155 replies to this topic

[Chyros]

A cut-off discussion from The Latest Oddities that was too interesting to stop; discuss whether you are in favour of or against the death penalty. Also specify for which crimes you are in favour of it, if applicable.

Edited by TheDR, 27 January 2011 - 17:29.

[Sgt. Rho]

I'm absolutely against it. Nobody deserves to die, for whatever he did. A life-long prison sentence is a very much better punishment.

[Alias]

No crime is worth the death penalty, not even murder. The most valued possession of every human is their life, and their life is the only thing another will never have the right to prevent.
Cutting a murderer's life short is no different to the murderer cutting his victims life short.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster.

[CJ]

You know my opinion on the matter, if someone commits several murders or similar crimes and his guilt is proven, he should be not only be executed, but made an example of. That at least could make other dangerous criminals think twice before committing their crimes.
Plus in most countries when there's a serial killer, he gets a 20 year sentence then gets released after 10 years for "good conduct", how the heck can they release someone based on the fact that he didn't kill anyone when he was in prison?...
Not to mention that I'd rather see taxpayers money used for worthy purposes instead of feeding the trash of humanity.

[Alias]

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

You know my opinion on the matter, if someone commits several murders or similar crimes and his guilt is proven, he should be not only be executed, but made an example of. That at least could make other dangerous criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

There is no proof that executions have been any more of a deterrent than anything else. It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Plus in most countries when there's a serial killer, he gets a 20 year sentence then gets released after 10 years for "good conduct", how the heck can they release someone based on the fact that he didn't kill anyone when he was in prison?...

Not sure where you got that figure from, but it's a fabrication. Here in Australia we have four major serial killers in life imprisonment, they have all been sentenced to many consecutive life sentences and hundreds of years without parole.

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Not to mention that I'd rather see taxpayers money used for worthy purposes instead of feeding the trash of humanity.

In western countries at least, it has been proven that the full cost of an execution (including death row, etc) can cost more than a life imprisonment.

Edited by Alias, 27 January 2011 - 09:02.

[Sgt. Rho]

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Pretty much this. If you're dead, you won't really care about what happens. If you spend the rest of your life in prison, you might even get to do something useful.

[Chyros]

Oops, forgot to add poll. There you go now.

[Sgt. Rho]

Ugh. Can you somehow remove my vote? I accidentally voted yes >.<

Note to self: Wake up before doing anything

Edited by Sgt. Rho, 27 January 2011 - 09:13.

[Wizard]

I am for corporal punishment rather than the death penalty in respect of the most serious crimes. Like Alias has already, quite rightly stated, it serves as no deterant for the criminal. A genuine *insert psychiatric description* murderer is not going to stop what they are doing because of it. There are criminals that would be better served with other physical punishments. Castration for example would be a suitable response to serial rapists or paedophiles. I think perhaps a frontal lobotomy would work for those extreme sadists and murderers, as an alternative.

[CJ]

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

You know my opinion on the matter, if someone commits several murders or similar crimes and his guilt is proven, he should be not only be executed, but made an example of. That at least could make other dangerous criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

There is no proof that executions have been any more of a deterrent than anything else. It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Still, I'm sure that making an example of criminals would make other ones think twice before acting, and by making an example of I actually don't mean "give them a nice fast death" but more torture those who committed horrible crimes, that would also give the families of the victims a real justice. (I know for a fact that nothing could please me more than actually cutting the son of a bitch who killed one of my friends myself, and it also holds true for her family, so don't serve me the usual "that's not what the family wants anyway" bullshit)

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Plus in most countries when there's a serial killer, he gets a 20 year sentence then gets released after 10 years for "good conduct", how the heck can they release someone based on the fact that he didn't kill anyone when he was in prison?...

Not sure where you got that figure from, but it's a fabrication. Here in Australia we have four major serial killers in life imprisonment, they have all been sentenced to many consecutive life sentences and hundreds of years without parole.

France and italy. I've seen many many serial killers and rapists get released after 10 or 15 years (if not even less) for good conduct on the news, and they always returned to their morbid activities as soon as they were released.

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Not to mention that I'd rather see taxpayers money used for worthy purposes instead of feeding the trash of humanity.

In western countries at least, it has been proven that the full cost of an execution (including death row, etc) can cost more than a life imprisonment.

I beg to differ, a rope to hang the criminals would be far cheaper than a life imprisonment, and there are many other cheap ways to execute a man if you find this one to be barbaric.

Sgt. Rho, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:05, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Pretty much this. If you're dead, you won't really care about what happens. If you spend the rest of your life in prison, you might even get to do something useful.

You're completely missing the point here, I'm talking about dissuading people who didn't commit crimes yet...

Edited by CJ, 27 January 2011 - 09:36.

[Sgt. Rho]

It's been proven more than well enough that the death penalty is essentially useless. All it does, is give a relief to the anger of the victim's relatives...but that's it.

[Alias]

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

You know my opinion on the matter, if someone commits several murders or similar crimes and his guilt is proven, he should be not only be executed, but made an example of. That at least could make other dangerous criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

There is no proof that executions have been any more of a deterrent than anything else. It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Still, I'm sure that making an example of criminals would make other ones think twice before acting, and by making an example of I actually don't mean "give them a nice fast death" but more torture those who committed horrible crimes, that would also give the families of the victims a real justice. (I know for a fact that nothing could please me more than actually cutting the son of a bitch who killed one of my friends myself, and it also holds true for her family, so don't serve me the usual "that's not what the family wants anyway" bullshit)

And torturing them makes you better than them exactly how?

As I said in my first post, Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster. If you torture and then kill a murderer how exactly does that make you any better than them?

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Plus in most countries when there's a serial killer, he gets a 20 year sentence then gets released after 10 years for "good conduct", how the heck can they release someone based on the fact that he didn't kill anyone when he was in prison?...

Not sure where you got that figure from, but it's a fabrication. Here in Australia we have four major serial killers in life imprisonment, they have all been sentenced to many consecutive life sentences and hundreds of years without parole.

France and italy. I've seen many many serial killers and rapists get released after 10 or 15 years (if not even less) for good conduct on the news, and they always returned to their morbid activities as soon as they were released.

And the news sensationalises everything, since the truth can't get in the way of a good story. Those cases are far more likely to be the exception rather than the norm.

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Not to mention that I'd rather see taxpayers money used for worthy purposes instead of feeding the trash of humanity.

In western countries at least, it has been proven that the full cost of an execution (including death row, etc) can cost more than a life imprisonment.

I beg to differ, a rope to hang the criminals would be far cheaper than a life imprisonment, and there are many other cheap ways to execute a man if you find this one to be barbaric.

Not in Western countries. Have a source, it has to be American since no other Western country still executes its citizens.

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Sgt. Rho, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:05, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Pretty much this. If you're dead, you won't really care about what happens. If you spend the rest of your life in prison, you might even get to do something useful.

You're completely missing the point here, I'm talking about dissuading people who didn't commit crimes yet...

Not really, as I said before there has been no proof that the death penalty reduces crime. Countries without the death penalty in fact have lower crime rates.

[CJ]

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

You know my opinion on the matter, if someone commits several murders or similar crimes and his guilt is proven, he should be not only be executed, but made an example of. That at least could make other dangerous criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

There is no proof that executions have been any more of a deterrent than anything else. It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Still, I'm sure that making an example of criminals would make other ones think twice before acting, and by making an example of I actually don't mean "give them a nice fast death" but more torture those who committed horrible crimes, that would also give the families of the victims a real justice. (I know for a fact that nothing could please me more than actually cutting the son of a bitch who killed one of my friends myself, and it also holds true for her family, so don't serve me the usual "that's not what the family wants anyway" bullshit)

And torturing them makes you better than them exactly how?

As I said in my first post, Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster. If you torture and then kill a murderer how exactly does that make you any better than them?

Because it's actually for revenge and justice, you're not killing him because you're mad or for "fun" like he did to his victims. At this rate you might as well consider soldiers as criminals when they're defending their country for example.

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Plus in most countries when there's a serial killer, he gets a 20 year sentence then gets released after 10 years for "good conduct", how the heck can they release someone based on the fact that he didn't kill anyone when he was in prison?...

Not sure where you got that figure from, but it's a fabrication. Here in Australia we have four major serial killers in life imprisonment, they have all been sentenced to many consecutive life sentences and hundreds of years without parole.

France and italy. I've seen many many serial killers and rapists get released after 10 or 15 years (if not even less) for good conduct on the news, and they always returned to their morbid activities as soon as they were released.

And the news sensationalises everything, since the truth can't get in the way of a good story. Those cases are far more likely to be the exception rather than the norm.

I'm not gonna make a list here, I'll just leave you one link (in French, since that's the country I'm talking about) to one of the cases of this kind :
http://www.lepost.fr/article/2010/09/07/22...-la-nature.html
Basically the rapist here was imprisoned in 2006 for rape and murder in 2006, he had a sentence of 10 years, yet he got released after 4 years only and now he killed another woman.
You see that all the time on the French, Italian and Spanish news, maybe the justice in Australia is actually capable of doing it's job by keeping the criminals in jail but that isn't the case in Europe.

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Not to mention that I'd rather see taxpayers money used for worthy purposes instead of feeding the trash of humanity.

In western countries at least, it has been proven that the full cost of an execution (including death row, etc) can cost more than a life imprisonment.

I beg to differ, a rope to hang the criminals would be far cheaper than a life imprisonment, and there are many other cheap ways to execute a man if you find this one to be barbaric.

Not in Western countries. Have a source, it has to be American since no other Western country still executes its citizens.

That's only because of the stupidity of the process, you don't need to inject the bastards nor debate for months about it. You could just shoot them or something along those lines, it's not like it would change the outcome.

[Sgt. Rho]

Revenge and Justice are two pretty opposite things. Is is justice to kill someone who killed your...brother? In self defense? Not really, no. It'd be revenge.

[CJ]

Sgt. Rho, on 27 Jan 2011, 11:07, said:

Revenge and Justice are two pretty opposite things. Is is justice to kill someone who killed your...brother? In self defense? Not really, no. It'd be revenge.

"An eye for an eye", in this case revenge equals justice.

[Wizard]

Actually revenge and justice are almost the same. Justice and the law are opposite. It is quite arguable that the law rarely enacts any true form of justice nor does it even provide for revenge as each means very different things to very different people. A rape victim might want to hurt their attacker = revenge, justice might be a severe beating and mental trauma and the law would only imprison them.

[Sgt. Rho]

I disagree. "Eye for an Eye" is anything but Justice, since it makes you as much of a monster as the criminal himself.

[Alias]

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:00, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

You know my opinion on the matter, if someone commits several murders or similar crimes and his guilt is proven, he should be not only be executed, but made an example of. That at least could make other dangerous criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

There is no proof that executions have been any more of a deterrent than anything else. It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Still, I'm sure that making an example of criminals would make other ones think twice before acting, and by making an example of I actually don't mean "give them a nice fast death" but more torture those who committed horrible crimes, that would also give the families of the victims a real justice. (I know for a fact that nothing could please me more than actually cutting the son of a bitch who killed one of my friends myself, and it also holds true for her family, so don't serve me the usual "that's not what the family wants anyway" bullshit)

And torturing them makes you better than them exactly how?

As I said in my first post, Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster. If you torture and then kill a murderer how exactly does that make you any better than them?

Because it's actually for revenge and justice, you're not killing him because you're mad or for "fun" like he did to his victims. At this rate you might as well consider soldiers as criminals when they're defending their country for example.

Motive is irrelevant, murder is murder whether it is for revenge or for petty pleasure. You will get no shorter sentence here if you murdered on the basis of revenge.

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:00, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Plus in most countries when there's a serial killer, he gets a 20 year sentence then gets released after 10 years for "good conduct", how the heck can they release someone based on the fact that he didn't kill anyone when he was in prison?...

Not sure where you got that figure from, but it's a fabrication. Here in Australia we have four major serial killers in life imprisonment, they have all been sentenced to many consecutive life sentences and hundreds of years without parole.

France and italy. I've seen many many serial killers and rapists get released after 10 or 15 years (if not even less) for good conduct on the news, and they always returned to their morbid activities as soon as they were released.

And the news sensationalises everything, since the truth can't get in the way of a good story. Those cases are far more likely to be the exception rather than the norm.

I'm not gonna make a list here, I'll just leave you one link (in French, since that's the country I'm talking about) to one of the cases of this kind :
http://www.lepost.fr/article/2010/09/07/22...-la-nature.html
Basically the rapist here was imprisoned in 2006 for rape and murder in 2006, he had a sentence of 10 years, yet he got released after 4 years only and now he killed another woman.
You see that all the time on the French, Italian and Spanish news, maybe the justice in Australia is actually capable of doing it's job by keeping the criminals in jail but that isn't the case in Europe.

I wouldn't classify France/Italy/Spain as the pinnacle of European development though, that belongs to the Scandinavian countries, but I do concede. That is far too lenient.

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:00, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Not to mention that I'd rather see taxpayers money used for worthy purposes instead of feeding the trash of humanity.

In western countries at least, it has been proven that the full cost of an execution (including death row, etc) can cost more than a life imprisonment.

I beg to differ, a rope to hang the criminals would be far cheaper than a life imprisonment, and there are many other cheap ways to execute a man if you find this one to be barbaric.

Not in Western countries. Have a source, it has to be American since no other Western country still executes its citizens.

That's only because of the stupidity of the process, you don't need to inject the bastards nor debate for months about it. You could just shoot them or something along those lines, it's not like it would change the outcome.

Until you figure out a week later that he was convicted on forged evidence and has to get exonerated posthumously, great. Death penalty really doing its job there.
Time has to be taken for due process, that is the way Western law operates.

[CJ]

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 11:18, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:00, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

You know my opinion on the matter, if someone commits several murders or similar crimes and his guilt is proven, he should be not only be executed, but made an example of. That at least could make other dangerous criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

There is no proof that executions have been any more of a deterrent than anything else. It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Still, I'm sure that making an example of criminals would make other ones think twice before acting, and by making an example of I actually don't mean "give them a nice fast death" but more torture those who committed horrible crimes, that would also give the families of the victims a real justice. (I know for a fact that nothing could please me more than actually cutting the son of a bitch who killed one of my friends myself, and it also holds true for her family, so don't serve me the usual "that's not what the family wants anyway" bullshit)

And torturing them makes you better than them exactly how?

As I said in my first post, Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster. If you torture and then kill a murderer how exactly does that make you any better than them?

Because it's actually for revenge and justice, you're not killing him because you're mad or for "fun" like he did to his victims. At this rate you might as well consider soldiers as criminals when they're defending their country for example.

Motive is irrelevant, murder is murder whether it is for revenge or for petty pleasure. You will get no shorter sentence here if you murdered on the basis of revenge.

You might consider it as a murder, I do consider it more as a "repayment".

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 11:18, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:00, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Not to mention that I'd rather see taxpayers money used for worthy purposes instead of feeding the trash of humanity.

In western countries at least, it has been proven that the full cost of an execution (including death row, etc) can cost more than a life imprisonment.

I beg to differ, a rope to hang the criminals would be far cheaper than a life imprisonment, and there are many other cheap ways to execute a man if you find this one to be barbaric.

Not in Western countries. Have a source, it has to be American since no other Western country still executes its citizens.

That's only because of the stupidity of the process, you don't need to inject the bastards nor debate for months about it. You could just shoot them or something along those lines, it's not like it would change the outcome.

Until you figure out a week later that he was convicted on forged evidence and has to get exonerated posthumously, great. Death penalty really doing its job there.
Time has to be taken for due process, that is the way Western law operates.

Once again, I have to disagree. The procedures that are taken to determine whether a person is guilty or not in order to imprison him are the same as the ones to execute him. Just keep the presumed criminals in jail long enough to be sure of their guilt.

[Alias]

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:30, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 11:18, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:00, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

You know my opinion on the matter, if someone commits several murders or similar crimes and his guilt is proven, he should be not only be executed, but made an example of. That at least could make other dangerous criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

There is no proof that executions have been any more of a deterrent than anything else. It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Still, I'm sure that making an example of criminals would make other ones think twice before acting, and by making an example of I actually don't mean "give them a nice fast death" but more torture those who committed horrible crimes, that would also give the families of the victims a real justice. (I know for a fact that nothing could please me more than actually cutting the son of a bitch who killed one of my friends myself, and it also holds true for her family, so don't serve me the usual "that's not what the family wants anyway" bullshit)

And torturing them makes you better than them exactly how?

As I said in my first post, Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster. If you torture and then kill a murderer how exactly does that make you any better than them?

Because it's actually for revenge and justice, you're not killing him because you're mad or for "fun" like he did to his victims. At this rate you might as well consider soldiers as criminals when they're defending their country for example.

Motive is irrelevant, murder is murder whether it is for revenge or for petty pleasure. You will get no shorter sentence here if you murdered on the basis of revenge.

You might consider it as a murder, I do consider it more as a "repayment".

It's not just me, it's the law in every Western country. You may want to look at yourself in the mirror, though. I really cannot see a person like you being against murder considering you value human life so little.

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:30, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 11:18, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:00, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

Not to mention that I'd rather see taxpayers money used for worthy purposes instead of feeding the trash of humanity.

In western countries at least, it has been proven that the full cost of an execution (including death row, etc) can cost more than a life imprisonment.

I beg to differ, a rope to hang the criminals would be far cheaper than a life imprisonment, and there are many other cheap ways to execute a man if you find this one to be barbaric.

Not in Western countries. Have a source, it has to be American since no other Western country still executes its citizens.

That's only because of the stupidity of the process, you don't need to inject the bastards nor debate for months about it. You could just shoot them or something along those lines, it's not like it would change the outcome.

Until you figure out a week later that he was convicted on forged evidence and has to get exonerated posthumously, great. Death penalty really doing its job there.
Time has to be taken for due process, that is the way Western law operates.

Once again, I have to disagree. The procedures that are taken to determine whether a person is guilty or not in order to imprison him are the same as the ones to execute him. Just keep the presumed criminals in jail long enough to be sure of their guilt.

Read the article I posted. It is a far longer and more expensive legal process in the US to execute than to imprison for life.

[CJ]

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 11:37, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:30, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 11:18, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:00, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 10:45, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 20:34, said:

Alias, on 27 Jan 2011, 9:57, said:

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 19:42, said:

You know my opinion on the matter, if someone commits several murders or similar crimes and his guilt is proven, he should be not only be executed, but made an example of. That at least could make other dangerous criminals think twice before committing their crimes.

There is no proof that executions have been any more of a deterrent than anything else. It could also be said that life imprisonment is more of a punishment than execution.

Still, I'm sure that making an example of criminals would make other ones think twice before acting, and by making an example of I actually don't mean "give them a nice fast death" but more torture those who committed horrible crimes, that would also give the families of the victims a real justice. (I know for a fact that nothing could please me more than actually cutting the son of a bitch who killed one of my friends myself, and it also holds true for her family, so don't serve me the usual "that's not what the family wants anyway" bullshit)

And torturing them makes you better than them exactly how?

As I said in my first post, Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster. If you torture and then kill a murderer how exactly does that make you any better than them?

Because it's actually for revenge and justice, you're not killing him because you're mad or for "fun" like he did to his victims. At this rate you might as well consider soldiers as criminals when they're defending their country for example.

Motive is irrelevant, murder is murder whether it is for revenge or for petty pleasure. You will get no shorter sentence here if you murdered on the basis of revenge.

You might consider it as a murder, I do consider it more as a "repayment".

It's not just me, it's the law in every Western country. You may want to look at yourself in the mirror, though. I really cannot see a person like you being against murder considering you value human life so little.

Ah, I was actually waiting for that question.
The fact that I do not care much about a person dying, it doesn't mean that I don't value the sorrow of those who are still alive and cared for him.
In fact it's not that I do not value life, it would have been more correct to say that I do not value death.

[Wizard]

Gents, we can all read the topic in it's entirity, we don't need to read the whole thing 21 times. Can we cut back a little on the size of the quotes, it's becoming rather excessive. Thanks.

[Alias]

CJ, on 27 Jan 2011, 21:48, said:

Ah, I was actually waiting for that question.
The fact that I do not care much about a person dying, it doesn't mean that I don't value the sorrow of those who are still alive and cared for him.
In fact it's not that I do not value life, it would have been more correct to say that I do not value death.

Very well then, going by your rules if you kill the murderer, then the murderer's family has the right to kill you, am I right?

[CJ]

The "an eye for an eye" principle applies only to those who commit a murder, executing a murdered is not a murder, you don't seem to want to accept that fact.

[Alias]

Why? Can the family of the murderer not feel sorrow for the death of their relative?

You can't have it both ways, man. If you want to have "sadness over death" as an excuse for killing the murderer, then the murderer's family has that complete right as well.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Edited by Alias, 27 January 2011 - 11:07.