stanley tookie willaims

[Shatari]

i pity you for being emotionless tbh, maybe you should learn to forgive

Emotionless? No, I wouldn't say he is emotionless, as it is just another kind of emotions than yours.

Seen from my eyes: the time to forgive, is the time when the convicted has fully got what he/she deserves.
You want to get along by forgiving the murder, but what you actually do, is forgiving the murder because you feel, you must to in order to free yourself.
While this may be good for YOUR health, it does not bring the dead back to life.

To be honest I see forgiving the murder convicted, as a way to get easy through it and feel better about yourself or your society (depending on how close you was to the murdered person).
Therefore I am one of those that want death penalty to remain as it is.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Emotionless? No, I wouldn't say he is emotionless, as it is just another kind of emotions than yours.

Seen from my eyes: the time to forgive, is the time when the convicted has fully got what he/she deserves.
You want to get along by forgiving the murder, but what you actually do, is forgiving the murder because you feel, you must to in order to free yourself.
While this may be good for YOU, it does not bring the dead back to life, nor can forgiving.

you don't forgive someone for his sake... you forgive someone for your sake. Only after you've forgiven someone, really forgiven someone for what he or she has done, you can let that part of your life behind you.
You forgive someone for YOUR peace of mind. Not his or hers...
This has got nothing to do with what he or she got in return for his or her actions..

 

[tris-]

if someone is guilty of murder, then how can you say its acceptable that they stay alive?

even if they are in a cell, for the rest of their life. you think its fine they are alive, watching TV, being fed etc. being watched by guards because everyone in the prison wants to kill them.

thats all fine?

the greatest thing we have is life, a murderer takes that from the victim. why should the murderer be allowed to keep the greatest thing you can have?

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

if someone is guilty of murder, then how can you say its acceptable that they stay alive?

even if they are in a cell, for the rest of their life. you think its fine they are alive, watching TV, being fed etc. being watched by guards because everyone in the prison wants to kill them.

thats all fine?

the greatest thing we have is life, a murderer takes that from the victim. why should the murderer be allowed to keep the greatest thing you can have?

You're lowering yourself to their level if you kill them. I know I for one would never ever want that.
Execution penalty makes the executioner just as bad as the murderer being executed.

 

[tris-]

why does it? if you can explain how a person who kills several people in cold blood is the same as someone who executes a plague on innocent people are the same, i will understand your oppinion better.

 

[Shatari]

You're lowering yourself to their level if you kill them. I know I for one would never ever want that.
Execution penalty makes the executioner just as bad as the murderer being executed.

The difference is you "kill" a person that has taken an innocents life.

"Lowering yourself to their level"? Do you mean we kill an innocent person? Because that's the only way I would say could lower us to their level.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

why does it? if you can explain how a person who kills several people in cold blood is the same as someone who executes a plague on innocent people are the same, i will understand your oppinion better.

First of all, you seldom know for 100% sure that someone is guilty. There have been plenty of people that had life in jail, and got out after 30 yrs because some evidence surfaced showing that they are innocent. This guy for instance has been convicted before the DNA age. you simply cannot know 100% sure that you're convicting the right person.
Second of all, you ARE taking someone else's life. No matter what he did, who gives anyone the right to decide if someone else should live or not?

There is nothing in the world that makes the victims come back... and like shatari said:

You want, as a hypothetical dad, see the murderer of your hypothetical daughter executed? Bugger that, how about comforting your hypothetical wife? How about keeping your hypothetical other kids on track? I'm sure they'd love their hypothetical daddy brooding over the death of their hypothetical sister all day.

You're better off focusing on living family that might need you more then the one killed by the perpetrator.


Also, for the convicted... he'll be dead, gone.. he won't feel pain anymore, He won't feel remorse or whatever anymore..

 

[Ormorof]

the death penalty can only really be justified if the criminal justice system is 100% perfect, which is never going to happen

 

[tris-]

First of all, you seldom know for 100% sure that someone is guilty

ok, dont put anyone in jail then. ever.
like you say, you cant punish someone if we never know 100% they should be punished.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

ok, dont put anyone in jail then. ever.
like you say, you cant punish someone if we never know 100% they should be punished.

I didn't say that...
I said that you cannot terminate someone's life if you don't 100% know for sure if they're guilty.

Read before you respond..

 

[tris-]

i did read it. you never said anything about terminating, you just said convicting people when you arnt 100% sure.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

i did read it. you never said anything about terminating, you just said convicting people when you arnt 100% sure.

What the **** is the topic of this ****ing conversation.... Ofcourse it's about executions! :/

Besides, it DID follow from the line of the conversation that it only was about executions.

 

[Tasslehoff]

While this may be good for YOUR health, it does not bring the dead back to life.

But execution does?

 

[Shatari]

You're better off focusing on living family that might need you more then the one killed by the perpetrator.

Let me get this right. Are you basically saying that I should close my eyes like it has never happened, and focus on something else?

Also, for the convicted... he'll be dead, gone.. he won't feel pain anymore, He won't feel remorse or whatever anymore..

The reason we want the murderer punished by death penalty, is solely because that was what he/she did to another.
Why would we want him/her to feel anything more than his/her life passing by, and the feeling of regret when he/she realises they've just waisted their lives, before he/she is executed?

 

[Vilje]

He was convicted so he deserved to die.

So by your words if an innocent man gets convicted, he should be excecuted?
Death sentence is an old punnishment, that shouldnt be used today.

When did i say he was innocent?

Noone said anything about the guy being innocent in this case. You, Jjuraa, stated that this person was convicted, and as a result of this you said he deserved to die. Hence you made it seem like you think everyone that is sentenced(sp?) to the death penalty deserves to die, also the innocent ones.

For example: a man kidnapps, rapes, tortures, then kills a 15 year old girl.

you think that man deserves to live? you think he has the right to live in a warm cell, take food and water and even entertainment, paid for indirectly by the girls own father? (tax etc) hmm?

I think that a person able to kill or rape a 15 year old girl is sick and needs help. I also think that this sick person has the same basic right to live as a healthy person. I believe that the reason for this person being sick is nature and nurture, and not of his own fault. Hence I don't think death is the kind of "help" they need or deserve.

If a person rapes someone it does not really matter if he gets 5 years or 20 years in prison. What matters is that he is a better person when he gets out, so he does not repeat it. They need doctors, not long sentences. Something is broken and it needs to be fixed. Thats the way I feel about it anyways.

 

[Shatari]

But execution does?

No, but it does justify the wrongs the murderer has done, if you should believe the old saying (from the Bible) which I do: "An eye for an eye."

 

[Marc]

im all for an eye for an eye an all that. Murder should be punishable by the death penalty. End of.

 

[Tasslehoff]

No, but it does justify the wrongs the murderer has done, if you should believe the old saying (from the Bible) which I do: "An eye for an eye."

So if someone's raped another person, then that person should be raped and go free after that? We wouldn't need prison either, then if you got into a bar fight and got turned in, they could just smack you up and you'd be out. Prison should be reserved for people that locks up other people then.

I don't really know what I think about death penalty, I just think it's impossible to look at it that black and white as you seem to do (for myself of course, I have no problem at all with you seeing it that way)

 

[tris-]

So if someone's raped another person, then that person should be raped and go free after that? We wouldn't need prison either, then if you got into a bar fight and got turned in, they could just smack you up and you'd be out. Prison should be reserved for people that locks up other people then.

lol Tasslehoff, thats a funny thought you got there.

 

[Shatari]

So if someone's raped another person, then that person should be raped and go free after that? We wouldn't need prison either, then if you got into a bar fight and got turned in, they could just smack you up and you'd be out. Prison should be reserved for people that locks up other people then.

Sure, why not?
The minus about doing it only this way, would be the fact that we would get a system break down. I.e to steal from a thief wouldn't necessary make them feel bad.
That's also why I think you should take "eye for an eye" with ease, and perhabs look on it this way:

A person has stolen from you. As you can't steal from him, then the thing to do, is doing something equally "as bad" to him.

So the way I see "Eye for an eye" is actually more like "equal for an equal", and not necessary doing the same to that person, although in the case of a murderer I would go so far to do the same to him.

 

[Vilje]

No, but it does justify the wrongs the murderer has done, if you should believe the old saying (from the Bible) which I do: "An eye for an eye."

If you are thinking about the same old saying as I am, then you must see it in its original context. One can't simply cut it in pieces and use the ones you like. Of course everyone can interpret it as they like, but it has to be as a whole. The saying I'm thinking of is the following:

"If men strive [i.e. fight], and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:22-25)

Here is another one that might catch your interest:

(Mat 5,39)
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (40) And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (41) If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (42) Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

 

[Ormorof]

yay i get to quote ghandi...

An eye for an eye and the world will soon be blind

soooo, a man gets convicted for murder, gets executed, they then discover he was innocent, should they then convict the executioner for murder and execute him?

an eye for an eye is a pretty vague way of looking at things, for example should the "revenge" be carried out by the person the crime was commited against? for example a girl gets raped, should she then rape the guy? or do something nasty to him? or should someone else get to carry it out?

how can you compare nastiness of crimes? ie what "revenge" should be carried out for rape? castration?

it gets to a point where it simply becomes a matter of opinion and anger that takes control of "justice"

letting the state get away with killing people has always been a bad idea in my opinion

(imagine executing the Guildford four, only to find out later that they were innocent, and yet the case would likely have just been dropped because they would be dead anyway, is that justice? i think not )

 

[tris-]

i think the point is, the person would be executed when it is 100% impossible that they are innocent

 

[Shatari]

If you are thinking about the same old saying as I am, then you must see it in its original context. One can't simply cut it in pieces and use the ones you like. Of course everyone can interpret it as they like, but it has to be as a whole.

I have chosed to interpret it as "Eye for eye" as most does. That is also why I had it shortened down to the version most here knows/remembers and uses.

 

[Alliandre]

i think the point is, the person would be executed when it is 100% impossible that they are innocent

And that is never. Nothing is ever certain.

If rehabilitation is possible, it should be tried. Otherwise just keep them out of society, though not through killing. Mistakes are made in justice all the time, and killing someone just makes a reasonable situation from that unsalvagable.

I couldn't give a damn about your petty revenge. If I was unjustly accussed of a crime and executed, I'd haunt you.

 

[Shatari]

And that is never. Nothing is ever certain.

If rehabilitation is possible, it should be tried. Otherwise just keep them out of society, though not through killing. Mistakes are made in justice all the time, and killing someone just makes a reasonable situation from that unsalvagable.

That is also the reason why there is so long time between the conviction and the execution. (my answer to the highligted part)

What I see as a rather big problem, is that the police do not investigate the case any further once he/she is convicted.

And why on Earth do they deserve rehabilitation, if they are actually guilty?

 

[Chronictank]

hmm tough one
i personally think he should be kept in prison for the rest of his natural life, that way he actually pays for what he did.
He is more valuable to those "in society", (using the term very loosley as he isnt really in society ) who listen to him alive than dead no?


on the subject of eye for an eye, he also has saved alot of lives, he stopped a gank war where potentially alot more than 4 people will have died. Does that mean he has paid for the 4 lives he was convicted of taking with countless ones hes saved?
if eye for an eye is exactly what you believe surely you should be voting no?

Just a little note, the subject at hand is should be be executed not should he be punished

 

[Ormorof]

That is also the reason why there is so long time between the conviction and the execution.

What I see as a rather big problem, is that the police do not investigate the case any further once he/she is convicted.

having a long time between conviciton and execution is can hardly be used to excuse mistakes in the justice system when you admit afterwards that the police dont investigate further anyway

tbh, this in particular is a special case, he was hardly going to reoffend, after trying to stop gang wars, getting nominated for nobel peace prize etc?

how can society say killing is wrong and then justify putting a lethal injection in someone?

 

[Shatari]

having a long time between conviciton and execution is can hardly be used to excuse mistakes in the justice system when you admit afterwards that the police dont investigate further anyway

I think you got me wrong. I don't got a problem with death penalty as it is, I got a problem about how things are handled.
I agree with you, that the current way it is handled may be a reason to remove the death penalty, but on the other hand, couldn't we rather change the way it is handled and keep the death penalty? I would personally chose the last option.

That was what the post was meant to express.

 

[tris-]

And that is never. Nothing is ever certain.

if nothing is ever certain then how we can justify convicting anyone of anything? no matter what the punishment. life in prison is just as bad as execution according to the government, so how we can imprison someone for life without knowing 100% certain? because according to you, that is imposssible.

therefore no one should be in prison for life. if thats the case, then we can say its fine that people get off their sentance 10 yrs early. we were never certain they are guilty anyway so wtf, dude just get out into the world and have fun! we dunno, you could of been guilty, maybe you wernt. just go anyway.