What to do to rapists!!

[Om]

It was never my intent to turn this into a capital punishment thread, as it seems I did by grabbing a quick couple of pics off the web to illustrate my inconceivably bitter (and admittedly violent) feelings about the waste of skin who raped and killed the 5 year old.

I'd like to think most people on this board recognize hyperbole when they see it.

As I hope I see in Orange's sawed-off shotgun blast at Jack.

Yes, it's about ideas, Orange, and the open exchange of them. But it should also be about understanding how this kind of forum -- i.e. the written word, employed fairly quickly and without the chance to truly flesh out shades of meaning -- requires the reader to take at least a half-step back and not over-read or over-react to what is said by another.

I can't quite believe that with a day to sleep on it you'd be all that proud of that diatribe. Seems out of character from what I think I know of you, based on your time here. Much like the pics I chose, now that I reflect on it, don't really illustrate my complete feelings about "dealing with rapists" , or how I would present my views in an actual debate.

You don't need anyone on a board to lecture you, my friend, and to the extent this post seems like one, I apologize. But from where I sit, my brother, that last post was way over the top.

[OrangeSkin]

Looking back on it, I suppose so, Om. I was a little jacked up when I wrote that.

It's kind of worrisome to hear about little girls disappearing, and then realize that you have a little girl and you'll have to hold onto her a little tighter next time.

And then I come in here and see Jack doing his thang, and it kind of annoyed me.

The next round is on me. Even you get a drink, Jack.

[Om]

I'll cover the second.

[JackC]

OS,

Whatever. For the record I don't have a problem with giving this guy the death penalty. The start of this thread was suggesting we should adopt the methods of the Iranians. I for one don't want to "throw anyone off a cliff in a bag". Call me liberal if you want, I believe it really is more of an American type thing.

I never said let the scum who raped that girl go free. I was pointing out the worst among us (sounds like this guy) deserves the complete rights under the constitution. Don't you agree?

As for what you wrote. I really couldn't care less of you opinion of me. When someone is making an a$$ of themselves it really is best to not try to stop them. You spent a lot of time responding to things I didn't say. You are the one who isn't fit to be an American. Move to IRAN.

Peace but I will buy my own beer thanks anyway.

[Brave]

"cut off his balls...if necessary his dick too...problem solved." - Yomar

That's one of those "feel good" punishments, in that it makes us feel good to get a measure of revenge in that manner against a rapist. However, rape being a crime of power and anger rather than sex, castration would not prevent an offender from offending again. If anything, the man is angrier and now has even more self-worthlessness to overcome (in his illicit ways.)

As long as he has to stay in jail forever, hack away. But if you let him out of the street again ... if castration IS his punishment ... you've just made him more dangerous.

[NavyDave]

JackC you are worried how a buttpirate murderer is executed?

Let me guess you are also concerned how the sick bast@rd in California is executed too.

You Liberals who worry more about the welfare of criminals than the victims never cease to amaze me.

When the guy is 100% guilty of murder, a public execution by being drawn and quartered is the was to go and it should also go for these pedophiles and gay priests who rape young boys.

The death penalty would be a deterrant if you did it more often.

[JackC]

NavyDave,

Don't worry I will be there to help protect your rights too if you are ever (falsely for sure) arrested! In American we don't treat anybody, even that sick ******* in California, badly. Yes we may even kill him if he's found guilty. But we will do it in the best possible way. It's part of being American.

I thought you conservatives were the ones against distinctions in crimes. You seem to be against the hate crime laws. (as am I) How we treat the worst among us is truely a test for our system. When the easiest thing to do would be put the guy in a sack and let the family throw him off a cliff we must be strong. We are better than that guy aren't we?

Don't you agree?

[Darth Tater]

This is interesting, those that feel they can call someone a 'LIBERAL', taking such an anti-American, well, at least anti-Constitutional stance. So, I guess your saying that to be 'LIBERAL' is the same thing as believing in the Constitution?

It appears that some need to be reminded about what our Constitution says (actually, the Bill of Rights but lets not quibble):

'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.'

"His death... must be kept free from all maltreatment that would make the humanity suffering in his person loathsome or abominable." -- Kant.

People who call themselves conservatives but wish to destroy the greatness of this country, are those that worry me most. At least one like JackC readilly identifies himself. It is the wolf in sheeps clothing that is the most dangerous!

[Art]

OPM,

With due respect your quote of Immanuel Kant, let me trump you with the Constititution of the United States. Here's what the Eighth Amendment states, and where you should have left your thoughts, had you not realized you were doing what you complain others are: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

What is eternally frightening is when liberals decide the original intent of the Constitution and the history of capital punishment in this country is meaningless because at some later point in our history, some philosopher, who happened to be in favor of the death penalty, argued and a Court bought it that punishment, as he said and you wrote, "must be kept free from all maltreatment that would make the humanity suffering in his person loathsome or abominable."

So, don't you think it's a bit more frightening for you to attach yourself to intrepretations of later days when arguing that OTHERS are willing to destroy this country by not upholding it's essential truths? The issue of cruel and unusual punishment is clearly one that is subjective in nature and has altered over time to have softened immensely from the original intent of the rule, and application of it in our nation.

Yet, where is your outrage that it has so softened, and therefore only Kant believers are appropriate thinkers (and if you know Kant's views, I suspect you don't think this, though I might)? You don't get to call yourself a Constitutional protector and condemn others for wishing it were a bit more forceful when your argument against such thoughts is the weakened state of capital punishment as argued by Kant. It would seem you don't have any problem with altering the Constitution to fit YOUR pigeon-holed views of how a person ought to be treated.

Personally, as cruel and unusual is clearly subjective in nature, I can assure you, there's nothing cruel or unusual about the punishment you may imagine proper for Avila. No punishment, no matter how horrible, can properly fit the proportions of HIS crime and therefore, any you can imagine is right, just, proper and fair, and not cruel nor unusual.

And if you don't believe me, that's fine. In 100 years some guy will argue as I have and the law will change and someone like you will bemoan the loss of Kant's intrepretation and someone else will flame you for destroying the greatness of this country. It's circular and all. But, since you are big on Kant, let's further his words here.

"Even if a Civil Society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members — as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island resolving to separate and scatter themselves throughout the whole world — the last Murderer lying in the prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that everyone may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain upon the people; for otherwise they might all be regarded as participators in the murder as a public violation of justice."

Every last murderer. Interesting idea Immanuel.

[JackC]

Art,

With regard to Avila your point might be a valid one. The problem comes when you apply the treatment to other cases. I personally don't think the government should be killing anyone. Don't get me wrong I think a lot of prisons are too easy. Hard labor, no cable TV etc. should happen. Life without parole in hard labor would be OK with me.

As for the death penalty, it's simply not applied in an equal manner for like crimes. Don't get upset I'm not saying its a "white black thing". It's more of a "green" thing. Hundreds have been on death row for crimes they didn't commit.

I would rather let 100 guilty people off than to execute 1 innocent person. I know its hard to accept this with a crime this inhuman but we have to be careful making legal decisions at these times.

Look some here have suggested that me holding this opinon "equates" me to Avila. So I guess they would put me in a sack too?

[Art]

Jack,

You are so much more worthwhile to have a conversation with when you are thoughtful and reasoned, as you appear to be here, rather than just the shameless, shrill thing you are often. I'm not sure I understand the dynamics of Jack that allow you to be at once an idiot and a thoughtful man, but, try to stick with the latter, as you have here, as that will actually allow conversation and better the commication you are seeking.

I think the point I'll latch onto in this thread is that while you would prefer 100 guilty men to go free than to convict 1 innocent man to death, I would rather kill 100 innocents than to let 1 guilty go free. Both statements are obvious for the hyperbole they represent, but, my feelings are as strong as yours.

While your statement that "hundreds" of death row inmates have been there for crimes they did not commit stands in serious debate, the fact is, the exception is that occasionally the courts are wrong, but the rule is, the guilty are sentenced to death. I do not wish to make policy based upon the presumed supposition that an innocent life on death row is worth more than the 100 innocent lives you'd have snuffed by letting the guilty not answer to their crimes, and have them commit others, assuming we're letting 100 guilty people off as is your hypothetical.

Further, as we are discussing Kant, and you are a big believer in the Constitution, what is more cruel and unusual a punishment than taking away a man's fundamental rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all his mortal days? Kant believed in the death penalty because he felt it put an end to a person's days and allowed him to answer to God above for redemption.

While the religious portion of his views aren't persuasive to me, the ethical portion may be. Freedom is such a natural part of a person's basic needs, that depriving it of him is more cruel than simply killing him. Ask yourself where you stand on this. If it were you given a choice between life in hard labor as you offer as a solution or death, quickly and cleanly as is the present allowance to the guilty, what would you take?

I would take death. Being captive for all time is, to me, more harsh than ending a person's life. If I felt the prisons would actually sentence a person to life at hard labor, with no cable, no weight rooms, etc., then I'd actually agree with you that the death sentence is insufficient for criminals and they should be forced to endure a punishment so severe as the one you recommend.

But, to me, I'd rather be on death row than in Cuba, because even as humane and kind as those conditions are in Cuba, it is a stark existence, depriving man of the essense of life, which is freedom and liberty and happiness. Death is far more graceful and forgiving because it's clean, rather than so ever messy.

[JackC]

Art,

If you would rather kill a hundred innocent people rather than let one guilty man go free they're really isn't much room for discussion between us on this issue. Given this thought it really isn't too far fetched that it might make sense to use criminal profiles and stop all crime. We could round up all of the Arab males between 18-40 and kill them. That might just meet the 100 to 1 odds. Furthermore we go to drug neighborhoods and arrest all the black males and so on.

As for your cruel and unusal arguement I was mainly complaining about the folks here who wanted to employ Iranian tactics of throwing someone off a cliff in a sack, if they live you hang them. Sounds kind of cruel and unusual to me. Although I am against the death penalty it don't think the constitution bans it.

"You are so much more worthwhile to have a conversation with when you are thoughtful and reasoned, as you appear to be here, rather than just the shameless, shrill thing you are often. I'm not sure I understand the dynamics of Jack that allow you to be at once an idiot and a thoughtful man, but, try to stick with the latter, as you have here, as that will actually allow conversation and better the commication you are seeking. "

I think the record will show that I have never been the first to call other posters names. I remember one time Kilmer said I started the name calling by calling George Bush "dumya". That seems strange to me is he George W? There seems to be a overload of conservatives here who think anyone who doesn't look, act or think like them are unpatriotic evil "idiots" who are the equal of the Avilia guy! I admit sometimes I have chosen to fire back at such posts but I even the Dumya post was reasoned. I don't think our current President is very bright and I believe there is much evidence to support such an opinion. I'll bet you don't even see that in your last post you have insulted me. Note I didn't shoot back.