Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 More info has recently come out about an innocent man put to death in (surprise, surprise) Texas. Long version http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=1 Short version http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01herbert.html?_r=1&em TL;DR version: Willingham, an unemployed twenty-three year old man in a small town in Texas, loses his home and his three infant daughters to a fire. Unscientific arson investigators decide Willingham burned down his house to kill his daughters so he can drink beer and play darts. Psychopathic psychiatrists say Willingham is a psycho without ever examining him. An ambitious prosecutor goes for the death sentence. Willingham's small-town lawyer is convinced of his client's guilt and never tries too hard. A mentally disturbed jailhouse snitch testifies against Willingham, cementing the case. Willingham is sentenced to death. All this happens in the early 90s. In 2004, a few weeks before the execution, a leading expert on explosives examines the case's evidence and opines that the evidence is all bull. The people who handle clemency never read the expert's report on the Willingham case (or read and disregard it). On February 17, 2004, Willingham recieves a lethal injection and dies. Stuff like this doesn't give me much hope for the legal system. Just proves that the death sentence is too dangerous to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Stuff like this doesn't give me much hope for the legal system. Just proves that the death sentence is too dangerous to have. There's too many screw ups there for someone to say that the death sentence is wrong. It's clearly one fuck up after another; if you screwed up the use of a carving knife you'd end up dead too. But that doesn't mean we should ban the sale of carving knives. The number of lethally injected people (at least in developed countries) who are later found to have been completely innocent must be negligible. Seriously, that case sounds unreal - such a massive cock up. I think that malicious criminals being wiped off the face of the Earth is a great thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 There's too many screw ups there for someone to say that the death sentence is wrong. It's clearly one fuck up after another; if you screwed up the use of a carving knife you'd end up dead too. But that doesn't mean we should ban the sale of carving knives. The number of lethally injected people (at least in developed countries) who are later found to have been completely innocent must be negligible. Seriously, that case sounds unreal - such a massive cock up. I think that malicious criminals being wiped off the face of the Earth is a great thing. And I think that the death sentence is below human standards. I don't believe in killing another human being under any circumstances. Still, it will always come down to our own ethical views. (Not saying yours are necessarily wrong, just that I disagree with them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 And I think that the death sentence is below human standards. How is it? Humans are animals and therefore we kill. We have no problem killing animals who have not wronged us in any way, yet some casually wish for rapist murderers to live? No human being should ever want to cause harm to others, but sometimes it is necessary or just. To say that human beings are so advanced that they shouldn't go killing one another is a bit silly. Someone who shows a complete disregard for another person's life has no right to life themselves. That's what I think, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 How is it? Humans are animals and therefore we kill. We have no problem killing animals who have not wronged us in any way, yet some casually wish for rapist murderers to live? No human being should ever want to cause harm to others, but sometimes it is necessary or just. To say that human beings are so advanced that they shouldn't go killing one another is a bit silly. Someone who shows a complete disregard for another person's life has no right to life themselves. That's what I think, anyway. But that's just it. We're supposedly much more advanced than other animal species, yet we still kill each other. You would think we would have left the jungle laws behind by now. I want to know why you just think it's "silly" that I don't believe in killing people. I know for a fact that people can change their ways. But you don't think we should give them that chance? How about people who have had traumas in their childhood and who later, as a result thereof, commits murder. Should we just kill those people? I just don't think the world is that black and white. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is still my opinion. I guess I have always been an idealist, but someone has to be, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 But that's just it. We're supposedly much more advanced than other animal species, yet we still kill each other. See, I don't get this almost egotistical view of ourselves that some people have. We're animals. We still have animal urges and that's why we kill animals that have done nothing to us. Yet people have a problem with killing murderers who would only spend the rest of their days pointlessly rotting inside a concrete prison anyway. Baffling. I want to know why you just think it's "silly" that I don't believe in killing people. I know for a fact that people can change their ways. But you don't think we should give them that chance? NO. If they killed someone, they didn't give the victim a chance. Why should they be allowed a chance? And in ALL cases the murderer kills the victim in a far less humane and more barbaric process than the, dare I say it, almost slap on the wrists death they get through the death penalty. At the very least there is a) one less piece of scum on Earth, b) a huge consolation to the victim's families, and c) no silly **** out on the street in 15 years time! How about people who have had traumas in their childhood and who later, as a result thereof, commits murder. Should we just kill those people? I just don't think the world is that black and white. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is still my opinion. I guess I have always been an idealist, but someone has to be, no? I knew it! I knew the saying "an eye for an eye" would get used. Why is this saying used? What purpose do sayings even have? We just use them and expect people to just accept these silly sayings at face value, even though we all know the world literally can't go blind so have no real clue as to what the real consequence for vengeance really is. We should kill people who have carried out a premeditated murder and are of an age and mentality to understand their actions. If you take someone's life, you have no right to yours. You don't even have the right to change, since you didn't give the victim a chance to do anything, either. Chances are a luxury, not an essential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 NO. If they killed someone, they didn't give the victim a chance. Why should they be allowed a chance? And in ALL cases the murderer kills the victim in a far less humane and more barbaric process than the, dare I say it, almost slap on the wrists death they get through the death penalty. At the very least there is a) one less piece of scum on Earth, b) a huge consolation to the victim's families, and c) no silly **** out on the street in 15 years time! Are you either (a) secretly the Governor of Texas, or (b) secretly working for The Daily Fail Mail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Are you either (a) secretly the Governor of Texas, or (b) secretly working for The Daily Fail Mail? Are you a tree-hugging, ganja-smoking member of the green party? :p Swings and roundabouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 So if someone steals your computer, you're allowed to steal theirs? I know that's not what you're saying, but it's the same point you're arguing: If someone does something to you, you're allowed to do exactly the same to him. I never could agree with that vengeful mentality. That's why I don't think "An eye for an eye .." is a pointless saying. We may still technically be animals, but we have developed values like morals and ethics. We're not as primitive as animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 So if someone steals your computer, you're allowed to steal theirs? I know that's not what you're saying, but it's the same point you're arguing: If someone does something to you, you're allowed to do exactly the same to him. I never could agree with that vengeful mentality. That's why I don't think "An eye for an eye .." is a pointless saying. We may still technically be animals, but we have developed values like morals and ethics. We're not as primitive as animals. Killing someone is a bit different to taking a computer. If someone stole a computer they'd probably get a punishment along the lines of losing the computer plus community service/prison. In other words, the punishment would be worse than the crime. But with murder, how would you issue a punishment worse than the crime comitted? It's obvious, really. To take someone's life is to deny the victim of ever experiencing anything ever again. It also meant they were put through tremendous pain and probably extreme fear. There's no punishment other than death that is fair and just for a murderer. Even if they were in prison for the rest of their life they'd have shelter, sports, activities and communication. And let's face it, life doesn't usually mean life, either. Bloody ridiculous. To be honest, unless you're intending to murder someone I honestly can't see why people get their panties in a twist over the thought of the death penalty. Who gives a fuck if some murderous random bastard gets killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Killing someone is a bit different to taking a computer. If someone stole a computer they'd probably get a punishment along the lines of losing the computer plus community service/prison. In other words, the punishment would be worse than the crime. But with murder, how would you issue a punishment worse than the crime comitted? It's obvious, really. To take someone's life is to deny the victim of ever experiencing anything ever again. It also meant they were put through tremendous pain and probably extreme fear. There's no punishment other than death that is fair and just for a murderer. Even if they were in prison for the rest of their life they'd have shelter, sports, activities and communication. And let's face it, life doesn't usually mean life, either. Bloody ridiculous. To be honest, unless you're intending to murder someone I honestly can't see why people get their panties in a twist over the thought of the death penalty. Who gives a fuck if some murderous random bastard gets killed? Because I'm an idealist and for the love of ice cream can't fathom the idea of killing someone else. I'm not saying it's practical. I'm saying it's idealistic, and that idealism shouldn't always be shunned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Because I'm an idealist and for the love of ice cream can't fathom the idea of killing someone else. I'm not saying it's practical. I'm saying it's idealistic, and that idealism shouldn't always be shunned. Just wondering; are you vegan? If not you're not really an idealist. You'd still be buying into unnecessary cruelty; cruelty that wouldn't be present in an ideal world. Gosh, I sound like my ex-girlfriend now. But the point is still true. It'd basically mean you're selectively compassionate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Just wondering; are you vegan? If not you're not really an idealist. You'd still be buying into unnecessary cruelty; cruelty that wouldn't be present in an ideal world. Gosh, I sound like my ex-girlfriend now. But the point is still true. It'd basically mean you're selectively compassionate. Like I mentioned, I differentiate between humans and animals. And you're using the invalid "if you say A, you have to say B" argument. I would say there's a large enough difference between humans and animals to differentiate between them without having double standards. Just because I don't condone killing of humans, it doesn't mean I have to be vegan. That's not logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 No, but you're not an idealist. An idealist strives for an ideal world, and harming creatures unnecessarily when there are alternatives is therefore not idealistic. Just pointing out that you are selectively compassionate (and speciest) as opposed to idealistic. Your logic really is baffling me. From what I can gather, it's perfectly acceptable to kill animals who haven't wronged us, but humans who have murdered and raped shouldn't be killed due to having greater levels of understanding and ability. Heaven forbid these people suffer the kind of fear they afflicted their victims with while they sweat it out on death row! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 No, but you're not an idealist. An idealist strives for an ideal world, and harming creatures unnecessarily when there are alternatives is therefore not idealistic. Just pointing out that you are selectively compassionate (and speciest) as opposed to idealistic. Your logic really is baffling me. From what I can gather, it's perfectly acceptable to kill animals who haven't wronged us, but humans who have murdered and raped shouldn't be killed due to having greater levels of understanding and ability. Heaven forbid these humans suffer the kind of fear they afflicted their victims with while they sweat it out on death row! From what I have understood, idealism isn't necessarily a black and white thing. But I may be wrong in that definition. In any case, it's beside the point. To aswer your question: No, I don't exactly have a problem with killing animals, because I differentiate between humans and animals. I should make it clear that I perfectly understand your line of arguments. And from a pure cold and logical point of view, it makes sense. But it's just so cruel and vengeful that I cannot seem to accept it in my mind. I don't really think I can sum it up better. Whatever purely practical arguments you throw against me, you probably won't convince me. I will consider what you have said, though. You have certainly sparked some thought processes in my head. I find I'm not able to argue against your logical points, but I still don't agree with you, so I'll need to take some time to get my head around it. Don't think you've won or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 See, I don't get this almost egotistical view of ourselves that some people have. We're animals. We still have animal urges and that's why we kill animals that have done nothing to us. Yet people have a problem with killing murderers who would only spend the rest of their days pointlessly rotting inside a concrete prison anyway. Baffling. NO. If they killed someone, they didn't give the victim a chance. Why should they be allowed a chance? And in ALL cases the murderer kills the victim in a far less humane and more barbaric process than the, dare I say it, almost slap on the wrists death they get through the death penalty. At the very least there is a) one less piece of scum on Earth, b) a huge consolation to the victim's families, and c) no silly **** out on the street in 15 years time! I knew it! I knew the saying "an eye for an eye" would get used. Why is this saying used? What purpose do sayings even have? We just use them and expect people to just accept these silly sayings at face value, even though we all know the world literally can't go blind so have no real clue as to what the real consequence for vengeance really is. We should kill people who have carried out a premeditated murder and are of an age and mentality to understand their actions. If you take someone's life, you have no right to yours. You don't even have the right to change, since you didn't give the victim a chance to do anything, either. Chances are a luxury, not an essential. I couldn't agree more. If you make the pre meditated decision to end a life, you should also be ending your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts