DEATH for the DC sniper
- Thread starter xfer
- Start date
AndICried
Pretentious asshole
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
There's no better way to sneak up on a wily buck than to vault your drunk ass into the air with a diesel powered crane.
lizard
Member
my roommate's ex-boyfriend (and my old fellow Boy Scout) ryan comes from a hunting family; his dad owns a hunting cabin, and he's been deer hunting hundreds of times.
he's never shot a deer. why not? it might have something to do with the fact that he creeps up into a tree and then sits there all day smoking cigarettes and joints, so the deer can smell him from literally a mile away.
he's never shot a deer. why not? it might have something to do with the fact that he creeps up into a tree and then sits there all day smoking cigarettes and joints, so the deer can smell him from literally a mile away.
lizard
Member
yeah but that's why there's products like Hot Doe Estrus scent and my personal favorite, Still Steamin Buck Semen
Steve
New Metal Member
FuSoYa
Lunarian
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
Really, what I mean is, that quip I posted is an oversimplification, but I think people lose sight of the fact that someone is being killed. And the governement's seal of approval shouldn't make it OK and clean and nice.
The Dope
Hi.
I hate to sound argumentative or eager to debate, especially about this topic, but I have to admit that I don't really have a problem with him getting the death penalty. It's important to think about it not in terms of whether capital punishment itself is wrong, because that's not really what is in question at the moment. Under our current system of state and national laws, there is a provision in this state and others to allow capital punishment in a case in which it is deemed appropriate. And, excluding some change in the laws at the national level, I really don't see that changing anytime soon (especially in this state).
The question is, then, whether capital punishment is an appropriate action to be taken in this case, under the current state of our legal system, not whether the concept of "government-sanctioned murder" is morally right or not. As a whole, it often makes me squeamish to think of the fact that the government has a right to end the lives of those whom it sees deserve to die. But when I take the question of ethics out of the equation (since there's not much that can be done about the reality of capital punishment between today and Muhammad's sentencing), I find that there are some cases in which I can agree with the use of the death penalty.
And, when I think about it, I can't really think of a case more deserving of capital punishment in recent years. So I consider that what the jurors decided, whether ethically sound or not according to your way of thinking, was the best and most appropriate suggestion they could be expected to make under our current system.
The question is, then, whether capital punishment is an appropriate action to be taken in this case, under the current state of our legal system, not whether the concept of "government-sanctioned murder" is morally right or not. As a whole, it often makes me squeamish to think of the fact that the government has a right to end the lives of those whom it sees deserve to die. But when I take the question of ethics out of the equation (since there's not much that can be done about the reality of capital punishment between today and Muhammad's sentencing), I find that there are some cases in which I can agree with the use of the death penalty.
And, when I think about it, I can't really think of a case more deserving of capital punishment in recent years. So I consider that what the jurors decided, whether ethically sound or not according to your way of thinking, was the best and most appropriate suggestion they could be expected to make under our current system.
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
Oh, yeah of course. If their's going to be capital punishment, J.A.M. is your boy. No question. Premeditated random killings? Yeah, that's the death penalty. I wasn't arguing about that at all, that's nearly black and white, and therefore not a terribly titillating subject for debate 
AndICried
Pretentious asshole
Steve
New Metal Member
I couldn't agree more. People should never die because of another's decision. The government gets too much wrong to risk innocent lives, especially when they are doing somethign they should never be doing and many people say they should not be doing.
The Dope
Hi.
Yeah, in terms of the actual validity of having capital punishment, I'm rather undecided. That's why I tend to stay out of these types of debates. I can see both sides of the argument, but I can never make a commitment to one side or the other. Every time I start thinking that perhaps it's wrong, something like this trial comes along which makes me rethink that stance. I guess at the moment, my main concern is more along the lines of what Steve said - there have been far too many cases of the system screwing things up and having innocent people sentenced to death for me to have much trust in letting the government have this power.
50centurian
blazin' roman
If they kept him alive and made him do prison jobs he'd make one hella good guard up in the watch towers :\
A death penalty debate is always a good and entertaining one.
On one hand, I feel like killing is always wrong.
On the other hand, I feel like that piece of shit should die a slow and painful death and then rot in hell, but that's just me getting worked up from imagining if one of his random victims was a family member or friend of mine.
On one hand, I feel like killing is always wrong.
On the other hand, I feel like that piece of shit should die a slow and painful death and then rot in hell, but that's just me getting worked up from imagining if one of his random victims was a family member or friend of mine.
The Dope, Sam already covered the ground you broke in your first post, but arguing of the appropriateness of something within the law isn't of much interest to me. I mean, should good and moral Germans* have argued whether Jews were being exterminated legally, or in illegal methods? Or (as we're doing) argue against an immoral practise entirely?
Regarding your second post: I think that's representative of why the death penalty has got to go! Emotion should not dictate what's right or wrong, and when spectacular cases cause reflection on the law...that's an example of the instinctive twist in the gut for vengeance coming forth. Our laws shouldn't be influenced by our emotions (another reason why I think trucking out grieving family members to sob that they want to see the killer DEAD DEAD DEAD is a shitty idea. Having lost a family member to a killer makes you a less reliable judge of right and wrong in this case, not a more reliable judge).
and yeah, death-penalty debates are always interesting.
* let this one go
Regarding your second post: I think that's representative of why the death penalty has got to go! Emotion should not dictate what's right or wrong, and when spectacular cases cause reflection on the law...that's an example of the instinctive twist in the gut for vengeance coming forth. Our laws shouldn't be influenced by our emotions (another reason why I think trucking out grieving family members to sob that they want to see the killer DEAD DEAD DEAD is a shitty idea. Having lost a family member to a killer makes you a less reliable judge of right and wrong in this case, not a more reliable judge).
and yeah, death-penalty debates are always interesting.
* let this one go
avi
W3RK3R
I can't disagree with that. I'm a little wary about arguing in that direction, because it makes the presupposition that if people were being killed fairly, rather than unfairly, everything would be okay. But still, it kind of warms my heart to see people like Gov. Ryan of Illnois imposing moratoria on the death penalty, even though it's for dubious reasons.
Similar threads
