What should be done to killers?

[JD18_92]

Oh dont forget that _____ is getting a movie deal!!

 

[JD18_92]

BTW I read somewhere that it cost in some states up to 6 million dollars to execute someone LOL, with the lethal injection or gas chamber..... wtf right!!!! I mean how do killing someone cost so much money. I mean give me a knife and i slice his throat for free...boom i saved the state 6 mill. this is riduculous...freaking capitalism XD
but hey Marx said that Capitalism its a nescesary step towards Communism and Socialism, so we never know were we might end

I was thinking the dogs in prison will get to him first unless they put him on constant lockdown cause if he gets in with general population, hes a goner for sure!

 

[joshh]

wow that _____ is seriously ____ed up! lol i mean i think her lawyer guaranteed her that reasonable doubt was going to be the main factor there and that she was going free.
she seriously loved to be hated for real!!! i mean she laughed and acted like all was good there. even if she did not killer her baby, what a ____ing smile for a grieving mother right?

 

[Blackthornone]

The problem is innocent people being killed. The killer is to blame and so is the culture by influencing him to believe that it is ok. If people REALLY want the killing of innocent people to stop, they will look at preventing all unnecessary causes. People say that they don't like people driving drunk and killing people, yet they still like to drink their alcohol themselves and have glamorous ads on TV and form an atmosphere in which drinking is seen as fostering happiness.
Basically, people have a cost benefit analysis and egotistically dictate that being able to drink, and perpetuating the notion that alcohol brings happiness is worth the cost of the very few people who get killed by drunk drivers. They point ALL of the blame at the drunk drivers saying it is all their fault for having no self control, as if they did not contribute to those people drinking and driving. It's ALL the drunk driver's fault? No man is an island.

There are certain types of violent movies, TV shows and video games that most people can handle without acting violently, but there will ALWAYS be people in the world, who upon being exposed to it, will act violently towards others. You almost never know who those people are before they do it. Is most people being able to "enjoy" such things truly worth the cost of the few who kill innocent people? That is the trade off. As long as no one is killed who someone cares about personally, the cost usually seems justified for alcohol and violent entertainment, ect.

I want the PROBLEM to STOP. Who knows who the next guy like this is going to be and where he will crop up?
Is it worth it to be able to have corrupt social policies that allow these murders to happen in the world?

This guy is to blame all right, but he isn't the ONLY one, and THAT is something that many people refuse to accept, and that is why these problems will continue.

Guys like this are the cost of having things like UFC fights on TV for example.
Violence is promoted as fun and entertaining for people. Violence is shown as socially acceptable to resolve disagreement.
On another level, the idea of killing this guy proves that the culture agrees with using violence to resolve problems, which is what he did.

You want to stop people like this by monitoring people? Too expensive and people want their privacy.
You want to make society perfect enough so this doesn't happen again? That involves everyone's participation, which means everyone has to shun and discourage violence as a way to resolve problems, and as a source of entertainment if only to let off steam.

What is the social cost of having freedom to do this or that? What are the long term consequences? These are things to ponder.

 

[crows]

The problem is innocent people being killed. The killer is to blame and so is the culture by influencing him to believe that it is ok. If people REALLY want the killing of innocent people to stop, they will look at preventing all unnecessary causes. People say that they don't like people driving drunk and killing people, yet they still like to drink their alcohol themselves and have glamorous ads on TV and form an atmosphere in which drinking is seen as fostering happiness.
Basically, people have a cost benefit analysis and egotistically dictate that being able to drink, and perpetuating the notion that alcohol brings happiness is worth the cost of the very few people who get killed by drunk drivers. They point ALL of the blame at the drunk drivers saying it is all their fault for having no self control, as if they did not contribute to those people drinking and driving. It's ALL the drunk driver's fault? No man is an island.

There are certain types of violent movies, TV shows and video games that most people can handle without acting violently, but there will ALWAYS be people in the world, who upon being exposed to it, will act violently towards others. You almost never know who those people are before they do it. Is most people being able to "enjoy" such things truly worth the cost of the few who kill innocent people? That is the trade off. As long as no one is killed who someone cares about personally, the cost usually seems justified for alcohol and violent entertainment, ect.

I want the PROBLEM to STOP. Who knows who the next guy like this is going to be and where he will crop up?
Is it worth it to be able to have corrupt social policies that allow these murders to happen in the world?

This guy is to blame all right, but he isn't the ONLY one, and THAT is something that many people refuse to accept, and that is why these problems will continue.

Guys like this are the cost of having things like UFC fights on TV for example.
Violence is promoted as fun and entertaining for people. Violence is shown as socially acceptable to resolve disagreement.
On another level, the idea of killing this guy proves that the culture agrees with using violence to resolve problems, which is what he did.

You want to stop people like this by monitoring people? Too expensive and people want their privacy.
You want to make society perfect enough so this doesn't happen again? That involves everyone's participation, which means everyone has to shun and discourage violence as a way to resolve problems, and as a source of entertainment if only to let off steam.

What is the social cost of having freedom to do this or that? What are the long term consequences? These are things to ponder.

you want humans to stop being humans

 

[Blackthornone]

you want humans to stop being humans

I think if humans want truly civilized behavior, they should first demand it of themselves. People need to rise above mere animal instincts if they want to have a civilized society. You cannot on the one hand want civilization and on the other hand want barbarism base instincts and animalistic behavior as well, even if it's just for entertainment. It simply can't work.

 

[Rotfish]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFXh3r6vA6A[/ame]

 

[devilof76]

Violence as entertainment has nothing to do with this man's decision to commit this crime. None. Stop blaming everyone but the one responsible for the act. The barbarism was his, and his alone.

No matter how awful this man's crimes he still has basic Constitutional rights including a right to a fair trial by jury and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Reasonable people debate the whether the later includes the death penalty. I tend to have mixed feelings on the subject but am not condemning people for supporting that option. But some of you sound exactly like a lynch mob.

Someone said he should not receive due process?

 

[Blackthornone]

I don't blame everyone BUT him for the crime, I blame everyone AND him. It is fair to say that most of the blame is his, but that does not exonerate everyone else for chipping in just a little bit collectively that contributed to this. Oh, except that everyone is supposed to have the self control to stop the cause of violence that is set in motion by the attitudes of the culture. Not everyone has that much self control. If you don't set a violent cause in motion, you don't need to ever stop it, or worry about not having enough self control to stop it. An object that is set in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal and opposing force. If you don't roll the boulder down the hill, you don't need to stop it.

 

[Star Puffs]

Someone said he should not receive due process?

Well...

no but i am saying if the crime is murder and it is obvious that the persons is guilty, then there shouldnt be any rights for that person.
because of our "system" many guilty people have walked out and innocents have been locked in. something must be done.

It does not get more blatant than that.

The last time I checked the U.S. Constitution does not enumerate the rights I mentioned with the caveat that they do not apply to those whose guilt is "obvious".

In fact even if you are found guilty under your due process and jury trial rights, the 8th Amendment still applies. That is why America executes people by the most humane methods instead of brutal, agonising methods.

Even guilty people still have rights. Blame that pinko bleeding heart liberal James Madison.

 

[csi]

The problem is innocent people being killed. The killer is to blame and so is the culture by influencing him to believe that it is ok. If people REALLY want the killing of innocent people to stop, they will look at preventing all unnecessary causes. People say that they don't like people driving drunk and killing people, yet they still like to drink their alcohol themselves and have glamorous ads on TV and form an atmosphere in which drinking is seen as fostering happiness.
Basically, people have a cost benefit analysis and egotistically dictate that being able to drink, and perpetuating the notion that alcohol brings happiness is worth the cost of the very few people who get killed by drunk drivers. They point ALL of the blame at the drunk drivers saying it is all their fault for having no self control, as if they did not contribute to those people drinking and driving. It's ALL the drunk driver's fault? No man is an island.

There are certain types of violent movies, TV shows and video games that most people can handle without acting violently, but there will ALWAYS be people in the world, who upon being exposed to it, will act violently towards others. You almost never know who those people are before they do it. Is most people being able to "enjoy" such things truly worth the cost of the few who kill innocent people? That is the trade off. As long as no one is killed who someone cares about personally, the cost usually seems justified for alcohol and violent entertainment, ect.

I want the PROBLEM to STOP. Who knows who the next guy like this is going to be and where he will crop up?
Is it worth it to be able to have corrupt social policies that allow these murders to happen in the world?

This guy is to blame all right, but he isn't the ONLY one, and THAT is something that many people refuse to accept, and that is why these problems will continue.

Guys like this are the cost of having things like UFC fights on TV for example.
Violence is promoted as fun and entertaining for people. Violence is shown as socially acceptable to resolve disagreement.
On another level, the idea of killing this guy proves that the culture agrees with using violence to resolve problems, which is what he did.

You want to stop people like this by monitoring people? Too expensive and people want their privacy.
You want to make society perfect enough so this doesn't happen again? That involves everyone's participation, which means everyone has to shun and discourage violence as a way to resolve problems, and as a source of entertainment if only to let off steam.

What is the social cost of having freedom to do this or that? What are the long term consequences? These are things to ponder.

yeah, absolutely crazy thoughts to ponder. I am sick and tired of idiots blaming society and wanting to sterilize society because of this idiot. He and he alone are to blame for this tragedy, quit trying to make it societies fault.

 

[csi]

So I read the quotes you provided. They are not "justifications", merely attempts to explain of how a person becomes a murderer. I disagree with those explanations, but it is unfair to characterise them as a defence of the killer.

I fail to see the difference between justifications and explaining how he became a murderer. Either way, he is saying the guy had no choice in the matter which is totally untrue. And the vehemence in which he fights to "explain" what the guy did says a whole lot about him.

 

[Star Puffs]

I fail to see the difference between justifications and explaining how he became a murderer. Either way, he is saying the guy had no choice in the matter which is totally untrue. And the vehemence in which he fights to "explain" what the guy did says a whole lot about him.

Now I agree with you that the environmental/social determinism argument that Dracula put forth is nonsense. There are undoubtedly innate elements to sociopathy and even a traumatic life history would not lead most people to this extreme violent conduct.

But all his opinion "says" about Dracula is that he is heavily influenced by sociology theories of the last forty years, which comng from Sweden is not a huge surprise. If you were implying he is of a similar bent to the killer, then frankly you should be ashamed.

 

[csi]

Now I agree with you that the environmental/social determinism argument that Dracula put forth is nonsense. There are undoubtedly innate elements to sociopathy and even a traumatic life history would not lead most people to this extreme violent conduct.

But all his opinion "says" about Dracula is that he is heavily influenced by sociology theories of the last forty years, which comng from Sweden is not a huge surprise. If you were implying he is of a similar bent to the killer, then frankly you should be ashamed.

no shame here at all. I think what he is saying is sick and has no place in the wake of this tragedy. You want to take a stance against the death penalty I can respect that. You to sit here and spew nonsense about why this guy decided to shoot people and blame everything under the sun except the guy himself, then I have zero respect for you at all. So you can save your condescension for someone else.

 

[Wulf]

Now I agree with you that the environmental/social determinism argument that Dracula put forth is nonsense. There are undoubtedly innate elements to sociopathy and even a traumatic life history would not lead most people to this extreme violent conduct.

But all his opinion "says" about Dracula is that he is heavily influenced by sociology theories of the last forty years, which comng from Sweden is not a huge surprise. If you were implying he is of a similar bent to the killer, then frankly you should be ashamed.

My argument wasn't that the cause of this was environmental/social only. But everything that has shaped the man. Everything.

I'm not influenced by sociology theories in Sweden (I actually disagree with some of them), but the scientific theories put forth by scientists from around the world.

Sam Harris makes the case that for an example, Saddam Husseins son wouldn't have become a sadistic murderer if he got to live another persons life. It's only logical that if he got to live my life he wouldn't have the means, the reason to want to go and rape brides from weddings with his gangs. He would have been shaped differently.

You people think you have made all the choices in your life but you don't understand how the brain works. Thoughts appear randomly, you only experience them on a conscious level. Did you select your own religion? If you never knew about it, would you believe in that religion? People aren't born christians, murderers, pedophiles. They are shaped into ones by everything that happens in their life, what happens in their life also shape their values and actions.

I suggest you watch the video.

And again, this was no excuse for what he did. Only me trying to explain the cause to why a tragedy like this would happen.

 

[Niltusk]

My argument wasn't that the cause of this was environmental/social only. But everything that has shaped the man. Everything.

I'm not influenced by sociology theories in Sweden (I actually disagree with some of them), but the scientific theories put forth by scientists from around the world.

Sam Harris makes the case that for an example, Saddam Husseins son wouldn't have become a sadistic murderer if he got to live another persons life. It's only logical that if he got to live my life he wouldn't have the means, the reason to want to go and rape brides from weddings with his gangs. He would have been shaped differently.

You people think you have made all the choices in your life but you don't understand how the brain works. Thoughts appear randomly, you only experience them on a conscious level. Did you select your own religion? If you never knew about it, would you believe in that religion? People aren't born christians, murderers, pedophiles. They are shaped into ones by everything that happens in their life, what happens in their life also shape their values and actions.

I suggest you watch the video.

And again, this was no excuse for what he did. Only me trying to explain the cause to why a tragedy like this would happen.

It actually doesn't matter. You can ___ to Harris all day long, he obviously likes to disseminate his information so that he can get to as many lower thinkers as he can. Theres no reason to break it down, because it is what it is. Once someone crosses the line its game over. It doesn't matter if they did it because their father is a dictator or because they have no friends. You put down a rabid dog, because its "humane". I suggest you rewatch your video, since you try to emulate him on these boards because you think it makes you look enlightened or whatever you perceive, you've fell into a paradox of thinking how this guy is wanting you to. ironic

 

[hoodonit00]

I don't blame everyone BUT him for the crime, I blame everyone AND him. It is fair to say that most of the blame is his, but that does not exonerate everyone else for chipping in just a little bit collectively that contributed to this. Oh, except that everyone is supposed to have the self control to stop the cause of violence that is set in motion by the attitudes of the culture. Not everyone has that much self control. If you don't set a violent cause in motion, you don't need to ever stop it, or worry about not having enough self control to stop it. An object that is set in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal and opposing force. If you don't roll the boulder down the hill, you don't need to stop it.

I can't tell if you're a troll or a severely misguided individual. So everyone else is supposed to change so a few psychos don't flip their lids. No more violence in movies, no more action movies, no more video games, no more songs with suggestive lyrics. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Darko99]

How about we put them in a padded room and play Justin Bieber music non stop.

 

[hoodonit00]

My argument wasn't that the cause of this was environmental/social only. But everything that has shaped the man. Everything.

I'm not influenced by sociology theories in Sweden (I actually disagree with some of them), but the scientific theories put forth by scientists from around the world.

Sam Harris makes the case that for an example, Saddam Husseins son wouldn't have become a sadistic murderer if he got to live another persons life. It's only logical that if he got to live my life he wouldn't have the means, the reason to want to go and rape brides from weddings with his gangs. He would have been shaped differently.

You people think you have made all the choices in your life but you don't understand how the brain works. Thoughts appear randomly, you only experience them on a conscious level. Did you select your own religion? If you never knew about it, would you believe in that religion? People aren't born christians, murderers, pedophiles. They are shaped into ones by everything that happens in their life, what happens in their life also shape their values and actions.

I suggest you watch the video.

And again, this was no excuse for what he did. Only me trying to explain the cause to why a tragedy like this would happen.

So you're saying people are a product of their environments? So because I grew up in an alcoholic household with a father who slapped my mother around that I should be a spouse abusing alcoholic? So how come I'm not? Because we have free will.

 

[Darko99]

So you're saying people are a product of their environments? So because I grew up in an alcoholic household with a father who slapped my mother around that I should be a spouse abusing alcoholic? So how come I'm not? Because we have free will.

People are...and no you could have become that, but you also have an understanding between right and wrong. Morals have a large role when it comes to how people turn out to be. Some people become the exact opposite of what they were raised around, while others become what they were around.