Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=116635
Ugh.quickquestionthanks wrote:Can we please change the subject to how we need to execute people who bludgeon other people to death?
It's called just desserts.seespotrun wrote:Ugh.quickquestionthanks wrote:Can we please change the subject to how we need to execute people who bludgeon other people to death?
Looking to the Old Testament in forming public policy is full of fail.quickquestionthanks wrote:It's called just desserts.seespotrun wrote:Ugh.quickquestionthanks wrote:Can we please change the subject to how we need to execute people who bludgeon other people to death?
Little known fact: the "eye for an eye" phrase begins, "Have no pity: life for a life, eye for an eye..."
Inability to even attempt a counter argument as to why we shouldn't execute those who viciously murder others is full of fail.seespotrun wrote:Looking to the Old Testament in forming public policy is full of fail.quickquestionthanks wrote:It's called just desserts.seespotrun wrote:Ugh.quickquestionthanks wrote:Can we please change the subject to how we need to execute people who bludgeon other people to death?
Little known fact: the "eye for an eye" phrase begins, "Have no pity: life for a life, eye for an eye..."
It doesn't decrease crime rates and sometimes people are wrongly convicted. Your desire for revenge is not sufficient reason to risk killing an innocent person.quickquestionthanks wrote: Inability to even attempt a counter argument as to why we shouldn't execute those who viciously murder others is full of fail.
First of all, this is not the thread for a controversial political debate.quickquestionthanks wrote:Can we please change the subject to how we need to execute people who bludgeon other people to death?
It's not revenge, it's punishment. See: just desserts. Whether it decreases crime rates is irrelevant (although you can spin the data either way, it is very hard to tease out those effects).Tautology wrote:It doesn't decrease crime rates and sometimes people are wrongly convicted. Your desire for revenge is not sufficient reason to risk killing an innocent person.quickquestionthanks wrote: Inability to even attempt a counter argument as to why we shouldn't execute those who viciously murder others is full of fail.
I think it's the perfect thread and the only proper discussion to be having at a time like this. An innocent life was taken in an unspeakable, heinous act. This man, if found guilty, should die by the hands of the law for what he did.romothesavior wrote:this is not the thread for a controversial political debate.quickquestionthanks wrote:Can we please change the subject to how we need to execute people who bludgeon other people to death?
It's more costly to the state, on average, to execute someone than it is to imprison him for life. Those who viciously kill others are not likely to be further deterred from viciously killing someone than they would be if threatened with a life sentence. Incapacitation is wash vs. life sentences. The only benefit resulting from killing killers is the sick satisfaction of equity in punishment. It's a shame that this type of satisfaction is something that US citizens need.quickquestionthanks wrote:Inability to even attempt a counter argument as to why we shouldn't execute those who viciously murder others is full of fail.seespotrun wrote:Looking to the Old Testament in forming public policy is full of fail.quickquestionthanks wrote:
It's called just desserts.
Little known fact: the "eye for an eye" phrase begins, "Have no pity: life for a life, eye for an eye..."
Could you please try to be a little more hypocritical?seespotrun wrote: It's more costly to the state, on average, to execute someone than it is to imprison him for life. Those who viciously kill others are not likely to be further deterred from viciously killing someone than they would be if threatened with a life sentence. Incapacitation is wash vs. life sentences. The only benefit resulting from killing killers is the sick satisfaction of equity in punishment. It's a shame that this type of satisfaction is something that US citizens need.
But what romo said: this is not the place. Start a new thread if you'd like.
You made the following arguments:seespotrun wrote: It's more costly to the state, on average, to execute someone than it is to imprison him for life. Those who viciously kill others are not likely to be further deterred from viciously killing someone than they would be if threatened with a life sentence. Incapacitation is wash vs. life sentences. The only benefit resulting from killing killers is the sick satisfaction of equity in punishment. It's a shame that this type of satisfaction is something that US citizens need.
But what romo said: this is not the place. Start a new thread if you'd like.
anonymity brings out the worst in people, it is reprehensible and pathetickenson wrote:What the fuck is with people ITT making jokes about this girl? Seriously, I hope to god you don't act like that off the internet.
Where is?romothesavior wrote: First of all, this is not the thread for a controversial political debate.
Anywhere you want to start one, that isn't about someone dying.Kchuck wrote:Where is?romothesavior wrote: First of all, this is not the thread for a controversial political debate.
vanwinkle wrote:Anywhere you want to start one, that isn't about someone dying.Kchuck wrote:Where is?romothesavior wrote: First of all, this is not the thread for a controversial political debate.
quickquestionthanks wrote:[strike]You made the following arguments:seespotrun wrote: It's more costly to the state, on average, to execute someone than it is to imprison him for life. Those who viciously kill others are not likely to be further deterred from viciously killing someone than they would be if threatened with a life sentence. Incapacitation is wash vs. life sentences. The only benefit resulting from killing killers is the sick satisfaction of equity in punishment. It's a shame that this type of satisfaction is something that US citizens need.
But what romo said: this is not the place. Start a new thread if you'd like.
Cost
-Of all things for the government to splurge on, justice is one of them. What a ridiculous statement.
Deterrence
-Again, punishment for the sake of deterrence is only one purpose, they also need to pay from their crimes
Sick Satisfaction?
-There's nothing sick about wanting to see justice served. why should this man be allowed to live while the woman he brutally murdered does not? why should he ever get to see his family again? He will spend his life watching TV, playing cards and shooting hoops. Being okay with that, now that is sick.[/strike]
Feel free to ignore me. [strike]I'm sorry you find the topic of death uncomfortable, but I still can't find any reason why talking about what society ought to be doing to perpetrators like this is inappropriate. I believe it is highly appropriate, and I'll let the moderators decide that.[/strike]
And that is sad.quickquestionthanks wrote:Capital punishment debate in thread about a capital crime? On a law school message board? I'm still scratching my head here...
this in and of itself is a reason to choose another forum to discuss your political views. there are a few basic concepts of social interaction most people know, and they are called tact, respect, and graciousness. whether or not you are comfortable discussing a given topic in a given place does not mean everyone else will be. the other party in your conversation has the right to request a more appropriate forum of discussion.quickquestionthanks wrote:I'm sorry you find the topic of death uncomfortable, but I still can't find any reason why talking about what society ought to be doing to perpetrators like this is inappropriate. I believe it is highly appropriate, and I'll let the moderators decide that.
You weren't talking about the legal ramifications, you were talking about a moral desire for justice and/or revenge. Also, you framed it in a very broad and general sense, not about this case, but about a need for capital punishment in general.quickquestionthanks wrote:You guys are a bunch of cowards, hanging out on the Internet reading about a person's murder and then when someone wants to talk about the appropriate legal ramifications, you claim I'm offending your sensibilities.
quickquestionthanks wrote:
It's called just desserts.
?Dood... I can't stand you.quickquestionthanks wrote:You guys are a bunch of cowards, hanging out on the Internet reading about a person's murder and then when someone wants to talk about the appropriate legal ramifications, you claim I'm offending your sensibilities.
God forbid, if someone willingly takes the life of one of my family members, the first thing on my mind will be killing that person. I'll have the rest of my life to grieve. May this circumstance never befall you and yours.
nor does it make your calling people in this forum cowards any more reasonable than juvenile name-calling.romothesavior wrote:Dood... I can't stand you.quickquestionthanks wrote:You guys are a bunch of cowards, hanging out on the Internet reading about a person's murder and then when someone wants to talk about the appropriate legal ramifications, you claim I'm offending your sensibilities.
God forbid, if someone willingly takes the life of one of my family members, the first thing on my mind will be killing that person. I'll have the rest of my life to grieve. May this circumstance never befall you and yours.
And yeah, the impulse for revenge would likely be present if someone murdered a family member. But that impulse is not a sound policy argument in favor of capital punishment.