The murder of a murderer....

[norompanlasolas]

im against the death penalty. but i guess this is a typical case of an issue where opinions are not going to change.

i just want to point out 2 things... one that amnesty international is one of the most respected organisations in the world, and that they take great risks in doing their job, which they do remarkably well. and two that its ok for a state/country/whatever to decide their own laws. i just find it very funny that the us is in the same list as the axis of evil in this issue. maybe they could be good friends since they share similar views after all.

[Alexander]

Let me reiterate: If a 17-year-old commits an adult crime, then the 17-year-old must accept the adult consequences.

How about this:

If a 17-year old is not considered an adult, then a 17-year old should not be tried as one.

If we're going to try 17-year olds as adults, then we should no longer consider them minors, and they should be treated as adults. Meaning that not only would they face the same consequences, but they should also receive the various benefits that come with adulthood, because, as I said, we're treating them as adults.

[Memnoch]

Calm down, people. Why is it that we seem incapable of discussing a serious discussion like sentient beings, without resorting to fighting or getting personal with each other?

The last few serious discussion threads have not had happy endings...surely you're all learning from experience by now.

Let's see if this thread is still open by the time I wake up tomorrow.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by RudeDawg: quote: Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Wow, surprisingly I've never heard of an adult crime before?? What's the exact definition of an adult crime? And if for example shoplifting was classed as a child crime would adults be charged the same as a child? First I've ever heard of it, I was just there thinking crimes were not reserved for any specific age.

THAT'S the whole point! The age of a MURDERER doesn't matter. Crime is not reserved for a specific age. The murder committed a crime, he should pay the consequence.[/QUOTE]So a 6-year old who is ticked off at his little brother or sister and kills them should receive the death penalty. Simply stunning.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by RudeDawg: quote: Originally posted by Melusine: quote: Originally posted by RudeDawg: Whoo Hooo !!!! [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img] I'm a bloodthirtsy Texan !!! Specifically, a bloodthirsty Tex-Mexican! (We're the worst) [img]graemlins/2gunfire.gif[/img] Actually, I'm kinda proud of that.

I'm happy for you, but you haven't responded to my posts yet.
No offense, but you basically told Alexander that he's an indirect murderer.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]She is not trolling, she is summarizing what you said - that it is somehow my fault (or the fault of people like me) that a friend of yours was murdered.

Which I find simply ludicrous, and downright offensive.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: [b]Alexander, You have stated that a 17 year old in Texas cannot smoke, drink, gamble, or vote. Unfortunately, you are WRONG! (except for the voting issue). A 17 year old CAN do ALL of these things. They just risk being punished because it is illegal for them to do it at that age. They can also commit murder. If they caught and convicted[/b, then they must face the penalty for that offense also.

My whole point is that he is not legally recognized by the government as an adult, so if you're going to punish him as you would punish an adult, surely it would make sense to treat him as one in all other respects (and from here on change the voting/gambling/whatever age to 17).

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Melusine: quote: 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.[/QUOTE]Melusine, thank you. I appreciate what you tried to do.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: 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?

Execution of a convicted criminal is far removed from genocide; only the truly insane would ever condone genocide. Forcing half your population into a situation that amounts to slavery and degradation is also not to be accepted. This, however, raises a very important question--should a soverign nation submit to the "will of nations" and, if so, under what circumstances? Before answering, consider this: if you live in a house with other people, should you let them decide if your actions are acceptable?

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: 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)

You are the first person here to state that committing a criminal act does not take away human rights. Thank you for stating that (and that is a sincere thank you [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] ) because that point had not been made clear.
Based on what you posted, I get the impression that you think that a person's human rights supercede the rights of the nation of which that person is a citizen. Do the human rights of a person who disregards the human rights of others matter?
I agree that it may not be our place to play God and determine who lives and who dies, but does not the murderer play God when taking away life?

[ 05-30-2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Alexander: [b] quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Alexander, You have stated that a 17 year old in Texas cannot smoke, drink, gamble, or vote. Unfortunately, you are WRONG! (except for the voting issue). A 17 year old CAN do ALL of these things. They just risk being punished because it is illegal for them to do it at that age. They can also commit murder. If they caught and convicted[/b, then they must face the penalty for that offense also.

My whole point is that he is not legally recognized by the government as an adult, so if you're going to punish him as you would punish an adult, surely it would make sense to treat him as one in all other respects (and from here on change the voting/gambling/whatever age to 17).[/QUOTE]The only problem with that reasoning is that it advocates allowing ALL teenagers access to beer and tobacco because a significant few are "tried as adults" after callously ending the life of an innocent.

The death penalty is a case of the punishment fitting the crime, not a matter whether teens should be allowed to smoke and drink before age 18.

For the sake of compromise, however, I WILL agree that any 17-year old who receives the death penalty should also receive full access to beer and tobacco during their interment.

On a more serious note, I owe you an apology. Based on your original threads, I thought you might be a disgruntled teenager yourself. I humbly apologize for jumping to that conclusion and I am terribly sad to hear about your loss. While I disagree with your views, I admire your conviction and the fact that you are able to maintain that conviction in the face of such a tragic personal loss.

Originally posted by Azred: font color = lightgreen>Execution of a convicted criminal is far removed from genocide; only the truly insane would ever condone genocide. Forcing half your population into a situation that amounts to slavery and degradation is also not to be accepted. This, however, raises a very important question--should a soverign nation submit to the "will of nations" and, if so, under what circumstances? Before answering, consider this: if you live in a house with other people, should you let them decide if your actions are acceptable?

The universal Declaration of human rights (only in theory so far, sadly) should override a countries law if it contradicts it, and the country in question is a signatory (which America is). For example if a country has a law which states that people are not allowed to choose & practice their own religion,
The Declaration of human rights is supposed to be followed and put into practise by the U.S.A, and yet sadly it does not follow it on key areas.

Originally posted by Azred: font color = lightgreen>You are the first person here to state that committing a criminal act does not take away human rights. Based on what you posted, I get the impression that you think that a person's human rights supercede the rights of the nation of which that person is a citizen. Do the human rights of a person who disregards the human rights of others matter?

Yes, for if we do not respect their human rights, we are just as bad as they, and hypocrites into the bargain.

Originally posted by Azred: I agree that it may not be our place to play God and determine who lives and who dies, but does not the murderer play God when taking away life?[/QB]

Two wrongs don't make a right.