Discussion in 'Teacher Time Out' started by Major, Nov 10, 2009.
Nov 10, 2009
Nov 11, 2009
It is all so sad to me - what a waste of HIS life and all those he killed. And the young man with him. Heartbreaking.
I am not anti-death penalty. Just saddened by the loss of a life and the waste of a life.
I'm not saddened at all. He made his choice. He chose to run around trying to shoot at his exwife. He chose to kill all those people. THEY had no choice. He claimed to be a religious man who died with no regrets -- but he was not. He was a killer who tried to justify his hatred with religion.
I also feel bad for the young man he conned into doing his dirty work. Young people are impressionable. They are easily co-erced. Their lives can be ruined by 1 seriously poor decision.
As screaming liberal as I may be on a lot of issues, I totally support this execution. It was the punishment that fit the crime.
Good riddance, I say.
State sponsored murder is still murder. While I followed this story and agree that what this man did was awful, I refuse to support any murder committed by anyone, particularly anyone who supposedly does it in my name.
Executing people to prevent murder is like having sex for virginity. Not very effective.
The analogy of having sex for viginity does not compare. It is not a logical analogy.
He wasn't executed to prevent murder. He already murdered. He was executed as a punishment for murder.
It was very effective. He has been effectively punished. He will not repeat the offense.
Logic 101. False analogy.
By the way, along with other situations, capital punishment is excluded from the legal definition of 'murder'.
People are entitled to their own opinions regarding the use of capital punishment but as professional educators we should acknowledge that words mean things, words have power.
Capital punishment = murder.
Sorry, there is no way that you can convince me its not. Particularly as I live in a country that, like most G-8 Nations, outlawed the practice in the 1970s because all the studies show that harsher sentences and capital punishment do nothing to prevent crime.
As a result, my socialist tree hugging self, believes that REVENGE does NOT = justice, and there is no way you can convince me it does.
ETA - I never took logic 101, maybe that's my problem. That said, I still believe that murdering people to prove that murder is wrong is nothing but societal revenge and I refuse to have murder committed in my name.
So you think what this man did was awful....... It was much, much more than that.
This person wasn't murdered...... He was executed for killing, murdering innocent people.
Maybe you can explain the "sex for virginity" part of your reply.... I don't get it......
Here's the definition for you. It is kind of like saying 'If you believe in God, then you'll agree with me, therefore if you don't agree with me, you are a godless communist." It is a false analogy.
If a writer uses a comparison that is very weak, inappropriate, or based on a misunderstanding, then s/he is using false analogy. An analogy (comparing something known to something unknown in order to explain or understand the unknown) is one of the most useful rhetorical devices a writer can employ. However, if the comparison is based on just a few similarities (ignoring heaps of differences) or if the comparison is based on a misunderstanding of a term or idea (ambiguity), we then have a false analogy.
"College is much like high school. Each has 50 minute classes. Each has a different teacher for different subjects. So there is no difference between them."
You certainly have the right to feel any way you want about it. No one is trying to change how you feel. But just the same, I have the right to feel the way I do. Since this happened in the US, and it followed US law, I support it. If citizens of the US don't agree, they will ban together and change the law.
I happen to live near where the execution took place. Usually there are a ton of protesters. Not today.
Executing people to prevent murder is like having sex for virginity. Not very effective.
Huh? Is there a misprint here? I don't get it.
I thought having sex meant you weren't a virgin? Have things changed? Or is that a cultural thing?
I see Major and I are not the only ones baffled by the analogy.
I understand some people have very strong views on the matter, and all are entitled to their views. I have no problem with that. I don't mind stating my views, but don't try to push them down other people's throats. I'm glad there is a safe, respectful forum where we can discuss our mutual agreements and differences, and sometimes simply agree that we must disagree.
I don't get it either.... Hopefully CG will explain...
Its useless. Executing someone for killing someone does nothing. It doesn't prevent anyone else from committing the same crime in the future. It doesn't (or shouldn't) make anyone feel better for their own loss.
Much like someone saying they have sex in order to keep other people virgins. It does no good. Its a useless waste of tax payer dollars that serves no purpose other than vengeance.
Last time I checked, the US had a JUSTICE system, NOT a REVENGE system.
You can't speak for anyone who is the widow, brother, sister, mother, father, aunt or uncle, etc. of a victim of this mass murderer. To say it doesn't or shouldn't make anyone feel better is not your place. You have not been in those shoes, don't speak for victims families. They have every right to feel whatever it is they feel without someone telling them how they SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be feeling about his execution or their loss.
I still have no idea what the sex analogy means!
Murder is not the "act of killing". It is the act of unlawful killing.
Capital punishment (in the US) follows a judicial process and is therefore lawful. If it were revenge, a sniper would have assassinated this murderer years ago.
Really? You know I haven't been in their shoes? Thank you for informing me about my life. I come from a police family and members of my family have been violently attacked by criminals. One of my best friends from University was raper and left for dead in her apartment, but hey, clearly you know my life better than I do.
That's YOUR life and YOUR experience. You have no right to say what these victims of this murderer should feel, period! You have NOT been in their shoes.
victim's families reflect
They clearly have their own personal feelings about his execution and we need to respect that. We may or may not agree, but we should never tell them how they should feel about their loss and his execution. Everyone mourns differently and seeks peace and closure differently.
I understand the sex analogy.
Back in My college days it was "fighting (in Vietnam) for peace was like having sex (scre#!%g) for virginity."
Again my question is what should we do?
You have a convicted killing animal!
Does a person who Murders innocent people be allowed to get 3 squares, a bed to sleep in and a roof over their head?
As far as I am concerned HE FORFEITED his right to live by taking innocent lives!
What brings to mind is the pro life vs pro abortion debate.
I find many who are against Capital punishment are pro abortion,
now that does not make sense to me..
Murder implies a malicious and premeditated killing of an innocent person by another.
Someone who is put to death by a legal or military process is said to be executed execute by lethal injection).
If the bible is translated correctly the commandment is "Thou Shall not commit Murder"
it was the Commonwealth of Virginia who executed him in the name of Virginia citizens. The citizens of Maryland, Washington D.C, Louisiana, Alabama and Arizona thank the Commonwealth of Virginia for the execution.
Nov 12, 2009
I believe almost all countries do allow the murder of criminals. They give guns to police officers so that they can kill a person who is taking the life of others.
Is legal execution a deterence? My opinion is that I would think it would be to those who are sane.
It also does remove murderers from the population. Dead people can't kill again, either in prison or out.
Should there be passion on both sides of the debate? I would hope so.
In this particular case, there is no question about what he did. He doesn't argue it himself. He committed the deliberate pre-meditated murders of innocent people. He is a full grown adult. In my opinion, there is no point in keeping him alive in prison.
The problem is that, in my opinion sane people don't murder.
ETA: after re-reading, I realize it is possible my bolding of "opinion" may come across as sarcastic, but that is not my intent, I just wanted to emphasize that this was my opinion, just as the previous poster had emphasized it was their opinion.
Since July 14, 1976 Canada has not had the Death penalty. I am not sure if the murder of a police officer is a Capital offense or not.
As I see in this thread's debate, Our fellow teachers from Canada Follow their Government's stand.
Much of the debate here (in the USA) is whether there is equal justice for the accused "How much justice can you pay for?"
My opinion is each case carries it own set of reasons for or against Capital punishment.
In this case we can use the "old west" reason of "He just needed killing"
We put down Rabid animals and this man lost his humanity when he murdered for "fun"
The fact is, murder is murder. A police officer shooting someone because that person is endangering their lives is one thing (someone was shot in Regina over the weekend by police because he was waving a long barreled shot gun, had fired a shot allegedly and refused to drop the weapon - he is alive in hospital). Do I disagree with that? No. The officer believed her life to be in danger and the man refused to follow several commands from a peace officer.
Had this man been shot in the process of arresting him and killed, I would not disagree with his execution. That said, executing criminals is still more expensive in the long run, isn't a deterrent to others, and does nothing but commit murder to "protect" ordinary citizens who are already safe with the man locked up.
If we decide to play God and decide who will live and die, based on our own criteria, then we are no better than the criminals who commit these crimes ourselves. No living person should decide who should live or die, unless its their life or ours. With him locked up there was no danger to the rest of us, and he would have been there his whole life. Seeking justice, instead of revenge is what makes law abiding citizens better than criminals.
Its also important to note Dave, that the last execution to take place in Canada occurred in 1962. Before that? 1953. So we had executed 2 people in the last 25 years before we banned the death penalty.
Angola, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cote Ivoire, Dijibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Togo,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Macau, Cyprus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, the Philippines, Timor-Leste, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,
Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Isle of Man, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Portugal Romania, San Marino, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vatican City
Bermuda, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Turks and Caicos Islands
Australia, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu
Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela
All countries where the death penalty has been officially abolished. That doesn't even mention countries in which the practice hasn't been practiced in such a long time that capital punishment is considered "abolished in practice".
My dad's sister was murdered by an intruder in her own home. He was killed in prison. That was closure for us,
If you put a murderer to death they will never kill anyone again.
I know this is a volatile subject but would anyone call it murder if someone had shot and killed a Hitler or Stalin while they were in the process of having millions killed? Am I "murdering" some one if I shoot them before they knife/shoot/ or run over me with a car. I think we did it best when we actually had government in the sunshine in the 19th century. Public executions. I mean our govt. does it so it should be public. Imagine the force it had on the populace to see the killer hanging and dying for his/(her?) crime. I hear they took the family for those weekend events. Im guessing it had a real affect on potential killers to actually see what could be their fate if they did terrible deeds. But I would consider life at hard labor for them if we finally emptied our jails of all the petty crimes of smoking dope and using drugs, I want the dangerous and violent ones punished not idiots.
And how is this less political than Santa? or as they say on my sports forum "in before the lock"
I agree with you. So now it becomes a question of the degree of sanity... and we're back full circle to the same basic underlying question. Is it moral to kill someone who willingly and intentionally murders someone?
I won't sugarcoat kill. That's what we do with capital punishment. Are we willing to make the decision to do so? After years of debate, I've decided that I am willing to execute or have someone executed. If someone enters my home with the intent to murder me or my loved ones, I will shoot to kill. If someone willingly and intentionally decides to kill someone, I will rest easy with the decision to put him/her down.
shouldbeasleep.... I agree with you 100%.... Bless you......
I firmly believe in the concept of "refuse to be a victim". To date I've probably taught that philosophy to over 1000 people, mostly women. Many to you........
"That said, executing criminals is still more expensive in the long run, isn't a deterrent to others, and does nothing but commit murder to "protect" ordinary citizens who are already safe with the man locked up."
1. I would hope that it is more expensive. There should be plenty of opportunity to review and appeal.
2. I'm not sure I agree with your statement that it isn't a deterrent to others. There are plenty of statistics out there that show that the number of murders committed after the repeal of the death penalty has risen. And there are studies that show the opposite to be true. I don't believe deterence can be a legitimate argument for or against. It will have to stay in the realm of "opinion".
3. I don't believe it's about the protection of ordinary citizens. It is about punishment.
"If we decide to play God and decide who will live and die, based on our own criteria, then we are no better than the criminals who commit these crimes ourselves."
4. This "playing God" argument is moot. I would think that deciding to put to death a murderer would rest on the shoulders of humans. I don't think anyone speaks for God.
"Seeking justice, instead of revenge is what makes law abiding citizens better than criminals."
5. I think that is my point. I believe it is justice.
Thanks for the hugs, Major. It's a difficult topic and one that deserves a lot of introspection. The decision to shoot to kill needs to be taken seriously if you own a gun.
To be cold hearted I would call it:
Culling the herd
Clean the gene pool
Times that inferior humanoids need to be removed from society
56% OF VIOLENT FELONS ARE REPEAT OFFENDERS
Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted in the 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Of the offenders with prior felony records, the study found that at the time of the new crime 18 percent were on probation, 12 percent on release pending disposition of a prior case and 7 percent on parole.
The bureau also reported 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony.
In another finding, the bureau said youths under age 21 commit 30 percent of all homicides.
Those convicted of robbery, murder and felony assault were the most likely to have prior criminal convictions while rapists were least likely to have a history of conviction.
The study found rape was one of the most difficult charges to result in conviction (12 percent) while murder was the most likely (41 percent).
The data came from analysis of a sample of 9,000 convicted violent felons representing 33,000 cases.
The cases were selected during seven separate studies conducted from 1990 through 2002.
Organized Crime Digest
Nov 13, 2009
The main point here is that sentencing somebody to life in prison has the EXACT same result as sentencing somebody to death.
The prisoner is going to die anyway, whether its locked in a cell or via chemical. So by the logic that execution = murder, then life sentence = murder and that is wrong as well.
The logic that its not a deterrent or that it costs more is irrelevent to the argument of anit death people... frankly, the same argument can be made for life in prison.
The issue comes down to the end result of both punishments being the same. So if you are against one, you should be against the other.
I am relieved that he has been killed. I live in that general area, and the school where the boy was shot (not killed, but shot) is within a 10 min. drive of my school. I regularly get gas at one of the gas stations that was the scene of a murder. We, as a community, lived in abject fear for weeks. He thought that taking another person's life was fun, was for sport. So....he must not object too much to someone taking his own life, hmmmm?
Seriously, knowing that I was supporting him via my tax dollars in jail was awful to me. I thought of him almost daily since the attacks. There is a peace I feel now. Right or wrong, that's how I feel, so I can imagine how victims' families feel.
Not exactly - not that I am arguing for or against the DP. In cases where the convicted is later found to be innocent - you cannot undo death. You can however release them from prison. No you cant go back and erase the years that they were in - but you can change the future.
Again, I am not arguing for or against - just bringing up that issue.
Not exactly the same result. We have had killings where people within prisons have ordered "hits." My nephew has spent time in prison and managed to smuggle all sorts of contraband in there, including cell phones. Prisons have a thriving drug and black market trade, essentially breaking even more laws. If those people were not alive, these crimes would not be committed. Additionally, if they remain in jail, our taxes pay for their food, shelter and education. If they are not alive, they have no such requirements.
I am not some sort of pro-death penalty person, really. I think it's appropriate only in extreme circumstances, and 1 execution per year would be too many (that would mean the circumstances of which I speak aren't really extreme). Multiple murders for sport, that's extreme. A single murder, unfortunately, isnt' all that extreme any longer...
in the very very rare case when they were found to be innocent, then yes thats true.
However, thats one reason why there is a lengthy amount of time that goes by between the sentence and the execution. it doesn't happen near enough for that to be a legitimate reason to do away with the death penalty. Generally those who are going to be proven innocent, will usually be proven innocent before they would have been put to death.
Nov 15, 2009
OK, maybe the 'death penalty' has been officially banished in the cited countries, but there are quite a few there who have ongoing problems with genocide, drug-related killings, civil unrest, military coups....not exactly peace-loving role models or the bastions of virtue some would have you believe.
She probably wont comprehend your post, cza......