PrinceLUDA's Bull****
- Thread starter PrinceLUDA21
- Start date
See that brings me back to my point that WE ARE STILL KILLING ANOTHER PERSON. Right or wrong is does not matter if they are in jail. How can we send some one to death if they are posing no threat to us. Think about it your in jail who are you threatening outside really? But these are my opinions and really can’t count.
But that story Scribe posted brings me to another point. The Law really can’t take this into there own hands because it’s really not right. Death is not Justice it’s vengeance. The Law is twisted and we all know it. Mistrials, wrongful prosecution, pressured arrest it’s all part of the Law. So why do we send someone to death if we can prove there innocents. Here’s another story. I can not remember the guys name but it was on the show. He was placed on Death Row for 5 years. After the third year new evidence came forth to prove he was innocent. The witnesses who said he committed the crime were in fact the ones who done it. Not only that but the guy was in jail the night of the crime. Now you’d think the prosecutors would have said something but nope they wanted a win. Now what makes this more weird is that after the 3 years on Death Row he was found innocent, an put in for a re trial. That took about 2 years and yet he was still on Death Row and they tried to kill him still. NOW WHERE THE F**K IS THE JUSTICE IN THAT HUH TELL ME?
To me I’m with Death Penalty being BULLS***. I do not think killing solves anything War or what ever. Eye for an Eye is in every person’s heart. You get wronged you want to wrong someone else. We all think this way like it or not. But it does not make it right at all. Other then you defending your life does it make it ok and passable. But still it’s not right to kill someone Morally or not.
But that story Scribe posted brings me to another point. The Law really can’t take this into there own hands because it’s really not right. Death is not Justice it’s vengeance. The Law is twisted and we all know it. Mistrials, wrongful prosecution, pressured arrest it’s all part of the Law. So why do we send someone to death if we can prove there innocents. Here’s another story. I can not remember the guys name but it was on the show. He was placed on Death Row for 5 years. After the third year new evidence came forth to prove he was innocent. The witnesses who said he committed the crime were in fact the ones who done it. Not only that but the guy was in jail the night of the crime. Now you’d think the prosecutors would have said something but nope they wanted a win. Now what makes this more weird is that after the 3 years on Death Row he was found innocent, an put in for a re trial. That took about 2 years and yet he was still on Death Row and they tried to kill him still. NOW WHERE THE F**K IS THE JUSTICE IN THAT HUH TELL ME?
To me I’m with Death Penalty being BULLS***. I do not think killing solves anything War or what ever. Eye for an Eye is in every person’s heart. You get wronged you want to wrong someone else. We all think this way like it or not. But it does not make it right at all. Other then you defending your life does it make it ok and passable. But still it’s not right to kill someone Morally or not.
I can understand, Prince, and that is why even many death penalty proponents are calling for a moratorium to revisit the statutes state by state. It is not an easy question. Hell, it's not even an easy answer. Closure rarely comes from vengeance.
However, you brought up the interesting question of a threat. To use a hypothetical, what about a man like Osama Bin Laden? Granted he is not an American citizen and not subject to the same rights, yet he stands accused of committing capital crimes against the United States. Would it serve any purpose to incarcerate him for the rest of his natural life? Would he still not pose a threat even imprisoned considering the nature of the crimes and criminals with which he is associated? I know it's a narrow circumstance, and I would urge that the death penalty be only used in narrow circumstances. Still, there was the case of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Federal Building explosion. Even from a maximum security prison, a man like him could be a threat as a rallying point for extremists who thought along the same lines as himself.
Of course, I stated that these were narrow circumstances. The reality of it is that until we deal with the underlying nature of violent criminal activity in this country and understand that gun violence has become an intrisic part of America due to irrational fears, poverty and substandard education, we'll never make headway beyond what is a barbaric cycle of crime and revenge.
However, you brought up the interesting question of a threat. To use a hypothetical, what about a man like Osama Bin Laden? Granted he is not an American citizen and not subject to the same rights, yet he stands accused of committing capital crimes against the United States. Would it serve any purpose to incarcerate him for the rest of his natural life? Would he still not pose a threat even imprisoned considering the nature of the crimes and criminals with which he is associated? I know it's a narrow circumstance, and I would urge that the death penalty be only used in narrow circumstances. Still, there was the case of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Federal Building explosion. Even from a maximum security prison, a man like him could be a threat as a rallying point for extremists who thought along the same lines as himself.
Of course, I stated that these were narrow circumstances. The reality of it is that until we deal with the underlying nature of violent criminal activity in this country and understand that gun violence has become an intrisic part of America due to irrational fears, poverty and substandard education, we'll never make headway beyond what is a barbaric cycle of crime and revenge.
You're getting many and excellent posts, Prince. Good thread. And good points Scribe. I suppose that you've brought up the crux of why some people should be put to death. Hitlers and the like should be killed for what they've done, and the extremely violent and malevolent prisoners (serial rapists, child molesters and rapists fall into that category, imo).
Heck, we just blew up Al Zaqwari (pardon the spelling). Were you relieved when you heard the news?
Heck, we just blew up Al Zaqwari (pardon the spelling). Were you relieved when you heard the news?
I'll be honest. I am among those who have been against the War, but even I felt relief that Al-Zarqawi had been eliminated. In war, of course, these things are necessary, and he himself bears responsibility for his own fate...taking up a fight that wasn't his to begin with anyway. Still, at least most everyone understands that this will not end the insurgency, and that dangers will continue to persist for a long while for Iraqi citizens and our troops.
I was surprised to learn that he was still, just barely, alive when Iraqi police reached the blast zone. You would have thought that two 500-lb bombs would have taken him out entirely on the initial blasts.
I was surprised to learn that he was still, just barely, alive when Iraqi police reached the blast zone. You would have thought that two 500-lb bombs would have taken him out entirely on the initial blasts.
I have a theory for peace in the middle east. Have our troops start handing out blunts. Turn them all into potheads. That'll take care of most of the violent tendencies. Forget oil for food, how about oil for weed?
Jonas you may be on to something. But how bout we send dealres over there and not our Troops. Pick a few from jail that are changed men and have the just pump out the weed to everyone. WE CAN ALL GET P.O.D. but then that could mean world peace everywhere. One of my fav rap groups Bone Thugs said this.....................Krayzie Bone - If everybody smoked a blunt the world would be a better place, If everybody took a brake an we all just wasted, Smoked out, choked out...............................I think we should bring this to Senate or the House.
But before I get off topic can I aks just this, what is the prpose of War? I don;t want a straight answer but more like what do you think the purpose is for? Is t for power, also how about what the US is doing across the world by saying we must stop these threats. But a underlineing thought to me is, Is the US goverment trying to rule the world? Just my thought on somethings. I know it's not ecxactly true but I do wonder.
But back on topic. Sure under some circumstances, some may need to be put to death. This much I fully agree but on how our justice system determins who dies is what is the problem. Our goverment can not take the someones life and determine that you must die. THAT IS WRONG no one can agrue that. But what we can agrue is that some should be wipe of the face of they Earth. I see a problem in that paradox. So how bout we forget about Osama for that mater or any outta state terrorist. Let's just stick to in house only. Timmothy could been in jail forever. So how i would've done it. No vistis, no cellmates, outside time is alone. Really he would've lived a life of prison with no human contact. How ever the goverment needs to keep ppl off the streets, then do that. Or maybe we need to work on Gun Control. For this cuntry to be so free we have the most problems then most places.
But before I get off topic can I aks just this, what is the prpose of War? I don;t want a straight answer but more like what do you think the purpose is for? Is t for power, also how about what the US is doing across the world by saying we must stop these threats. But a underlineing thought to me is, Is the US goverment trying to rule the world? Just my thought on somethings. I know it's not ecxactly true but I do wonder.
But back on topic. Sure under some circumstances, some may need to be put to death. This much I fully agree but on how our justice system determins who dies is what is the problem. Our goverment can not take the someones life and determine that you must die. THAT IS WRONG no one can agrue that. But what we can agrue is that some should be wipe of the face of they Earth. I see a problem in that paradox. So how bout we forget about Osama for that mater or any outta state terrorist. Let's just stick to in house only. Timmothy could been in jail forever. So how i would've done it. No vistis, no cellmates, outside time is alone. Really he would've lived a life of prison with no human contact. How ever the goverment needs to keep ppl off the streets, then do that. Or maybe we need to work on Gun Control. For this cuntry to be so free we have the most problems then most places.
Gun control is a subject for another day, but anyways, I've always thought that one possible use for such sicko's is to put them on some kind of island and have our navy (the most onstoppable force in the world) patrol the waters. Exile any other way would always lead to someone getting back into society in a different part of the world. But make sure the island isn't a pleasure cruise. Maybe a little place off the coast of Africa, you know with shark-infested waters. Or somewhere near Antartica. Or...
So it would be inhumane to put McVeigh to death, but it is perfectly humane to keep him under lock and key in solitary confinement with no contact with the outside world excepting legal counsel? They did something similar to John Gotti when they incarcerated him 23 hours out of the day, with a single hour for out-of-cell recreation. He didn't last very long once they secured that sentence.
Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean when some people deserve to die, but our government should not be taking someone's life. If there is justification for killing someone (other than in the course of Defense), who has the right to take that life? You might say that Osama Bin Laden may be an "out-of-state" terrorist, but he is not a 1) head of state 2) member of a recognized foreign military 3) a diplomat...all that makes him is a criminal who called in a mass murder from outside the borders of our country. This makes him NO DIFFERENT than Timothy McVeigh or even Ángel Maturino Reséndiz, aka The Railway Killer, an illegal alien who brutally murdered possibly more than a dozen people. Currently he is slated to be executed on June 27th though he does have an appeal filed.
Resendiz is a Mexican national who committed crimes in the U.S. Do we incarcerate him? Does the state of Texas have the right to execute him? Does he deserve to die (to put this in perspective, he heartlessly bludgeoned 12 people -- possibly more -- to death with rocks, sledgehammers, etc. and raped a few of female victims)? Big questions, but if there is a "right" to vengeance, I would rather it not be in the hands of the ordinary person or the the vigilante mob.
Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean when some people deserve to die, but our government should not be taking someone's life. If there is justification for killing someone (other than in the course of Defense), who has the right to take that life? You might say that Osama Bin Laden may be an "out-of-state" terrorist, but he is not a 1) head of state 2) member of a recognized foreign military 3) a diplomat...all that makes him is a criminal who called in a mass murder from outside the borders of our country. This makes him NO DIFFERENT than Timothy McVeigh or even Ángel Maturino Reséndiz, aka The Railway Killer, an illegal alien who brutally murdered possibly more than a dozen people. Currently he is slated to be executed on June 27th though he does have an appeal filed.
Resendiz is a Mexican national who committed crimes in the U.S. Do we incarcerate him? Does the state of Texas have the right to execute him? Does he deserve to die (to put this in perspective, he heartlessly bludgeoned 12 people -- possibly more -- to death with rocks, sledgehammers, etc. and raped a few of female victims)? Big questions, but if there is a "right" to vengeance, I would rather it not be in the hands of the ordinary person or the the vigilante mob.
Darth_Jonas said:
Wasn't that the plot to the Ray Liotta film No Escape? As I recall, that system was corrupted by a hideous fat warden who toyed with the criminals sadistically pitting them against each other. Of course, there were innocent men in that group as well as ruthless killers. *Sigh* anytime we try and find an easier answer, the problems only get worse.
So were the movies "Escape from NY" and "Escape from LA". The end result in today's justice system is that we must protect the prisoners from themselves. If we threw together the worst 2% of all of our criminals, the strong would still assert their will on the weaker.
scribe999 said:
HA HA this is what I enjoy. THANK YOU THANK YOU.
To be honest I don't have the answers. Only my opinons and how I feel. Sure if someone hurts my family I want to see them dead. ( well not really, I prefeare a life of tourment, F*** there eternal life in hell. I want them to pay while still living. If not a slow painful death). But it's not up to me is it now. I can't make them pay nor should our Goverment make the pay by death. The only reason I disagree is because I know the justice system is not right and we are killing ppl under and un-justice system.
Now what I mean by some ppl need to die is like flat out crazies. Like Manson, or complusive killers, should be sent to death. But the reasons that our Govement says so is wrong. Killing Osama would just be a fun thing to do and it's what the ppl want. I personaly can care what they do with him ( only becasue they can't catch him ). THAT PISSES ME OFF TOO. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU NOT FIND HIM. Not to mention ( di**head Bush said he's not really looking for him. What happend in that situation. We went from Osama to Sadam, but where is Osama?
So you see my problem with our Goverment. They can't catch or find the Most wanted man ALIVE but we can bomb a few ppl. What was the reason in Catching Sadam what did that do for us?
But on a side not I like the Ida of a prison on a Island. That may work.
Well the Middle East is pretty freaking big. And he's got thousands of people who would probably do anything for him...
But I digress, I dont know what the deal is with the whole Osama thing.
I saw a small pilotless plane on the show Futuristic Weapons (or something like that, it comes on Discovery), that supposedly almost found or caught Osama. Something like that...
But I digress, I dont know what the deal is with the whole Osama thing.
I saw a small pilotless plane on the show Futuristic Weapons (or something like that, it comes on Discovery), that supposedly almost found or caught Osama. Something like that...
Ok being that my Cable is down I have to let this topic go on for about another day or so. But don't worry i'll be back with a new topic soon. It should be very good to here thoughts on my next subject. Matter of fact her's a preveiw.
Do you think Prostitution should be legal or can it be set in a leagl setting? Ponder over that.
Do you think Prostitution should be legal or can it be set in a leagl setting? Ponder over that.
Has anyone else seen these ads all over the threads? I think this means that Stan has officially sold out. Well, much more than before at least...
hmmm maybe that should be the next topic, "Should stan sell out, or should he continue living eating only bologna on bread and wearing bootleg hanes"
The second one. Then he'll learn about rugged individualism.
The way I learned it...
80 years ago...
Thank you President Hoover.
Besides, bologna on bread makes you strong, but only if you spell it baloney.
And uh, bootleg hanes are always...uh, nice.
The way I learned it...
80 years ago...
Thank you President Hoover.
Besides, bologna on bread makes you strong, but only if you spell it baloney.
And uh, bootleg hanes are always...uh, nice.
I'm Back SUCKAS :HA:HAHAHAH.
I like the updates. I'm gone for a few days and everything looks so much better.
So anyway I've been gone for a while. So my next topic is going to be..........Affermitive Action, or any other plans like it. The Goverment repaying Blacks, Indians, and Other Race's for the things of the past.
Is it right that the Goverment pay back everyone, or has the Govement given enough back. What do you think about it.
I like the updates. I'm gone for a few days and everything looks so much better.
So anyway I've been gone for a while. So my next topic is going to be..........Affermitive Action, or any other plans like it. The Goverment repaying Blacks, Indians, and Other Race's for the things of the past.
Is it right that the Goverment pay back everyone, or has the Govement given enough back. What do you think about it.
I think that if the government is actively working towards educating the public at large that we are all different, yes, but all equally human and should be treated as such, then taxpayers should not have to give anything financially over an above what is shared by everyone. However, if a particular group feels the injustices it suffered have not been owned up to, then the government is responsible, on behalf of the people, to apologize and offer some token, such as a memorial. But the idea of giving me money because my great-great-grandfather was forced to build a railroad or some such thing is a little silly to me.