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 232
    More: PSA, U.S. Supreme Court, Peggy Williams, developmental disabilities  
•       •       •

23234 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Feb 2013 at 11:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report