The murder of a murderer....

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Ted Bundy - by his own admission - killed over 100 people. He had served time in prison for some of these murders, but when he got out, he murdered more people.

Then why was he released?

The fault is not with gaol as a punishment or crime prevention, but the lenient sentence. If a human is a dangerous psycho, remove them from society.

The consideration should be though, that in combatting the monster, society doesn't become a monster itself.

It's concerning that so many should disregard Amnesty International - a world body that works tirelessly for HUMAN RIGHTS.

Fact: Every other western nation has abolished execution, agreeing that it is a human rights violation, and that it is an irrevocable punishment if found to be in error.

America stands alone in the west as the fourth highest killer of it's own citizens after China, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

I'm sure these nations tell amnesty international where to get off as well.

Guy's, make your own laws by all means, but insulting the care and opinions of a humanitarian organisation drawn from all over the world? That's showing a dark and ugly underbelly. It smells of arrogant disregard for the rest of the worlds values.

Go against it by all means, but please, for your own sakes, in wariness of hubris, do not disregard world opinion in the callous manner which has been displayed.

[ 05-30-2002, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: To say that they deserve death simply because they killed someone is not justice, it’s emotion pure and simple, and emotion clouds judgement. An eye for an eye, leaves us all blind. The mark of justice is that it transcends vengeance and base emotion. Already this century alone alone, over 80 million people have died at the hands of others, do you really want to add to this number? The death penalty is no deterrent, statistics prove it to be no preventitive, and even police officers agree that it is a very ineffective deterrent. Europe seems to get along just fine without it.

Does emotion always cloud judgement? Do you do things for your loved ones based out of love? If so, wouldn't those actions be exercising poor judgement?
Since a murderer creates unwanted emotions in the family member of the victim, the family has the right to attain emotional closure from the legally sanctioned execution of the convicted murderer. I, for one, would not condone "vigilante" justice; that is the bailiwick of dramatic movies, not real life.

Let us suppose that the death penalty is universally abolished tomorrow. What, then, should be done with the really violent offenders, the ones who will never be rehabilitated and have a high degree of being repeat offenders? Feed them, clothe them, house them, etc. because we, as sane and responsible humans who value life, don't want to put to death those who do not value human life? Wouldn't those monies and resources be more wisely allocated elsewhere?

[Azred]

Originally posted by Yorick: It's concerning that so many should disregard Amnesty International - a world body that works tirelessly for HUMAN RIGHTS. Fact: Every other western nation has abolished execution, agreeing that it is a human rights violation, and that it is an irrevocable punishment if found to be in error. America stands alone in the west as the fourth highest killer of it's own citizens after China, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I'm sure these nations tell amnesty international where to get off as well. Guy's, make your own laws by all means, but insulting the care and opinions of a humanitarian organisation drawn from all over the world? That's showing a dark and ugly underbelly. It smells of arrogant disregard for the rest of the worlds values. Go against it by all means, but please, for your own sakes, in wariness of hubris, do not disregard world opinion in the callous manner which has been displayed.

If the voters of a nation, or even a state, vote to allow executions then should not Amnesty International respect the views of those voters? If not, then even that well-respected organization would be engaging in arrogant disregard of the views of others.
What compelling argument could be made to convince me that the rest of the world is correct, other than the fact that "the rest of the world says so"? I am, as always, open-minded, but I have never heard any argument that is sufficiently convincing.
I am glad for those nations that have abandoned the death penalty, but until a better system is developed I will continue to support putting to death those who callously disregard the value of human life.

[ 05-30-2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

Originally posted by Azred: If the voters of a nation, or even a state, vote to allow executions then should not Amnesty International respect the views of those voters? If not, then even that well-respected organization would be engaging in arrogant disregard of the views of others.

Human rights, such as the RIGHT TO LIFE should supersede the will of nations. What if a nation decides to commit genocide? Should we respect their will, and let them enact the genocide? in afghanistan, many people under the taleban thought that it was okay to force women to wear burkas and not let them get an education, should we let them do that?

Originally posted by Azred: What compelling argument could be made to convince me that the rest of the world is correct, other than the fact that "the rest of the world says so"? I am, as always, open-minded, but I have never heard any argument that is sufficiently convincing. I am glad for those nations that have abandoned the death penalty, but until a better system is developed I will continue to support putting to death those who callously disregard the value of human life.[/QB]

Physician Heal thyself.
Executing people is showing a callous disregard for their human rights and their life, When we commit a crime we do not Forfeit all of our human rights, the right to life applies for everyone and to execute someone is to deprive them of it.
To kill a murderer is to sink as low as them, execution is a barbarity, a reminder of our brutal past, which Europe does better without.
It’s truly sickening to look at all these people who do not truly understand the value of a human life, a life is a life, not yours or the states to take. It belongs only to the individual.
If you takes someone’s life, that is wrong, since it is not our place to take anyone’s life, therefore even though a murdere has taken life, this does not mean we can or even should take theirs.
If you believe in god you may also argue that it is not our place to decide who dies, therefore we should simply place the person where they cannot harm anyone anymore, for example life imprisonment without parole (which can happen)

[ 05-30-2002, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]

Originally posted by Attalus: About the nurses aid (not nurse) that left the man on her windshield, Cerek, she is awaiting trial. Sorry, I don't care what lists we were on, I want murderers dead. That way they don't ever murder anyone again. And, a majority of the voter of the sovereign state of Texas agree with me and don't care what others think.

That says it all really,
How sad it is when people are prepared to resort to saying that sort of thing.
Just because other people agree, it doesn’t make it right.

[caleb]

So then the same thing could be said about amnesty international.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by RudeDawg: quote: Originally posted by Alexander: To all you wonderfully civilized people who want executions immediately after the person is convicted - the waiting period is so that evidence and suchlike can be reviewed, so we can make damn sure that the offender was guilty. Granted, we probably still kill a few innocents, but it's a lot fewer than would be killed under your system. If in the near future your system is implemented, and a loved one is executed immediately after the trial (even though they were innocent), and you can stick to your guns and still support your stance, come talk to me then.

And to YOU, wonderfully inexperienced one... when YOU have a loved one murdered and the murderer set free because of your beliefs, come talk to ME then.
I have had 1 family member, and 2 wonderful friends murdered. One young lady was stabbed to death by her husband, with multiple stab wounds in her BACK. But because of people like YOU, he was set free. He went to her families home, and shot her brother, before being gunned-down.
People like YOU are responsible for his death.[/QUOTE]First of all, what you are saying has pretty much nothing to do with my request, although it is certainly tragic. My request was for someone who has lost an innocent family member due to the death penalty to come talk to me.

Second, I am no more responsible for his death than you are. Do you see me saying that criminals should be set free? Of course not, I think they should be severely punished if they are proven murderers. I just don't think we should kill them.

Third, you are mistaken if you believe that I am totally without insight - I lost, of all people, my beloved wife to a murderer about 8 years ago. I am still devastated by that event, and it has caused me to become somewhat mentally unstable. Once I was mentally capable of deciding the criminal's fate, I requested life in prison instead of the death penalty - partly because my wife was always against it (though until that point I could never understand why), partly because I thought death would be too kind, and partly because I knew it wouldn't bring her back. That man continues to rot in his cell until the end of his days. Believe me, if the death penalty could've brought her back, I would have killed the man myself, but it doesn't.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by RudeDawg: quote: Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Besides what if the person executed was innocent? AS the U.S.A already proves, many of those who are executed are innocent, and once they are gone, they’re gone. And even one innocent man executed, is a stain and blight upon a nation that claims to uphold the constitution.

This is the third time that this argument has been used in this thread. It's a myth, people. Here in Texas, there is 1 case of someone being PROVEN innocent after an execution. ONE. I will agree, that is one too many, but it is NOT the 'many" that keep being pointed out.. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Surely you must ask yourself how many people have been executed whose innocence has not been proven yet.

And may I direct you to Illinois, where they put a moratorium on the death penalty just because so many people on death row were found to be innocent? I shudder to think of how many innocent people we would've killed had they been executed immediately.

[Melusine]

Originally posted by RudeDawg: Silly me, Mel. I did not, nor do i NOW, feel that it was worthy nor merited a reply. Quit trolling, I will not rise to your bait.

Now that Alexander has answered to this thread, I will answer to this.
I was NOT trolling, RudeDawg, and I'm very sad that you would think such a thing of me. All I did was paraphrase your post. When you said that because of people like Alexander, other people get murdered, YES, that gave me a right to respond and ask why you would say such a thing. You reaction to me was uncalled for. All I was trying to do was subtly hint that maybe you should give Alexander a break, as you did not know where he was coming from. Instead of realising this, you call me a troll.
Now, if you've read Alexander's post, you'll know why I responded why I did. I have never tried to disparage you or your grief, but you condemned my post without noticing that what I was TRYING to point out is that Alexander has gone through a similar ordeal as you.

[Alexander]

Well, if they didn't commit the crime then yes, I would be fighting for my loved one. However, Mr. Beazley did commit the crime.

I didn't say he didn't, however the very existance of the death penalty makes it possible that a loved one can be tried, convicted and executed for a crime they didn't commit. Would you be such a staunch supporter if it was you or a family member on death row?

Murderers are a threat to everyone.

From their prison cell? Give me a break.

How do you know he didn't try to escape?

I'm going to assume he didn't (since I think the article would have mentioned little things like escape attempts) until someone shows me otherwise.

Punishing those who commit crimes is the duty that comes with the moral, or more appropriately legal, authority that State has.

Yes - punishing - but not killing. That is as far from morally correct as you can get. We can easily punish offenders in a myriad of different ways - we don't have to execute them.

I teach it because it is right. hmmm.... telepathic, are we?

I don't need to be - the death penalty follows the logic that "Two wrongs do make a right" simply because it is an eye for an eye. If you support it, you obviously don't practice what you preach.

Again, there was no "planted" evidence; he killed that man in plain view of his [Luttig's] wife. Azred pats you on your head. Just a friendly reminder--when you quote someone in the future, you might want to note the source of your quote. It would lead to a little less confusion.

I am not suggesting he didn't commit the crime - but the mere existance of the death penalty makes it possible for you or a loved one to be executed (re: murdered) by the government for a crime you didn't commit. By supporting the death penalty, you obviously have no problem with that prospect, or am I wrong?