47 PM  
I'm ok with all of you Farkers having abortions.  I'm also ok with the state killing this reta....*ahem* mentally challenged individual.  I won't do either.  I have morals, but I don't advocate legislating morality.
 
2013-02-19 12:09:53 PM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


You're assuming the unproven (and highly controversial) premise that capital punishment doesn't act as a deterrent.  It's perfectly consistent to be pro-life in the broad sense and support a death penalty that prevents more homicides than individuals executed.
 
2013-02-19 12:10:09 PM  

Exception Collection: Justice would be having him pay for his crimes in a way that betters society, not damages it.


So we can't imprison him and spend money that I earned that should be spent on my children to pay for his room and board, and we can't put him out on the street because he'll just kill someone else.  The only way to keep him from hurting someone else is to put him alone in a cell for his lifetime, which is in some ways far more cruel that just getting it over with.  What would you suggest?

/genuinely curious, not snarky
 
2013-02-19 12:12:05 PM  

BiffDangler: It's too bad we can't go back in time and execute the mother and grand-father.


all the more reason for America to return to a good eugenics program. fewer suffer. way too many people are far too damaged to ever be parents. the USA is jam packed with morans and riff raff because the government ceased the eugenics programs.

-- if you're going to put me in prison for life, farking just kill me. has anyone seen a single TV show about that level of hell? life in prison is a sick horrible thing to do to people.
 
2013-02-19 12:12:05 PM  

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


When 1 out of 20 of the people executed are innocent, yes, innocent life is still part of the issue.
 
2013-02-19 12:12:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: And when we get it wrong? Then what?


Look, I said when it's beyond doubt. Personally, I think that all death penalty cases should be automatically reviewed immediately by a panel of judges to assure impartiality of application. Call it "fast-tracking the appeals process."
 
2013-02-19 12:12:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: No, its a waste of resources to maintain an individual who is useless to the world.

So we should execute everyone with profound developmental disabilities and those who become seriously disabled?


If they enjoy murdering, then yes.
 
2013-02-19 12:14:11 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: ...I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person....


So... an innocent baby/fetus/etc... ISN'T an innocent life?? WTF?

 - Look i don't care one way or the other as people have different circumstances and will ultimately be held responsible for their actions (be it Karma, or whatever), but DAMN. At least OWN your decision. This wishy-washy shiat doesn't make any sense no matter how you parse it.
 
2013-02-19 12:15:47 PM  

chrylis: You're assuming the unproven (and highly controversial) premise that capital punishment doesn't act as a deterrent.  It's perfectly consistent to be pro-life in the broad sense and support a death penalty that prevents more homicides than individuals executed.


While we're baselessly speculating, abortion could also prevent more homicides than fetuses aborted. In any case, Weaver appears more interested in reclaiming the word "pro-life" for what it once meant before it was co-opted by the religious right to mean (pretty much exclusively) "anti-abortion" than arguing about how whether or not some middle position between "All life is sacred" and "Kill babies, make baby omelets" is internally consistent and valid.
 
2013-02-19 12:15:55 PM  
Also, the whole "Second Amendment" issue revolves around denying guns to the people most likely to use them illegally and/ or irresponsibly, no? The Death Penalty is hands-down the most effective method for denying a proven murderer the opportunity to kill again. Period.
 
2013-02-19 12:15:56 PM  

rohar: It appears you're confusing the terms pro life with anti abortion. The difference is pretty self defining.


Those 2 terms are conflated an awful lot by plenty of people, *especially* the "pro-life" crowd.  Like Weaver said earlier, these "pro-lifers" are really no more than just anti-abortionists, solely because they want to control what women do with their bodies.  And so we still end up having this moronic debate amongst the pundits and our politicians.

:/
 
2013-02-19 12:17:40 PM  

sethen320: Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: No, its a waste of resources to maintain an individual who is useless to the world.

So we should execute everyone with profound developmental disabilities and those who become seriously disabled?

If they enjoy murdering, then yes.


And if they are just "useless to the world" as you stated?
 
2013-02-19 12:17:52 PM  
...

And then you got the knuckledraggers who somehow think that just because there's something growing in mommy's tummy, it's considered a separate and distinguished "life".  Can it breathe on its own?  No?  Read you some Genesis 2 and get back to me on when something *Biblically* is considered "alive."
 
2013-02-19 12:19:01 PM  

xanadian: rohar: It appears you're confusing the terms pro life with anti abortion. The difference is pretty self defining.

Those 2 terms are conflated an awful lot by plenty of people, *especially* the "pro-life" crowd.  Like Weaver said earlier, these "pro-lifers" are really no more than just anti-abortionists, solely because they want to control what women do with their bodies.  And so we still end up having this moronic debate amongst the pundits and our politicians.

:/


This 2
 
2013-02-19 12:19:45 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Philip Francis Queeg: And when we get it wrong? Then what?

Look, I said when it's beyond doubt. Personally, I think that all death penalty cases should be automatically reviewed immediately by a panel of judges to assure impartiality of application. Call it "fast-tracking the appeals process."


A panel of elected judges who need to show they are tough on crime in order to be re-elected?

The death penalty is absolutely incompatible with a system where judges and prosecutors are elected.
 
2013-02-19 12:24:42 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
maybe his sleeping cellmate touched his baseball.  or ball(s).  either one.
 
2013-02-19 12:25:46 PM  

incendi: While we're baselessly speculating


Since you clearly consider evidence carefully from a neutral perspective before throwing around childishly dismissive insults, make sure you've thoroughly reviewed the work of Isaac Ehrlich.
 
2013-02-19 12:25:58 PM  

xanadian: ...

And then you got the knuckledraggers who somehow think that just because there's something growing in mommy's tummy, it's considered a separate and distinguished "life".  Can it breathe on its own?  No?  Read you some Genesis 2 and get back to me on when something *Biblically* is considered "alive."


Look, Genesis 2 is also the part where the 6-day creation story is debunked.  No fundie reads Genesis 2, except the part where Eve gets everybody in trouble.
 
2013-02-19 12:28:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: No, its a waste of resources to maintain an individual who is useless to the world.

So we should execute everyone with profound developmental disabilities and those who become seriously disabled?

If they enjoy murdering, then yes.

And if they are just "useless to the world" as you stated?


So the absolute number of lives on the planet is our overall goal? More = better? We shouldn't strive to minimize suffering?

/half trolling.
 
2013-02-19 12:29:04 PM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


Let me see if I get this.  SOME pro-life people have made rather inept arguments for their stance and so ALL pro-life people must be restricted to exactly, exclusively, and only the part of the argument you've latched onto.  And you've chosen to share this _very_special_ perspective in a thread about somebody who was often beat on the head for being slow.  Very clever of you.
 
2013-02-19 12:29:12 PM  

xanadian: And then you got the knuckledraggers who somehow think that just because there's something growing in mommy's tummy, it's considered a separate and distinguished "life".  Can it breathe on its own?  No?


That's the stupidest argument.  If I plop you down in the middle of Wisconsin right now the same way a baby comes into this world, you'd last about 10 minutes and then die.

That "clump of cells" is part of the lifecycle of a human being, man.  If killing other humans because they inconvenience you is wrong, why isn't aborting a human fetus for the sake of convenience wrong as well?  I understand it's not a black and white issue, but damn.

On the other hand, religious nutbars blowing places up for providing life-saving treatments that they don't agree with is retarded, too.  You idiots feeling good about sh*t like that going down need to step back and realize they aren't in there vacuuming kid's brains out for fun.  That's only happening when a woman's life is endangered to the point of having to make a really hard choice.  It's not one I'd want to make, but I can understand having to do so.

Pretty much I hate both sides because you're all f*cking stupid.
 
2013-02-19 12:30:15 PM  

Weaver95: LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.

i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.  ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.  if it's morally wrong to pick and choose which fetus gets born, then it's equally wrong to pick and choose which murdering bastard gets to die.  lock 'em up?  sure.  but you can't kill 'em and still be pro-life.

pro-life is all inclusive and absolutist.  you CANNOT pick and choose - you are either pro-life or not.  thems the rules.  it's also a very difficult philosophy to follow and I have a lot of respect for people who accept it's tenets and follow them....ALL of them.


Except that pro-life and pro-choice are not the point of the discussion that should be centering around this man and his pending execution. That is a separate, semi-related dialogue that you are introducing here for your own reasons. I'm pretty sure you're massively misrepresenting it as well. It doesn't take a genius to see the difference between being pro-life when it comes to an unborn child, and supporting the  execution of someone who has proven they have no regard for life themselves.

And on the subject of the actual topic at hand, what is society supposed to do with this man? He's proven that he will kill, more than once. He either doesn't understand that he shouldn't kill people, or he doesn't care. No matter how you slice that, he is not someone who can be allowed to be a part of society. Do you keep him locked up for the rest of his natural life with no chance of parole? In solitary confinement, no less, since I doubt they're going to give him another cell mate at this point. That doesn't seem any more humane.
 
2013-02-19 12:30:45 PM  

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: No, its a waste of resources to maintain an individual who is useless to the world.

So we should execute everyone with profound developmental disabilities and those who become seriously disabled?

If they enjoy murdering, then yes.

And if they are just "useless to the world" as you stated?

So the absolute number of lives on the planet is our overall goal? More = better? We shouldn't strive to minimize suffering?

/half trolling.


I don't think you are very useful. To the death panels with you!
 
2013-02-19 12:31:25 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: Philip Francis Queeg: sethen320: No, its a waste of resources to maintain an individual who is useless to the world.

So we should execute everyone with profound developmental disabilities and those who become seriously disabled?

If they enjoy murdering, then yes.

And if they are just "useless to the world" as you stated?


Never mind. You know what I meant. Stop trying to look so clever.
 
2013-02-19 12:32:19 PM  

coeyagi: LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.

Nope, according to them, it's all about life.  They don't qualify it.  I mean, except when someone dares to question about them about life when it's outside the womb.


Oddly, I do see the word "innocent" thrown around quite frequently in abortion connotations. This man has no innocence, he may be developmentally stunted and the product of abuse, but he is still capable of making decisions, and while locked in a tiny space, under heavy guard with one other man, he decided to kill that man.

Yes, his parents were awful, but he is utterly incapable of being trusted in the presence of any other humans, ever.

Our choices are locking him in solitary confinement for the rest of his life, or killing him.

Now, if there was restraint. If he had been in jail for assault and assaulted his cell mate? Different story. But he's in for murdering an ex-girlfriend, and then murdering a cell mate.

Funny, thinking about it this way, King, while in jail, decided another man needed to be put to death, and he did so.

Functionally, he already decided that he himself was pro-death penalty, until it would apply to him.
 
2013-02-19 12:33:30 PM  

FarFarAway: Weaver95: LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.

i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.  ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.  if it's morally wrong to pick and choose which fetus gets born, then it's equally wrong to pick and choose which murdering bastard gets to die.  lock 'em up?  sure.  but you can't kill 'em and still be pro-life.

pro-life is all inclusive and absolutist.  you CANNOT pick and choose - you are either pro-life or not.  thems the rules.  it's also a very difficult philosophy to follow and I have a lot of respect for people who accept it's tenets and follow them....ALL of them.

Except that pro-life and pro-choice are not the point of the discussion that should be centering around this man and his pending execution. That is a separate, semi-related dialogue that you are introducing here for your own reasons. I'm pretty sure you're massively misrepresenting it as well. It doesn't take a genius to see the difference between being pro-life when it comes to an unborn child, and supporting the  execution of someone who has proven they have no regard for life themselves.

And on the subject of the actual topic at hand, what is society supposed to do with this man? He's proven that he will kill, more than once. He either doesn't under ...


If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.
 
2013-02-19 12:35:48 PM  

blatz514: mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle.


If Warren had been quicker he could have dodged the blows.
 
2013-02-19 12:36:00 PM  

kombat_unit: hinten: I don't get the headline, subby care to explain?

The murderer is a retard, hence the rest of the people in Georgia are dumber retards.


Got it.

I'm glad that the Georgians have such faith in their government to always get the right guy executed. Talk about big government.
OTOH, it is limited to blacks and retards so nobody is really in danger.
 
2013-02-19 12:41:08 PM  

chrylis: You're assuming the unproven (and highly controversial)


chrylis: Since you clearly consider evidence carefully from a neutral perspective before throwing around childishly dismissive insults, make sure you've thoroughly reviewed the work of Isaac Ehrlich.


Ehrlich:There is no unambiguous method for determining whether capital punishment should be utilized as a legal means of punishment without considering at the same time the optimal values of all other choice variables that can affect the level of capital crimes.

The idea that it is any  more of a deterrent than life imprisonment is  also unproven and highly controversial. If you believe that killing murderers lowers the overall number of people killed, then yes, it's a somewhat consistent position to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but it's based on speculation (maybe this saves lives) rather than things we can actually control (are we going to end this particular life?).

Is that a sufficiently neutral perspective to have considered before being childishly dismissive? This is Fark Politics, after all, I assume the bar is set pretty low.
 
2013-02-19 12:43:34 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Whiskey Pete: "..The U.S. Supreme Court has banned executions of mildly mentally retarded people."

WOO HOO! I can't be executed!

If you're mentally capable of realizing you're incapable of being executed, you're mentally capable of being executed.

/goddam windmills


* Stares blankly at Occam *
 
2013-02-19 12:43:46 PM  

chrylis: Since you clearly consider evidence carefully from a neutral perspective before throwing around childishly dismissive insults, make sure you've thoroughly reviewed the work of Isaac Ehrlich.


That's an interesting read, btw. Thanks. Also, that they host files on "wings.buffalo.edu" is amusing to me.
 
2013-02-19 12:44:59 PM  
I remember marching in Atlanta for Troy Davis. The group I was marching with all thought the march had the power to save him. They were horrified when I explained there wasn't going to be a saving moment for Davis. The march was us going on record to claim how unjust his execution was. They thought I was an awful person to suggest that the march wasn't going to save his life.
 
2013-02-19 12:46:04 PM  

urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway:
If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.


Unless they can prove that this man actually does not understand that murder is wrong (and an IQ of 70 is not proof of that conclusively), then I disagree that society owes him anything more than the next person. It's a tragic thing that his childhood was so horrible, and his parents should have been held responsible for what they did to him. But what his family did to him does not justify what he did. Nowhere in any of this is anyone arguing that he didn't murder those people. He killed two people, for whatever reasons. Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.
 
2013-02-19 12:48:32 PM  

urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway: Weaver95: LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.

i'm sorry but...no.  if you are pro-life, then ALL LIFE IS SACRED.  period.  the premise of the pro-life ideology is that we don't get to pick and choose who gets to live or die, that's up to God.  ALL life is sacred, even the lives of bottom feeding scum sucking murderers locked in a cage.  if it's morally wrong to pick and choose which fetus gets born, then it's equally wrong to pick and choose which murdering bastard gets to die.  lock 'em up?  sure.  but you can't kill 'em and still be pro-life.

pro-life is all inclusive and absolutist.  you CANNOT pick and choose - you are either pro-life or not.  thems the rules.  it's also a very difficult philosophy to follow and I have a lot of respect for people who accept it's tenets and follow them....ALL of them.

Except that pro-life and pro-choice are not the point of the discussion that should be centering around this man and his pending execution. That is a separate, semi-related dialogue that you are introducing here for your own reasons. I'm pretty sure you're massively misrepresenting it as well. It doesn't take a genius to see the difference between being pro-life when it comes to an unborn child, and supporting the  execution of someone who has proven they have no regard for life themselves.

And on the subject of the actual topic at hand, what is society supposed to do with this man? He's proven that he will kill, more than once. He either doesn't under ...

If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.


I don't owe him shiat.
 
2013-02-19 12:49:20 PM  

Khellendros: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

I never got this argument.  Of course you can be pro-life and for the death penalty (I'm neither, but I find this repeated argument completely silly).

You can believe that life is life from conception, and should be protected as any average person.  You can also believe that through evil/illegal action, one can forfeit their life to the state, and be executed.  There's nothing inconsistent about that.  A fetus - if you define it as a human life - can be protected by law because he/she/it is innocent of any crimes.  There's no due process that can take their life.  That protected fetus can be born, grow up, and commit murder.  That willful choice can make their life forfeit to the state.

How is that inconsistent?  It's not an issue of "sacred life".  It's an issue of due process and definition of life.  Again, I'm neither pro-life, nor am I pro-death penalty, but I see this very poor argument over and over, and it's very weak.


Well said.
 
2013-02-19 12:52:51 PM  
i2.cdn.turner.com

They're going to kill Jamie Foxx??

Django wasn't that bad.
 
2013-02-19 12:53:33 PM  

DingleberryMoose: Look, Genesis 2 is also the part where the 6-day creation story is debunked. No fundie reads Genesis 2, except the part where Eve gets everybody in trouble.


Actually, Genesis is where the entire bible is debunked. The salient point of the entire chapter is that a supposedly "all-knowing" deity purposely leaves his beloved children with somebody worse than a pedophile, "the serpent", an agent of the deity's sworn enemy. Then, when his "beloved children" are naturally corrupted, having no knowledge of evil from which to draw any means of resistance from, what does this deity do? Condemn them, and all of their descendants to lives of suffering and strife. Not only is this a major dereliction of duty and avoidance of responsibility on "god's" part, it's rather petty and narcissistic. Most mere mortal parents I know would do better than this. If their god is no better than this, he is certainly imaginary and unworthy of worship.
 
2013-02-19 12:53:51 PM  
All I can say is this. I'm pro death penalty. But in a cast lke this, where you've got someone who the defenders are saying isn't capable ot understanding that murder is wrong?  Let him go, but under the stipulation that he must be in the 24 hour care of one of the morons who thinks killing people is ok if you're stupid.
 
2013-02-19 12:55:15 PM  
A fetus not guilty of any crime? How about that dang ol' Original Sin??? You get that sucker before he's baptized, then BAM! You were OK in taking him out.
 
2013-02-19 12:56:02 PM  

Weaver95: Khellendros: Weaver95: it's inconsistent because the pro-lifers themselves have stated that to be pro-life you must believe that all life is sacred. ALL life is sacred. even the lives of murderers on death row. they're life is sacred too. don't believe me? go read their literature. its very well defined.

I used to be one of them.  I marched on corners, and yelled at people entering abortion clinics.  I handed out the very literature you're talking about.  I had it farking memorized.  I know very well the arguments used, and how they apply to christian morality.  I escaped that life a long time ago.  And I can tell you this - if you're interested in making a point, you should address their argument as they see it, not as you would imagine it.  Their "every life is sacred" point specified innocent life, defined as children who have not yet had the ability or opportunity to hear the truth and commit their lives to christ.  And in the times those ideas were formed, it fit just fine with capital punishment.  It did so for centuries, and still does today.

"Every life is sacred" is not an all-encompassing statement.  They know it's not, and they don't argue that it is.

And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'.  period.  its' that simple.

which implies something rather interesting about the pro-lifers who are in favor of the death penalty, don't you think?


No. Wrong. Unless they are also 100% against any form of killing such as self-defense, war, eating meat, leather shoes, etc. Your strawman argument is weak. You and I probably have the same stance on both abortion and the death penalty, but your over simplification and jumping to conclusions of the stance of others does nothing to help your argument.
 
2013-02-19 12:56:16 PM  

FarFarAway: urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway:
If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.

Unless they can prove that this man actually does not understand that murder is wrong (and an IQ of 70 is not proof of that conclusively), then I disagree that society owes him anything more than the next person. It's a tragic thing that his childhood was so horrible, and his parents should have been held responsible for what they did to him. But what his family did to him does not justify what he did. Nowhere in any of this is anyone arguing that he didn't murder those people. He killed two people, for whatever reasons. Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.


I agree it's a no win situation for him and society. I do not agree that society doesn't owe him something. Even if he does have the mental capacity to know that what he was doing was wrong on some level, that sort of childhood abuse could cause a person to engage in perverse/twisted activity. People with OCD know what they're doing is odd, they have no control over it, though.
I do agree that solitary confinement is little better than the death penalty.
 
2013-02-19 12:56:29 PM  

Mr. Titanium: TheShavingofOccam123: Another mentally-ill person being greased by a state that doesn't care how poorly a citizen develops as long as he doesn't go around killing people.

Don't be mentally ill in Georgia (or Arizona) or you'll do hard time for being sick. Or the state will just murder you and call it justice.

Then Jesus said, "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.*"

*"But don't help them get any quicker than they need to."

So if a mentally impaired individual is murdering people, do we turn him loose, or give him prison without hope for parole?  Doesn't "without hope of parole" sort of define cruel and unusual punishment?  We sure as anything can't help him develop mentally to the point he doesn't pose a continuing risk to society.  I am not being snarky, but I've never figured a good answer for this.


If he's truly mentally impaired to the point where mercy is needed, then you can keep having fake parole meetings and he'll never catch on. Like leaving some cake in his cell for after the execution.
 
2013-02-19 12:56:30 PM  

FarFarAway: urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway:
If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.

Unless they can prove that this man actually does not understand that murder is wrong (and an IQ of 70 is not proof of that conclusively), then I disagree that society owes him anything more than the next person. It's a tragic thing that his childhood was so horrible, and his parents should have been held responsible for what they did to him. But what his family did to him does not justify what he did. Nowhere in any of this is anyone arguing that he didn't murder those people. He killed two people, for whatever reasons. Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.


The argument and test shouldn't be whether he understood his actions to be wrong. The argument and test should be: does he have the capacity to understand history actions? Is he aware of what he did and how that directly resulted in death/injury.

And IIRC, that's also the legal standard (or a prong of the legal standard). There has to be an element of culpability which is related to the capacity to understand the crimes for which you're accused.
 
2013-02-19 12:57:08 PM  

FarFarAway: Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.


How would that not be a win for society?  Whether he understands his actions or not the fact remains that he freely took 2 human lives.  What guarantee does society have that he will not take a 3rd or 4th should the mood strike?  None.  His home environment was horrific at best and sadly we can't impugn his mother and grandfather for his actions.  That doesn't excuse his actions.  He's defective and more than likely cannot be fixed.  As it pertains to elements and minerals all human life has close to the same value.  Outside of that there are clearly instances of some human lives having no or negative value.  Culling the herd is not necessarily a bad thing.
 
2013-02-19 12:57:18 PM  

incendi: The idea that it is any more of a deterrent than life imprisonment is also unproven and highly controversial. If you believe that killing murderers lowers the overall number of people killed, then yes, it's a somewhat consistent position to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but it's based on speculation (maybe this saves lives) rather than things we can actually control (are we going to end this particular life?).


I normally don't out myself on topics like this, but I'm in the odd position of supporting the death penalty philosophically but opposing it in practice, largely due to the notorious unreliability of eyewitness identification of strangers and similar evidentiary problems.  I just don't like anybody getting away with smuggling in important unacknowledged premises in debates like this.  (And I hadn't realized this was in politics; it had hit the front page before I saw it.  Carry on with the cattiness!)
 
2013-02-19 12:59:33 PM  
And i'm telling you that every priest and rabbi i've ever spoken too in over 20 odd years has summed up the pro-life argument as 'all life is sacred'.  period.  its' that simple.

 If all life is sacred, why are there not funeral rights for a miscarriage? The fetus is not given the same send of as a baby would be.
 
2013-02-19 01:00:36 PM  

blatz514: His sister Peggy calls him Junior . She wrote an affidavit on her brother's behalf - and said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow. Their mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle.

[i.ebayimg.com image 300x199]

/Not sure why this came to mind...


Can you give me a clue?
 
2013-02-19 01:00:43 PM  
If he were of average intelligence, I'd say he deserved it, but no... I can't support killing people who are mentally handicapped. That anyone even needs to say that is disturbing to me.
 
2013-02-19 01:02:47 PM  
I reckon he must have liked them french fried pertators
 
2013-02-19 01:02:51 PM  
I am for eliminating the death penalty if they can actually have  real punishment. No TV, slop for meals, room with no windows, no visitors. Books only. otherwise I say fry the farkers.
 
2013-02-19 01:04:27 PM  
HAHAHAAHHA!!!! I love how books are a punishment. HAHAHAAHAAHA!!!
 
2013-02-19 01:08:04 PM  

urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway: urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway:
If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.

Unless they can prove that this man actually does not understand that murder is wrong (and an IQ of 70 is not proof of that conclusively), then I disagree that society owes him anything more than the next person. It's a tragic thing that his childhood was so horrible, and his parents should have been held responsible for what they did to him. But what his family did to him does not justify what he did. Nowhere in any of this is anyone arguing that he didn't murder those people. He killed two people, for whatever reasons. Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.

I agree it's a no win situation for him and society. I do not agree that society doesn't owe him something. Even if he does have the mental capacity to know that what he was doing was wrong on some level, that sort of childhood abuse could cause a person to engage in perverse/twisted activity. People with OCD know what they're doing is odd, they have no control over it, though.
I do agree that solitary confinement is little better than the death penalty.


If he has the capacity to know what he is doing is wrong, then he doesn't deserve any more consideration from society, or the judicial system, than any other person. That's what this entire debate is about, whether or not he grasps that concept. His tragic childhood does not entitle him to murder. A lot of people have tragic childhoods, but they don't all grow up to be murderers. What happens to you as a child can fark you up, it can absolutely impact the rest of your life, but it does not give you carte blanche to behave however you please and it absolutely does not justify murder. Full stop.
 
2013-02-19 01:09:29 PM  
Bravo, subby.
 
2013-02-19 01:11:08 PM  

farm machine: FarFarAway: Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.

How would that not be a win for society?  Whether he understands his actions or not the fact remains that he freely took 2 human lives.  What guarantee does society have that he will not take a 3rd or 4th should the mood strike?  None.  His home environment was horrific at best and sadly we can't impugn his mother and grandfather for his actions.  That doesn't excuse his actions.  He's defective and more than likely cannot be fixed.  As it pertains to elements and minerals all human life has close to the same value.  Outside of that there are clearly instances of some human lives having no or negative value.  Culling the herd is not necessarily a bad thing.


It's a no-win in the sense that society will not be bettered, no matter what the outcome is. Either society has to support him, keep him locked up, and in solitary confinement, for the rest of his life, or society has to kill him. Enforcing the death penalty is not a win for society, even in cases where it is clearly deserved. Society doesn't benefit from executing a murderer, it is just protected from further harm by that person.
 
2013-02-19 01:12:22 PM  
Every now and again there's a genuinely interesting thread where individuals get the chance to show their humanity and their interesting points of view -

natas6.0: My question is
why is this murdering bastard still alive?
get to it, people!
chop chop


Then there's that.

On the whole though this is why I like Fark,
 
2013-02-19 01:19:15 PM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


No. You are wrong, and those are NOT the rules just because you assert that those are the rules. Too bad, so sad.
 
2013-02-19 01:20:26 PM  

Bontesla: FarFarAway: urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway:
If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.

Unless they can prove that this man actually does not understand that murder is wrong (and an IQ of 70 is not proof of that conclusively), then I disagree that society owes him anything more than the next person. It's a tragic thing that his childhood was so horrible, and his parents should have been held responsible for what they did to him. But what his family did to him does not justify what he did. Nowhere in any of this is anyone arguing that he didn't murder those people. He killed two people, for whatever reasons. Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.

The argument and test shouldn't be whether he understood his actions to be wrong. The argument and test should be: does he have the capacity to understand history actions? Is he aware of what he did and how that directly resulted in death/injury.

And IIRC, that's also the legal standard (or a prong of the legal standard). There has to be an element of culpability which is related to the capacity to understand the crimes for which you're accused.


You're right, that is, or should be part of it.
 
2013-02-19 01:21:36 PM  
I thought the supreme court ruled that you can't execute the mentally retarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_v._Virginia

I even remember that Jon Stewart did an awesome bit about it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-24-2002/whaaaa-
 
2013-02-19 01:21:40 PM  

FarFarAway: It's a no-win in the sense that society will not be bettered, no matter what the outcome is. Either society has to support him, keep him locked up, and in solitary confinement, for the rest of his life, or society has to kill him. Enforcing the death penalty is not a win for society, even in cases where it is clearly deserved. Society doesn't benefit from executing a murderer, it is just protected from further harm by that person.


Society would need to support and house this individual for the rest of his natural life whether he was in prison or not.  He poses no threat to society when locked up and that is the win side for society.  Pitiful existence for him but there are humans that we simply need to write off and move on.  Accept the fact that not all can be salvaged.
 
2013-02-19 01:22:10 PM  

DingleberryMoose: Carn: DingleberryMoose: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

false dichotomy is false

Please explain how being pro life and pro death are not mutually exclusive.

First, the terms don't equate, but you know that.  Secondly, the more common pro-life belief is that everyone's life is his/her own and the end of that life can only be sanctioned by that person.  This sanctioning may come in many forms, one of which is committing a crime where the death penalty may be applied.

Being pro-life (generally) indicates that one thinks of a fetus as being a human person from some moment between conception and birth and believes that person should enjoy the same protection of the law that those of us who've already been born enjoy. That person's life should be protected until they do something that warrants lifting that protection, like violating the protection of another person.

In other words, you have the right to life until you forfeit that right through your own heinous actions.

Note that these are not necessarily what I believe, but I've lived around this mindset long enough to tell you it's not unreasoned by the people who hold it, and it's a deeply held set of beliefs.


I understand the rationale, but I disagree with their use of terms.  They should really call themselves "Pro-Fetus".

"Life begins at conception and ends at birth" is truly accurate for these people.
 
2013-02-19 01:22:36 PM  
Let me get this straight:  the government is corrupt and incompetent, so let's give them the power over life and death.
 
2013-02-19 01:22:41 PM  

Virtuoso80: I'd be more compelled by a stay on execution for someone with an exceptionally high IQ. Death row inmate with a 200 IQ? Don't waste it. Give him some reading material, and offer him parole if he can make a major contribution to science.


so, like, curing cancer would be a get out of jail free card?  cold fusion, get out of jail, with a a house and annuity?    I think you're on to something, please proceed.
 
2013-02-19 01:28:17 PM  

May you soon rest in peace Lauryn Hill.
i.perezhilton.com

 
2013-02-19 01:31:11 PM  

FarFarAway: farm machine: FarFarAway: Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.

How would that not be a win for society?  Whether he understands his actions or not the fact remains that he freely took 2 human lives.  What guarantee does society have that he will not take a 3rd or 4th should the mood strike?  None.  His home environment was horrific at best and sadly we can't impugn his mother and grandfather for his actions.  That doesn't excuse his actions.  He's defective and more than likely cannot be fixed.  As it pertains to elements and minerals all human life has close to the same value.  Outside of that there are clearly instances of some human lives having no or negative value.  Culling the herd is not necessarily a bad thing.

It's a no-win in the sense that society will not be bettered, no matter what the outcome is. Either society has to support him, keep him locked up, and in solitary confinement, for the rest of his life, or society has to kill him. Enforcing the death penalty is not a win for society, even in cases where it is clearly deserved. Society doesn't benefit from executing a murderer, it is just protected from further harm by that person.


Protection from further harm with no additional costs incurred by everyone sounds a whole lot like a benefit to me.
 
2013-02-19 01:32:29 PM  

sethen320: Why is being developmentally-challenged a valid excuse for murder? Whether you know what you are doing or not, I don't want you in general society if you have tendencies toward killing those around you. You are a danger to others, period.


False dychotomy. The choices are not down to either killing him or releasing him back into general society.  And not one person here stated that being developmentally-challenged is a valid excuse for murder.
 
2013-02-19 01:32:41 PM  

chrylis: (And I hadn't realized this was in politics; it had hit the front page before I saw it.  Carry on with the cattiness!)


And I didn't realize it was on the main... besides, that was mostly just code for "Yeah, I was kind of being an ass."

chrylis: I normally don't out myself on topics like this, but I'm in the odd position of supporting the death penalty philosophically but opposing it in practice, largely due to the notorious unreliability of eyewitness identification of strangers and similar evidentiary problems.


This is pretty much where I fall on the issue as well, IRL. The advances in DNA testing have made it painfully apparent just how shiatty of a track record we have of executing the wrong people.
 
m00
2013-02-19 01:33:05 PM  
Personally, I think a government that's big and powerful enough to execute prisoners is also big and powerful enough to prevent children from being hit on the head to the point of unconsciousness. Repeated brain damage canwarp your perception of right-and-wrong. Up to the 1950s, if people people knew this was going on in a neighborhood, citizens would intervene. But society has collectively abrogated its responsibility to neighbors coincidentally at the same time government has declared it as an exclusive power.

Instead of focusing on the aftermath (what to do with a killer), maybe we should spend time on the root of the problem. With some notable exceptions, I think most people aren't born murders. Our society creates them in one way or another. It's almost as if this is being deliberately done in order to satisfy an ongoing need so that there can be vengeance. Obvious example is that our penal system creates more "real" criminals than it takes in. Guy comes in for smoking weed or some non-violent crime, leaves a hardened criminal. Why? Because you don't improve people by treating them like animals. Inhumane treatment does not engender feelings of humanity.

So kid suffers multiple brain injuries deliberately inflicted by his parents, and then he goes to prison where he has to contend with violent gangs, rape, extortion and extreme cruelty all while being stripped of dignity and humanity? Of course he murdered his cell mate. So now we get our vengeance by killing him. Bravo.
 
2013-02-19 01:34:07 PM  

capt.hollister: And not one person here stated that being developmentally-challenged is a valid excuse for murder.


Depending on the circumstances, it can be something of an impediment to a murder actually having occurred, as opposed to some other sort of killing.
 
2013-02-19 01:35:54 PM  
This man killed two people. One was a cell mate. He needs to be put to death, before he murders again.
 
2013-02-19 01:37:11 PM  

Weaver95: Khellendros: But they're the side you're arguing against.  They're the ones that hold that belief you think is inconsistent with their teachings.  It's not.  Your argument will not be accepted by The Other Side, because it misrepresents their position.  Your assertion falls on deaf ears because it's pretty meaningless to the bulk of the people you're leveling the accusation toward.

no, i'm telling you that pro-life means all life is sacred.  ALL life.  even murderers.  the evangelicals who try to say they're pro-life and pro-death penalty are liars, fools and heretics.  f*ck 'em because they're leading you down a false path.


And there's practically zero difference between any of the modern supernatural faiths practiced in the US today, but that's neither here nor there.

You're screaming at the wind, attacking an argument no one in your sights is making.  You're being an idiot at best, and disingenuous at worst.  Pro-life doesn't mean what you say it means, just because you say it.  The bulk of people who label themselves pro-life who also support the death penalty don't use your holy definition.  They use their holy definition.  If you're going to use one delusional arguments to fight another, at least fight one that's being made by the group you want to prove wrong.
 
2013-02-19 01:38:09 PM  
Marcintosh
I figured I would push past any semantics and go for the gusto
The guy decided to share his faith in the death penalty with two others
so why not share it with him

Or, we could entertain that idiotic
pro life v abortion v murderer bit
that's getting so much trolltastic attention
 
2013-02-19 01:38:37 PM  

Carn: They should really call themselves "Pro-Fetus".


Not so much.  "Anti-abortion" would be more accurate, as a fetus is just a very young child who hasn't been born yet.

Carn: "Life begins at conception and ends at birth" is truly accurate for these people.


More like "Life begins at conception and ends when your actions make it reasonable for society to end it according to our set rules."
 
m00
2013-02-19 01:39:04 PM  
Yeah, and also... I'm pro-life for non-religious reasons.
 
2013-02-19 01:40:08 PM  
m00:
Instead of focusing on the aftermath (what to do with a killer), maybe we should spend time on the root of the problem. With some notable exceptions, I think most people aren't born murders. Our society creates them in one way or another. It's almost as if this is being deliberately done in order to satisfy an ongoing need so that there can be vengeance. Obvious example is that our penal system creates more "real" criminals than it takes in. Guy comes in for smoking weed or some non-violent crime, leaves a hardened criminal. Why? Because you don't improve people by treating them like animals. Inhumane treatment does not engender feelings of humanity.

Are you actually saying you believe that society is deliberately creating murderers? That's what it sounds like you're saying, but that seems so bizarre that I'm having a hard time believing it.

Inhumane treatment also does not justify murder, unless it qualifies as self-defense. As long as you are sane and conscious of the consequences of your actions, how you have been treated as a child or as an adult does not have any bearing on your actions once you choose to harm another person. Again, unless that harm is done in self-defense. How you were treated might explain how you wound up in that situation, or why you chose to do it, but it does not remove the blame from you for making that choice. It is an explanation, not an excuse.
 
2013-02-19 01:42:20 PM  

BostonEMT: The Onion is prophetic: ...I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person....

So... an innocent baby/fetus/etc... ISN'T an innocent life?? WTF?

 - Look i don't care one way or the other as people have different circumstances and will ultimately be held responsible for their actions (be it Karma, or whatever), but DAMN. At least OWN your decision. This wishy-washy shiat doesn't make any sense no matter how you parse it.


Life begins at birth, not at conception.  Therefore, an abortion is not the taking of an innocent life.  It's not that difficult.
 
2013-02-19 01:44:49 PM  

natas6.0: Marcintosh
I figured I would push past any semantics and go for the gusto
The guy decided to share his faith in the death penalty with two others
so why not share it with him

Or, we could entertain that idiotic
pro life v abortion v murderer bit
that's getting so much trolltastic attention


Marcintosh has a point, but this is more fun.


I'll actually out my position on the death penalty here: As a member of this society, you are bound by its rules whether you like it or not.  (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)  One of its rules is that if you murder someone else you are subject to execution.  By committing murder, you have in effect volunteered for your execution.
 
2013-02-19 01:47:00 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: Life begins at birth, not at conception. Therefore, an abortion is not the taking of an innocent life.


There are many people who would seriously disagree with you here, some from a religious standpoint, some from a scientific one, some from an emotional one.  This one isn't as cut and dried as "water is wet" or "the sun is shiny on clear days."
 
2013-02-19 01:49:52 PM  

Farce-Side: I'm ok with all of you Farkers having abortions.  I'm also ok with the state killing this reta....*ahem* mentally challenged individual.  I won't do either.  I have morals, but I don't advocate legislating morality.


Do you have a name for club?  When are the meetings?
 
2013-02-19 01:53:53 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: FTFA: His sister Peggy...said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow.

Yeah, that'll help.


THIS. The guy's got an IQ of 70 and  farking brain damage, what the hell? That, that is what mental incompetence looks like under ANY law.
 
m00
2013-02-19 01:56:46 PM  

FarFarAway: Are you actually saying you believe that society is deliberately creating murderers? That's what it sounds like you're saying, but that seems so bizarre that I'm having a hard time believing it.


Well, I look at it like this. If the goal of prison was to actually correct behavior (aka "fix" a person), the prison system would look like the Scandinavian ones, or Dutch, or Austrian. Our prison system takes people-who-made-dumb-mistakes and breaks them further, turning them into truly violent creatures. Because, we would rather release sociopaths onto the streets when their court-mandated time is served than treat prisoners like human beings. So we've chosen vengeance over effectiveness. Talking to people and reading message boards, one gets the feeling this is a conscious choice.

FarFarAway: Inhumane treatment also does not justify murder, unless it qualifies as self-defense. As long as you are sane and conscious of the consequences of your actions, how you have been treated as a child or as an adult does not have any bearing on your actions once you choose to harm another person. Again, unless that harm is done in self-defense. How you were treated might explain how you wound up in that situation, or why you chose to do it, but it does not remove the blame from you for making that choice. It is an explanation, not an excuse.


I don't think we completely disagree here. I'm just looking at solving the problem at a macro level -- the problem is our society breeds violence (and no, it's not video games) and then reinforces it, and our punishment for violence is even more violence. I'm not using this to excuse behavior, but I think accepting it as an explanation at least allows us to explore solutions. Nothing excuses violence, but that shouldn't stop us from determining the cause and trying to remedy that.

>>how you have been treated as a child or as an adult does not have any bearing on your actions once you choose to harm another person.

This part, however, I think all modern psychology completely contests. How you are treated as a child absolutely has bearing on your actions. It doesn't negate free-will (unless you are literally brain damaged -- which in this case, the guy is), but it certainly has bearing.
 
2013-02-19 01:56:49 PM  

DingleberryMoose: (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)


[citation needed]

This is one of the primary difficulties with the social-contract theory of government: If you believe that being bound by a contract requires consent, then it's hard to square limitations on immigration and the abrogation of agreed boundaries (e.g., constitutionally-protected rights) with the idea that states in their current form have any legitimacy.
 
2013-02-19 02:00:03 PM  

DingleberryMoose: The Onion is prophetic: Life begins at birth, not at conception. Therefore, an abortion is not the taking of an innocent life.

There are many people who would seriously disagree with you here, some from a religious standpoint, some from a scientific one, some from an emotional one.  This one isn't as cut and dried as "water is wet" or "the sun is shiny on clear days."


I'm aware of that; however, he claimed my position was 'wishy-washy' and I didn't own up to it.  That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
 
2013-02-19 02:05:08 PM  
His sister Peggy calls him Junior . She wrote an affidavit on her brother's behalf - and said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow. Their mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle. [2:33] "He would shout 'You stupid retard!' Or 'You dumb-ass!' Junior wouldn't cry, though; he would just stand there and endure it. Junior was often beaten like this, by either Momma or Granddaddy, until he would lose consciousness. He would sleep for hours afterwards."

This is one of the saddest things I've ever read. Goddamn.
 
m00
2013-02-19 02:06:25 PM  

DingleberryMoose: I'll actually out my position on the death penaltyinsulting the Dear Leader here: As a member of this society, you are bound by its rules whether you like it or not.  (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)  One of its rules is that if you murder someone else insult the Dear Leader you are subject to execution.  By committing murder insulting the Dear Leader, you have in effect volunteered for your execution.

 
2013-02-19 02:07:09 PM  

Whiskey Pete: TheShavingofOccam123: Whiskey Pete: "..The U.S. Supreme Court has banned executions of mildly mentally retarded people."

WOO HOO! I can't be executed!

If you're mentally capable of realizing you're incapable of being executed, you're mentally capable of being executed.

/goddam windmills

* Stares blankly at Occam *


funniest comment of the day
 
2013-02-19 02:07:17 PM  

PsiChick: Lee Jackson Beauregard: FTFA: His sister Peggy...said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow.

Yeah, that'll help.

THIS. The guy's got an IQ of 70 and  farking brain damage, what the hell? That, that is what mental incompetence looks like under ANY law.


Maybe we can smarten him up before we kill him.
 
2013-02-19 02:08:41 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Warren Hill grew up in rural Georgia with an IQ of 70.

This explains why Jimmy Carter is going to bat for him. He obviously is one of the few who voted fro JC to be re-elected.


Rural Georgia with an IQ of 70? Is that the sum?
 
2013-02-19 02:14:50 PM  
m00:
Well, I look at it like this. If the goal of prison was to actually correct behavior (aka "fix" a person), the prison system would look like the Scandinavian ones, or Dutch, or Austrian. Our prison system takes people-who-made-dumb-mistakes and breaks them further, turning them into truly violent creatures. Because, we would rather release sociopaths onto the streets when their court-mandated time is served than treat prisoners like human beings. So we've chosen vengeance over effectiveness. Talking to people and reading message boards, one gets the feeling this is a conscious choice.

That isn't the same thing as society being responsible for the fact that people murder other people though. The prison system is terrible in this country, and just as bad are the lack of resources and opportunities available to someone who has served their time. I completely agree on those points. I have a member of my immediate family who was incarcerated for a very long time, and is now facing the entirely uphill battle to re-enter society. So don't think I don't care about that part of it. But even he would be the first to tell you that prison is not responsible for what he chose to do. He completely acknowledges that his actions were his choice, and that he could have done things very differently. Which is true of any sane, competent person in society. I also agree that as things stand, the easiest option for someone fresh out of prison is to return to crime. Pretty much anything else they want to do is a nearly impossible uphill slog. But that said, it doesn't justify their decision if that's what they chose to do. I feel like we agree on a lot of points, but I also feel like you are removing personal responsibility from the picture on the part of the people committing the crime, and placing it on society instead, and I cannot agree with that.

I don't think we completely disagree here. I'm just looking at solving the problem at a macro level -- the problem is our society breeds violence (and no, it's not video games) and then reinforces it, and our punishment for violence is even more violence. I'm not using this to excuse behavior, but I think accepting it as an explanation at least allows us to explore solutions. Nothing excuses violence, but that shouldn't stop us from determining the cause and trying to remedy that.

Better, more available mental health care, preferably with the stigma removed, would be the most productive first step toward actually changing anything. But though violence is prevalent in our society, I don't think it's fair to say that it's the fault of society as a whole that some members of it choose to take that violence to extremes.

This part, however, I think all modern psychology completely contests. How you are treated as a child absolutely has bearing on your actions. It doesn't negate free-will (unless you are literally brain damaged -- which in this case, the guy is), but it certainly has bearing.

It depends on your definition of bearing. Does it inform our decisions and choices? Yes. Is it a fall back excuse to be used to remove blame if we are held accountable for those actions? Absolutely not. Unless, again, you are found to be insane or otherwise incompetent.
 
2013-02-19 02:27:56 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.


Works for me.

m00: DingleberryMoose: I'll actually out my position on the death penaltyinsulting the Dear Leader here: As a member of this society, you are bound by its rules whether you like it or not.  (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)  One of its rules is that if you murder someone else insult the Dear Leader you are subject to execution.  By committing murder insulting the Dear Leader, you have in effect volunteered for your execution.


Close, but no cigar.  We don't have such a rule in our society.  If we ever evolve one, it'll likely be after I'm no longer a member of said society.

chrylis: DingleberryMoose: (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)

[citation needed]

This is one of the primary difficulties with the social-contract theory of government: If you believe that being bound by a contract requires consent, then it's hard to square limitations on immigration and the abrogation of agreed boundaries (e.g., constitutionally-protected rights) with the idea that states in their current form have any legitimacy.


It's a bit of a catch-22, due to arguments that become circular, but not impossible.  I'll not try, it's a different subject than TFT.  My opinion on the subject as it relates to criminal code and individual actions is based on the observation that the truth is we are in fact bound by society's rules whether we like them or not.  That's not something we can do much about, it's a fact of life necessitated by man's inhumanity toward man.  (see violent crime statistics or the politics tab for reference)  On a practical level, it's the cost of living in a society where people aren't frequently murdered or subject to imprisonment on the whim of a government official without some amount of due process in the same way that paying for some sort of welfare system is also required.
 
2013-02-19 02:29:16 PM  

DingleberryMoose: Carn: They should really call themselves "Pro-Fetus".

Not so much.  "Anti-abortion" would be more accurate, as a fetus is just a very young child who hasn't been born yet.

Carn: "Life begins at conception and ends at birth" is truly accurate for these people.

More like "Life begins at conception and ends when your actions make it reasonable for society to end it according to our set rules."


So these people would see no problem with a society which forces all pregnancies to be carried to term, and then ignores the plight of the children born into extreme poverty, abuse, neglect, and so on?  It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to describe this as a pro-life philosophy.  You are correct, they are anti-abortion.  I think that the reason they use the term pro-life is to make it seem as if that is what they stand for, which is clearly not the case (for many who claim to be).

I feel better.  We have solved nothing :)
 
2013-02-19 02:31:15 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: His sister Peggy calls him Junior . She wrote an affidavit on her brother's behalf - and said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow. Their mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle. [2:33] "He would shout 'You stupid retard!' Or 'You dumb-ass!' Junior wouldn't cry, though; he would just stand there and endure it. Junior was often beaten like this, by either Momma or Granddaddy, until he would lose consciousness. He would sleep for hours afterwards."

This is one of the saddest things I've ever read. Goddamn.


It's also, sadly, more common than most people think.  When I was five, I could stand silently through a whipping with an extension cord because it was over quicker.  During my time with CPS, I heard stories from siblings of how the scapegoat child would eventually give up with crying and begging and just stand there and take it. It was quite depressing.  Then you'd start the interview with the parents by having them describe their children.  All angels except for the one who's the devil incarnate.  Guess who's abused?
 
2013-02-19 02:37:06 PM  

Carn: So these people would see no problem with a society which forces all pregnancies to be carried to term, and then ignores the plight of the children born into extreme poverty, abuse, neglect, and so on?


Most of the ones with the strongest opinions haven't thought that far ahead yet.  To be fair, when I was a Child Protective Services investigator churches were a real resource in times of need.  I also noticed that most of the abusing caregivers weren't regular attendees at any civic or religious organization.  I don't know if that has more to do with religion teaching not to damage children or religious children not damaging children or abuse being a crime of isolation.  We went to church every Sunday all during the years I was being abused.  The abuser, my mother, taught Sunday School.  The codependent, my father, was RA leader.
 
2013-02-19 02:45:08 PM  

capt.hollister: sethen320: Why is being developmentally-challenged a valid excuse for murder? Whether you know what you are doing or not, I don't want you in general society if you have tendencies toward killing those around you. You are a danger to others, period.

False dychotomy. The choices are not down to either killing him or releasing him back into general society.  And not one person here stated that being developmentally-challenged is a valid excuse for murder.


We have no use for someone who is incompatible with society.  Expending resources to maintain them is a waste.  I don't care what their mental state is or what happened earlier in life.  If you are so concerned please feel free to sit with the guy and give him hugs.  I'm sure that will change everything.  Just make sure you're out before 7PM, as some people will be coming to take care of the problem once and for all.

"Dychotomy (actually it's dichotomy)"...is this the word of the day?  I never hear it used and now I see it several times in this thread.  I understand the applicability, just making a comment.
 
2013-02-19 02:47:37 PM  

ManRay: I'm from Georgia and I am smart enough to not murder anyone.

Subby is a douche.


I'm from Georgia and I haven't killed anyone either. Can't figure out how.
 
2013-02-19 03:02:39 PM  

ManRay: I'm from Georgia and I am smart enough to not murder anyone.

Subby is a douche.


This.

I guess this may be Subby's way of feeling smarter than he actually is.
 
2013-02-19 03:12:12 PM  

sethen320: "Dychotomy (actually it's dichotomy)"...is this the word of the day? I never hear it used and now I see it several times in this thread. I understand the applicability, just making a comment.


People tend to use correct terminology when calling someone out for a specious argument of some sort.  "Strawman," "begging the question," and "circular argument" are popular as well.
 
2013-02-19 03:25:42 PM  

DingleberryMoose: sethen320: "Dychotomy (actually it's dichotomy)"...is this the word of the day? I never hear it used and now I see it several times in this thread. I understand the applicability, just making a comment.

People tend to use correct terminology when calling someone out for a specious argument of some sort.  "Strawman," "begging the question," and "circular argument" are popular as well.


No shiat?
 
2013-02-19 03:27:09 PM  
executions are like a box a chocolates.........
 
2013-02-19 03:32:16 PM  

sethen320: No shiat?


No shiat.

/off to do something useful
//have a better day than the subject of our attentions
 
2013-02-19 03:34:40 PM  

StrangeQ: And what good does keeping him around do for society as a whole?  It's not like he's going to care after he's dead.


Well heck, then we might as well execute all of the retarded, as well as the severely physically disabled, and those elderly farkers who won't get a job.

In fairness, I'm sure your comment sounds more intelligent in the original German.
 
2013-02-19 03:42:06 PM  

DingleberryMoose: sethen320: "Dychotomy (actually it's dichotomy)"...is this the word of the day? I never hear it used and now I see it several times in this thread. I understand the applicability, just making a comment.

People tend to use correct terminology when calling someone out for a specious argument of some sort.  "Strawman," "begging the question," and "circular argument" are popular as well.



I'll bet that made you feel pretty smug and smart, teaching me a lesson and all.  Next time try to take an extra 10 seconds out of your day and actually comprehend the full statement prior to acting like a 16 year old who just discovered the dictionary.

I realize there were some large words, so I will try to simplify what was being said in the part of my post you chose to respond to:

I was noticing (sorry, big word there, let's try again)...I saw that some were using a word I don't see a lot.  I made a dumb joke about it and then said I know why they are using it.  Then I said that this was for no reason at all.

While not grammatically correct, there are no words with more than 6 characters so you should be able to take in the whole thought this time.
 
2013-02-19 03:43:49 PM  

DingleberryMoose: sethen320: No shiat?

No shiat.

/off to do something useful
//have a better day than the subject of our attentions


Aw hell...I just saw your other post to me and realized I may have jumped the gun on you.  That was a good response.  Sorry about that.  Feel free to return fire as needed.
 
2013-02-19 03:44:59 PM  
Hey Hey Hey, subby!  No fair condescending to Southerners
/ Southerners, that means "Talking down to you"
 
2013-02-19 03:50:13 PM  
Warren Hill grew up in rural Georgia with an IQ of 70.

His sister Peggy calls him Junior . She wrote an affidavit on her brother's behalf - and said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow. Their mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle.


[2:33] "He would shout 'You stupid retard!' Or 'You dumb-ass!' Junior wouldn't cry, though; he would just stand there and endure it. Junior was often beaten like this, by either Momma or Granddaddy, until he would lose consciousness. He would sleep for hours afterwards."


Gosh man! this guy never got a single farkin break in his entire damned life! I wish he was never born. When I read stories like this I have to stop and reflect WTF life is all about. I hope wherever he goes next he has eternal peace!!! he sure as heck deserves it!!
 
2013-02-19 04:10:59 PM  
Killed two people?

Later, loser.
 
2013-02-19 04:16:45 PM  
Y'all are missing the point, which is that subby's headline implies that everyone in Georgia is farking retarded.
 
2013-02-19 04:35:27 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Y'all are missing the point, which is that subby's headline implies that everyone in Georgia is farking retarded.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't miss the point. I was ignoring it. I doubt I'm the only one.

/from Georgia
 
2013-02-19 04:43:54 PM  
death penalty is bad but if anyone deserves it, it's some dude who has murdered 2 people on 2 separate occasions regardless of his mental capacity.
 
2013-02-19 04:48:10 PM  
Every minute in this country
A child is born without a chance.
Now don't that just make you
Want to get up and dance?

/Do the Funky Western Civilization
 
2013-02-19 04:53:11 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Y'all are missing the point, which is that subby's headline implies that everyone in Georgia is farking retarded.


Oh, a joke! We didn't miss it. We get jokes.

/I have to stop checking in on this thread. It's farking depressing.
 
2013-02-19 04:59:16 PM  
DingleberryMoose:  I also noticed that most of the abusing caregivers weren't regular attendees at any civic or religious organization.

It could be simple population trends - most families no longer regularly attend churches anyways.  It shouldn't be surprising if 70% of abusers don't regularly go to church if 70% of the population as a whole don't regularly go to church.
 
2013-02-19 05:00:39 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Y'all are missing the point, which is that subby's headline implies that everyone in Georgia is farking retarded.


Forgive me. I'm from South Carolina. Georgia is our Cambridge. Their Lucasian Chair is some booth at a Chik-Fil-A in Carrollton.
 
2013-02-19 05:14:23 PM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


Done in one. Never understood the pro death penalty/pro life group. That stance just never made sense to me at all.

Me? I am pro-death, so death penalties and abortions for all!!
 
2013-02-19 05:58:07 PM  

Bontesla: I remember marching in Atlanta for Troy Davis. The group I was marching with all thought the march had the power to save him. They were horrified when I explained there wasn't going to be a saving moment for Davis. The march was us going on record to claim how unjust his execution was. They thought I was an awful person to suggest that the march wasn't going to save his life.


What I don't understand is why Davis's execution drew all the protests while nobody seems to want to lift a finger on Hill's behalf.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think that executing Hill would be more of an injustice than executing Davis.

/of course, I thought that Davis was guilty
//still wouldn't have put him to death, though.
 
2013-02-19 07:02:34 PM  
Why does being retarded make you less worthy of execution than someone that's not, again?

It's not like this is for revenge, it's to remove people that are dangerous from society.  If you're dangerous in a manner that can't be fixed by the various negative or positive reinforcement mechanisms in the system, then... well, that's it.  Explanations as to why exactly that's the case don't really matter in that case unless they suggest some alternate method for dealing with you.  You just need to be removed for the good of everybody.

If there's wiggle room on whether you're actually dangerous in a way that can't be fixed to the point where your particular sob story makes a difference, then you shouldn't be executed whether you're retarded or not.  If you're a murdering bastard both out of and in jail, then you're a murdering bastard that needs to be removed whether you score low on IQ tests or not.

//70 is the very, very edge of retarded by most systems, and would usually be called arguable.  I suspect he's not hitting the exemption because he's not showing any of the other criteria that are used to judge whether people are actually disabled when they're in the maybe-range like that.
 
2013-02-19 07:03:38 PM  
This guy is a murderer, dumb or not. He's a walking, drooling hazard. And we've already got the noose knotted so we might as well.
 
2013-02-19 07:46:21 PM  
cf2.imgobject.com
 
2013-02-19 08:11:39 PM  

Jim_Callahan: If you're dangerous in a manner that can't be fixed


How are we as a society attempting to fix dangerous people?
 
2013-02-19 08:27:00 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Hmmm.

Last week farkers were up in arms because IQ tests weren't a real evaluation of intelligence.

This week, some of you are upset because IQ is now an accurate measure of intelligence.


Well is it the same farkers?
 
2013-02-19 08:30:29 PM  

StrangeQ: And what good does keeping him around do for society as a whole?  It's not like he's going to care after he's dead.


You could say the same about you or me.
 
2013-02-19 08:32:34 PM  

walkerhound: As subby's headline suggests, he should be sentenced based on the standards of the state, not those of some arugula-eating hipster in New York.


Well how about the standards of the Supreme Court? It's illegal to execute tards.
 
2013-02-19 08:42:56 PM  

dv-ous: Poor bastard.

You know, if his family hadn't TBI'd or CTE'd him (whatever we're calling it now) in the first place, maybe he would have been "slow, reliable Warren" instead of "slow, prone-to-fits-of-murder Warren."

I'm okay with taking him out, but only if his mom and grandpa go too.


This.
 
2013-02-19 08:43:53 PM  
 
2013-02-19 09:04:39 PM  
Killing babies = murder..
Killing murderers = execution.
 
2013-02-19 10:47:11 PM  

LineNoise: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

Not to start a debate, but i think there is room to differentiate "innocent" life, and someone who has demonstrated that they are unable to be a part of functional society.


THen you should call yourself Pro-"Innocent" life or anti-abortion or anti-Choice.   Words have meanings you know.  The reason you cannot call yourself pro-life and support the death penalty is because it doesn't fit into the definition of the words pro and life.
 
2013-02-20 01:32:34 AM  

kg2095: walkerhound: As subby's headline suggests, he should be sentenced based on the standards of the state, not those of some arugula-eating hipster in New York.

Well how about the standards of the Supreme Court? It's illegal to execute tards.



It's Georgia. Retarded has a VEEEEERRRRRYYYY broad definition in Georgia.
 
2013-02-20 04:48:43 AM  
So sad.  Something should have been done a long time ago.  Why did his sister/other relatives that were aware of the abuse not report it?  Where did all the preventative measures that are spewed to the public go this time? This is another failure of the mental health and criminal justice systems.
 
2013-02-20 07:54:48 AM  
If I were to intentionally take away someone else's right to live in a non-defense situation, that is, to murder them, why should I get to keep my own right to live?
 
2013-02-20 10:52:15 AM  
Apparently he got a pretty last minute temporary stay of execution. Link

But the article is confusing. It seems to say that everyone agrees that he does suffer from some mental impairment, but the issue is still at hand. I guess maybe they don't agree on how severe the impairment is. It also says that some or all of the experts who testified on for the state at his trial now believe they may have been mistaken.

But then there's this:

"They noted Hill served in the Navy and was promoted to the rank of petty officer, and that relatives had said Hill often stepped into the role of head of the family. "

How hard could it be to tell if he actually served in the Navy, and if he did, wouldn't that suggest that he isn't as functionally impaired as they say? I know the military is not the best judge of character, but it seems to me that if he were impaired enough to warrant a permanent stay of execution because of it, he wouldn't be functional enough to serve in the military. All the article from this thread said was that his IQ was 70, it didn't back that up with any other details or information, and IQ is not enough to make that determination.
 
2013-02-20 02:51:09 PM  

Warlordtrooper: THen you should call yourself Pro-"Innocent" life or anti-abortion or anti-Choice. Words have meanings you know. The reason you cannot call yourself pro-life and support the death penalty is because it doesn't fit into the definition of the words pro and life.


The thing is that in a situation that amounts to 'duck season no rabbit season'! 'Pro-innocent life' is too long and complex for a slogan, and when you're yelling back and forth will tire you out quicker than your pro-choice opponent.  ;)

Also, you don't want to phrase your campaign in the text of 'anti' anything, thus 'pro-choice' vs 'anti-life' or 'pro-abortion'.  You don't say you're anti-coal, you say you're pro-environment, anti-pollution(as pollution is a bad thing).  If you're for more gun control, you try to avoid the term 'anti-gun', and go more for 'pro-safety', 'for the family', etc...
 
Displayed 231 of 231 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report