Well, it's not like I'd do this to someone who didn't deserve it. That's what separates me from them; while they hurt others to satisfy themselves, I would hurt them to achieve a universal balance. Karmic justice.

Should we have spared people like Hitler, Mussolini, or Saddam just to uphold some moral standard? Or what about some people who weren't as significant as these dictators, like Tsutomu Miyazaki (The otaku killer), Seung-Hui Cho, or Nathan Gale? Should all of them been spared for the sake of being "civilized?"

You're making it sound like I propose we tell them that was bad and then let them go back into society, thats not what i'm saying at all. Karmic justice is bullshit, actual justice is better.

Its not justice to cruelly torture someone for their crimes, besides who decides how deserving a crime is? If you steal do we cut your hand off? If you rape do you proceed to cut off your genitals and then leave you to be publically stoned? Or leave you to the dogs? Is it going to be you to decide who deserves what punishment? That sounds like a fantastic form a goverment.

I would have added more, but I feel like talking to my girlfriend so i'm going to split.

**** son, its like you a fascist an a hippie an the same time.

good luck wif dat.

But why would you want these people killed unless they have done anything directly to you? And if you did really want them killed then why didn't you go and kill them yourself?

And can somebody please explain to me what Mussolini actually did that was so evil, because I'm yet to hear a proper explanation. Yes he fought on the same side as Hitler, but the US and UK fought on the same side as Stalin who was possible worse.

I never said it should be me who decides these things. This is what I believe. If I WERE in a position of power and was allowed to pass a sentence on these people, you better believe I'd send them to the same hell they caused.

You and me have two different ideas of what justice is. I think of it as an eye for an eye.

I dunno how to respond to this bastardized use of the English language, but I'll try.

...... nope, I can't.

You're right. Maybe I should be the one to have killed these people. I should have just got in my truck and drove all the way from Missouri to Virginia Tech and confronted the killer. Granted, I have no weapon nor the liscense to have one, and have no experience with guns, but HEY! I play mother****ing GTA, bitch, I can bust a cap wit da best of them!

I'm not in a position of power to decide what should happen to them. That's why.



I'd rather have a fascist judicial system that doesn't give rapist a chance to taste life again than a democracy where a lawyer can find some little loophole to exploit to keep a rapist from serving a few years in prison. And I'm pretty sure the victims of said rapists would want the same thing.

The problem I have with this post is that all of those people were immediate threats and therefore treated as so. The reason Nathan Gale was shot was for immediate safety. Had the circumstances been different he would have been apprehended in a less violent fashion and probably be faced with time in prison and possibly a correctional facility. Same goes for pretty much everyone you listed. Had we managed to catch Hitler in a safe and timely manner he would've had a fair trial to determine his penalty. Thats how the system works.

this thread is nuts.

i agree you cant fight hate with hate...

however this is a circular argument that really is based on your morals.

It does not matter what is morally appropriate, rather what is functionally correct.

And I guess rape is just natural selection.

If you're attractive and vulnerable, you had it coming, right?

Its the same kinda goverment Iraq had under Saddam Hussein. You know, the guy who we shouldn't have done anything about because Iraq was doing just fine?

And theres no safety issues when it comes to rapists?

I'm gonna tell you the truth, I'm not a big conservative, especially when it comes to capital punishment. But rapists and child mollestors are the biggest scum of the earth, my position on that is pretty personal. A simple tap on the rist aint gonna cut it.

I dont believe in the death penalty, but I believe in a hard punishment for people who commit the worst of crimes, rape and murder. One problem with America is that we've become way too soft. We think we can rehabilitate people who simply can't be rehabilitated, you can't rehabilitate someone with pedophiliac desires just like you cant rehabilitate someone with homosexual desires or any other sexual preference they have, if its there its there forever. We've given a lot of child rapists a free ride, especially in Vermont.

So yeah, I'm all for Jessicas Law.

this is true, sexual criminals have the highest repeat offender rates of any crime.

My idea of punishment for repeated sex offenders is simple.

We should give them two choices, life without parole or castration.

Ooh, I like that. Better than my ideas.

Voice and boob sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N wait...I forgot that republicans can't be *** because its evil AIDS LOLZ!

Lets take a good long look at this people.

Sorry, thats where I quit taking you seriously, and tell me what happens if you convict someone thats been framed to have their genitals cut off or be thrown to the wolves? Are you just going to say 'shit happens?' By going to the same measures as they are, you're not much better. You can argue about motives all you want, but motives don't mean shit if you don't act on them.

Where the hell did you pull that one from? I said nothing to point to that at all. I can't see the connection.

What the fuck? Where do you keep getting these replies they make no sense, I do not understand what you're getting at.

You make it sound like we just tell rapist that was very bad and let them off with a warning.

You know, not all gay people walk around fucking guys left and right, they do have self-control i'm sure theres tons of pedophiles who aren't rapists and never will be because they know its wrong.

Christ you two should just go join the bush administration maybe you can get your ignorant beliefs to be accepted as fact and right by others.

I'm not even remotely close to being a republican.

Its not like I'm suggesting we build a hi tech device that monitors everyones sexual preferences and then arrest everyone that is attracted to children, you do have a point.

But if someone is in a state that they will act on those desires, then as long as they have those desires, they will remain a threat. This is why castration is already being practiced by some legal systems and why its a good method. If a guy shoots someone in cold blood, you take away the gun. The principle is essentially the same.

I really don't have a problem with castration on rapists but it may not help. What if they decide to rape with a strap on or use their hands? Its not a for sure get rid of it, it may help in some cases but theres no way to tell just how sick some of these people are. Jail for life would be much better.

Those are worst case scenarios, no reason not to use a method that will mostly work.

I admit, its complicated, because rape isnt just about lust and sexual drive, some do it because they love being in control of things weaker than them.

As for all that crap you hear about people doing it because they have a lot of stored up anger from having a bad childhood and being mollested themselves so they take it out on others? Well thats just a bullsh*t excuse.

Life in prison will always work, as opposed to castration which one their free will just mostly work. I'd personally feel safer with always.

Don't give us that bull****. Of course Iraq was doing bad under Saddam Hussein, and of course he was a horrible leader who committed horrible atrocities against his people.

That is not why we invaded Iraq.

If it was then we would be in Darfur, hell probably most of Africa, right now saving those people from fates at least as bad as those the Iraqis suffered under Saddam. We would also be in North Korea, Iran, etc, all the countries that have worse political systems than ours.

On a side note, I thought I was the only person who thought Saddam shouldn't have been put to death, until I saw the Henry Rollins show the other day. Even a lot of people who are supposedly against the death penalty seem to think that an exception should have been made for Saddam.

I'm not republican. So I can have as much nasty buttsecks as I want.

look at the bold words.

Heres what I'm gonna do, its my fault this went off topic. So........

No more talking about the war on this thread. Instead I will post my response on a thread where its relevent, and we can continue our discussion there.

At least thats what I have in mind, just to be on the safe side I sent ethan a PM to make sure its ok.

Yeah but still its pretty hypocritical to go I never said it would be me, then go on to talk about if it was you.

I'm kind of so-so on the insanity plea, I mean if someone murdered/rape/anything like that and they plea insane, well they could be but that doesn't mean they should be allowed out. Maybe some therapy so they're not a danger to their cellmates or selfs, but other than that they should stay in jail however in case of a more petty crime like if someones a kleptomaniac, therapy should be completely allowed to get them out of it because its what they need and it could possibly cured, and its not really that harmful to anyone, just wrong.

I really don't think that changes the fact that alot of the stuff you're saying is terribly hypocritical, its wrong to murder someone but its okay to murder them in order to punish them? An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

Yes, it is ok. If you knock a vase over, does your mommy just clean it up for you? No. If she were a good parent, she'd make you clean it up. That's your punishment for being careless. By executing someone for committing something heinous, you are maintaining order and sending a message out to the rest of society that the government will not tolerate such crimes. Rule by the fear of force.

Actions by themselves are in no way right or wrong, but it's the reasons for those actions that define it's morality or lack of. A man rapes and murders his wife because she didn't put out/she cheated on him/she came out. The man is then sentenced to death for his actions to punish him and to maintain order. Which murder is justified?

Neither.

So, you'd rather have a society that thrives on a weak judicial system

Tolerance will only lead to stagnation.

pour lube all over his windows and put diIdos in his mail box.

I'd rather have a society that thrives on equality and humane service for all to be honest.

We have a winner.

Rule by fear of force? What do you propose a dictatorship? Where courtrooms have the firing squad next to the jury and instead of the ring of a gavel we have a fusillade at the end? Whos going to lead, the "president"? But obviously hes going to be special, even if he say, shoots someone in the face he won't get punished, he'd never have to sometimes stand naked he'd be better he'd be the one to decide who gets killed, thrown to the wolves, and or tortured right?

Yeah but back to the vase, what if you accidentally knock it over? Should you have to pay? Lets say you're hunting and you accidentally shoot someone, you didn't see them but you hit them should you be killed for something you didn't want to have done? No of course not, its not the action its the motive, right? He probably shouldn't get as much jail time as a serial killer, but still putting that murder on the same level as stabbing someone to death? Thats not right.

As the unfan said earlier neither. There is no way a society can progress if were not after the best and most fair decision for every person, were just out for payback.

Its weak because its not a killing machine? It takes strength to be gentle and kind.

That is the single most disgusting and ignorant thing I have ever read. Do we start creating regimes, rules and take away freedom? Lets just piddle away our time trying to make this nation as fascist as possible otherwise we'd all be going to hell right? "What? you're a homosexual? Fetch the rope! We can't tolerate that." People like you make me sad for america.

And one final note; I've been talking about a perfect dictatorship. What do I think a perfect dictatorship is; One person has all the power, but the person knows how to use that power to benefit society and not themselves.

A perfect dictatorship would not tolerate any insubordination; no open group protest against ****. Nothing pisses me off more than to see a bunch of people rallied together protesting against some crappy shampoo that's animal tested, or some protest against some celebrity's prison sentence. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I think it's stupid and pointless to rally together and disrupt the peace when you can just very well talk about it in a small group of people. Unless it's actually for a good cause that benefits humanity (civil rights movement, for example), I think these guys should shut their ****ing traps.

MY perfect dictatorship wouldn't oppress forms of expression that are seen as obscene or vile. If America is so keen on being free, why allow censorship? I think 3 midgets in a threesome with a fat chick while pissing on each other is just as much a valid form of expression as something more tasteful like erotica. If ya don't like it, don't listen to/look at/participate in it.


This is all I have gotten off the top of my head at the moment. I'm really tired, so I'll end with this; I'm not arrogant enough to believe that such a dictatorship will exist or even CAN exist because, as I said, it would need a person who is pretty much emotionally unattached to things and is focused on strengthening civilization. Have you met anyone who had no feelings of greed or ambition, or didn't have any unselfish feelings? If you have, then cheers to you. I haven't. Humans are disgusting, selfish, and greedy beings. We have the power to become better INDIVIDUALLY. As a group, there are too many limits we can't break. We can't cooperate and all coexist in a democracy because there's always some ******* who doesn't want what everyone else wants and we have to waste time compromising. We can't put one person in charge because that person is just going to be as selfish and ambitious as the rest of us, except that our word will not matter.

I guess I'm kind of contradicting myself because I've been preaching all this pro-dictator stuff and now I'm here showing how flawed it is. So just to clear things up;

This is what I believe SHOULD happen, not what I believe CAN happens and WILL happen. It's merely a vision. Kind of like how I want to win the lottery. I believe it should happen, but ****, it ain't.


And one thing, I extended you the courtesy of not calling you ignorant or close-minded. If you would, do the same for me. Otherwise, I'll feel like I'm talking to some liberal-esque teenager with disillusions of a "happy and caring" society, rather than a person with a strong argument with valid points.

Reality check, there is no one like that unless you ask your jesus to come down and dictate and govern it by the bibles laws where we turn homosexuals to salt and put woman below man, that'd be fantastic. There is no person that wouldn't be oppressive and disconnected, so you can bash me for stupid fantasies of a 'happy and caring' goverment all you want, but at least mine are don't revolve around a non-existent and never going to exist person.

Yeah but exactly how bad of a crime do you have to commit to be put to death? And what are you going to do if you kill the wrong person, a simple oops! Better luck next time? I think the people for responsible for the hanging of the innocent man should be punished, after all they killed someone who didn't deserve it right? Society as a neverending cycle of death and punishment would be awesome.

Nonetheless, we do punish people for accidents. How would you accidently knock over a vase? By not looking where you're going. How would you accidently shoot someone? By, for one, pointing your gun at someone, and/or not making sure that he/she wasn't the one you wanted to hit. Carelessness is already punished today. We just don't send people to death row for it. And contrary to what you're probably thinking, I don't invision the complete genocide of all people stupid enough to make an "OOPSIE!"[/QUOTE]

If you killed someone because you weren't paying attention you should just get your license taken away? That seems to be getting off lightly, thats completely carelessness and accidentally shooting someone, would not be pointing your gun at someone, you'd have to be blind or cheney to do that. I meant hunting, in the woods, in camo you aim for a deer or something you miss and you nail someone you had no idea was there that blended in perfectly with there surroundings, honestly would you place that next to careless driving? I sure as hell wouldn't.

As the unfan said earlier neither. There is no way a society can progress if were not after the best and most fair decision for every person, were just out for payback.

That makes no sense, its only not payback because you have power? You have any idea how ridiculous that it is? I re-quote Ghandi, "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." since you obviously didn't grasp that the first time, i'll explain it. If you keep going around killing someone for killing someone, are you really showing your people that that won't be tolerated? No, you're showing them its okay to kill if someone does you wrong.

Yeah, I really don't know what to say that, I think it speaks for itself.

Yeah were in that state because of a lack of tolerance, OH WAIT!

Also, I don't understand how if we follow my guidelines for a goverment it will be corrupt, the only opinion in here i've been super strong about is how wrong and counter-productive the death penalty is.

I don't think I need to reply to that, the fact you don't think a happy and caring society is necessary says enough.

And for the record, i'm so tired of liberal being used as an insult, its not. I have one question though, how weren't my points strong or valid? Your points are full of contradictions and so delusional and fantasy driven I don't understand how you could even consider them valid. You've proved me right several times in those same contradictions. Tolerance isn't going to be the death of a country, if anything it will save it.

read the bold parts.


OH AND BY THE WAY. ITS OUR COUNTRY'S INTOLERANCE THAT BRINGS UPON STAGNATION.

I don't know why I bother. You people are just going to twist my words to make me sound like some blood thirsty neo-nazi ****-head.

the part you don't understand is... THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SOUND LIKE.

Shes right you know, have you been reading what you're posting? "Tolerance will only lead to stagnation.", "Rule by fear of force.", (On courts being turned into a killing machine) "You make it sound like a bad thing", etc.

You're right. What I am saying is pretty evil and unbelievable. I KNOW! Why don't we all pick daisies and put them in each others hair, go hump a few trees, and then sing along in a circle around a bon fire songs about peace, love, and acceptance. We'll pass a bong pipe around too just to make things interesting! That'd be ****ing awesome! Granted, true peace is a lie since humans are incapable of living without conflict, but what the hell. We'll be blazed off our asses to even care.

no dude, that's fucking gay. not everyone who wants peace through UNITY is a fairy. get over it.