PS3 Robbery Suspect Shot to Death

[Raesvelg]

I see you've read my autobiography since you know every FACT about me. Good job.

I know enough to know that you have very little taste for facts that fall outside of your preconceived worldview.

Yes, obviously prejudiced is a better word to describe your feeling for the police. But guess what, that wasn't the way I chose to parse that sentence! I chose to say "You're the fundamental equivalent of a racist" not "You're prejudiced against police officers". My way has more flair. It also has greater impact and relevance when taken with the rest of what I wrote.

To say "most cops are assholes" and then "but I'm not prejudiced against cops" is so patently ridiculous I don't even know where to begin to reply. To take feelings generated by limited personal experience and apply them to an entire group is pretty much the definition of prejudice.

However.

To be prejudiced is to be human. We've all got at least some shred of prejudice in us somewhere, but the trick is recognizing it for what it is. Then again, that requires objectivity and self-analysis, which don't seem to be strong points for most folks.

When you let that prejudice influence the way you think, then you become the (hey, here's that phrase again) fundamental equivalent of a racist.

As for power... Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. And the powerless like to make up conspiracy theories. We can all accept those as reasonably accurate statements. To say that MOST people will be corrupted by power is, however, not necessarily accurate, particularly when that power is heavily circumscribed. Police officers have a moderate amount of power in a small scale. They can arrest you, they can restrain you, they can search you if necessary. But if they can't come up with a good reason to have done so, they can lose their jobs. They can themselves get arrested and go to jail. We're not talking about despotic rulers here, we're talking about law enforcement officers in a civilized and overly litigious society.

You can say that most cops are assholes, I can say that through a variety of encounters, from positive (volunteer work) to negative (being questioned as a suspect) that I've never been treated poorly by a police officer. NEVER. So obviously your assessment is grotesquely flawed. If MOST cops were assholes, at least one of the ones that I've dealt with would have fallen into that category.

 

[Raesvelg]

Various positively Hammurabic ideas of justice

The problem with that concept of justice is that, well, maiming people and letting them go is bad. You're pretty much consigning them to a life of beggary and crime, and that's counter-productive.

My own personal view differs, to say the least. Offing the guy that steals a stereo isn't necessary. He obviously knew he was stealing, but there may well have been extenuating circumstances. Petty crimes don't warrant extreme punishments, and incarceration doesn't work for squat either way. So reform is obviously the answer. Re-educate the individual, teach him a way other than theft, possibly even require him to do a menial task in order to gain skills (you don't call it slave labor and I won't), but locking him up to learn how to be a better criminal and/or killing/maiming him are either ineffectual or excessive.

Obviously there are exceptions to the concept of reform. Habitual criminals are a drain upon society, and if they refuse to accept help, then they must be removed from the society that they prey upon. Or, in other phrasing, 3 time losers get taken out behind the courthouse and shot. As does anyone convicted of a capital crime.

For some reason it's always bothered me that Attempted Murder carries a lesser penalty than Murder. The idea of rewarding incomptence just seems somehow flawed. But I digress.

No lengthy appeals process, no chance after chance after chance with delays stretching into decades until you finally get enough recognition that the governor pardons you rather than face potential criticism. In order to be effective, executions must be both reasonably swift and, quite frankly, public. The function of execution is two fold, and neither of them is revenge. We are both removing a potential danger to society, and creating a deterrent for others considering the same crime. The first can be served in private, but the latter is aided enormously by a public venue.

 

[Elemmire]

Perhaps.. with stealing or assault (depending how vicious of an assault) they can have a chance or two. But I really think it's situational with those things. Some deserve to just be taken out of society (say, Enron people who stole so much money from investors and stockholders and whatnot or assaulters that brutally hurt someone so horribly like jack the ripper-esque, if they still loved from that kinda beating/stuff).

Rapists and Murderers though, they are scum who deserve no second chance nor life in even a prison.

Perhaps it might excessive to kill all criminals but *shrugs* if there are no criminals, there is no crime, so things would be better seems simple enough.

Edit: I really wonder why it's more expensive to execute someone than to hold them prisoner? Why bother with paper work? If they were found guilty, that seems like it should be enough, they don't deserve a last meal.. what is it that makes it so expensive?

 

[chrishj19]

Perhaps it might excessive to kill all criminals but *shrugs* if there are no criminals, there is no crime, so things would be better seems simple enough.

I don't think you think this through enough. You think if every person who has done a criminal act should be dead. Do you really think that familys and friends and such if criminals who have done little criminal acts or basically any criminals aside from murder or rape are going to not care and do nothing? Hell would break lose if that many people were commited to death. We would fall apart and just kill each other us.
Yeah simple enough to kill the guy....but what about all the other people in his/her life who don't agree with whats going on? That number would add up very quickly with that many sentenced to death.
Honestly I think if they decided to kill all criminals, even more crime would happen, especially things like assault and murder by very angry people who don't like that idea at all.
P.S. This is not from being biased about my friend dying. Whether all this happened or not I would still be saying these same words.

 

[Elemmire]

if they agree that it was an ok thing that their child raped or killed a person, brutally assaulted a person, stole a huge sum of stuff they didn't need to live, than they prolly aren't the kind who should be in humanity anyways. Sure, blood related, but you know it was bad, you know that they'll be punished, severe, maybe, but you know there's a punishment, just as the criminal does.

 

[Raesvelg]

Edit: I really wonder why it's more expensive to execute someone than to hold them prisoner? Why bother with paper work? If they were found guilty, that seems like it should be enough, they don't deserve a last meal.. what is it that makes it so expensive?

Legal proceedings, almost entirely, comprise the "more expensive" factor of an execution. Curtail the appeals process and it gets vastly cheaper. The actual process of the execution isn't overly expensive, though it's typically far more costly than it needs to be.

Realistically, if you're going to kill someone, a guillotine will do the job just fine and quite cheaply. Sure, it doesn't leave a pretty corpse, but who cares? Pull the lever and drop the blade, snip thump a few twitches and it's all over. Lethal Injection? Costly. Hanging is tricky, seeing as how you can be left to strangle to death rather than getting your neck broken. The electric chair is about as inhumane a way to kill someone as I can imagine personally, since getting electrocuted is FUCKING PAINFUL. The gas chamber takes the negative aspects of the other three methods and combines them into one rather nasty means of execution.

Seeing as how a successful execution leaves the recipient unable to discuss the pros and cons of the method involved, I still fail to see why we invest in rather elaborate procedures and techniques.

 

[Firestreak]

Reminds me of this Chris Rock bit where he asked children how to find cheaper ways for executions. One was drowning in a pool, cause you can reuse the water... the best was dress the criminal up like mommy and wait for daddy to come home.

 

[chrishj19]

if they agree that it was an ok thing that their child raped or killed a person, brutally assaulted a person, stole a huge sum of stuff they didn't need to live, than they prolly aren't the kind who should be in humanity anyways. Sure, blood related, but you know it was bad, you know that they'll be punished, severe, maybe, but you know there's a punishment, just as the criminal does.

Except most crimes arnt to that nature. If my, say, child stole a candy bar and a soda from a grocery store, I would not be up for having him killed, like you. And almost all people would not be up for that. You think every criminal should be killed. Now trying to prove you point you only are pointing out the worst of the worst, instead of the much much much more common criminal, like the example I just used.

 

[Direwolf]

Except most crimes arnt to that nature. If my, say, child stole a candy bar and a soda from a grocery store, I would not be up for having him killed, like you. And almost all people would not be up for that. You think every criminal should be killed. Now trying to prove you point you only are pointing out the worst of the worst, instead of the much much much more common criminal, like the example I just used.

You are comparing petty theft with the relms of rape, murder, pedefilia, kidnapping. As far as I am concerned those are the four unforgivable crimes, where your actions wantingly and willingly RUIN another human beings life. Far as I am concerned those people should be shot and thats the end of it. Do say that we should limit the most extreme of crimes by the punishments of the lightist of crimes is convulted logic at best.

 

[Makelith]

Perhaps it might excessive to kill all criminals but *shrugs* if there are no criminals, there is no crime, so things would be better seems simple enough.

Chances are you have commited a crime. You've never gone over the speed limit, or even jay-walked? If that is the case, no matter how grossly unlikely, chances are you have broken a law without knowing it. Just because each individual state has its own crazy laws.

Example: Until 2004, there was a law in Minnesota that stated that oral sex was illegal. Should I or anyone else be put to death because recieving oral sex is such a hiddeous crime?

 

[Elemmire]

I don't drive XD so I guess I've never gone over the speed limit. And I do like staying with the cross walks soo.. ya

And if it was a child, like I've said, a child doesn't know better.. and when it comes to petty crimes I guess I agree more with Raesvelg in the sense of three strikes and your out (for people over age of say 18 or 20 or whatnot). First time I'd prolly see forced labor for the person/company they stole from (with an armed guard or two near by just to keep watch), second time I think I'd force him to a therapist to see if that can be countered and learn deep reasons why or whatnot, third time and he's outta there. (this is assuming it's a male of coarse.. just but she and her in the right places if female >.>)

 

[chrishj19]

You are comparing petty theft with the relms of rape, murder, pedefilia, kidnapping. As far as I am concerned those are the four unforgivable crimes, where your actions wantingly and willingly RUIN another human beings life. Far as I am concerned those people should be shot and thats the end of it. Do say that we should limit the most extreme of crimes by the punishments of the lightist of crimes is convulted logic at best.

You don't read do you?