Jump to content
Awoo.

Colorado Shooting at Dark Knight Rises Opening


Speederino

Recommended Posts

As you said yourself, justice is about finding a balance between the crime committed and the punishment to the crime. If one man feels no remorse for gassing a public area and murdering a dozen people (attempting to reach an even higher number), killing him is a perfectly justifiable punishment. Keeping him in this world will do no good for anyone but himself.

And not one bit of that has anything to do with justice being administered at all.

Your problem is that you want him to suffer which is why you're now brining up the 'well what if he doesn't care at all' scenario, and then we come back to the whole what exactly is justice debate? Since when is it about making people suffer?

As completely irrelevant as that is, no, no I would not. Why would I have sympathy for a man who would take my life had he been given a chance?

It's not irrelivant at all.

Every time a sentence is carried out anywhere in the nation you live in, YOU are the one who is effectively carrying out it, the only difference is the job of that is given to someone else. It's not as easy as to doing it yourself just as all the others who I'm in no doubt are going to quote that line and say 'well yeah I'd do it.' Yeah course you would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And not one bit of that has anything to do with justice being administered at all.

Your problem is that you want him to suffer which is why you're now brining up the 'well what if he doesn't care at all' scenario, and then we come back to the whole what exactly is justice debate? Since when is it about making people suffer?

I don't want him to suffer. If I did I would want him to serve a life sentence.

I merely acknowledge that he no longer has any place in society and has abandoned his humanity. Keeping him in jail is a waste of money and resources, and I don't find it necessary.

  • Thumbs Up 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not irrelivant at all.

Every time a sentence is carried out anywhere in the nation you live in, YOU are the one who is effectively carrying out it, the only difference is the job of that is given to someone else. It's not as easy as to doing it yourself just as all the others who I'm in no doubt are going to quote that line and say 'well yeah I'd do it.' Yeah course you would.

Yes actually, it is. Whether I COULD personally pull the switch or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it SHOULD be done or not.

How am I the one carrying it out? I wasn't in the jury. I don't work at a prison. I'm not a judge. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a 20yr old asshole in the middle of Kansas. What would I have to do with what sentence he's given?

And yeah, pulling the switch isn't something everyone could do, and we're all just being overemotional people who are incapable of rational thought. We get it.

Edited by Solkia-kun
  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But anyways, any update on that Facebook thing? Last I heard it had over 30,000 followers. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this guy's statement tomorrow in court is what I think it's going to be (heroes don't really exist because nobody swooped down to save these people), then God. Such a waste of life for such a stupid philosophy. Completely misses the point of the movies, too.

Of course, I could be wrong. But if it comes up, I hope somebody has the presence of mind to school his ass about how a superhero's greatest function is to serve as a symbol of good to others. They are more than men. And their presence was shown in the people who had the courage to save their loved ones in any way possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you seriously arguing about the role of the fucking executioner? You know what, give him life in prison and let the inmates kill him then. That way it won't reflect american citizens or whatever the fuck was being drooled.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you seriously arguing about the role of the fucking executioner? You know what, give him life in prison and let the inmates kill him then. That way it won't reflect american citizens or whatever the fuck was being drooled.

Although at least it's different from the standard gun control arguments that come up whenever a mass shooting happens. Haven't heard one of these in a long time.

Either one has its pros and cons, although if he's as articulate as I'm worried he is, the possibility of him swaying others by writing manifestos from his cell would be enough for me to say death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you seriously arguing about the role of the fucking executioner? You know what, give him life in prison and let the inmates kill him then. That way it won't reflect american citizens or whatever the fuck was being drooled.

Lol I didn't even think of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only believe in the death penalty so far in that the indicted gets to choose between it and a life sentence. A person who's proven incapable of having a non-detrimental place in society should not be a part of one, but in my opinion humans have at most every right to judge who does or doesn't belong in their society and culture, not who deserves to live or die.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want this to turn into yet another death penalty debate, but I'll say that I, for one, would be in favor of this man being killed. A man capable of performing such hideous acts as this clearly has no value for life; and I don't believe I have any reason to value his as a result.

Justice is killing the man responsible; revenge is killing his innocent family in a vain attempt to make him suffer through the same loss as those who'll never see their family members again as a result of his actions.

"Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about you making yourself feel better."

Only when there lacks sufficient infrastructure to keep the public safe from dangerous criminals is such a sentence justifiable... and even then it remains ethically abhorrent. If a killer is in jail they aren't hurting anyone, in fact they'll never hurt anyone again. Killing them is unnecessary, and only used to satisfy a violent vengeful urge.

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you've got no problem at all if you were the one pushing the button to end his life then?

Absolutely.

Oh, wait. That wasn't what you wanted me to say. You expected me to say "no" so I would prove your "point" about how capital punishment is only a rational idea when you aren't personally doing it. Whoops.

If a killer is in jail they aren't hurting anyone, in fact they'll never hurt anyone again.

People are murdered in prison all the time. To think otherwise is naive; and while he wouldn't be an example of someone who would do the need in jail, he very much so is an example of someone who would have it done to him.

Considering what he did, likely the first time he came in contact with another prisoner.

and even then it remains ethically abhorrent.

Ethically, if the alternative is to lock him up for the rest of his life cut off from the rest of society with no chance at reformation and no chance at rejoining society (both of which are supposedly what the prison system is supposed to be for rather than just punishment or revenge) and (particularly in his case) under constant threat of loss of life anyway at far harsher means, than the practical difference is pretty much just semantic in nature.

Edited by Gilda
  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about you making yourself feel better."

Is there really much of a difference between the bold?

I'd say justice is giving the victims closure. I don't know about them, but I personally wouldn't feel safe knowing the guy who almost killed me was still alive.

EDIT: emphasis on "personally"

Edited by Solkia-kun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about you making yourself feel better."

Only when there lacks sufficient infrastructure to keep the public safe from dangerous criminals is such a sentence justifiable... and even then it remains ethically abhorrent. If a killer is in jail they aren't hurting anyone, in fact they'll never hurt anyone again. Killing them is unnecessary, and only used to satisfy a violent vengeful urge.

I believe spending a vast amount of money and resources to punish these people for the rest of their lives is unnecessary. Cleanly and efficiently disposing of them is faster, requires less effort, and inflicts less pain on the criminal. I seriously do not understand the point of keeping someone in prison for the rest of their lives; it doesn't accomplish anything, and regardless of whether or not they regret what they've done, they'll be stuck there until their eventual death.

Killing them saves waste of time, money, or resources that could be better spent on the innocent people these criminals prey on. Therefore, it is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely.

Oh, wait. That wasn't what you wanted me to say. You expected me to say "no" so I would prove your "point" about how capital punishment is only a rational idea when you aren't personally doing it. Whoops

No not really... I just expected people to say what they typically do when stuff like this happens.

"Kill the guy, what do I care, he's not actually been put on trial yet but hey we've already decided that we want to beat him to death anyway so whats the point on even listening to any sort of argument regardless as to what it is.

Because we can decide that you see, we've now got the moral right to decide who we want to live with us in this world and who we don't."

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Kill the guy, what do I care, he's not actually been put on trial yet but hey we've already decided that we want to beat him to death anyway so whats the point on even listening to any sort of argument regardless as to what it is.

No, the argument that the people calling for his head are doing so out of a knee-jerk revenge reaction doesn't fly either.

The traditional (and perfectly valid, I will be the first to admit) problems capital punishment has don't apply here. There is no evidence that will be found 20 years from now after he is executed (if that ends up happening) that will suddenly cast doubt on the fact that he walked into a packed movie theater and opened fire on everyone after planning it well in advance. There is no revelation to be made regarding how he didn't fill his apartment with explosives in an attempt to kill anyone who entered his room while he was doing the above, then taunted the police about it when he was done shooting. He murdered all of those people and immediately walked into police custody right outside where he did it, and then proceeded to mock them over the explosives he set up.

Similarly, the more "general" arguments against it don't apply either. The arguments that the death penalty is used primarily against poor minorities and is a somewhat racist policy in practice don't follow when the suspect in this case was a moderately well-off, highly educated white male. The lengthy and expensive death row appeals process that tends to make capital punishment more expensive than life imprisonment won't apply because this is about as cut and dry as things can be and I doubt any court would be willing to hear his appeal unless they fuck up this case right now; and he'd have to actually pursue them (I'll get back to this).

The only situation that I can even see where the death penalty would not be applicable is if he was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity; and it's already been covered in this thread why he likely would not be found as such because of the way he carried this crime out. Furthermore, depending on Colorado laws surrounding it, he might be the one who has to pursue it himself rather than having it foisted on him. And considering he did this for attention, to make himself known, to make a statement (to the extent of directly comparing himself to a comic book character who frequently does similar things); it's also entirely likely that he wouldn't pursue such a defense because it would hurt his "message." He might even prefer the death penalty over life in prison, though I'm also not sure if Colorado is a state that obliges such requests.

So all you're left with is the moral argument against the concept as a whole. Which, to be frank, isn't worth even bringing up because (and let's be honest with ourselves) no one here really cares about other people's moral judgments about what society is supposed to do with someone who ruthlessly attempted to murder dozens of people and succeeded in doing so for many of them. In my case it is simply the fact that his punishment for doing this would be to live a better life than many of the people who survived what he did (assuming he wasn't offed in prison), and I find that abhorrent. If you don't, or think killing him to prevent that is an even worse thing, cool beans.

Because we can decide that you see, we've now got the moral right to decide who we want to live with us in this world and who we don't."

Calling for life in prison for him (real life in prison) makes the exact same moral decision. The only way this statement would apply is if no one was allowed to comment on punishment for him in any way.

If you want to argue why he shouldn't be given the death penalty, you would be far better off doing so by explaining reasons specific to this situation. Not broad and vaguely-hypocritical moral judgments about the concept as a whole generally along the lines of "his blood would be on your hands" which may or may not even apply in this case.

Edited by Gilda
  • Thumbs Up 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not him, and you are not on his level. You do yourselves a great disservice by stooping down and joining him through the advocating of the same punishment for him that he dealt out to a dozen innocents.

If you want to lay any kind of claim to a moral high ground, it's best to avoid "an eye for an eye" arguments. They really kinda suck ass.

All that said, I'm sure I'd feel differently if I knew a victim, or almost became one myself. Being so far away, so detached from the incident, I can't help but feel distanced from the rage swirling around the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not him, and you are not on his level. You do yourselves a great disservice by stooping down and joining him through the advocating of the same punishment for him that he dealt out to a dozen innocents.

You're making the argument that capital punishment is an eye for an eye response to crimes. The words highlighted is why that isn't the case, and why it is never the case.

Edited by Gilda
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think there should be better Gun laws or at least a limit on how many you can own in the beginning.

I don't know, I just can't believe how people can easily buy a AR-15 Assualt Rifle. I am surprised America doesn't have as many domestic Terrorist cases as we do.blink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still skeptical on how effective gun control laws can ultimately be. I don't want to sound like some kind of NRA Second Amendment apologist, but while weapons may not be as easy to smuggle as, say, drugs, people who would use guns to kill are usually the kind of people who would go out of their way to circumvent the law to attain them anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do believe gun control should be taken more seriously, the fact that the guy was loaded with highly illegal explosives just goes to show that it wouldn't have made much of a difference either way, in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what I think would help deter crimes?

Screw the death sentence. Make the punishment for this sort of shit be having him locked away for life (and I mean life, not a shitty few-years-and-you're-out 'life' sentence) and have him physically and mentally tortured every single day for the rest of his life, but never enough that he'll die from it or put his life at risk. Give him enough food, water and medical attention to make sure he stays alive and make sure he has no means of suicide. So he's literally got the rest of his life to live out with daily physical torture never to see daylight again. No way to escape and no way to die.

If people knew they'd get that for pulling this kind of shit, I think they'd have second thoughts. And if not, well, serves them bloody right then.

Of course, that would never work in practice, sadly; for a start, it would cost a fuckton to implement and taxes would skyrocket. Also, this would of course only be acceptable punishment in cases where the person was 100%, irrefutably guilty without a hair of a doubt; and sadly, such cases are rare. Doing the above mentioned to someone who was actually innocent would be horrific.

Edited by SuperStingray
  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.