Retribution

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Despite being a Republican by alignment, I have to say, this is one of those times I'm really sorry that the party retook the White House. Does anyone else notice how George Bush's presidency is mirroring the rise of Chancellor Palpatine's from Star Wars ?[/SIZE][/quote] [size=1]Which finally proves the point that Bush and Republicans are inherently evil. My powers of logic know no bounds. I find it sad that my country continues to give the finger to the UN, and equally sad that the UN can't do anything back. They can "strongly disapprove" of our actions, and "highly recommend" that we change, but until they get some teeth, the GOP will continue to do as they please. Perhaps the Democrats can take back the House of Representatives this time around...[/size]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Someone already pointed this out, but it seems you missed this part of my post: I included that as I do not think drunk driving should get the death penalty. Also, I do support more stringent laws. Any time I have the chance to vote for a change or to voice my opinion on making the laws more strict, I do. But in spite of that support many crimes like murder are given far lighter sentences than the crime warrants. And many of the changes I voted for were not passed. Or the ones I opposed were passed. For example, recently the state of Utah lessoned the charges that can be brought against someone for animal cruelty. Their reasoning, it?s just an animal and jailing someone for hurting an animal is a waste of the taxpayers money. I opposed this change, but it happened anyway. The previous penalty was a fine and up to three months in jail. Now it?s still a fine, but less than before and no jail time. After seeing some of the cruelty I can?t understand how they would think it?s okay just because the one being neglected or beaten is an animal. But that?s another debate altogether.[/quote] [size=1]You support the death penalty because the current laws are not strict enough for you. You have said you would stop supporting the death penalty once there is a better alternative, and considering your only argument it at this point is "The current laws don't cut it," you should fight for stricter laws. If you do this, there is no longer reason for capital punishment to exist. [QUOTE]I support the death penalty because our current system is flawed, but I also support making it a better system to protect the innocent by having stricter laws in place. Like the drunk driving, I always support movements to make the penalty for that crime more severe. Not the death penalty, but much stricter. I also support doing away with some of the plea bargaining that happens letting convicted murderers get lighter sentences, especially when it?s a second offence. To the best of my ability I support changes that would improve our law system.[/QUOTE] Well, "improve" is a relative term, but you can't really do away with the plea/appeal system. It's there to provide a safety net of sorts for innocents who have been wrongly convicted, and to remove that just to make justice "faster" is very irresponsible. [QUOTE]To be frank, working to remove the death penalty seems like a waste of my time as I feel that at present it is better served by working towards improving current laws. Perhaps when they are improved I'll get the chance to then support removing the death penalty as it will no longer be needed.[/QUOTE] Ah, but you can kill two dogs with one bullet here (:p). Working to improve the justice system and eliminating the death penalty aren't mutually exclusive. You could improve the justice system, which would in turn eliminate the need for capital punishment. [QUOTE]I understand as I grew up in a state where it was considered normal to have the death penalty, so it?s hard to imagine not having it.[/QUOTE] But Gavin said that he lives in a stable society where capital punishment is not needed to maintain the fabric of that society. You consider it "normal," and his society proves it "superfluous/unneeded". Honestly, the US needs to get on with the rest of the [developed] world in terms of capital punishment and the metric system.[/size]

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]Stories like indifference are exactly why I have support the death penalty, because over the years, time and time again I keep hearing about such dangerous criminals being let back out only to kill and harm again. And yet on the other hand, if our system was to shape up and at least try to do a better job of keeping them off the streets then I would have no problem with doing away with the death penalty. My sole desire is to see that such people never harm anyone again. So in that respect you and I agree, they need to be locked into a small cell for the rest of their lives. I know our system is not perfect and I know that they are making improvements, but it just gets old seeing the same thing happening again and again. As it really feels like a horrible betrayal of one?s trust in the justice system to protect you. As for what happened to SunfallE?s brother, I remember that all to well. In spite of the fact that before her brother and the other girl were killed, the first three accidents where he had already killed, they still gave him a small 5-15 year sentence and within just three years he was out and driving drunk again. It was maddening to see yet another failure of the justice system to keep someone dangerous off of the streets. And when I say he was driving drunk again, within three months of being released, he was caught driving drunk yet again as it was in the papers. And even though he didn?t kill or cause an accident that time, they still only jailed him for a short period of time. I don?t know if there has been more incidents, but that fool should be behind bars for life after killing five people, not free to keep committing the same crime. Anyway, like indifference, should they improve the laws and start doing a better job of keeping such criminals off of the streets, then I too have no problem with the death penalty being removed. And just to be clear, I?m not implying that drunk drivers should get the death penalty, only that the laws regarding such offenses should be far stricter than they currently are.[/QUOTE] [size=1]So wait... you honestly think this man should be given the death penalty because of killing people while driving drunk? And it sounds like you should be fighting for more stringent laws, not for killing criminals.[/size]

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']On some level I can understand where indifference is coming from. My brother was killed in an accident by a drunk driver. It?s not quite the same, but the person had caused many accidents over the years, killed several people due to driving drunk and yet the system kept letting him back out to get drunk again and kill again. You start to feel like the system is failing you when either murderers are released and kill again or others who have repeatedly proven that they will do dangerous things like driving drunk are allowed to continue to menace society.[/COLOR][/quote] [size=1]I think that's more a failure of the law to enforce increasingly severe penalties for such atrocities. Yes, I guess that constitutes a failure, and perhaps stricter provisions should have been enacted to prevent something like this from happening. However, equating this to the death penalty (don't worry, I know what you mean) is erroneous. You can prevent an alcholic from harming someone just by permanently revoking their license, extremely heavy fines, and required treatment/therapy for their problem. [QUOTE][COLOR=RoyalBlue]Now I?m not saying that the drunk driver should be executed, only that after continuing to drive when they are drunk and causing accidents that kill others they too should be put away for life without any parole. It just seems that there are so many people dying because our law system is not doing a good job of protecting the people. :animesigh [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Perhaps after killing several people driving drunk, life without parole might (barely) be considered an option. However, you're basically calling for the permanent jailing of any kid who gets drunk and by really crappy chance, happens to kill someone. I guess what I mean to say is that in this case, the death is not malicious and entirely accidental, and while that person should certainly get jailtime, I think life without parole is too harsh.[/size]

[quote name='indifference']Actually, many criminals who do post a threat do get back on the streets, and they do kill again. The percentage is small, but it does happen. Even though some of them were originally sentenced to life with out parole. And for the record I was not intending to imply that no criminal felt remorse, some do and some do not. To set things straight, I?m referring to the more hard core vicious criminals not those who given a chance would never harm anyone again. Then I guess we differ on our opinion as to what we considered civilized. To me being civilized means that we do not take the stand that we are better somehow by not going to their level and killing in return. To me it means we have the courage to make sure those who truly are vicious are dealt with in a manner that insures they will never harm another person again. I suspect that you and I will not agree on this point so I?ll just leave it at that. Actually that?s not correct either, being rich doesn?t mean you can?t cut a deal. Often criminals will get a deal by providing information to the police that they want to know. You don?t need money or a fancy lawyer for something like that. As for the other, yes I do know that the rich often get away with stuff that others do not due to money. A fact that is sad as it just shows even more how uncivilized we really are. Or rather how far we have yet to go to become more civilized.[/quote] [size=1]You do realize that the possibility of "escape" still exists when you are sentenced to the death penalty? It all depends on how good of a lawyer you can afford -- the fact that you're on death row as opposed to life without parole doesn't matter much if you have a good lawyer. And killing these people to make the streets safe is ridiculously inefficient. Only ~60 people were executed in 2005, while there are thousands just wasting away on death row. People wait decades before actually being executed, so it's not like you're immediately making the streets "safer" by killing them. Even in the long term, you are executing a very small fraction of criminals, meaning the actual impact on crime is slim to none. [QUOTE]As for allowing the family to set the sentence, you are misunderstanding me at this point. Though a family can request it, I do not think they should have the right to choose the sentence and carry it out. Just because I support the death penalty does not mean I think we should skip following the legal procedures, everyone is entitled to a trial by peers.[/QUOTE] I think he means let them request their means of death, and let the courts decide on it. [QUOTE]Not once did I say they can?t learn from their mistakes, and that is my mistake in not being more clear. People who are sentenced to the death penalty have often committed more vicious crimes than others and often a psychological evaluation will show that they should not be back among the regular population. And those are the type of people who will kill again if given a chance.[/QUOTE] While I'm anti-death penalty, I'd be extremely careful with "rehabilitating" and releasing murderers. That can get you into deep water, and fast. [QUOTE]As for your colorful chart, so nice of you to take the moral high ground of others are more [I] civilized [/I] just because they do not use the death penalty.[/QUOTE] You know how we think death by hanging from 60 years ago is uncivilized now? Well, it's the same dynamic, they're just 60 years ahead this time. [QUOTE]I could say the same, thank you for giving those wonderful members of society an incentive to come and live in your country as they know they can escape being punished for their heinous crimes. You?ll clothe them, feed them and provide them a nice comfortable little cell so they can live the rest of their lives knowing that on some level they got away with what they did.[/QUOTE] You think it uncivilized to respect the human rights of even a murderer? I think that admirable. When you can forgive them (to an extent) of what they did and not take their lives no matter what they've done, that's truly civil. Life in jail seriously sucks, and no one's really grasping the magnitude of [i]the rest of your life.[/i] Let's say someone is 30 years old and gets life without parole. That's approximately fifty years of their lives they are stuck in a jail without the ability to do anything with their lives. Do you comprehend that? Even being trapped within your own house for the rest of your life would drive you insane. [QUOTE]You along with so many others are misunderstanding the reason the death penalty is even used. It has never been a tool to reduce crime rates. It is a tool to keep murderers from killing again.[/QUOTE] But that's the thing -- you only kill a few every year. Therefore, it is not effective in keeping those murderers from killing again. By the time they're executed, they've sat in jail for at least ten years, appealing for life without parole so they can keep their lives. At that point, is it not really a matter of if they're getting out again or not, but more of a matter of if you want to kill them or let them live the rest of their life in jail. [QUOTE]And contrary to popular belief, lots of things are being done to help reduce poverty and improve education.[/QUOTE] Oh, for another debate I suppose. [QUOTE]But as you already pointed out, many of the more richer members of society just use their money to buy their way out of getting in trouble, so even though they were educated and not poor, they still murdered others. Sounds like a contradiction to me to say that more education and less poverty would help when those who are not poor and have an education murder as well.[/QUOTE] He is saying that the death penalty is in favor of "the haves" and effectively preys on "the have-nots". More education and less poverty would also reduce the crime rate, because statistically speaking, many murderers fit that description. But he was pointing out the bias apparent in a system contrived to stop murderers from murdering again, when you can buy yourself a ticket to life without parole.[/size]

[QUOTE=sakurasuka][FONT=Arial][size=1]I stand by the idea that Capital Punishment is neccesary in those states [i]because[/i] of a higher murder rate. But either one's an empty argument. Chicken or the egg, people. [/size][/FONT][/QUOTE] [size=1]It's really not the chicken or the egg. Capital Punishment has existed for quite a while, and it has done nothing to stop homicide. [IMG]http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/i/homiciderates.gif[/IMG] Capital Punishment is obviously doing nothing to stop homicide.[/size]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]So, who's to say that maybe for some people the fact that there is a death penalty makes someone think twice about commiting a crime. Maybe there would be less rapes if rapist were given harsher penalties as well.[/color'][/font][/quote] [size=1]Perhaps it deters one or two people, [quote name='FBI Preliminary Uniform Crime Report 2002, June 16, 2003']According to the FBI's Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002, the murder rate in the South increased by 2.1% while the murder rate in the Northeast decreased by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all executions since 1976; the Northeast accounts for less than 1%.[/quote] but the numbers speak for themselves.[/size]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]So I'm still not sure how I feel about the death penalty. I just think that there needs to be something to deter people from becoming violent enough to be considered for the death penalty.[/color'][/font][/quote] [size=1]For the last time, [B]the death penalty is not a deterrent.[/B][/size]

[quote name='sakurasuka][FONT=Arial][size=1]It's a step foreward if you are able to find a better alternative.[/size'][/font][/quote] [size=1]But if no better alternative exists, that would not be a step forward. Finding another alternative is a step forward to you [i]once a better alternative is presented[/i]. Until then, the claim makes little sense. [QUOTE=sakurasuka][FONT=Arial][size=1]In my opinion, jail isn't exactly as torturous as people make it out to be. You have food, clothes, TELEVISION for goodness' sake. I mean, why should these people be allowed to continue living thier lives? Besides, as long as someone is alive they're a threat. As long as they have the ability to move thier limbs, they can escape or get paroled.[/size][/FONT][/QUOTE] Imagine you are confined to your house for the rest of your life. [b]The rest of your life.[/b] You can't leave your house and your friends can't come over. You will never go on with your life, and you are doomed to die within your house. Your life has no meaning, and you slowly descend into depression after the first decade inches by. I think you're not quite grasping the gravity of [i]the rest of your life[/i]. And it's not like the death penalty is a sure thing either. You sit on death row for decades, and if you win an appeal, you're free (or you get life). They don't take you out back and put a bullet in your head once you've been found guilty -- it's a long process, and the probability exists that you won't get the death penalty. Therefore, I don't see it as a valid point. And they can escape from jail? Unless it's via the legal process, I think you're being unreasonable.[/size]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]These things aren't nearly common enough to justify putting cops in schools. They are one offs, really, even if they have happened a bit more frequently than they have in the past. For every school that has a shooting, a thousand more never even have a gun on the premises. It's not gonna happen.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote] [size=1]Very true, but there are cops in particularly troubled high schools. I know in Washington, D.C., many public schools have metal detectors you pass through, as well as police within the school. I think this is more to preempt gang violence than anything else, though. But the places where school shootings like Columbine occur have never experienced violence before, so there's no way to really stop things like this from happening. Except gun control.[/size]

[size=1][url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0609280159sep28,1,142538.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true][b]Full article here.[/b][/url] I'm not sure if everyone has been following the news as of late, but the US Congress just passed a bill that redefines Common Article 3. I must say, I'm slightly shocked someone hasn't posted a thread on it. [quote name='Chicago Tribune']The bill shields U.S. officials from prosecution under the War Crimes Act retroactively to 1997, when the original law was passed criminalizing violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[/quote] Personally, I think this a disgusting move made by the President. The passing of this legislation speaks volumes about our President -- immunity from the War Crimes Act, as well as the ability to basically torture detainees to obtain confessions. Well, I'll shut up for now. What does everyone think about it?[/size]

[QUOTE=Lunox][color=dimgray]I can't help but think that the minors these guys would be preying on are just as stupid, if not stupider. Let's make a show where we pretend to be pedophiles and then nationally humiliate the dumb tweens who agree to meet them! Do you see what I'm trying to say?[/color][/QUOTE] [size=1]...No. One is naivety and stupidity, and one is calculated maliciousness. One is sad, and the other disgusting. Not the same case at all.[/size]

[size=1]Might I recommend we have some worm matches soon? This is the OB Worm Tournament, yet only a few matches have been with worms. I'd suggest something like two people from completely separate brackets get paired up with the corresponding two opponents from those separate brackets as a "team" and make a worm like that. Hm. That was confusing, so I don't suppose you understood what I meant.[/size]

[quote name='sakurasuka][size=1']Capital Punishment isn't ideal, but it's a better alternative than life without parole. When given the two options, life without parole just isn't good enough. And since there really are no other options, CP, while flawed, is the best bet as of yet.[/size][/quote] [size=1]Then why would it be considered a step forward if the new law would be more flawed than the current? Logically, that would seem like a step backwards.[/size]

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Well as the phrase was coined, "sex sells" and Ms Salma Hayek is definitely a very attractive woman. However like so many things in the media, when something become gratuitous it loses it's affect, for instance how many of us don't even blink when someone is shot on TV any more ?[/size][/QUOTE] [size=1]I dunno, it depends on how graphic the violence is. But I think sex appeal still sells, no matter how much of it we are bombarded with. Just because all companies advertise with attractive models doesn't mean that the public eventually becomes desensitized to that sex appeal. People still buy products promoted by young and beautiful models, not "average" people.[/size]

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']It would be a step forward if we stopped the death penalty entirely. I do not find life without parole to be the adequate alternative to it so.. I disagree with you.[/color][/quote] [size=1]A step forward by discontinuing capital punishment? I thought you were pro-capital punishment, so how could you consider an end to what you believe in a step forward? And if you think discontinuing capital punishment is a step in the right direction (assuming forward is the right direction in your opinion), but you don't think life without parole is good enough, what would you suggest?[/size]

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]Sigh. I was pretty clear about the government not being the same as normal, everyday people part right? It's hard to be any clearer dude. [/color][/quote] [size=1]The concept is the same, except in this analogy, the mother is not the same as her child. [QUOTE][color=crimson]...neutralized so he could not commit any further actions to harm the public[/color][/QUOTE] Jail... [QUOTE][color=crimson]...still has to pay the price for the actions he has already committed...[/color][/QUOTE] ...for life without parole. [QUOTE][color=crimson][Taking your life] is a really effective way to neutralize people too.[/color][/QUOTE] Why execute them when they can be effectively neutralized, and for a lower cost, with a life sentence?[/size]

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]No. You are not the government and you do not have the responsibility it does. The rules that apply to a common citizen do not always apply to the massive machine that rules him and 300 million of his peers.[/color][/QUOTE] [size=1]So it doesn't strike you as hypocritical when a mother tells her child not to hit people with sticks, but when the child does so, that mother hits him with a stick to punish? [QUOTE][color=crimson]Uncontrolled violence is excluded from civil society. Violence brought on by trained personnel for a purpose- soldiers, police officers, executioners- who are in service of the state and it's mission is different.[/color][/QUOTE] Right, so it can be assumed that the attacker is excluded from civil society... "From this, it can be inferred that violence is excluded from civil society except under emergency/self-defense conditions." ...and that the victim defending themselves via violence is still part of civil society. Basically, I think what the quote is saying is that if the violence is not used only during self-defense, you are being irrational. For example, if a robber were to mug you, but you beat him up so that he couldn't rob you, but after you neutralize his ability to hurt you, you decide to just kill the robber, you are being irrational. [QUOTE][color=crimson]It doesn't have to be. It's a equal punishment and does not need to be anything more than that.[/color][/QUOTE] It was more an offhand remark than anything else. I know alot of people like to say "if I knew I got the death penalty for murder, I wouldn't," but the statistics refute that pretty thoroughly.[/size]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I hear the argument on how its wrong to take a life and yet we shy away from punishing those who do, or even making sure they can?t ever do so again.[/quote] [size=1]So it's right for the government to disapprove and punish those who take lives, but then take a life to deal justice? Does anyone see the contradiction? Here's another point. [QUOTE]A civil society is one where disputes are settled by reasonable means. From this, it can be inferred that violence is excluded from civil society except under emergency/self-defense conditions. As for self-defense: Once you've rendered you opponent helpless and you have the means to maintain him in that condition, then the emergency prerequisite to the use of violence no longer exists. At this point, to kill your opponent would be irrational from the standpoint of civil society. The death penalty is a violent act and it is not administered under emergency/self-defense conditions. Ipso facto: Those who would engage in the action of capital punishment are either uncivilized or irrational.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I think part of the problem with crimes is that people know that they won?t be punished severely. Or even if they commit murder there is a chance they will be back on the streets again. I hear others say how other countries don?t have the law, but they don?t bother to explain what a punishment is for say murder. Do they let them out? Or is it a life sentence?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the punishment is life without parole, but I might be wrong. Either way, they must be doing something right; they have less violent crime (homicides, primarily). That also proves that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent. [QUOTE]It?s easy to say the Death Penalty is wrong without bothering to come up with a more viable solution. And until our law changes to make the punishment more fitting for the crime, and by fitting I mean murder gets life without parole, then I think the law should stay.[/QUOTE] Coming up with a viable solution? It's called life without parole, and we have that in the States already. I'm also a bit confused by the last sentence... until our law changes to make murder get life without parole, you support the death penalty? Why?[/size]

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. It should come as little surprise to anyone that I oppose the death penalty in every way, shape and form. When a society begins to activity kill it's own citizens for the crimes they have committed, then in my mind that's a step backwards in civilisation rather than a step forward, regardless of a person's crimes, nobody has the right to sentence another person to die. Personally I advocate rehabilitation where possible, and full life sentences where rehabilitation is not possible. I know some people will read that and think that it is unrealistic to confine every capital offender for their entire lives, from an economic point of view and perhaps even a humanitarian point of view. However, when we began activity looking at those fallen members of our society as simply a financial drain that could be more easily removed with a quick execution, then I do think we've become rather cynical and cold-hearted.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [size=1]It's scary, almost. You and I agree, almost word for word. However, I think that rehabilitating a murder is a pointless process. If they are rehabiilitated, are they actually fit to leave jail? Is that fair? Anyway, it actually costs less to jail someone for life than to give them the death penalty. The economic drain is coming from those who are seeking the death penalty.[/size]

[size=1]ishdatmarcus, vegeta rocker, read the [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=52171][b]Art Studio Rules[/b][/url]. Explain what you mean by "I like it," or "I think it's great". Those comments are empty and do not help the artist at all.[/size]

[size=1]Perhaps you're mistaken as to how things work in the Art Studio. This thread would be allowable if you just posted the videos (or links to them, rather) in here instead of linking us to your blog. I'll give you the chance to link to the videos and remove the blog link, but if you don't, I'll just close the thread.[/size]

[QUOTE]I found out about this event whilst reading a fictional novel, which drew on real historical happenings from the attack on Nanking. I became very interested in this event in history, especially due to my love of Japan and it?s culture. While I knew it had been criticised many times over for how it?s army handled prisoners of war, I was in no way prepared for the facts put to me in Iris Chang?s chilling account, a book entitled ?The Rape of Nanking?.[/QUOTE] [size=1]Try to use the word "I" less. While you don't actually use it to the point of annoyance, it's good to cut down on them in an article for the sole reason it's not about you. The word "I" excludes the reader. [QUOTE]However, one has to wonder why the western world never did anything to stop what was happening.[/QUOTE] Make this line more scathing; ex: "wonder why the western world watched the massacre of thousands". I would also recommend adding in more adjectives in other places to add to the emotion of the article. You've done very well in recounting the events, but the picture you've given us is black and white (if you get what I'm saying). Aside from that, try not to make it a synopsis of Nanking, but an article that offers a new point of view on it. I would recommend you discuss the reprocussions of these actions and/or how it is portrayed now. Pretty good, though. I wish there were more writers like you for my school's paper.[/size]

[QUOTE=makuno]If only I hadn't punched my printer...I could have. :animedepr Sorry... ~Camui[/QUOTE] [size=1]Please do not post with nothing to say. It is regretable that you punched your printer, but if you have nothing to contribute, do not post saying so.[/size]

[size=1]Read the [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/rules.php][b]Official OtakuBoards Rules[/b][/url] as I told you in the PM I just sent you. Double posting within minutes of the original post does nothing except make you come off as obnoxious. Thread closed.[/size]