@IKillBabyKittensLOL I'm not sure what you are saying here. "Innocent" or "not guilty" are just different terms for the same thing. A person who is found "not guilty" IS innocent, at least in the eyes of the jury. I understand in your country there is a verdict of "not proven." In the case of Casey Anthony, that would have been a lot better than "not guilty," since most of the jury felt that she had killed her baby, but that the actual evidence was insufficient.
@Largo64 There is a difference. If I claimed to be innocent then I would need to provide proof but if I said I was not guilty then it's the other side who has the burden of proof. It's the same difference between 'believing there is no god' and 'lacking a belief in god'. One needs evidence, the other doesn't
@IKillBabyKittensLOL In American courts the terminology is "not guilty." Why do you want to make an issue of a phrase that makes no substantive difference? In an American court of law, the defendant does not have to prove anything. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Casey Anthony's jury thought there was a reasonable doubt, so she went free, even though most of the jurors believed she she had killed her baby. The law now says she's innocent. But I don't have to.
@Largo64 anti-death pentaly people say they don't want the state killing in their name, well i don't want the state putting murderers well being above victims. *if* the US abolished the death penalty it would only encourage vigilantism. at least now it takes a LONG time you and you get appeals. Esp with DNA(which like you said has exonerated people before it was available) the odds on getting it wrong is very low. I don't think D.P should be used willie nilly.
@ubermisogynist Can you show a rise in vigilantism in countries like Canada, the UK and Australia related to abolition of the death penalty? I doubt it.
@Largo64 i realise no argument i make will change your mind, and the same goes for me. I just comment because I get angry when I see people defend murderers. Anti-Death people act like murder is an accident. You have to make an effort to murder someone. I read stories about that girl who was chopped up, they had a boy who was behaded by his father to get back at his ex-wife...sorry but people like that deserve to be tortured and killed. that is my view and nothing will change that
@ubermisogynist No anti-death penalty person "defends" murderers. We only say that killing is, to us at least, obviously the wrong way for the society to say killing is wrong. Defending killers would be trying to prevent them from going to prison. No sane person says that. For you to say we do is either terribly short-sighted on your part, or simply dishonest in defense of your position. I can agree to disagree with you, but I won't tolerate being called a defender of murderers. It's just false.
@Largo64 but in certian instances it's warrented. Example they had a recent case where a babysiter bashed in the head of 9 nine year old girl and then dismemebered her with a hack saw. He kept the head and hands in the freezer. That man has to die, No if's and's or but's. I know you will say "it won't bring her back" well neither will putting him in jail.
@ubermisogynist I get the same visceral response to things like that that you do. It would be easy to just say kill 'em all. But it doesn't change the fact that taking revenge is a shallow response to an evil deed which changes the evil deed not at all. It may make us feel a kind of momentary satisfaction, like watching a movie and saying, "Yes!" when the bad guy is killed, but it doesn't make us better people. The bad guy in the movie is a caricature. The convict, however bad, is a human being.
@ubermisogynist This is one of those situations where the word "some," or even "many" as a modifier would be appropriate. I am anti-death penalty, but also anti war. If we had spent half our war appropriations actually helping people in the countries we have bombed, and the other half caring for our own homeless, there would likely be less war because we would be less hated abroad. You are right. War IS murdering innocent people.
Also, there's a BIG difference between bin Laden not being on the planes and the innocents released not being the actual gun men: unlike the latter, there's actual PROOF that Bin Laden orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty, and since each of those 138 released have had no, weak or even disproven evidence used against them, it then logically follows that they were NEVER proven guilty to begin with, hence they WERE innocent.
Support the proper use of the Death Penalty by the duly-elected authorities! Write your elected officials and SUPPORT them strongly in KEEPING the Death Penalty! Stand for the protection of human life, and for common sense. Violent criminals also KILL in prison sometimes. Duh. They should be executed, and as swiftly as possible... no endless appeals.
Kill 'em all and let god sort them out, eh? You know that innocent people get executed, too. If it's only one in a thousand, will you administer the injection to the one innocent? How will you know which one it is?
Clearly, you haven't done your research. Did you know that a lot of inmates are paroled or RELEASED from prisons across the country because of a tight budget (Kentucky, for example, released 1,800 prisoners last year for just that reason)? And not only does the death penalty cost a LOT more than life imprisonment, but it does NOT deter criminals; states with the death penalty have HIGHER homicide rates than states that don't have it FYI, clearly a wasteful program.
Down with the death penalty. It clogs the system with all of the appeals. It costs so much to fund all of those appeals. I don't see how the end justifies the means. I bet there are more innocent men who have died from the death penalty than there are men who have escaped prison. Just my 2 little cents :-)
Yes, of COURSE dead people can't commit new crimes. But whatever statistics you have on recidivism, you can't be suggesting that we then profile all violent offenders and then execute those who are likely to commit murder.
What I am saying is that, while they are in custody, they can't hurt innocent civilians. Guards are equipped and trained to protect themselves. Killing answers nothing except what you call justice.
One of the definitions of "justice" is "retribution. Its definition has four synonyms listed in my dictionary: reprisal, vengeance, revenge and retaliation. Those words all describe very well the kind of justice that results from execution.
Unless you or a loved one were a victim of a violent criminal, one must wonder why you take such a personal interest in what amounts to revenge.
I say what I mean and preemptively executing folks is not what I said or meant.
Of course imprioned murderers can hurt innocent civilians. Murderers can escape and murder, again. The can harm and murder inmates, guards, medical personel, visitors, etc.
Execution is a just sanction for some crimes and also, secondarily and importantly, is a grweater protector of innocent lives than is a life sentence.
"I say what I mean and preemptively executing folks is not what I said or meant."
But that is what it IS. You say that people convicted of murder should be executed so they can't do more murder, even though they are already incarcerated. That IS punishing them preemptively for crimes they MIGHT commit if they ever got out. You ignore the extreme rarity of max security prison escapes, and you accept the also admittedly rare possibility that an innocent might be executed.
Our only real bone of contention between us is that you have an acceptable number of innocents executed for the greater good and I do not. I just don't agree that it does serve the greater good. I think that official killing is immoral and only degrades all of us in whose names it is carried out.
We will never agree on this. But I think you have made your point to others who read this comment section. No doubt many will agree with you. And some may agree with me. I expect to be in the minority.
No Largo, I said execution was the just and appropriate sanction for some murderers,
And I said that the death penalty protects innocents to a higher degree than does a life sentence. One of the ways is enhanced incapacitation or execution, which prevents murderers from ever harming again.
I never said execute murderers because of incapacitation. Never. Execute them because it is just, while knowong, it also protects more innocents.
We are going round and round and getting nowhere. You believe that the death penalty is just. I believe that it is not. We have both expressed our reasons for our belief, which reasons are diametrically opposed to each other. There are ample statements from both of us in these comment sections. I suggest we leave it to the readers. I have no doubt that most will agree with you. That's okay. I only hope to change a few minds. Same thing with my atheism videos. You are welcome to continue.
I am not confusing the two. I am saying, and I think I did say, that innocents convicted, whether subsequently released or not, would have been executed if it were not for evidence their juries never saw. Potentially they were ALL executed. The point is that, because we have the death penalty, there is always the possibility - no, probability - that at least some innocents will be wrongly executed. That "ultimate sanction" is just too harsh and too final.
That's a little distracting, but not an accident. The only alternative allowed so far on Xtranormal is a foreign accent. It would be nice to have a few more voices. Maybe someday.
Silly me, you are right. In that case perhaps a female interviewer instead of you probable would have worked better. It really annoyed me because, I tried to get ready for work while playing the interview (could not tell who spoke unless I looked). Apple spoiled me:
MacIntoshes have 24 English voices out of the box (hight triple-digit numbers for all of the languages MacIntoshes with whom (they are just like people in the Macintosh) MacIntoshes ship:
5 Male Voices
5 Female voices
14 novelty-voices
Most of the voices of the robots in WALL•E use MacInTalk-Voices. This is not surprising because Steve Jobs is the CEO of Pixar and Apple.
So apple spoiled you on voices too. Apple can also spoil you on punctuation:
Spaniards invented inverted punctuation. ¿What is your opinion about inverted punctuation? ¡I believe that it is a great innovation!
In the edit menu of every application, is the option Special Characters. That brings up the Character-Palette with every character in Unicode — over an 100 thousand characters. ¡It is great!
Post Scriptum:
YouTube sometimes eats Unicode-characters, so this may look funny.
I don't know that Spaniards invented punctuation, but I think it's well to know before, rather than after the sentence that it is a question. But we all adapt to what we were trained with, don't we?
I believe that the spaniards invented inverted punctuation. For what it is worth, Wikipedia says that inverted punctuation comes from Spain.
One of the interesting properties of inverted punctuation is that if only part of a sentence, perhaps just one clause, is a question, just that part gets the punctuation:
But we all adapt to what we were trained, ¿don't we?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on why criminals who deserve death penalty should be able to have guaranteed health care, food, housing, entertainment. However, it does not mean anyone else should have to agree with you. My opinion is death is not the worst form of punishment for some, and I would much rather torture some to death instead of simply killing them.
The death penalty is based on revenge, that's all. All the talk about keeping society safe, is just an attempt to pretend that executions are based on anything except vengeance. Right wing people often like black and white, or simple solutions, and there is no more absolute black and white solution to what to do with a murderer, than killing him. Same thing with prison sentences for minor crimes; simple absolutist solutions, without the tiresome need for thinking outside of black and white.
I don't think people who believe the death penalty works are bastards. I used to be one of them. It's easy to hate evil people who kill and rape and do other horrible things. It's just that, when you think about it, killing them "officially" makes us all complicit in murder. There are better ways to deal with it than taking yet another life.
If you ever watched a Steven Segal movie, didn't you want to see the bad guy get killed? Didn't wee all? We just need to realize that that (cont.)
(cont.) fictional release isn't real life, and that bad guys are human beings, too. No doubt someone will quote the Bible on this, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life." But most forget that that was not a prescription, but a limitation. Yes, it does say life for life, but the same book also says you should stone your son to death if he refuses to obey. We should have become more civilized and more humane than that by now. That we haven't is a human tragedy.
That was probably a bad example. I haven't seen one of his movies in a long time. There were some really bad guys in the early ones. I just meant that you have a visceral reaction sometimes to really evil people. Movies are designed to play on that feeling. But we should be able to rise above it when we are talking about real people.
I don't "hate" them, and I also have no issues with killing another. In fact, if it's that much a bother for everyone else to execute people on death row, I will volunteer to do the job.
No problem about the rant! I understand. The death penalty as it exists in the US doesn't serve to correct, and it doesn't really protect any better than incarceration. Therefore it is nothing but vengeance. Since that is the case, the ancient idea of "vendetta" at least makes some kind of sense. But states should not be taking revenge.
Just one person killed by mistake is too many. The death penalty is about vengeance. A nasty, primitive blood lust to make someone else suffer. It has no place in a civilised society.
"we should have serial rapist, mass murders, etc live and have society's resources and money spent on them?" - it takes more money to sentence someone to death than it does to house them in prison for life. to use less money you would have to give the accused less appeals in court, this means it would make the already unreliable court system less reliable.
Not if we put some reasonable limit on the number of times these people can appeal. They essentially appeal the system to death, waste everyone's time and money. If someone rapes, tortures and kills a 5 year old kid is proved by DNA that s/he's really the one that did it, no appeals should be granted.
unfortuantely no cases are that clear cut. a reasonable limit on number of times somebody can appeal is bullshit because that limit would only be an arbitrary number that nobody will agree upon. sentencing somebody to death is a serious issue and i would argue that unlimited appeals is completely reasonable.
0:53
Gah. The point is that they haven't been found ''guilty' - not that they have been found 'innocent'. No one pleads or is found innocent.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 1 month ago
@IKillBabyKittensLOL I'm not sure what you are saying here. "Innocent" or "not guilty" are just different terms for the same thing. A person who is found "not guilty" IS innocent, at least in the eyes of the jury. I understand in your country there is a verdict of "not proven." In the case of Casey Anthony, that would have been a lot better than "not guilty," since most of the jury felt that she had killed her baby, but that the actual evidence was insufficient.
Largo64 1 month ago
@Largo64 There is a difference. If I claimed to be innocent then I would need to provide proof but if I said I was not guilty then it's the other side who has the burden of proof. It's the same difference between 'believing there is no god' and 'lacking a belief in god'. One needs evidence, the other doesn't
IKillBabyKittensLOL 1 month ago
@IKillBabyKittensLOL In American courts the terminology is "not guilty." Why do you want to make an issue of a phrase that makes no substantive difference? In an American court of law, the defendant does not have to prove anything. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Casey Anthony's jury thought there was a reasonable doubt, so she went free, even though most of the jurors believed she she had killed her baby. The law now says she's innocent. But I don't have to.
Largo64 1 month ago
@Largo64 it's easy to be anti-death pentaly if you have never been or known someone personally who has been a victim of a violent crime.
ubermisogynist 1 month ago
@ubermisogynist So if I had been a victim or known one I would want revenge? But revenge is not justice. It's just getting even.
Largo64 1 month ago
@Largo64 anti-death pentaly people say they don't want the state killing in their name, well i don't want the state putting murderers well being above victims. *if* the US abolished the death penalty it would only encourage vigilantism. at least now it takes a LONG time you and you get appeals. Esp with DNA(which like you said has exonerated people before it was available) the odds on getting it wrong is very low. I don't think D.P should be used willie nilly.
ubermisogynist 1 month ago
@ubermisogynist Can you show a rise in vigilantism in countries like Canada, the UK and Australia related to abolition of the death penalty? I doubt it.
Largo64 1 month ago
@Largo64 i realise no argument i make will change your mind, and the same goes for me. I just comment because I get angry when I see people defend murderers. Anti-Death people act like murder is an accident. You have to make an effort to murder someone. I read stories about that girl who was chopped up, they had a boy who was behaded by his father to get back at his ex-wife...sorry but people like that deserve to be tortured and killed. that is my view and nothing will change that
ubermisogynist 1 month ago
@ubermisogynist No anti-death penalty person "defends" murderers. We only say that killing is, to us at least, obviously the wrong way for the society to say killing is wrong. Defending killers would be trying to prevent them from going to prison. No sane person says that. For you to say we do is either terribly short-sighted on your part, or simply dishonest in defense of your position. I can agree to disagree with you, but I won't tolerate being called a defender of murderers. It's just false.
Largo64 1 month ago
@Largo64 but in certian instances it's warrented. Example they had a recent case where a babysiter bashed in the head of 9 nine year old girl and then dismemebered her with a hack saw. He kept the head and hands in the freezer. That man has to die, No if's and's or but's. I know you will say "it won't bring her back" well neither will putting him in jail.
ubermisogynist 1 month ago
@ubermisogynist I get the same visceral response to things like that that you do. It would be easy to just say kill 'em all. But it doesn't change the fact that taking revenge is a shallow response to an evil deed which changes the evil deed not at all. It may make us feel a kind of momentary satisfaction, like watching a movie and saying, "Yes!" when the bad guy is killed, but it doesn't make us better people. The bad guy in the movie is a caricature. The convict, however bad, is a human being.
Largo64 1 month ago
No offesne but the USA foreign policy caused 9/11. The USA has murdered alot of Muslims(im not muslim) but the USA is a murderous country
ubermisogynist 1 month ago
@ubermisogynist What you say here is offensive, and it doesn't pertain to the topic of the video. Religious fanaticism caused 9/11.
Largo64 1 month ago
@Largo64 I've ALL ways noticed anti-death pentaly people don't have a problem with war. War is murdering innocent people.
ubermisogynist 1 month ago
@ubermisogynist This is one of those situations where the word "some," or even "many" as a modifier would be appropriate. I am anti-death penalty, but also anti war. If we had spent half our war appropriations actually helping people in the countries we have bombed, and the other half caring for our own homeless, there would likely be less war because we would be less hated abroad. You are right. War IS murdering innocent people.
Largo64 1 month ago
You have to be the actual trigger man to be executed. They can be imprisoned for life on vicarious liability but not executed.
freakylocz14 1 year ago
Also, there's a BIG difference between bin Laden not being on the planes and the innocents released not being the actual gun men: unlike the latter, there's actual PROOF that Bin Laden orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty, and since each of those 138 released have had no, weak or even disproven evidence used against them, it then logically follows that they were NEVER proven guilty to begin with, hence they WERE innocent.
Headhunter004 1 year ago
I have the solution!
Everyone should have a free death "it's on the house", that way no one can say they did not get their share of justice afterwards..
Ulrna 2 years ago
Support the proper use of the Death Penalty by the duly-elected authorities! Write your elected officials and SUPPORT them strongly in KEEPING the Death Penalty! Stand for the protection of human life, and for common sense. Violent criminals also KILL in prison sometimes. Duh. They should be executed, and as swiftly as possible... no endless appeals.
AmericaTops 2 years ago
Kill 'em all and let god sort them out, eh? You know that innocent people get executed, too. If it's only one in a thousand, will you administer the injection to the one innocent? How will you know which one it is?
Largo64 2 years ago
@AmericaTops
Clearly, you haven't done your research. Did you know that a lot of inmates are paroled or RELEASED from prisons across the country because of a tight budget (Kentucky, for example, released 1,800 prisoners last year for just that reason)? And not only does the death penalty cost a LOT more than life imprisonment, but it does NOT deter criminals; states with the death penalty have HIGHER homicide rates than states that don't have it FYI, clearly a wasteful program.
Headhunter004 1 year ago
Down with the death penalty. It clogs the system with all of the appeals. It costs so much to fund all of those appeals. I don't see how the end justifies the means. I bet there are more innocent men who have died from the death penalty than there are men who have escaped prison. Just my 2 little cents :-)
Saweet2Watch 2 years ago
Of course the death penalty offers better protections for the innocent than does a life sentence.
To state the obvious, living murderers harm and murder, again, executed ones do not.
In addition, 16 recent studies, INCLUSIVE OF THEIR DEFENSES, find for death penalty deterence.
No surprise. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Yes, of COURSE dead people can't commit new crimes. But whatever statistics you have on recidivism, you can't be suggesting that we then profile all violent offenders and then execute those who are likely to commit murder.
What I am saying is that, while they are in custody, they can't hurt innocent civilians. Guards are equipped and trained to protect themselves. Killing answers nothing except what you call justice.
Largo64 2 years ago
One of the definitions of "justice" is "retribution. Its definition has four synonyms listed in my dictionary: reprisal, vengeance, revenge and retaliation. Those words all describe very well the kind of justice that results from execution.
Unless you or a loved one were a victim of a violent criminal, one must wonder why you take such a personal interest in what amounts to revenge.
Largo64 2 years ago
I say what I mean and preemptively executing folks is not what I said or meant.
Of course imprioned murderers can hurt innocent civilians. Murderers can escape and murder, again. The can harm and murder inmates, guards, medical personel, visitors, etc.
Execution is a just sanction for some crimes and also, secondarily and importantly, is a grweater protector of innocent lives than is a life sentence.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
"I say what I mean and preemptively executing folks is not what I said or meant."
But that is what it IS. You say that people convicted of murder should be executed so they can't do more murder, even though they are already incarcerated. That IS punishing them preemptively for crimes they MIGHT commit if they ever got out. You ignore the extreme rarity of max security prison escapes, and you accept the also admittedly rare possibility that an innocent might be executed.
Largo64 2 years ago
Our only real bone of contention between us is that you have an acceptable number of innocents executed for the greater good and I do not. I just don't agree that it does serve the greater good. I think that official killing is immoral and only degrades all of us in whose names it is carried out.
We will never agree on this. But I think you have made your point to others who read this comment section. No doubt many will agree with you. And some may agree with me. I expect to be in the minority.
Largo64 2 years ago
No Largo, I said execution was the just and appropriate sanction for some murderers,
And I said that the death penalty protects innocents to a higher degree than does a life sentence. One of the ways is enhanced incapacitation or execution, which prevents murderers from ever harming again.
I never said execute murderers because of incapacitation. Never. Execute them because it is just, while knowong, it also protects more innocents.
Why must you ask this way?
dudleysharp 2 years ago
"act" not "ask"
dudleysharp 2 years ago
We are going round and round and getting nowhere. You believe that the death penalty is just. I believe that it is not. We have both expressed our reasons for our belief, which reasons are diametrically opposed to each other. There are ample statements from both of us in these comment sections. I suggest we leave it to the readers. I have no doubt that most will agree with you. That's okay. I only hope to change a few minds. Same thing with my atheism videos. You are welcome to continue.
Largo64 2 years ago
For more information on Troy Davis,
search for
"Troy Davis: Both sides need to be told "
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Comment removed
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Largo,
In your various videos you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding much of what Ihave written.
For example, you are confusing the
1) innocent sentenced to death and released
with the
2) innocents executed.
They are very different. I don't know how or why you are confusing the two.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
I am not confusing the two. I am saying, and I think I did say, that innocents convicted, whether subsequently released or not, would have been executed if it were not for evidence their juries never saw. Potentially they were ALL executed. The point is that, because we have the death penalty, there is always the possibility - no, probability - that at least some innocents will be wrongly executed. That "ultimate sanction" is just too harsh and too final.
Largo64 2 years ago
Then, you are beinbg highly deceptive, Stop inventing what did not occur and state what actually did occur.
There are distinct differences.
Probabilities are based upon actual numbers. That is why numbers really do matter,
Almost anything is possible, It is better to be specific and not quite as nebulous. Again, the numbers do matter.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Good video generally, but you accidently used the same voice for both characters.
Walabio 2 years ago
That's a little distracting, but not an accident. The only alternative allowed so far on Xtranormal is a foreign accent. It would be nice to have a few more voices. Maybe someday.
Largo64 2 years ago
Silly me, you are right. In that case perhaps a female interviewer instead of you probable would have worked better. It really annoyed me because, I tried to get ready for work while playing the interview (could not tell who spoke unless I looked). Apple spoiled me:
Walabio 2 years ago
MacIntoshes have 24 English voices out of the box (hight triple-digit numbers for all of the languages MacIntoshes with whom (they are just like people in the Macintosh) MacIntoshes ship:
5 Male Voices
5 Female voices
14 novelty-voices
Most of the voices of the robots in WALL•E use MacInTalk-Voices. This is not surprising because Steve Jobs is the CEO of Pixar and Apple.
Walabio 2 years ago
Me, too!
Largo64 2 years ago
So apple spoiled you on voices too. Apple can also spoil you on punctuation:
Spaniards invented inverted punctuation. ¿What is your opinion about inverted punctuation? ¡I believe that it is a great innovation!
In the edit menu of every application, is the option Special Characters. That brings up the Character-Palette with every character in Unicode — over an 100 thousand characters. ¡It is great!
Post Scriptum:
YouTube sometimes eats Unicode-characters, so this may look funny.
Walabio 2 years ago
I don't know that Spaniards invented punctuation, but I think it's well to know before, rather than after the sentence that it is a question. But we all adapt to what we were trained with, don't we?
Largo64 2 years ago
I believe that the spaniards invented inverted punctuation. For what it is worth, Wikipedia says that inverted punctuation comes from Spain.
One of the interesting properties of inverted punctuation is that if only part of a sentence, perhaps just one clause, is a question, just that part gets the punctuation:
But we all adapt to what we were trained, ¿don't we?
Walabio 2 years ago
wow those are some deep thoughts brother Largo
320iguy 2 years ago
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on why criminals who deserve death penalty should be able to have guaranteed health care, food, housing, entertainment. However, it does not mean anyone else should have to agree with you. My opinion is death is not the worst form of punishment for some, and I would much rather torture some to death instead of simply killing them.
rosalind24 2 years ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 2 years ago
The death penalty is based on revenge, that's all. All the talk about keeping society safe, is just an attempt to pretend that executions are based on anything except vengeance. Right wing people often like black and white, or simple solutions, and there is no more absolute black and white solution to what to do with a murderer, than killing him. Same thing with prison sentences for minor crimes; simple absolutist solutions, without the tiresome need for thinking outside of black and white.
Untemperedsteel 2 years ago
It certainly is based on revenge, and revenge is justified.
I absolutely do not think death penalty has anything to do with "keeping society safe". It IS all about revenge, and that's why I am all for it.
rosalind24 2 years ago
If he thinks people should be murdered for committing a crime, then he should be the one to take their life.
Also he should be murdered for being a murderer.
That bastard
someweirdgayguy 2 years ago
I don't think people who believe the death penalty works are bastards. I used to be one of them. It's easy to hate evil people who kill and rape and do other horrible things. It's just that, when you think about it, killing them "officially" makes us all complicit in murder. There are better ways to deal with it than taking yet another life.
If you ever watched a Steven Segal movie, didn't you want to see the bad guy get killed? Didn't wee all? We just need to realize that that (cont.)
Largo64 2 years ago
(cont.) fictional release isn't real life, and that bad guys are human beings, too. No doubt someone will quote the Bible on this, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life." But most forget that that was not a prescription, but a limitation. Yes, it does say life for life, but the same book also says you should stone your son to death if he refuses to obey. We should have become more civilized and more humane than that by now. That we haven't is a human tragedy.
Largo64 2 years ago
I watched that Seagal-movie with the oil-rigs the other week. I just thought it was incredibly infantile to kill the bad guy in that movie.
Fjarhultian 2 years ago
That was probably a bad example. I haven't seen one of his movies in a long time. There were some really bad guys in the early ones. I just meant that you have a visceral reaction sometimes to really evil people. Movies are designed to play on that feeling. But we should be able to rise above it when we are talking about real people.
Largo64 2 years ago
It's been years since I saw any other than the oil-movie.
I get your point, though.
Fjarhultian 2 years ago
I don't "hate" them, and I also have no issues with killing another. In fact, if it's that much a bother for everyone else to execute people on death row, I will volunteer to do the job.
rosalind24 2 years ago
Hey, Largo! Do you have any more vids about the Death Penalty? I'd like to debate this topic with you sometime.
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
Excellent points Largo.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
No problem about the rant! I understand. The death penalty as it exists in the US doesn't serve to correct, and it doesn't really protect any better than incarceration. Therefore it is nothing but vengeance. Since that is the case, the ancient idea of "vendetta" at least makes some kind of sense. But states should not be taking revenge.
Largo64 2 years ago
5 star video! i hope you subscribe to me and join me live on stickam!
TeeFlick 2 years ago
5* -- great video
DavidRandallCurtis 2 years ago
I agree with your point on this. Just one innocent person being killed is too many to justify the practice.
Archaneus 2 years ago
So what, we should have serial rapist, mass murders, etc live and have society's resources and money spent on them?
They have proven they will never benefit society, society should never waste resources on them.
mecher3k 2 years ago
Just one person killed by mistake is too many. The death penalty is about vengeance. A nasty, primitive blood lust to make someone else suffer. It has no place in a civilised society.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
So what, we should have serial rapist, mass murders, etc live and have society's resources and money spent on them?
They have proven they will never benefit society, society should never waste resources on them.
Primitive, how? Oh wait it's not. You're just a idiot who thinks killing is wrong period.
why don't you send all of your paycheck and food to these people? Oh wait, you already pay for mass murders and rapists to live comfy.
mecher3k 2 years ago
"we should have serial rapist, mass murders, etc live and have society's resources and money spent on them?" - it takes more money to sentence someone to death than it does to house them in prison for life. to use less money you would have to give the accused less appeals in court, this means it would make the already unreliable court system less reliable.
errskin 2 years ago
Not if we put some reasonable limit on the number of times these people can appeal. They essentially appeal the system to death, waste everyone's time and money. If someone rapes, tortures and kills a 5 year old kid is proved by DNA that s/he's really the one that did it, no appeals should be granted.
rosalind24 2 years ago
unfortuantely no cases are that clear cut. a reasonable limit on number of times somebody can appeal is bullshit because that limit would only be an arbitrary number that nobody will agree upon. sentencing somebody to death is a serious issue and i would argue that unlimited appeals is completely reasonable.
errskin 2 years ago
mecher3k - thank you for making my point so effectively.
thatgaybloke 2 years ago
It amazes me that a civilised country still has such barbaric forms of punishment
gordonthegopher666 2 years ago
I can't remember a time when I thought our country truly WAS civilized.
seaweed2007 2 years ago
We have too many delusional religious nutjobs in this country to consider it any where near civil.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
Another person to own.
So what, we should have serial rapist, mass murders, etc live and have society's resources and money spent on them?
They have proven they will never benefit society, society should never waste resources on them.
why don't you send all of your paycheck and food to these people? Oh wait, you already pay for mass murders and rapists to live comfy.
mecher3k 2 years ago
don't triple post, douche. And try to be civil. There's no need to act like a jerk when someone is just stating their opinion.
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago