Category: the Rant Board
Whatever happened to just killing oneself and leaving a note? Or suicide without a note, and the rest of us just go on and live our lives?! Whatever happened to that? What's up with all of these murder/suicides? Some of 'em involve creeps like Scott Peterson and Neil Entwistle who murder their wives and babies and don't even have the decency to take themselves out, and not on a date?! Entwistle, in MA, killed his wife and 9 month old daughter, and fortunately some punks at the prison in Shirley have already started beating him up.
One dud not dad killed his 18 year old daughter and wife over financial problems related to property ownership and pending college tuition. Daughter was set to attend school in VT, and out of state tuition is supposed to be cheaper than sending kids to school right here in MA. Couldn't he just kill himself?
This latest up here...I'm starting to think the term 'Massholes' is pretty accurate...involves a creep in Winchester who stabbed his wife, MIL, and two children, four and two years of age, and didn't even have the decency to take himself out. Creep, named Thomas Mortimer, was caught by an astute dad who saw him trying to change his tire on the freeway and called in the tag # to a 911 operator. The odd thing is I used to have a crush on a classmate by the same surname, which is more common up here than where I went to college. Watch 'em be related...poor Steve if it's true, he really was nice. Anyway why is good old fashioned suicide going out the window? If people really are that despondent why not just off themselves and stop forcing their choice on innocent kids?!
Wow! I have to agree just jump off a bridge already and leave, family, friends, and innicents alone. You don't even have to leave the note.
I think maybe it is with ome that they are attention whores.
They crave attention and the media sure pours out
for all these horrible events.
Some carry as it were cult followings and I dunno,
maybe this is what some craves for,
the spotlight
even though that spotlight is showing them at their very worst.
I completely agree with you on this one. People who hurt the innocent, except in cases of war, and only then when absolutely necessary/accidentally, make me sick. I'm so glad that guy is getting beaten up in prison. I hope they do alot more to him and then finish him off, and the same goes for anyone who hurts children! I'm very very protective of them even though I may not want one of my own.
And another thing, even if they don't have the balls to kill themselves, why not just leave and/or divorce.
oh deary deary me. post 3. :(.
i don't think anything's happened, it's just not as common now
I agree with all this. when a person kills themselves, it is a sad event. However, when they take innocent people out with them, then I have no sympathy for the perpetrator. If one chooses to kill themselves, that is their choice, but leave innocent people who want to live out of it. Suicidal I can understand, homicidal I cannot.
i havve to agree with dawn
i think its so wrong that people have to kill others just cause they arn't happy
They ought to be put in a special prison, one that makes Angola look like a Hilton. If taking out the innocent is infinitely more painful than just suicide, then you'd get what we in engineering call the path of least resistance. Works with electricity, works with water, works with any number of other things.
Save my tax dollars. Drop them off the bridge. Help em out. hahaha
Agree with post 2 but let me add this:
Anyone can snap at any time, for any reason. Just look at the columbine thing.
I know they can, but it's no excuse. As I said, taking yourself out is one thing. My sincere sympathies are with someone who spirals down into that deep of a darkness in general. And even more so with someone who gets trapped so much by that darkness that they take their own life. However, my sympathies completely end when that person takes innocents, who do want to live their lives, out with them. I know people can snap, but it's no reason to take out the innocent. The Columbine shooters and people like them are despicable in my opinion.
Snap alone. hahaha. Snap and shoot yourself, but leave others alone. Most of these people don't just snap, they snap then decide to find someone to take it out on, and that's wrong. So you snapped, the law should continue your brakeing. Sorry.
Agreed!!!
At least, if they're gonna take others out, find truly horrible people like rapists, child abusers, animal abusers, people who steal millions from the government etc. Then, you could get rid of yourself and the bad people too. And agreed with post 10. Why should anyone have to pay to support murderers who killed innocent people on purpose. Get rid of them!
I didn't say it was an ixcuse but it happens and you can't blame them at times:
I saw on the news a story about a kid getting bulleyed. One day he pulled a knife and stabbed the bulley over and over. Now, half of you are smiling, as I did, and the rest are saying "but even the bulley's life had value."
Hmm. I have mixed feelings about this, and for my lack of organization, I'll put them in list form:
1. Taking one's own life is a choice, and should therefore be legal, since you are not physically harming anyone else. However, do keep in mind the emotional state of your loved ones before you do this. Having said that, if you have so little faith in your life that taking it is the only way out, perhaps your loved ones are better off living without that, and perhaps they will understand you're in a better place.
2. Margorp does have a point. Every life has value. I think suicide should be a last resort, and that the person should be given the opportunity to receive help before taking his or her own life. If the help doesn't help, go from there, but everyone should have a second chance. Just months ago, I was all for the death penalty, but certain arguments have really made me think hard about that.
I'm not arguing the second chance point, but it's when others are involved with your choice and most times they stop soon as they get to yourself no good. Now about bulling he stabbed the person doing the bulling not his sister at home that wasn't involved, so that's different.
I agree with the last poster. However, beating him until he was unconscious, or at least breaking a few bones, should've been enough. There was no reason to actually kill him if all it was was bullying.
Well as I said this kid snapped, and for good reason. I'm sure it sent a message and I don't care how psychotic that makes me sound.
Circumstances can dictate. It may sound like strattling the fence, but after reading and thinking I really do believe in circumstances dictating punishment...IE, if a husband is an extreme abuser, and the only way his wife can see to get free; (because others won't help her) then all power to her if she takes issues into her own hands: "Indipendents Day, Martina McBride". Not a quote from that song, but instead an example. But, if someone snaps just because his/her son/daughter isn't what they expect them to be...To short, to thin, to slow...Then end it for them as they did their own flesh and blood.
Yes, definitely! Abuse is a totally different story, and I'd never blame anyone for taking the life of his/her abuser. He/she deserved it. But I mean real abuse, not "oh, my parents grounded me for a week".
right, because it is really self defense.
Read Gavin DeBecker's book GIFT OF FEAR. There is a chapter about parricide, or taking the life of one's parent(s). Mr. DeBecker sites the example of most murdered parents being abusers, and the murderer snapped. I don't know what he'd make of the Melendez brothers back in the '90's. It sounds to me they were just plain evil. Didn't they do stuff like go on buying sprees after collecting on the wills?
wow, crazy.
I agree. And yet even suicide is considered a crime. What I don't get is how the person can be arrested if they succeeded. Believe it or not I heard of a group in California in the nineties that wanted to make suicide a capital offense punishable by death. Again, you can't kill someone who's already dead. And for the ones whose attempts failed and you arrested them you're just giving them what they wanted to begin with. But what's the message? You're not allowed to kill yourself but we're allowed to kill you?
Yeah, I'm a supporter of the death penalty and even I don't get that one. Let the person kill him/herself and save everyone the trouble and money!
I agree. I support the death penalty in cases where it was deliberate murder. Not if it was a provable accident. But if you kill someone deliberately and for reasons other than self-defense you deserve to die, especially if, as in the case of one Joseph Edward Duncan there was prolonged torture involved. FOr those of you who don't know he recently was awarded the death penalty (awarded is such an odd word to use in this instance is it not)? for the torture and murder of almost an entire Idaho family.
I'm so glad that justice still exists in some places. This story gives me hope, though, of course, it came at a horrible price.
Yeah it does.
I just wish sometimes...And some will say I'm cruel, but...We could just hang and get it over with when there is no doubt of guilt...Why waist our money on someone who thought so little of human life themselves? Why even give someone rights when they've taken another's; (or more than one's), esential right to life away?
Thank you. One of the things that bothers me is the soft way in which they execute people today. If someone brutally murdered someone, what gives them the right to be put to sleep instead of a plain execution? They didn't give that choice to their victims and some even tortured them before hand.
I agree with both of you. We're wasting money on people who aren't worth it. It's one thing to kill in self-defense. I firmly believe those people deserve their rights. Even people who killed unintentionally. But those who knowingly kill and for no other reason than to kill deserve no quarter since they gave none. If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the one accused was indeed the one responsible then we shouldn't waste time or money on them. Hang them, put them out in front of a firing squad or even feed them to Old Sparky. I doubt the electric chair is painless, quick though it may be.
Another death penalty supporter here as well. When you talk to most death row inmates they wish the state would just get it over with. More than a few give up appeals to speed the process along. There've been a few old sparkie volunteers as well. Judges and wardens say the same too, even the inmates know they're being put to sleep so they aren't scared anymore. They've had to increase the size of the chair because inmates get fat in prison. Shouldn't circumstances of the murder dictate method of execution? People are so concerned with rights that justice is lost in the process. I think old sparkie executions should be televised on cc tv for victims families who can't attend and any brat kid who needs to be scared straigt. Show that at juvie and watch some arrogant kids straighten up and fly right. Tiffany
Yes yes yes! Can we please have some more people like you guys? And while we're at it, let's bring back the gladiators and bring in some money for the state so that they can better serve the people...
Eww people! Nobody deserves death by someone else's hand. I think something is vastly wrong with the world if you have been raised to believe that that is acceptible.
Wow. Suicide punishable by death? Ironic, and funny really, if you like dark humor. Well, people who are really suicidal won't have to worry much if they fail, if this law were ever passed.
lol Yeah, really! Only those who have to pay for it will need to worry.
To those having a lust affair with the electric chair let me say this:
I lived in Florida when they finally did away with it. By moving to lethal injection, they actually sped up the process of getting executions done. The old and botched chair was shorting out, causing problems and causing lots of blocked appeals done in the courts. Yunno who else wants the chair? IIt's the democrats and others who oppose the death penalty because they're afraid if it's too sterile and clean most will not be horrified enough to oppose the death penalty. Ironic, isn't it?
While I'm not like you in my fervor, I do believe we should exterminate certain classes of offenders, and lethal injection is a most suitable manner. There is no real proof that the death penalty is in any way a deterrent: Texas puts more to death by the year than any other state, but doesn't have an unusually low crime rate.
However, many reasonable people still support it because when you have a known offender you have a volatile situation for the community. If said offender ever gets out, society is putting potential victims (who are many) at enormous risk.
As to justice, there isn't any justice for these crimes. It's portrayed as killer does in killee, but more to the point, you have entire families, workplaces, communities, all types of victims involved, even members of the perp's own family. By exterminating an offender in this situation, all society can be assured of is that said offender won't repeat the offense.
Now that said, we need to fix some serious problems with guilt / innocence on these crimes, and DNA plus some more advanced forensics should hopefully help with this. However, people usually of a religious persuasion who become very enamored with the torture, prolongation and publicity of the execution are not only really bad off themselves, but are totally missing the point, which is extermination.
Personally I think certain crimes which are currently state crimes should fall to federal jurisdiction because it would eliminate much of the muck and mire of local bickering. If sex offenses against minors and rape / murder were federal offenses dealt with like espionage and treason, I think we'd be seeing some different approaches. Whether the death is a penalty to the offender or not, I don't really care. McVey in 2000 gladly faced his, claiming "i'm the captain of my soul." He even asked to forego lethal injection and be executed by firing squad. This request was denied as lethal injection is the modus operandi of the federal government. Most important, he was exterminated, and simply isn't anymore.
Perhaps they should call it offender extermination. But the deterrent factor, public display, and other tomfoolery proposed by certain moralist groups To be fair, I know at least two evangelical Christians who are opposed to capital punishment and actually find my view rather disturbing. However, it gets the job done in an expedient and efficient manner.
As an aside, as far as I'm concerned Bush's first appointee for Attorney General Ashcroft sold sexual violence victims for a song, when he had his short stint inoffice. He pledged to deal with sexual crimes on a federal level. I'd have liked to see the federalization of sex crimes against minors, and extermination for a pretty wide class of those. I didn't think he'd get as far as the extermination part but instead of doing anything useful, he went after computer-animated porn, as I said, selling real victims for a song. What a punk!
Please don't mistake ferver for long years of study. Oh yes I know floridas old sparkie well. You are correct that if sexual crimes were delt with via the federal government they'd sure speed up the process and many offenses would be capital crimes. The inertia of the legal system is on the condemned side no matter how they die. The average stay on death row is tten years.Oddly enough in Ted Bundy's case the execution went like clockwork.The only reason I know as much as I do is because of an irrational fear fostered in childhood by some terrifying films I should not have heard. As you know the imagination of a child can run rampant and mine was no exception. I think if we do use these less than clean methods you must make very sure of your equipment protocol etc. Florida officials chose to ignore the malfunctioning chair despite botched executions. It's all about how you use it. When executions were simipublic events ripples of fear would go through entire communities. Fathers read the newspaper accounts to their children and the message was sent. A great deal of legislation would need to be passed and the public mind would have to be changed. Texas has a vidulantee attitude towards death. I think if it were treated differently a different message would be sent. The us has more people incarcerated than any other nation. If we focused on longterm incarceration for violent and sexual offenders you could reduce the prison populus by half. Many nonviolent offenses can be dealt with parole intensive counceling and rehabilitation.
Hanging never fails and neither oes a firing squad if done correctly. There should be more of that. And I agree a thousand percent about sex crimes, particularly to minors. These people shouldn't be living, unless they're being tortured and forced into ridiculously hard labour. I take crimes against minors very seriously.
If you mean you saw Facs Of Death, I saw those multiple times as a teen. The audio wasn't that hot, but I had friends describing the chair in full detail. But as an adult I read a lot on the actual protocols.
No it was a tales from the cript. The first episode, The man who was death. Will definitely give you nightmares. That was the main one. Faces of death didn't freak me out so much I saw it when I was nine and by that poit had seen Freddy Jason & Chucky and had fallen in love with horror films. I was still terrified but it had become a private fear. I stopped talking about my bad dreams when I was told I was full of shit and had nothing to be afraid of. Reading up on famous crimes media pieces & protocols was what helped me dispell the fear. Yep a rope won't catch fire or short out and you can always reload. Tiffany
Love tales from the cript. And tiff, hanging? Would you like to walk by a tree and see corpses swinging in the breeze as depicted in Billi Holiday's song? And they say I have problems.
I'd much rather go to an arena and see these criminals battle for their lives. It would make for an exciting and interesting afternoon away from home if nothing else. The only problem is tht some people might want the glory and the fame so would kill for that... So deathless matches should be arranged for noncriminals and keep these harsh ones for those who are scheduled to die in any case. As for hanging, it would certainly make people think twice before killing and I wouldn't mind it if the crime level went down.
Most modern military-style hanging doesn't have corpses on trees anyway. You have a platformed gallows, drop distance tables, even mechanically tied hangman's knots. I'd rather die of a military hanging than a botched medical procedure coerced by private medical insurance where every state defines the same terms differently.
Basically the cervical vertebrae, I think it is, is broken on impact and in a modern hanging the condemned doesn't die of strangulation.
To ABlindGibsonGirl I kinda know what you mean: I've had dreams with horrific death scenes including electric chairs, schoolhouse executions by your average schoolmarm and the like for as long as I can remember. That makes up some of my most early memories from childhood. Apparently "Just think about something else" didn't solve it for me either, but when I read up on modern protocols their instances decreased in staggering numbers. I never had what some would call a fixation with any of that stuff as a kid: I much preferred to go running down a sand dune, jump off an edge and land in the water, or climb the highest climbable object as a kid so wasn't really abnormal. But back to the topic at hand I don't think public display does much for anyone, but a humane extermination, for the benefit of all involved (not the least of which are those tasked with the extermination) is probably the best option I think.
That's actually how I thought that was done. I've heard about gallows and very little about hanging people from trees unless it's a lynching. Anyway, it kind of takes the point of hanging away if the person dies instantly and not of strangulation. But I'd rather support that, for those who deserve it, instead of lethal injection.
Actually you're wrong. Hanging is one of the oldest known methods of execution, wartime or otherwise, and it's been postulated that the purpose was merely so the carcass of the condemned served as a warning to future invaders and the like. In fact there are early hangings that were done postmortem, meaning some blunt trauma happened first, or even a stabbing, and the body was simply hung as a warning. Basically if you lived in a small band, and were subject to rival invaders stealing and plundering, if you killed one and hung its carcass up that could serve as a warning to others interested in doing likewise.
Certainly hangings for strangulation in Persia and in the Deep South lynchings came along but this of course has been long since agriculture and civilization.
Very interesting! Thanks for the info. I love sociological and anthropological facts like that.
Whether the dath penalty is right or wrong, one thing I hold strong to is that the justice system is too soft on criminals these days. Yes, I do believe that 99 percent of these criminals deserve a second chance, but this should not be taken lightly. By the way, the other One percent I believe do not deserve a second chance are those who murder certain groups of people. Hitler would be a good example of this. Yes, I do believe that those who blow their second chance should be put to justice the old fashion way, so to speak.
I know it's not done like that and the song was about lynching, but I like to think I successfully burned that immage into your minds. It's the same feel.
No, it's not. Usually, when someone gets lynched, he/she is innocent. Most of the time, when someone gets hanged by the state, he/she is guilty. There's a big difference between the death of an innocent person and of a guilty one.
But what you are talking about is not all that different. Death is death.
Yes, you're right in the dictionary sense. But I believe that the punishment should fit the crime and should do so in a way that's satisfactory financially, mentally and logically. It's not as if the government is randomly picking people out of a crowd and executing them. This, of course, would be wrong. These people have done something to get on death row, namely, they've killed innocent people. So now they must face the consequences.
i just don't get, where people seem to think because such and sucha person murderedsome, that gives us the right to murder, yes murder, them in return. it's the same concept.
Why should we have to pay for them to spend the rest of their lives in prison, where they're fed, can take classes, can exercise and can even watch the latest films and go on the internet? There are decent people who are too poor to be able to always have food on the table, to go to school, to own exercise equipment, a computer or even a television And yet, some people would rather give these things to those who've taken innocent lives instead of to innocent people who are down on their luck. And if you're totally against the government giving anything, what makes lifers different from the poor? Whatever happened to really harsh prisons where you barely got anything except a little bread and soup, some water, a hard bed and alot of work? I don't think that those who committed petty crimes should be treated this way, but certainly killers and others who've done terrible things should.
The difference? What does a baby do to deserve death? What rights has said baby taken from another? But, yet you want to compare the taking of that innocent life with the punishment of one who took that innocent life? IMO, if you make the choice to take a life you have given up all rights to your own life, --unless it was warrented-- if you rape you have given up the right to remain pure; (in what ever whole is available)...Let us just say that I believe in an eye for an eye. I do not like people thinking they can do something just because they can and getting away with it, I do not like the thought of people getting a second chance with violent and/or crimes against minors. And, do not say it does not happen, it does every damn day in America. Why? Because American's are to damn soft and do not respect the truly pure innocents we have left. We are so damn ni eve that we think one who has killed, raped and/or harmed minors can change and that they deserve the chance to change...F the victums, as a matter of fact it is the victums who are usually to blame.
Big hugs! Thanks for telling it like it is and for not being afraid! Stay strong and hold to your convictions.
We all deserve rights and no one person is more deserving of death than anyone else. That said, I do feel punishment should be dealt out but death is rediculous. Perhaps criminals in jail should have the option of suicide? And I would also like to add:
Money, money, money. You want to put someone to death just because it is cheaper? We cannot judge others because it makes us feel better to do so.
Criminals kill themselves in jail sometimes even without the option. But I agree that if you kill someone for any reasons other than genuine self-defense, if you take an innocent life you give up all rights to your own. I'll never understand why we spend all this money on murderers to keep them in jail, feed them and care for them just so they can die however many years later. We either need to execute them via either Old Sparky, hanging or a firing squad or take Tiffanitsa's suggestion and bring back the gladiators and make the worst criminals fight for the entertainment of the rest of us. No more of this burocratic nonsense, especially not for known terrorists.
So when are you running for president so that I can vote for you? lol Most people forget one thing. Is it really fair to ask the family of a murder victim to pay for his/her murderer's room and board? Why not just ask them to rent him/her an apartment, furniture, a tv, a computer with internet access, a library of books, and a gym and to hire a cook and a maid for him/her? That's essentially what we're saying. Sorry your daughter was killed but can you please help us keep her killer alive? And if no one is more deserving of death than another, what about brutal serial killers and people who commit monsterous crimes, like the Nazis? Should they be given a slap on the wrist and let go or simply put in prison like someone who killed a single victim in a relatively quick and painless way? If all people who kill innocents are to be treated equally, then that should mean death. The one and only exception I can see is if someone became a dictator and helped the country far more than he harmed it. Yes, there were innocent deaths there, and this cannot be ignored, but when the good outweighs the bad, this should be taken into account when pronouncing sentence. I'd consider Georgios Papadopoulos, Stylianos Pattakos and Nikolaos Makarezos (the three main instigators of The Revolution in Greece from 1967-73, since 74 was ruled over by a maniac before democracy returned) to be in that special category.
I definitely agree that keeping someone on death row for any more than a couple of months is ridiculous, both for the person, and the rest of us. If it takes that long to fill out the paperwork and prepare for the execution, then the system really needs to be worked on. Either you kill them, or you don't, and if you're going to kill them, might as well do it as soon as possible. If not, then get them the hell out of death row, and work on preventing them from committing such crimes in the future, and make sure you're making significant progress before so much as considering their release. In the meantime, nobody outside of prison gets free food and shelter, so why should people in prison get such privilages?
Tif, what is fare? What is just and what is fare are two different things. The fact remains that death is death. Let's use the dictionary, let's use reason, let's not use emotions in the legal system.
Exactly. Death is death. The criminal caused somebody death. Letting them keep what they took from someone else. How is that fair and/or just? Yes, I understand that two wrongs don't make a right, and yes, I understand that in ordinary circumstances, it's wrong for an equal to justify taking your life, but do we really want serial killers on the street, And do we want to put our tax dollars toward keeping them alive?
Although I support extermination of violent offenders, the deterrent factor is not one reason for this. Otherwise Europe and the rest of the civilized world would be rampant with violent crime, while it is the U.S. who is so rampant. Why isn't Sweden, admittedly the softest place to be imprisoned, just crawling with violent crime?
The "we're-too-soft" argument saying that's why we have violent crime can't possibly be accurate when looking at every other civilized nation in the world. Like I said, I personally am in favor of extermination in some of these cases, but I'm not sure that would reduce the number of new criminals. There must be something else in our particular culture which doesn't exist in Iceland, Sweden, Norway, the UK, France, Spain, Germany and the list goes on. These places don't have the high crimes per capita numbers that we do. So yes, we can exterminate those who commit capital crimes, but I think an honest assessment from something other than a "I've-been-raised-in-the-U.S.-and-don't-know-another-country's-geography" type perspective. Something is so drastically missing in our assessment of the situation that were it an algorithm it wouldn't even get off the ground. All these other societies may have a common denominator, or some component conspicuously absent which we possess.
Thank you, OceanDream, for injecting more logic into this. Sometimes, it's necessary to do what some might consider wrong in order to right a wrong. So if killing a murderer keeps him/her off the streets, saves money, helps the victim's family emotionally heal, leaves room in prisons for less serious offenders and room in the courts for those cases to be tried instead of having to wait for these murderers to keep appealing, then it's justified. As for what America does verses other countries, I honestly don't know. I know many Americans have a superior attitude but this exerts itself mostly in the way they handle other countries, don't properly educate their citizens about other cultures, advertise so that the rest of the world wants to be like them instead of keeping it's authenticity and so on. But none of this explains the high crime rate. You've posed an extremely interesting sociological and anthropological question, one that should be studied and considered. Perhaps, it's the lack of higher education, or access to it, that drives these criminals to perform these acts. Maybe, they're not properly cared for at home. Certainly, there are enough children growing up with only one parent who must work to privide for the family, or with two parents who both work instead of one staying home to do the caretaking when the children are young. These children grow up basically in the hands of strangers, from their teachers, to their babysitters to their daycare centres. Many watch violent television shows, play violent video games and have little to no guidence when it comes to making life's important decisions or even praise when they do good things. All of this can have a negative impact on a child that can last well into adulthood. But whether this is an American or a global problem I cannot say.
You really have to think of culture as well. Our culture basically teaches that it's every person for themselves out there, whereas other countries rely heavily on support from the family, and commiting a crime would be a serious disgrace on the family.
Also, I don't think the point of the death penalty is to decrease crime rate. Let's be honest; A lot of these serious offenders don't care whether they die or not. People who feel they have something to lose don't usually commit these types of crimes.
I still maintain that it is wrong to put a person to death. Most people seem to confuse justice with revenge. As I said, let's think hard when we make laws and remember that we have evolved. This is not feeding time at the zoo, we do not live in a barn, and, oh yes folks, us law-makers must hold ourselves to the exact same standards. What does that mean? It means that if you think killing should be punished by killing, then kill yourselves because hey, you're all serial killers!
Let's correct that. Killing of the innocent, when the killer is aware that the victim is truly so, should be punished with killing. Killing of the guilty should be praised and an employment opportunity, or at the very least, seen as justice and a fitting end to one who has committed the same crime against an innocent person. And I agree about Americans having this all for me attitude. Even if you don't base things around family, you could still have room in your heart/mind to think of others and to know what's right and wrong.
I agree. It's one thing if the killing was accidental even if it wasn't necessarily in self-defense. If you unintentionally kill someone I believe that should be taken into account and that you perhaps would deserve a less harsh penalty. But if you knowingly and deliberately kill an innocent person just to kill someone then as I said you've given up all claim to your own life. Let's face it folks, by imprisoning these dangerous murderers for life we're getting them off the sreet rightly enough but we're giving them a place to stay, free food and whatnont for the rest of their life just so they can die later. And we, the rest of the population, are paying for it with our tax dollars. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right but I do believe and always have believed that deliberate, cold-blooded murder, particularly when there's torture involved, is a crime that warrants execution, whether by hanging, Old Sparky, firing squads or gladiatorial combat.
Interesting discussion. Although oddly enough, I have heard that employing the death penalty actually costs more than a life sentence behind bars.
I would think that would depend on the method employed. I just have always felt that our country in particular is too soft on those who don't deserve it. It's one thing to kill accidentally and/or in self-defense and if those circumstances can be proven beyond reasonable question that the one responsible does deserve the benefit of every doubt. But when someone tortures and kills another person or group of people just for the sheer sick pleasure of it their punishment should fit that crime. THere was a fellow here in Idaho by the name of Joseph Edward Duncan who tortured and killed nearly an entire Idaho family and I definitely feel his crimes warrant the death penalty.
Getting back on topic though since wehave indeed drifted quite astray, I definitely agree with those who'd like to find out who it was that came up with the idea that it was necessary to kill a whole bunch of other people when you decided to take your own life. So your own life sucks? Why not try getting help first? And if that doesn't work just take your own life and be done with it. Why rob others of the chance to better their situation in the process?
Some sick people get off on that kind of thing though. It's beyond creepy.
No argument here. It's down right disturbing.