Oklahoma says repeat child molesters can be executed

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
The Idiocy

While I can sort of see the rational behind the death penalty for serial killers there is not way ANYBODY can justify the legal murder of anybody else. YES they are bad people, YES they deserve to rot in a small jail for the rest of their lives, but NO WAY do we have the right to make the ultimate decision about someones life unless they have done the same for others (even then it is debatable). Anybody who thinks otherwise is a traitor to the American cause.

Next we're gonna have some bullshit three strike rule where all repeat criminals can get executed.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that they are the fifth state to approve of this

EDIT2: I should also point out that this is restricted to molesters/rapists of children under 14. The lowest of the low next to murders, but not low enough that we have the right to murder them.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
"The last message you want to give an offender who has the life of a child in his hands is you might as well kill the child because he's already got the death penalty," said Brook, who runs the Virginia Capital Case Clearing House, which assists lawyers in death penalty cases. "This is a very stupid message."
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
You feel its justified to kill people just because they are bad? Please explain, you haven't said very much.
 

Excelsior

Lifer
May 30, 2002
19,047
18
81
Originally posted by: episodic
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: episodic
This is one I agree with.

Agree with the law or our opinions against it?


Agree with the law.

Aye.

rose.gif
for the victims.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: episodic
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: episodic
This is one I agree with.

Agree with the law or our opinions against it?


Agree with the law.

Aye.

rose.gif
for the victims.

So basically kill sex offenders for the sole purpose of revenge? Murder doesn't amount to justice in my eyes.

No it is too humane.

A lot of kids who get molsted/abused/raped get screwed up in the head. It takes them years to heal if they ever do.

A person who is a repeat offender, is some one who by defination, has failed to reform. To help bring closure to the victims, and prevent that person from ruining other people's lives, i would back excution.

 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
The Idiocy

While I can sort of see the rational behind the death penalty for serial killers there is not way ANYBODY can justify the legal murder of anybody else. YES they are bad people, YES they deserve to rot in a small jail for the rest of their lives, but NO WAY do we have the right to make the ultimate decision about someones life unless they have done the same for others (even then it is debatable). Anybody who thinks otherwise is a traitor to the American cause.

Next we're gonna have some bullshit three strike rule where all repeat criminals can get executed.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that they are the fifth state to approve of this

EDIT2: I should also point out that this is restricted to molesters/rapists of children under 14. The lowest of the low next to murders, but not low enough that we have the right to murder them.

This is a step in the right direction.

You mistake the reason for executions. It's not retribution for killing-- the "eye for an eye" mentality hasn't been in vogue since the days of Hammurabi (a slight exaggeration). People are executed because they have committed crimes that are so heinous that they deserve to die, and because they cannot be of further use to society.

There is no slippery-slope argument that applies here.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
So basically kill sex offenders for the sole purpose of revenge? Murder doesn't amount to justice in my eyes.

It is not murder, obviously; it's execution. Not all killing is murder; killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield is not murder, for another example.

It is also not revenge. There is no revenge that really fits the crime of raping a child, especially the eye-for-an-eye kind that you seem to understand best. You cannot rape a child molester as a child. In addition, it is the state which sustains the moral burden of killing the criminal in an execution, not an individual; for this reason as well it is not revenge. The criminal has not raped the state.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: blackllotus
You feel its justified to kill people just because they are bad?

ummm, yep!

QFT. That's the whole rationale behind execution in a nutshell-- killing people because they are bad.

I wonder, is there a country which has never executed criminals? I see that Canada used to have one, before it was abolished.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: blackllotus
You feel its justified to kill people just because they are bad?

ummm, yep!

QFT. That's the whole rationale behind execution in a nutshell-- killing people because they are bad.

I wonder, is there a country which has never executed criminals? I see that Canada used to have one, before it was abolished.


Yeah, countries tended to have all executed folks until they join the civilised world at some point.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
I think killing someone is the worst thing that can be done, and therefore should be the harshest punishment. I can't see it justified unless they, themselves, have taken someone else's life.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I wonder, is there a country which has never executed criminals? I see that Canada used to have one, before it was abolished.

Yeah, countries tended to have all executed folks until they join the civilised world at some point.

It's funny, though-- plenty of people in this country disagree with you. You can't call people uncivilized (fairly) just because they disagree with you. Torture, racial segregation, burning of books-- sadly enough, these have all been sponsored by highly civilized nations.

I have often enjoyed reading your opinions. Tell me, why is it that killing a criminal is wrong, if the majority opinion agrees that it is right? I'm not being sarcastic. I am really interested to know the reasons that killing a heinous criminal is wrong at a basic human level. I don't see how humanely and permanently removing someone who treats other human beings as prey is bad for society. We also don't have to worry about corrupting the morals of an individual; there are plenty of people willing to do the work. I'd do it.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
My feelings are, that violent sex offenders never be released from prison or an institution. Almost all of them do it again, with many doing worse things the next time arouind, like murder. I oppose the death penalty in general, but at least keep them inside where they can do no more harm.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
People are executed because they have committed crimes that are so heinous that they deserve to die, and because they cannot be of further use to society.

Who are you to determine whether somebody else lives or dies? The person you are advocating the killing of never made that choice.

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
It is not murder, obviously; it's execution. Not all killing is murder; killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield is not murder, for another example.

Unjustified killing is murder.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,341
126
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I wonder, is there a country which has never executed criminals? I see that Canada used to have one, before it was abolished.

Yeah, countries tended to have all executed folks until they join the civilised world at some point.

It's funny, though-- plenty of people in this country disagree with you. You can't call people uncivilized (fairly) just because they disagree with you. Torture, racial segregation, burning of books-- sadly enough, these have all been sponsored by highly civilized nations.

I have often enjoyed reading your opinions. Tell me, why is it that killing a criminal is wrong, if the majority opinion agrees that it is right? I'm not being sarcastic. I am really interested to know the reasons that killing a heinous criminal is wrong at a basic human level. I don't see how humanely and permanently removing someone who treats other human beings as prey is bad for society. We also don't have to worry about corrupting the morals of an individual; there are plenty of people willing to do the work. I'd do it.

You can call them "uncivilized" for being uncivilized. The Majority(if there even is one in this case) is not always Right.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I think killing someone is the worst thing that can be done, and therefore should be the harshest punishment. I can't see it justified unless they, themselves, have taken someone else's life.

That's just a feeling that you have. I think you'd find that plenty of people have suffered things worse than death-- for instance, being forced to watch loved ones suffer and die.

As someone else remarked, victims of sexual abuse often (usually) suffer for the rest of their lives. When you kill someone, they do not suffer if it is done humanely, and heinous criminals obviously give up their right for happiness (or else we could not throw them in jail for life; let's postpone that argument). One could even argue that someone capable of raping a child is not capable of normal human happiness, although they may be happy while raping children.

At least by this standard of future suffering, raping someone is worse for the victim than a state-sponsored execution is for the criminal.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
It's funny, though-- plenty of people in this country disagree with you. You can't call people uncivilized (fairly) just because they disagree with you. Torture, racial segregation, burning of books-- sadly enough, these have all been sponsored by highly civilized nations.

Calling a nation "civilized' doesn't automatically excuse all of its actions.

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I have often enjoyed reading your opinions. Tell me, why is it that killing a criminal is wrong, if the majority opinion agrees that it is right? I'm not being sarcastic.

And I'm not being sarcastic when I point out that the majority of people used to be for segregation and discrimination as well. Just because there is a majority doesn't make it right (the majority of people want to take away civil rights from gays, but that doesn't make it right).

Originally posted by: blackllotusI don't see how humanely and permanently removing someone who treats other human beings as prey is bad for society.

Because life in jail accomplishes the same thing. Plenty of high-level criminals are never allowed to have interaction with other inmates (I believe Moussaoui falls into this category).
 

GeNome

Senior member
Jan 12, 2006
432
0
0
Is it just me, or does it seem that our solution for just about everything is death?

Of course, countries in the middle east have extremely harsh punishments, and they have very little crime (comparatively), so I dunno...
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I wonder, is there a country which has never executed criminals? I see that Canada used to have one, before it was abolished.

Yeah, countries tended to have all executed folks until they join the civilised world at some point.

It's funny, though-- plenty of people in this country disagree with you. You can't call people uncivilized (fairly) just because they disagree with you. Torture, racial segregation, burning of books-- sadly enough, these have all been sponsored by highly civilized nations.

I have often enjoyed reading your opinions. Tell me, why is it that killing a criminal is wrong, if the majority opinion agrees that it is right? I'm not being sarcastic. I am really interested to know the reasons that killing a heinous criminal is wrong at a basic human level. I don't see how humanely and permanently removing someone who treats other human beings as prey is bad for society. We also don't have to worry about corrupting the morals of an individual; there are plenty of people willing to do the work. I'd do it.



Well for one its stupidly expensive just so someone can "get revenge", becasue that is all it is in the end, and also there are ways to rehabilitate people, granted sending them to jail for life will do nothing but make them worse, even if they are damaged folk who will always lust after children you can always isolate these folks and let them carry on their lives and be productive members, as far as murder, I think there may be some who are actually sick and do want to kill, but a lot of times its some guy desperate and poor, on drugs and outright jealous who make a unwise decision, it is a waste to kill someone for being a idiot in a heat of the moment thing, there are far more sane ways to handle mistakes.

We all make mistakes, some bigger then others, murderer is a touchy subject, in our society murder is ok if you are in a war but a big taboo at home, is a soldier who killed an enemy in battle broken for life? No, they come home to mostly come back to terms with what he had to do and moves on. People should be rehabilitated, the concept of punishment we have nowdays does nothing but cost us money and waste lives and is not even a good preventitive measure, if someone is going to do something stupid they have gone beyond all reasoning anyhow.

Mental hospitals, drug rehabs and education are the answer to our outdated ideas of "rehabilitation" in the prison system that everyone knows is a failure anyhow and is good at nothing but making more criminals and kills ones faith in justice anyhow.

I am not saying to coddle someone who makes a mistake but the way we do it now is pointless, the only reason people let it go on is becasue they want to live some fantasy that an eye for an eye actually solves anything in the long run but make more harm to a already bad situation.

Ths is a amazingly tough subject really, but the system we have now does not work.

Lock em up has done nothing but make us the biggest country of incarcirated people in the world, a freaking waste. What we have is a bunch of screwed up people for a myriad of reasons who need to be set back on the path of being a good citizen, the days of wild west are over with.

It pretty much comes down to not that all these people in a literal country of incareration are bad, but our "nuclear family" model is flawed, we have isolated oursleves from one another kids do not have the support and role models they need, people do not take mental health anywhere near as serious as physical, and our culture is pretty much based on insecurity on not living up to what one another thinks of us, it is a mess.

I think moonie would be a better spokesperson for the whole insecurity and self-loathing people in this country feel rather than I. He has that aspect down good.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: blackllotus
It's funny, though-- plenty of people in this country disagree with you. You can't call people uncivilized (fairly) just because they disagree with you. Torture, racial segregation, burning of books-- sadly enough, these have all been sponsored by highly civilized nations.

Calling a nation "civilized' doesn't automatically excuse all of its actions.

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I have often enjoyed reading your opinions. Tell me, why is it that killing a criminal is wrong, if the majority opinion agrees that it is right? I'm not being sarcastic.

And I'm not being sarcastic when I point out that the majority of people used to be for segregation and discrimination as well. Just because there is a majority doesn't make it right (the majority of people want to take away civil rights from gays, but that doesn't make it right).

Originally posted by: blackllotusI don't see how humanely and permanently removing someone who treats other human beings as prey is bad for society.

Because life in jail accomplishes the same thing. Plenty of high-level criminals are never allowed to have interaction with other inmates (I believe Moussaoui falls into this category).

You haven't said why it's actually wrong to kill them. Why is it wrong just because the minority says it's wrong?

There is no basic human law being broken, such as "protect your children and family". Killing has existed as long as the human race; what's so different now?

I can't think of a reason. I believe that killing the enemy in a (just) war is the correct thing to do, and I believe killing sociopaths is also the correct thing to do. If it is appropriate for murderers, it is at least as appropriate for those who rape children. Luckily for me, I am not alone.