Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong

Made popular on: 
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 8:26pm


Comments

 
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 7:56pm
HighGuy11 Says:

iv'e read this exact quote word for word in like at least 5 different places. and heard a bunch of ppl say it. i mean its a really good thought, just not 2 original

 
 
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 8:37pm
Doublepa14 Says:

why do you killl people to show people killing is wrong

-The Government

 
 
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 9:01pm

It's not to show people that killing is wrong. It's to get rid of dangerous people that have no place among the living. If you kill someone with malice aforethought then I for one don't want you living and having a chance at becoming part of society again.

Some times people do things that are so bad that that we don't want them stealing our air by breathing it. So we kill them. We need to kill more. I think every person convicted of first degree murder or first degree rape should be executed immediately. Nothing wrong with a little Chlorox in the gene pool.

 
 
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 9:48pm
frumpy Says:

because if we don't kill them we have to pay for them to live in better comfort than those who live in third world countries...would you rather fund an inmate or a starving child in Africa?...not that you get a choice but I'd rather keep that tax money and send it so someone who deserves it

 
 
Tue, 04/13/2010 - 3:10pm
jwelihinda Says:

These are preposterous arguments. Are you (frumpy) calling for the death penalty of everyone who is incarcerated? We take the money that funds taxes and send it to Africa, and do away with the "comfort" of prison life for all inmates?

The reason for the penal system is the idea of rehabilitation: the potential to change and get better in all of us. Malice aforethought doesn't just cover first degree murder. Are you (OolieWonderslug) saying that we should kill people that drive drunk and kill, as well as undiagnosed schizophrenics that kill?

No, we shouldn't just go around taking an eye for an eye, because that will lead to a social blindness, rather than awareness of the problems. People can learn, and change.

 
 
Tue, 04/13/2010 - 3:41pm
frumpy Says:

Where the fuck did you pull the word incarcerated from in this post?...I'm talking about killing off those who commit several homicides,those who are serial killers, etc. (direct threats to the lives of others). This post is about killing people who kill others, not any and every common criminal. Sure, let's help everyone in the world, because we've all shown that it's possible, right? No, we haven't. The day we show that, I'll personally fund every murderers rehab, given that I have the funding. Until then, I'll spend my money on those more deserving of my empathy. Sure, some murderers do have problems outside their control. Some just don't care about anyone other than themselves, and I'd be doing a greater service by taking their comfort away and giving it to the child in Africa that isn't strong enough to stand because he/she is deathly ill and malnourished. We're socially blind as a society with or without the death penalty anyways.

 
 
Tue, 04/13/2010 - 5:13pm

sorry but i'm for the death penalty in all honesty, I grew up in texas, my loyalty is in texas, and I just grew up thinking that someone shouldn't get a free room and meals for killing someone but kill someon who has proven to be scum. however just because you kill doesn't mean your scum, there a plenty of valid reasons to kill.

 
 
Tue, 04/13/2010 - 10:24pm
jwelihinda Says:

Incarcerated means to put someone in jail. Read a book. The dictionary is a good start. You wrote "if we don't kill them we have to pay for them to live in better comfort than those who live in third world countries...would you rather fund an INMATE or a starving child in Africa?". If they are inmates, it means they are incarcerated. You just kept talking, you didn't acknowledge my argument, which makes me think I shouldn't waste time on your close-mindedness; but that is how you feel about killers, and I want to be different from you. So let me reiterate for you.

Where do you draw the line? Who should you give the death penalty to? The guy before you mentioned malicious aforethought, which covers a lot of types of killing, which makes me think he doesn't really know the law, and wanted to put in big words to sound smart.

As for you, Frumpy, where do you draw the line? What gives anyone the right to kill? You've already taken away a killers life when you give him consecutive life sentences. Why do you need to pull the plug? To save money? You want to kill people to save money? And you feel justified because you call them scum and give that money to impoverished people? How extreme of a crime does one have to commit so you can rest your conscience over killing them?

I think the problem with conservatives is that they make you choose between cut and dry choices like, "Would you pay for criminals to be in jail, or give money to impoverished people in Africa"? You can do both. The U.S. Government showed us there is enough money to go around by spending $10 million dollars a month on the Patriot Missile system (and that's being very modest). Think of how that money could alleviate our debt. The problem isn't with criminals being in our jails; jails are where criminals belong.

 
 
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 1:36pm
frumpy Says:

how about you reread what i said. i know what incarcerated means, which is why i stated that we not kill "ANY and EVERY common criminal", meaning the ones incarcerated for offenses other than murder. yes, i know that not every criminal is incarcerated, either, so how about you just assume that i know the justice system and its terms well enough to make an argument so you can actually address the problem i originally posed. the reason why i asked where you took that word from is because i was saying we kill them on the basis that they are murders, not that i suggest we kill off all incarcerated individuals. murderes dont go to prison right away after theyre arrested, hell they don't even have to appear at their arraignment, so when they get convicted we could kill them then shortly after. you're also assuming i would have to rest my conscious after killing someone; i say anyone who takes a life from another unnecessarily forfeits their own. i wouldn't have to rest my conscious over that at all.

to completely obliterate my own case, though, i 100% agree with what you said in your last paragraph. my stance is that of someone who believes that the government is too powerful, deceiving, and the public too separated on this issue to let us make that choice of having both. like i said, were it possible, i would fund every murderers incarceration and rehab. so kudos to you for pointing out the real problem, i was merely stating that, were i not given the choice of both, i would help those innocent of taking others lives first