HeyYou

It's not my reasoning. I'm not that old or that smart. Determinism isn't fatalism. What it might do is promote compassion and decrease hatred. But it wouldn't stop you fearing a deranged killer. You can clearly see that having a judicial system that promotes safety and security for the majority is a good thing, even if you think there is more to free will than meets the eye and we might all fundementally just be at the whim of universal soap. See, that's the trouble with arguing human behavior. There really isn't any way to PROVE anything. Sure, A might just be 'asserting', but then, so are the folks that put forth the theory that you apparently buy into. If that theory were ever widely accepted, then it would become pointless to have trials for any particular crime, as no one could be found guilty, as it was pre-determined that they were going to take the action in question. I don't find that very comforting. (nor do I buy it.) I am sure if I tried to explain to the cop that I was speeding, because it was predetermined that I do so..... he would laugh all the harder as he wrote me the ticket...... In any event, as a society, we MUST hold folks accountable for their actions. (unless, of course, their action was taken as a part of their course of work as some elected official...........:D) Do the crime, do the time. Unfortunate that we seem to be getting away from that the last couple decades...... (and look where it has gotten us.... but, that's a debate for another thread. :D)

Folks that post things of that nature don't last long here...... Given that the staff seems very sensitive about just what constitutes "trolling", as opposed to constructive criticism, I refrain from the practice completely...... I like my account here, and would rather like to keep it.... For the mods that I have responsibility for here, on one, I accidentally disabled comments..... that was just a minor update to another mod though, that I was working on with another member..... and was requested by a selection of folks on the Beth forums. The other mod that I deal with here, it just hasn't been a problem. I LOVE to read the folks that get the mod working, and then thoroughly enjoy it. I don't recall any truly trollish comments on there.... maybe someone else saw them first, and made them go away, or, maybe I just don't take it as personally as some of the other folks that upload their mods. Basically, if you upload something, there IS going to be folks that don't like it. 99% of those folks will just move on to some other mod. The 1% minority, however...... will post something stupid, get banned, piss off a modder, and possibly cause them to NOT upload anything else, and/or take down any/all of their mods currently up. If yes gonna upload something, better be prepared for the trolls to come out, 'cause, quite frankly, they will.

Had the old man killed her, I would have killed him myself. No trial, no jury, no "humane" lethal injection. He woulda got a bullet in the head for his troubles. He would no longer be a threat to anyone. And, of course, I would go to prison. At that point, I would not have cared. Maybe the state would execute me, as it most certainly would be premeditated murder, and taken me out of my misery. (misery that I would NOT be feeling because I killed someone) I really wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact, I might even go so far as to forgo any number of appeals. Jury trials, by their very nature, have a certain element of chance in being wrong. However, FAR more people get away with murder, for some truly stupid reason, than innocents get executed. (19 proven innocent since 1978, I think it was.... I don't recall if all/any of them were executed, I know at least a couple were.) All depends on who gets the better/more dedicated lawyer. As for the convicted criminal funding the victim in some fashion, I wholeheartedly concur. Too bad that making the convicts do any manner of work has been deemed unconstitutional.... it's a violation of their rights...... Personally, I think the convicts have too many rights. The very fact that you ARE in prison should nullify ANY rights they have. They are in prison for a crime they committed. They gave up ALL of their rights at that time. @Ghogiel: So, by your reasoning, no one is responsible for ANY of their actions? If that is the case, why do we have a justice system at all??

If the victims rights hadn't been violated, the criminal wouldn't be in a position to worry about the death penalty in the first place. It seems a fair few folks are all for making sure the criminals rights are upheld, while the victim is ignored. Murderers take out a man. He happened to be a father, and sole bread winner for the family. The criminal has all sorts of folks/organizations making sure HIS rights aren't subsequently violated, meanwhile, back at the ranch, the family that now has no income, is SOL. Daddy/Husband is dead, but, there is NO ONE that will take care of them. They end up losing everything, and then living on welfare. All because the CRIMINAL violated one man's rights, by killing him. My girlfriend was assaulted by a 75 year old man....... she was punched, put in a headlock, and dragged around that way. She now has permanent damage to her neck and shoulders. She is unable to work, or even lift her arms above her head. The old man got a couple months probation, my girlfriend didn't get anything at all. No restitution whatsoever. Now, we are stuck with north of ten grand in medical bills...... And the guy that caused it? He is out walking the streets, a free man.

You seem awfully strongly in favor of the rights of the criminal. What about the rights of the victim that the criminal completely and totally violated? Should there not be redress? And as for "murderer didn't really have a choice", terribly sorry, I don't buy into that horse hockey, and neither does a goodly percentage of psychologists. Sure, you can come up with a long list of names that say "this is so", well, as is typical for studies concerning human behavior, I can come up with an equal or greater number that say "no it's not". The drug addict HAS a choice, the rapist HAS a choice, simply don't do it. To say that their upbringing/experiences/social pressure FORCED them to do it is poppycok. Given that reasoning, there shouldn't be ANY laws, or cops, or prisons, as no one is really responsible for their actions. Which is what it really all boils down to. That trend in thought is what has brought society to what it is today. A sad shadow of its former glory.

I dont claim to be "better than" anyone. I am not a child rapist, nor do I kill people for reasons other than self-defense, or, in defense of others. (death penalty falls into this category as well.) Certainly not because he only has 50 bucks in the drawer, and I need 75 for my next fix....... I do not shoot to wound, I shoot to KILL. A DEAD assailant is no longer a threat. Maybe I am jaded due to age/experience, maybe I am cold blooded, maybe I am just a different flavor of sociopath. In any case, I have my views, and I seriously doubt anyone here is going to convince me to be more 'touchy feely', and 'forgive' the murderers. Not gonna happen. So far as I am concerned, if you are a convicted murderer, you might just as well be dead, as live better than those whose lives you have impacted forever, and absorb tax money..... Screw that.

The killers don't seem to do that..... and those that are indeed mentally 'unbalanced' do indeed get considerations. Still and all, the majority of them kill, have zero remorse, won't be rehabilitated, and if turned loose, will kill again. Personally, I would rather just whack 'em dead, be done with it, and NOT give them the chance to kill again. A fair few of the folks that I am talkin' about killed without a second thought. And for truly stupid reasons. Another vote for the death penalty would be removing said killers from the gene pool.... improve the human race? Hopefully.

For the most part, murderers end up with life in prison. Not much chance of redemption there either....... not to mention recidivism rates...... For folks that kill for just a few bucks, I have zero sympathy for them, and yes, I would happily strap them down, and push the plunger, throw the switch, pull the trigger, whatever. Is that cold-blooded? Perhaps, but, no more so than the killer that robs a shop owner for a few bucks, and then kills him. Or the man that breaks into the family home, rapes the mother, and 9 year old daughter, while the husband, and teenaged daughter is forced to sit and watch, steals their truck, and drives away. I would have absolutely NO problem inflicting a significantly more painful death than what death row inmates are facing now.......

I don't know about you, but, if someone killed one of my loved ones, I would happily sit at their execution, and eat popcorn. It WOULD make MY life better, knowing that the SOB that did this, will NEVER do it again to someone else. Vengeance? Sure, call it whatever you like, I still call it JUSTICE. Why should some lowlife scumbag that killed one of my loved ones get three squares a day, a warm place to sleep, etc.... at MY expense, while my loved one is worm food? I don't have ANY mercy for murderers. None, zero. I don't turn the other cheek. Whack his happy arse dead. Put a smile on my face, and spare someone else the pain of having one of THEIR loved ones forcibly removed from them.

They certainly won't re-offend, and one could debate about saving taxpayer money.... I have seen too many arguments for both sides on that..... one side says "but they spend millions of taxpayer dollars on appeals", Ok, that is probably true, but, it's not like the guys that get life DON'T do the same thing....... I think the biggest problem there is, you can get a retrial/appeal for the stupidest reasons. If the prosecution lawyer farts in the courtroom, that's cause for an appeal. The lawyers are the ones that make the money. Not to mention some of the convicts file appeals simply because they CAN, not that they really expect a different outcome. Yeah, the legal system here leaves quite a bit to be desired....... but, its what we got to work with...... I don't see it changing any time soon, and if it DOES change, it will most likely revert to frontier justice, because the american people got seriously tired of their government bending them over, without benefit of lubricant, and tossed them ALL out on their collective ears. Who says they won't? If they are dead, they are no longer any kind of threat.

They certainly won't re-offend, and one could debate about saving taxpayer money.... I have seen too many arguments for both sides on that..... one side says "but they spend millions of taxpayer dollars on appeals", Ok, that is probably true, but, it's not like the guys that get life DON'T do the same thing....... I think the biggest problem there is, you can get a retrial/appeal for the stupidest reasons. If the prosecution lawyer farts in the courtroom, that's cause for an appeal. The lawyers are the ones that make the money. Not to mention some of the convicts file appeals simply because they CAN, not that they really expect a different outcome. Yeah, the legal system here leaves quite a bit to be desired....... but, its what we got to work with...... I don't see it changing any time soon, and if it DOES change, it will most likely revert to frontier justice, because the american people got seriously tired of their government bending them over, without benefit of lubricant, and tossed them ALL out on their collective ears.

How about we make a more humane prison system then? What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better. Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone. Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world. My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice? Perhaps it isn't justice, but do you think it is okay to take someones life simply due to your emotions? Does that make you any better then someone who kills out of rage? The question should be why they should not be allowed to live. Not why should they be allowed to live. Why do you assume it is an emotional decision? Is that the only possible motivation for the death penalty? How about "Fairness" for instance? You deprive someone of their life, some family of a loved one, whom they may have depended on to support the family, be prepared to give up your own life in return. Sure, it would be better to put them to work, and have them support the living victims of their crime, as a form of restitution, but, it seems the ACLU came to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional to do so..... Convicted criminals have more rights than their victims. What does fairness have to do with it? It is still a emotional decision. An eye for an eye is not fairness. I still propose the thing I proposed in my previous topic. I don't see how it can be considered unconstitutional, and I don't really care about what the US law system thinks is right on the subject. Obviously the US law system isn't working very well with the death penalty. It is not logical to kill captured criminals, that is for sure. The only real argument for it in my eyes is to remove the threat. It seems just as safe, and better for society as a whole, if you lock them up and have them work. Can people quit with the whole "just hang them" thing? I already explained why a long appeal process is required. We have a long appeal process to be sure we don't kill innocents. Do you seriously want to kill criminals so much you are willing to risk innocent lives? I am still a bit confused on what people mean when they say criminals have more rights then their victims. It shouldn't be up to the victims to make legal decisions. That is the entire reason we have a legal system. Well, you could reason that every/any decision was emotional then. So, it's pointless debating it further.

How about we make a more humane prison system then? What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better. Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone. Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world. My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice? Perhaps it isn't justice, but do you think it is okay to take someones life simply due to your emotions? Does that make you any better then someone who kills out of rage? The question should be why they should not be allowed to live. Not why should they be allowed to live. Why do you assume it is an emotional decision? Is that the only possible motivation for the death penalty? How about "Fairness" for instance? You deprive someone of their life, some family of a loved one, whom they may have depended on to support the family, be prepared to give up your own life in return. Sure, it would be better to put them to work, and have them support the living victims of their crime, as a form of restitution, but, it seems the ACLU came to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional to do so..... Convicted criminals have more rights than their victims.

How about we make a more humane prison system then? What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better. Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone. Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world. My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice?

Is it? Or, would they rather "rot" in prison, than be dead? Personally, I just wouldn't have a problem putting a bullet in the head of most killers. I would probably even smile while I did it. If that makes me a 'monster', so be it.

Didn't seem to work so bad in Vietnam, were 90% of the troops were draftees...... :D

I fail to see how. People working for said corporation are getting paid from the funds generated by them. Taxing the corporate income before taking another bite by taxing the individual income is most certainly a double dip. Not to mention the 3rd bite taken out of someone with lots of money who has the misfortune of doing nothing more than dying. Expenses, including payroll.... are subtracting from gross income before taxes are computed....... Corporations are taxed on profit, profit is what's left after ALL expenses (including wages) are paid.

Dear God ..you want some social reject watching your back? No thanks....keep them far away from the military. But if you want to put them to work then put them to fixing the roads ......oh wait we used to do that.....but that was too uncivil of us to actually expect labor that benefited the public. :rolleyes: It used to be an option for various crimes....... I am not suggesting that we put rapists/murderers/etc into the military...... That would just be a silly idea. :D Yeah, they used to make license plates too.... but, for some reason, that was 'unconstitutional'........ We can't force prisoners to do it, but, non-criminals CAN? What's that all about? Our society has some pretty serious issues, brought on in the name of "mercy", or, "political correctness", etc. We are our own worst enemies.

Drop them from stealth bombers. :D

Some folks deserve to be killed for what they have done. However, considering that the average death row inmate spends 15+ years before even coming close to the executioners block, it's really kinda pointless. I don't particularly care for my tax dollars going to support a selection of folks that sit around all day, and watch cable TV, (also at my expense....) get three squares a day, and a warm place to sleep at night, when there are a good collection of folks that haven't committed a crime, that don't have the same thing.... Prisons should become self-supporting. Provide some product for general consumption, either contracted to the state, or, even private corporations. (they obviously need to stay out of the service industry.....) Either that, or draft them into the military...... (give 'em a choice, X number of years in prison, or, X number of years in the military.)

Lets require that THEY go out and sit in the pilots seat for a few missions, and THEN decide which aircraft they would rather have...... making these decisions only by dollars signs is a good way to get good men killed. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flying the 'latest generation' technology, built by the lowest bidder.... (Of course, the shuttle fell into that category as well...... and is the safest form of travel per passenger mile on earth..... of course, no one was shooting at them either. :D) Well it would solve the congressional term limits issue for the short sighted among them..... :whistling: Ok, there it is. Yet another monitor cleaning courtesy of Aurielius........ :D

Lets require that THEY go out and sit in the pilots seat for a few missions, and THEN decide which aircraft they would rather have...... making these decisions only by dollars signs is a good way to get good men killed. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flying the 'latest generation' technology, built by the lowest bidder.... (Of course, the shuttle fell into that category as well...... and is the safest form of travel per passenger mile on earth..... of course, no one was shooting at them either. :D)

Vote not ......then b*tch not. It's your call what to do with your rights, but one thought to mull over...you are making others who do more valuable in the final tally. When given a choice between two terrible candidates, which do you choose? Neither one even remotely represents himself to be aligned with what I think should happen. In all reality, there isn't that much difference between them. Obama continued a fair few republican policies, which I disagreed with when Bush was president. I voted for Obama so that those policies would NOT be continued. Sure fooled me huh? Granted, I do NOT care for the direction the republican party wants to take this country. Their seemingly firm belief that trickle down economics is the answer to our economic woes, flies in the face of reality, where those same policies have done NOTHING good for the economy in the past. Why should we believe that it will be any different this time? Are we really that stupid? (I would like to think not, but, given the american voting publics track record....... well.... let's just say it doesn't inspire confidence.....) And, in typical politician fashion, during an election cycle, it's all about the economy, and all their grand ideas for solving americans troubles. Funny how all that goes out the window the day after the election... then it's back to business as usual, and the screwing of the average american. We have a lower standard of living, fewer rights, more intrusions into our daily lives at the hands of government than we did even back when Bush was in office. This is a trend I see continuing all in the name of "the war on terror". Ok, lemme ask ya this: If the terrorist stated goal is to destroy our way of life, why is it, we are letting our government do it to us, in the name of fighting the same goal? I really wish the american public would wake up, smell the coffee, and get control of the country back from the bought and paid for politicos that run the dog and pony show now. I am not holding my breath on that though. It is going to take some MAJOR catastrophe before the american public actually deigns to get off their collective duff, and DO something.

Yeah, design by committee, NONE of whose members had flown more than a paper airplane..... (I haven't seen any paper helicopters..... <img src="http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=":D">)<br><br>The F-35 introduces some interesting technology, but, being a multi-role fighter, it is a flying compromise. The F-22, which has been canceled now??? Was a dedicated air superiority fighter, FAR better at it's role in air combat. There seems to be some debate on if the electronic doo-dads in the F-35 can actually make the aircraft the equal of the F-22 in air combat. At a distance, perhaps, but, when it gets up close and personal, the F-35 isn't going to stand a chance against its more maneuverable opponents.....

I will believe a corporation deserves the same rights as an individual when Texas executes one. Corporations don't need to vote, they just buy the politicians. Better than having votes. The campaign contributors have more control over who runs, and who wins, than the voters. The Supreme court made a terrible mistake with Citizens United. Even now, there are challenges to that ruling, tough I really don't expect any of them to make any headway. It was too popular a decision for the corporations, and the politicians, and makes way too much money available for campaigns, and pocket lining, to be overturned. A corporation is a business entity. That's it. It should NOT have the same rights, if not more... than the average citizen.