Which person is more worthy of punishment in your eyes? - Page 2

Dis · May 6, 2003, 22:50

doh! I voted for the wrong one. I meant to vote for #1.

Traianvs · May 6, 2003, 23:21

Anyone seen "Memento"? In the end it turns out he's a killer for some maffia guy (or who knows what else!!). Would you execute him even if he didn't have a clue that he killed other people all the time?

Dr Strangelove · May 6, 2003, 23:27

Isn't killing 100 people worse than killing 10? I vote for #2.

tinyp3nis · May 7, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Trajanus
Anyone seen "Memento"? In the end it turns out he's a killer for some maffia guy (or who knows what else!!). Would you execute him even if he didn't have a clue that he killed other people all the time?

What mafia guy? Corrupted cop=mafia guy?

Ramo · May 7, 2003, 00:47

1. Neither "deserve to die." I have doubts about how some of the people who want to kill these people so badly can properly function in free society.

2. A sociopath like person #2 needs to be detained more than person #1 since clearly it's more likely that #2 would continue to kill people than person #1 would.

Zero · May 7, 2003, 00:58

Guy 1. Im more likely a guy 2 than 1, so why would i want to vote for killing myself?

tinyp3nis · May 7, 2003, 01:52

Guy 1 is more evil I guess. Guy 1 and 2 are dangerous. Get rid of both. In my eyes both lose their all rights as humans. Could the guy 2 be calc II on a rampage versus sadists and kills 100 of them? Then I'd give him a medal as long he won't hurt anyone who doesn't deserve to die. But hmmm, maybe he will, should we use Bush strategy?

But.. uh... seriously, some people.
Why portray people who get "bloodthristhy" after their loved ones get killed by a sadist, same as the sosiopath? There is no need. The sadist provides the need for the "bloodthirsthiness" and should also provide. I would be mean or stupid or just plain unfair if I thought that people who want some sort of revenge(any) are hostile all the other time too. There is no connection.
It's like me saying to the people who want low sentences on rapists that they are potential rapists themselves. Is that fair? No and I also don't think it's true either.

Nothing wrong with fighting againts hate generally, but in this case we should fight againsts the source of it instead, and let the victims hate. It's their right imho.

Dis · May 7, 2003, 02:23

ack! don't spoil the ending of memento

. I haven't seen it yet. soon I will see it, I promise.

asleepathewheel · May 7, 2003, 02:35

Quote:

Originally posted by 1
Guy 1... no question. There was active hate involved. I'd rather be killed by someone who didn't mean it personally. lol

I feel quite the opposite. Its flattering, in a sadistic sort of way, to think that someone hated you enough to kill you. Hey at least you made an impact on someone, even if it was negative.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
ack! don't spoil the ending of memento . I haven't seen it yet. soon I will see it, I promise.

Or do you mean spoil the beginning?

Robert Plomp · May 7, 2003, 03:24

How can one say that neither of them deserves death?
They both killed more than 5 people. Do to them like they did to their victims, but do it in a human way.

No torturing, just a fast and painless death.

And no, if the governament punishes someone to death it's not like the governament is an equal murder as they are. It's justice.

Rogan Josh · May 7, 2003, 04:25

It is not my place to decide who should be 'punished'. To punish someone requires judgement, but since everyone sins, everyone is unfit to judge. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

We should not send people to prison to punish them - we should only do it to protect society. Anyone who can be a fruitful member of society, contributing to societie's wellbeing, should not be in prison no matter what they have done.

In the above case, #1 should be locked up to stop him doing it to other people; #2 should go to a secure pyschiatric facility.

Frankychan · May 7, 2003, 04:33

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
How can one say that neither of them deserves death?
They both killed more than 5 people. Do to them like they did to their victims, but do it in a human way.

No torturing, just a fast and painless death.

And no, if the governament punishes someone to death it's not like the governament is an equal murder as they are. It's justice.

Sometimes death is a reward. Besides, even though these individuals committed murder, it does not change the fact that they are still human beings that have rights.

Drogue · May 7, 2003, 05:20

Guy 1. Guy 2 knows no different, his intent may be to kill, but it is not to cause harm, he does not see it as being a bad or harmful thing to do, but he is in need of help. To me, intent and reasons is far more important than means or end. Guy 1 is a nasty person, who intentionally causes harm. Guy 2 is someone who knows no difference, and must be helped. Guy 1 chooses to be nasty. Guy 2 does not think he is. Should we execute people because they canot understand good and bad?

Frankychan · May 7, 2003, 05:50

I just can't comprehend how so many people can vote for number 1. He knows what he's done and regrets doing it, while numbah 2 is a sociopath....

Drogue · May 7, 2003, 06:11

It's exactly because he knows what he is doing that it is worse. Number 2 cannot help himself, he is a sociopath, and thus does not have the 'free will' to choose whether to kill or not. Whereas #1 has chosen to kill, and he is of sound mind and body. Who says he has shown regret? Number 2 needs to be detained, for his own and others protection,a nd needs to be rehabilitated, whereas #1 deserves to be punished and rehabilitated.

If the question was who needs to be detained and removed from society more, I would say #2, but #1 deserves punishing more. His intent was worse, he has chosen to kill. #2 just can't do anything else. If someone kills because of mental illness, then they should be helped, rehabilitated, and detained, but not punished just for the sake of punishing them. If they are of sound mind and body, and have chosen to kill, then they deserve to be punished.

Az · May 7, 2003, 06:33

Drogue, As been said here before, Sociopaths have no conscience. They know they're hurting someone, but see nothing wrong about it, because they can't see wrong.

I think they both should be put away.

No matter what Ramo says.

Giancarlo · May 7, 2003, 07:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Frankychan

Sometimes death is a reward. Besides, even though these individuals committed murder, it does not change the fact that they are still human beings that have rights.

No. They commit murder they forfeit their own life. I wouldn't want neither on the face of this earth.

Shoot them both and get it over with.

Az · May 7, 2003, 08:04

There is no reason to shoot them. I am inclined towards a death of torture by the hands of a robot.

Drogue · May 7, 2003, 08:24

Why torture? For mental illness?

Azazel: That's exactly my point. They cannot see right from wrong. It is not that they willfully harm, but that they do not know that it is wrong. However, I have never seen any evidence that they cannot be rehabilitated, and taught that it is wrong. If they can learn not to kill, they can be released back into society without harmful effects. If they do not know it is wrong, I don't think they are responsible for their actions. They are mentally ill, and need help, not punishment.

Giancarlo · May 7, 2003, 08:26

Released back into society? I wonder what the families of those who had their's killed would say to that! The murderers, as what they are, forfeited their own life. I don't want to live with the fear that they may kill again if released.

Sikander · May 7, 2003, 08:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Sadists should be executed in the same way as they tortured others to death.

Psychopathic mass murderers should only get the standard execution.

And masochists must face the horror of the comfy chair and soft cushion!

Az · May 7, 2003, 08:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
Why torture? For mental illness?

Guy number 1 was not mentally sick.

Quote:

Azazel: That's exactly my point. They cannot see right from wrong. It is not that they willfully harm, but that they do not know that it is wrong. However, I have never seen any evidence that they cannot be rehabilitated, and taught that it is wrong. If they can learn not to kill, they can be released back into society without harmful effects. If they do not know it is wrong, I don't think they are responsible for their actions. They are mentally ill, and need help, not punishment.

They cannot be rehabilitated. I saw this guy on TV, just the same type, who killed 3 kids, in Canada, was it? He's now in a psychiatric prison. He has already killed another person inside the prison. They've done an interview with him. Extremely chilling. When he was asked whether he'd do that again if he was released, he said that he was certain that he would.

I think they should be examined for the cause of this terrible illness, and then the cause should be targetted.

Fez: the families are after revenge. This is not the goddamn point.

Drogue · May 7, 2003, 08:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Guy number 1 was not mentally sick.

No, which is why it was worse, I was arguing about guy 3, who is metally sick. I tought you said both deserved torture?

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
They cannot be rehabilitated. I saw this guy on TV, just the same type, who killed 3 kids, in Canada, was it? He's now in a psychiatric prison. He has already killed another person inside the prison. They've done an interview with him. Extremely chilling. When he was asked whether he'd do that again if he was released, he said that he was certain that he would.

Anecdotal evidence. Some cannot be rehabilitated, some can. If they cannot, a life in prison awaits, if they can be safely rehabilitated, they should be released.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I think they should be examined for the cause of this terrible illness, and then the cause should be targetted.

I agree completely

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Released back into society? I wonder what the families of those who had their's killed would say to that! The murderers, as what they are, forfeited their own life. I don't want to live with the fear that they may kill again if released.

The point is, if they can be rehabilitated, they are no longer a danger. If they cannot be, they should be locked in a mental institution, for our and their protection.

rah · May 7, 2003, 08:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
The point is, if they can be rehabilitated, they are no longer a danger. If they cannot be, they should be locked in a mental institution, for our and their protection.

Fine setiment. BUT, just who determines that they have been rehabilitated. Let's say some shrink signs off on it. Would you let them babysit your children?

We're not talking about a someone that stole a car or two, we're talking about people that killed.

RAH

Mercator · May 7, 2003, 08:48

In the end, both guys are an equal threat to society. So to protect society and themselves, lock them up, but always with the intent of rehabiliation (whichever humane therapy is needed to achieve that).

When they're proven healthy, they can be released. This is obviously the bigest pitfall, because how can you be certain they will never fall back. Especially when the society they come back to wants them dead. That'll only push them into isolation again and back to their old habits.

So, in the mean time, help the victim's families cope with their loss and forgive the murderer.

Az · May 7, 2003, 08:49

Quote:

Anecdotal evidence. Some cannot be rehabilitated, some can. If they cannot, a life in prison awaits, if they can be safely rehabilitated, they should be released.

He's just one of many. Research on this, will you?

St Leo · May 7, 2003, 09:52

Sadists should be executed in the same way as they tortured others to death.

Do you get to be the torturer? Does someone else get to torture you after you are done?

Rogan Josh · May 7, 2003, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
That's exactly my point. They cannot see right from wrong.

Seems like this afflicts quite a few Apolyton posters too.

DaShi · May 7, 2003, 11:32

Very nice.

Japher · May 7, 2003, 11:44

Guy 1: evil punk, new what was right and wrong, just disregarded it... Cannot be rehabilitated, cannot live within society, should be put to death as he has put others to death.

Guy 2: poor dude... just has no clue. Not my position to say if he can come around. I don't think any shrink would deny that he's nutz, but would I trust them to let me no when he has? Not really. Plus, 100 ppl?! This guy is no better, IMHO, than a raging bull or rabid dog... put him down, do us all a favor. Unless some shrink wants him for a study, but I'm not paying for it.