for a rapist and murderer? I just watched this for the first time and I'm left wondering why I'm supposed to be moved by this guy dying? This is what should happen to anyone who rapes and murders....at the very least.
shareHeh...I just watched this too on USA. I don't know so much if the viewer is supposed to feel "sorry" but I think they are supposed to see death is not necessarily a cure all or people who commit "incomprehensible" acts can seek redemption.
shareI feel bad for saying this but I felt bad for Seans's character. But Sean's a terrific actor, too. I didn't want to feel sorry for him but I did.
I LOVE Jesus Christ!!
I'm the future wife of David Archuleta.
I had the opposite reaction. I felt irritated by Poncelet, by his sniveling and whining and felt that his end was completely justified.
shareI agree. He was miserable villain and coward to boot. If anything, the neat and tidy death provided was too good for him. His whole "I believe killing is wrong" speech at the end is utterly groan-inducing. It was no doubt supposed to be some kind of eye opening revelation, but considered alongside his actions it's an empty, flat joke. And the "I love you" shared by Poncelet and Sister Helen, in addition to being pure unadulterated cheese, just felt like an affront to the victims of his sadistic crime.
This is why I take some issue with "death penalty is revenge!" rhetoric. It would be revenge if he had been raped, stabbed, and shot at the end of the film. The death of Matthew Poncelet by lethal injection was merely...the performance of a civic duty. People like Matthew Poncelet pose an unacceptable threat to innocent human beings. This man did not commit a crime of passion. There were no extenuating circumstances. This was the most deliberate, vile, and reprehensible type of crime. Normally I support rehabilitation over incarceration, but not in a case like this. There does have to be a point at which we draw the line.
Judicial murder is not a "civic duty"! The USA is firmly in the camp of dictatorships and backward banana republics, in still maintaining the death penalty. Civilised countries have all long since abolished the barbaric practise. The USA is as backward as ISIL or Communist China.
share
Redemption ? Lol, they want live not to redeem themselves .
"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."
Redemption ? Lol, they want live not to redeem themselves .
"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."
feel sorry for him? the film doesnt try to glamorize him at all.
The whole idea behind the film is that revenge is wrong. Murder is wrong no matter which side you sit on.
There are many more ideas behind the film that stuck out to me more, but that is the only one I have in response to your question.
The message of this movie is easy, it's a movie against death penalty.
I don't think anybody deserves death penalty.
I think that is an underlying theme but to say that is THE message is to really underestimate all else that is going on. The death penalty is the catalyst for the story of grace, redemption, faith and love.
shareIt could just as easily be a movie FOR the death penalty. It shows Poncelet change from denial and defiance to acceptance and perhaps even remorse in his final hours. Only by facing his own mortality is he finally able to see the full extent of what he's done.
I think many people do indeed deserve the death penalty. The punishment should fit the crime. That's what all the murderers and rapists signed up for anyway. They signed up for that little eventuality. Why shouldn't they get what they signed up for?
"Why shouldn't they get what they signed up for? "
Because it's wrong.
So I don't end up sounding like too much of a douchey self-righteous liberal, I'll add that that's an interesting point about Poncelet only achieving redemption because of the death penalty. If he had gotten off with life I guess it's possible he would have lived out the rest of his days without confronting his crimes.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
"Because it's wrong."
Sorry, you need to do better than that. I oppose the death penalty not because I feel it's wrong - what Poncelet does is worthy of death, as are real-life cases like Charles Ng and Lemaricus Davidson's crew - but because it's not harsh enough. It should include torture, castration and unimaginable pain for those who commmit crimes like the one depictedin this film. No mercy, no relief. The hell you send them to should seem like a relief after their punishment. But that's "cruel and unusual" so we don't do it. Sounds to me like our justice system doesn't have the guts to do what's necessary.
Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.
Well, your reasons for being against the death penalty are obviously very different from mine. If that's doing "better," I'll stick with my own reasons, thanks. I do wonder though what gives you the idea that torture and unimaginable pain are "what's necessary."
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
Karma's a bitch. They want to inflict that kind of pain they need to understand what it's like to be the victim. They gain power when they do that to innocent people. It takes away their feeling of power and shows them that they are as worthless and hated as they deserve to be if we return it on their head tenfold. Apparently this idea is "barbaric" to some people; those people should not be discussing what needs to be done with criminals - they obviously don't have the correct disposition for it.
Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.
Sounds like the kind of 'disposition' you have is one that is as sick as the people you wish to torture.
shareyeah I'm with bite me, it's a bit much. Sorry but this disposition you're talking about isn't something to be proud of. The lack/loss of empathy puts you on level with the criminal. I understand having that anger but severe punishment won't help you. There's nothing to gain from becoming involved in something as messed up as what the criminal has done. Barbaric torture has existed in the past and as far as I know it never led to the crime free utopia you're imagining.
As for the movie I didn't feel sorry for Matt, I didn't even come away from it thinking the death penalty was "wrong". Just because Matt says "killing is wrong" doesn't mean the movie is saying it. The only people I felt sorry for were the victims, their families and the family of the criminal.
"Karma's a bitch. They want to inflict that kind of pain they need to understand what it's like to be the victim. They gain power when they do that to innocent people. It takes away their feeling of power and shows them that they are as worthless and hated as they deserve to be if we return it on their head tenfold. Apparently this idea is "barbaric" to some people; those people should not be discussing what needs to be done with criminals - they obviously don't have the correct disposition for it."
Absolutely, well said! A lot of people like to eat red meat but couldnt stand the thought of how its processed. A lot of other people live a life in luxury but are protected by the police who have to face harsh realities while they sleep soundly and ignorantly in their beds. There is evil in this world and many with skin too thin to confront the problems realistically are part of the problem.
"Sounds like the kind of 'disposition' you have is one that is as sick as the people you wish to torture."
Not even close. If that was the case, he would advocate for doing those acts against entirely innocent people. Instead, he is serving to exact a punishment for the savage crimes committed. Remember, even in his scenario the people being punished are guilty (and had a trial) whilst their victims were entirely innocent so its still not really even just in that regard. It seems many who favor injustice for the victims take issue with those favor a more just solution and have to make it about them instead of the crime and its subsequent punishment.
"yeahI'm with bite me, it's a bit much. Sorry but this disposition you're talking about isn't something to be proud of."
There is nothing to be "proud of" when putting down a rabid animal. Its a necessary task for a decent and enlightened society. The only difference is, the dog might have been trained to be aggressive; a person makes a deliberate choice.
"The lack/loss of empathy puts you on level with the criminal."
Nope..makes us human. Now if he lacked empathy for an innocent person...or lacked a sense of justice for the victim and their families..THAT would place them on the same level with the criminal.
"There's nothing to gain from becoming involved in something as messed up as what the criminal has done. Barbaric torture has existed in the past and as far as I know it never led to the crime free utopia you're imagining."
It depends upon the nature of the crime. Crimes of necessity involving people starving and being severely punished for taking food has never panned out. But crimes of a deliberate nature can be curbed. Say you have 2 kids acting up with noe being worse. The parents tells them both to cut it out. One of the two cuts it out a bit but the other carries on and then gets worse. Finally, one of the parents takes a belt to the one being the loudest. Now, unless a person is a total loss...they will stop in a hurry. Why? Because they dont want the same thing to happen to them. Fear is what keeps most people in line. Fear of getting caught, retribution, reputation, etc. If those in prison (say in for drugs or domestic abuse) heard the endless screams from prisoners who had raped or killed....what would their chances be that they would commit those crimes if they got out?
"Mankind cannot solve the world's problems. Mankind is the problem."
"Not even close. If that was the case, he would advocate for doing those acts against entirely innocent people. "
You do realize that for every murderer and rapist out there there's no such thing as "innocent" victims? To them they are either not even human beings (but objects for their personal use) or are guilty of whatever they rationalize to make themselves feel better (ever heard "she asked for it"?).
So this kind of thinking IS on the same level. Nobody is born a serial killer. It takes several small steps to get there. Thinking like this is one of them, for different people have different concepts of who is exactly innocent (the Nazis sure didn't think they were killing innocent people but defending their very own existence when killing all them jews)...
And to top if off: every single one of those criminals and murderers are, in their own mind, avenging real/imaginary grievances done onto them in the past. When they perceive society itself is the culprit for their suffering, any member of it will do...
"You do realize that for every murderer and rapist out there there's no such thing as "innocent" victims? To them they are either not even human beings (but objects for their personal use) or are guilty of whatever they rationalize to make themselves feel better (ever heard "she asked for it"?)."
I have heard this perspective but allow me to entertain it. There is a profound difference between perspective and reality. In reality, the murderer committed their crime against a person who had no jury or rights given and did so knowing the consequences of his or her actions. Conversely, the state that puts them down has no malice or ill-intent and does not do so based upon a whim. One could argue the only way one equates the two is by thinking like a murderer. As I wouldn't dare to become like one, it is better to remain objective and simply ensure an equal punishment for the crime is achieved in the name of justice.
"So this kind of thinking IS on the same level. Nobody is born a serial killer. It takes several small steps to get there. Thinking like this is one of them, for different people have different concepts of who is exactly innocent (the Nazis sure didn't think they were killing innocent people but defending their very own existence when killing all them jews)..."
Apples and Oranges. Dehumanizing an opponent is a common tactic and seen through many aspects of humanity. We see this during social and political conflicts on a daily basis in the US. We see this (arguably) in the name of "choice" as well. We are specifically talking if a person should pay equally for a crime committed (that was premeditated and entirely voluntary)...not for being a political opponent, a specific religion, or any other scenario. Until you can effectively demonstrate to the contrary, we have to maintain the premise is lacking.
"And to top if off: every single one of those criminals and murderers are, in their own mind, avenging real/imaginary grievances done onto them in the past. When they perceive society itself is the culprit for their suffering, any member of it will do..."
To a murderer (or one of their mindset) they do see it justified. But we are above that and can see the difference and its our responsibility to establish justice regardless of emotional appeal one way or the other. In a nation of laws, we must be objective and stand apart. I once heard a guy ask another man in authority "Can you look at it form my perspective?" The colonel then responded..."Then who would view it from mine? I am supposed to be in charge and maintain an impartial objective view." Truer words were never spoken. We don't have to embrace a murderers view to allow them to escape justice..but rather, adopt a higher objective standard and erase such elements from society when they voluntarily commit such crimes. Since they themselves knew the consequences and therefore have no problem taking that risk, why hesitate? Answer...we shouldn't.
"Mankind cannot solve the world's problems. Mankind is the problem."
"There is a profound difference between perspective and reality."
Is there? On an individual basis we cannot tell anything outside our own perspective, which IS our own reality.
"In reality, the murderer committed their crime against a person who had no jury or rights given and did so knowing the consequences of his or her actions."
A sweeping statement if there ever was one. In the real world each crime is unique and has its shades of gray.
"Conversely, the state that puts them down has no malice or ill-intent and does not do so based upon a whim."
Ever been to Texas? Where the state (Bush) mocks prisoners on death row on live TV?
And let's not even venture into the several ones that turned out to be innocent, several of them framed by the state due to prejudice, laziness, you name it.
Pretending the state always lacks malice is pretty absurd. Ever heard of Jim Crow, been to Mississippi in the good old 60's when the state and the KKK were the same thing?
"We see this (arguably) in the name of "choice" as well. "
Or in the name of "religious freedom" to discriminate against gays...
"We are specifically talking if a person should pay equally for a crime committed (that was premeditated and entirely voluntary)"
Are we? In the film Poncelet indicates their crime was impulsive.
"But we are above that"
So you think you're above that? Every one of those criminals also think themselves above others (narcisism).
I know I'm not above falling into such mindset if I start thinking myself better than anyone.
I guess you must be free of sin somehow (may want to revisit the NT where Jesus claims to himself alone the right to cast the first stone, for only he was without sin)
"In a nation of laws, we must be objective and stand apart. I once heard a guy ask another man in authority "Can you look at it form my perspective?" The colonel then responded..."Then who would view it from mine? I am supposed to be in charge and maintain an impartial objective view." Truer words were never spoken."
Ever heard of "Stand Your Ground" laws (where if you can prove YOU felt in danger, you can get away with murder, even if you were in no danger at all), or even the basic LEGAL principle of "defendant's state of mind and intent" during the course of the offense?
"We don't have to embrace a murderers view to allow them to escape justice"
Again, revisit recent shootings in the news where a white loon murdered black teens simply because HE felt threatened by their car's loud music and skated first degree murder charges (couldn't dodge murder two and attempted murder since he went ballistic on all passengers but unlike Zimmerman left witnesses).
"but rather, adopt a higher objective standard and erase such elements from society when they voluntarily commit such crimes."
Hope you never find yourself accused of any such crime then. Easy to point fingers and pass judgement from your soapbox until somebody does the same thing to you (didn't Jesus say we should not judge?).
Maybe you can whip up a defense based on "affluentia"...
"Is there? On an individual basis we cannot tell anything outside our own perspective, which IS our own reality."
To answer you...yes there is a reality. We can observe if a person commits murder and try that person accordingly. While that person's mind might have justified the actions, the laws that exist are the reality. To suggest otherwise means there should be no law as everyone's interpretation can be whatever they want...which basically constitutes anarchy. Lets see how effective a defense would be if the guy says he didn't commit murder according to his laws.
"A sweeping statement if there ever was one. In the real world each crime is unique and has its shades of gray."
Per the interpretation but not per the law. The rules are defined specifically for each offense. Hence why a person committing murder (as its understood under the law) knows the actions and the consequences. Most of the time, the simplest solutions are also the most accurate.
"Ever been to Texas? Where the state (Bush) mocks prisoners on death row on live TV?"
Even with that, the punishment is far more benevolent than the crime committed.
"And let's not even venture into the several ones that turned out to be innocent, several of them framed by the state due to prejudice, laziness, you name it."
If the premise is that we cannot execute justice because we might get one wrong, then we might as well let everyone out. However, that is why everyone has a defense. Everyone has a trial by jury. And the burden of proof is on the state. We operate within these rules to weed out any possibility. No system is full-proof but this one works. Id rather it be a simple majority than unanimous...but that's just me.
"Pretending the state always lacks malice is pretty absurd. Ever heard of Jim Crow, been to Mississippi in the good old 60's when the state and the KKK were the same thing?"
Fortunately we are not talking about that. We are talking about the premise of the death penalty as a just sentence for murder. I doubt many people of good conscience will lose any sleep if some murderers encounter "difficulties" while in prison.
"Or in the name of "religious freedom" to discriminate against gays..."
Off subject....but not exactly. Technically, gays can marry under the definition of marriage as it has been traditionally held. No one (normal or gay) can marry the same gender. However, a government union has no bearing on sexual orientation, love, and actually is not a marriage in the traditional sense. In reality, its just a contract between people. But if we were therefore consistent, we would allow siblings, neighbors, and any number of people ( as opposed to just 2) to marry unless we were Unconstitutionally discriminating.
"Are we?"
I can only speak for myself. So I will say "yes"...I was discussing if a person who committed murder should pay an equal punishment for his/her crime. I say there is no doubt and have heard nothing to dissuade that in the slightest.
"So you think you're above that? Every one of those criminals also think themselves above others (narcisism)."
Fair enough. If I then commit murder in the first degree, you have a credible point. But just because a person believes themselves to be right does not put them in the league with a murderer.
"I know I'm not above falling into such mindset if I start thinking myself better than anyone."
I admire and respect that....really I do. In fact, I envy you. But I believe we are judged by our actions. I couldn't fathom the thought that a murderer who killed a bunch of people is the equivalent of a guy who gave to charity and was warm to his community. Since actions are not equal, the people committing them (good and bad) cannot (by design) be equal. We are born equal but make choices to determine our worth. Nothing could be more fair than that.
"I guess you must be free of sin somehow (may want to revisit the NT where Jesus claims to himself alone the right to cast the first stone, for only he was without sin)"
But if that meant no justice for any crimes, we would live in Anarchy. Jesus also said to obey the rules of God and to the state.
"Ever heard of "Stand Your Ground" laws (where if you can prove YOU felt in danger, you can get away with murder, even if you were in no danger at all), or even the basic LEGAL principle of "defendant's state of mind and intent" during the course of the offense?"
I have heard of people bending the law to do corrupt things throughout human history. Whether people use stand your ground to kill people, or use choice to abort the unborn, or use the law to own a slave. They all are very terrible parts of human history but none of them are the discussion of capital punishment for committing murder.
"Again, revisit recent shootings in the news where a white loon murdered black teens simply because HE felt threatened by their car's loud music and skated first degree murder charges (couldn't dodge murder two and attempted murder since he went ballistic on all passengers but unlike Zimmerman left witnesses)."
While the Zimmerman case was more ambiguous, the one you are citing the guy was found guilty. I might have missed something and want to understand...how is it relevant?
"Hope you never find yourself accused of any such crime then. Easy to point fingers and pass judgement from your soapbox until somebody does the same thing to you (didn't Jesus say we should not judge?)."
Well...being objective makes it easier to judge. For if I was accused, then I would cease being objective and would therefore have a more skewed perspective, would I not? And to tell the truth, the anti-Jesus movement sure has a lot of people being added to their ranks. I used to try to follow his path but the momentum is going elsewhere now and I would give anything to get back to that.
"Maybe you can whip up a defense based on "affluentia"..."
Oh, that drunk POS? Arghh...disgusts me. If it were up to me, Rapists, Pedophiles, and others would also be in line for capital punishment.
Hey....thank you for the response. I know a lot of people online can get harsh but I appreciated your demeanor with me.
"Mankind cannot solve the world's problems. Mankind is the problem."
Dude, I am getting (finally) the idea that you're coming from an ABSTRACT point of view (where everyone considered is 100% guilty, there's no doubt regarding what the bad guy did and why, and the death penalty is applied justly), while I'm coming from a CONCRETE point of view (meaning how the death penalty is actually used, regardless of its stated intent).
So most of our discrepancies arise from that.
I'll address the rest
"Most of the time, the simplest solutions are also the most accurate."
Occam's razor? It's not always the best bet. Check out the rationale behind the antirazors (sometimes we simply cannot perceive/know all the relevant factors and thus what looks like the simplest explanation is not necessarily the accurate one).
"But just because a person believes themselves to be right does not put them in the league with a murderer"
It's the first step. That's why religious faith (or any faith for that matter, even faith in oneself) must always be linked to self doubt, otherwise it's a one way ticket to self righteous fundie valley.
"But if that meant no justice for any crimes, we would live in Anarchy."
You can punish someone for breaking the law without the moral judgement in this country. THAT is what that is about truly (those laws back then happened to be based on moral judgement).
"the one you are citing the guy was found guilty. I might have missed something and want to understand...how is it relevant?"
Guilty of murder two, but not guilty of murder one, because he proved HE felt threatened. This goes to show the bad guy's POV does factor into the courtroom, for better or worse. If laws could be carried out without looking into such things, then judges would be redundant, could be done by a computer.
"And to tell the truth, the anti-Jesus movement sure has a lot of people being added to their ranks."
What movement is that? Do not conflate it with an anti-right_wing_Christianity (the militant political type that wants to impose their views on everyone) movement.
"If it were up to me, Rapists, Pedophiles, and others would also be in line for capital punishment."
Kinda too far, isn't it? You know, an eye for an eye. As horrific as those crimes are, if the victims survive, the perpetrator should not lose his life over it (think of it: you think jail time in gen pop isn't punishment enough, at least in the USA, for those criminals?)
"thank you for the response."
Well likewise.
Look, all in all, unless it's an exceptional situation (like Mexico in 1880 when Porfirio Diaz rose to power and gave the order to "hang them where you find them" to stem the nationwide crimewave, and it sure worked, many Mexicans would welcome him back with open arms these days...) or life-and-death situation (self defense or defense of other), I would rather not go that far, for many reasons:
- There's always the chance to execute the wrong guy.
- Unless applied on the spot and widespread (like in Mexico in 1880), it simply doesn't deter crime.
- The fact that many first world countries (Norway, Sweeden, you know those European countries that seem to be heaven on Earth) can keep crime/incarceration rates waaaaay down without using the death penalty, tells us we're missing something (and nope, I don't think it's an all white Christian population).
Thank you for the response. In the words of the Sheriff from "Cool Hand Luke" What we had here, is a failure to communicate.
"Dude, I am getting (finally) the idea that you're coming from an ABSTRACT point of view (where everyone considered is 100% guilty, there's no doubt regarding what the bad guy did and why, and the death penalty is applied justly), while I'm coming from a CONCRETE point of view (meaning how the death penalty is actually used, regardless of its stated intent)."
Agreed.
"It's the first step. That's why religious faith (or any faith for that matter, even faith in oneself) must always be linked to self doubt, otherwise it's a one way ticket to self righteous fundie valley."
So..we can never be sure we are right? I would agree we cannot be 100% certain, but we are imperfect beings trying to make the best choices in an imperfect world.
"Guilty of murder two, but not guilty of murder one, because he proved HE felt threatened. This goes to show the bad guy's POV does factor into the courtroom, for better or worse. If laws could be carried out without looking into such things, then judges would be redundant, could be done by a computer."
Yes, there are different degrees such as vehicular homicide and others.
"What movement is that? Do not conflate it with an anti-right_wing_Christianity (the militant political type that wants to impose their views on everyone) movement."
I meant the nation is losing faith and a strong argument can be made for a social decline. Thats what I meant by the antireligious sort of sentiment.
"Kinda too far, isn't it? You know, an eye for an eye. As horrific as those crimes are, if the victims survive, the perpetrator should not lose his life over it (think of it: you think jail time in gen pop isn't punishment enough, at least in the USA, for those criminals?)"
I just believe that people that destroy a child or a woman to that degree have forfeited any right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of (any) Happiness".
If you took a poll (even from criminals) I doubt you would garner 25% of the people who would block such measures.
"thank you for the response."
"Well likewise."
Thanks for being patient :)
"Look, all in all, unless it's an exceptional situation (like Mexico in 1880 when Porfirio Diaz rose to power and gave the order to "hang them where you find them" to stem the nationwide crimewave, and it sure worked, many Mexicans would welcome him back with open arms these days...) or life-and-death situation (self defense or defense of other), I would rather not go that far, for many reasons:
- There's always the chance to execute the wrong guy.
- Unless applied on the spot and widespread (like in Mexico in 1880), it simply doesn't deter crime.
- The fact that many first world countries (Norway, Sweeden, you know those European countries that seem to be heaven on Earth) can keep crime/incarceration rates waaaaay down without using the death penalty, tells us we're missing something (and nope, I don't think it's an all white Christian population)."
Hard to say. Id feel a bit apprehensive in living in a nation that delivered justice THAT swiftly. But Id still favor something more substantial than we have now. Norway and Sweden do have entirely different cultures; release a few thousands desperados into their "heaven" and see how ill-prepared they are to deal with the lower parts of humanity. An insulated society can live in a bubble..but every bubble must pop. I do not think the US has that luxury and our direction towards such models gives more favor to killers than victims, imo. But as always...thank you for the post. You deliver a very engaging position.
"Mankind cannot solve the world's problems. Mankind is the problem."
Borracho. Sean Penn's swine character deserved what he got and I hope he died in agony. As for that penguin, Sister Prejean, if she's so damned compassionate, why didn't she visit the families of the victims before the murderers were caught and condemned? She didn't give a damn about anything other than saving the killers. Meanwhile, some sick priests were raping kids. Did she do anything about that, or was she too busy trying to save murderers?
shareWell, you do hate Catholics. And you're happy about the Death Penalty. No wonder.
Listen to your enemy, for God is talking
As a matter of fact, I am a Roman Catholic. We don't all the feel the same about every issue. By the way, I do support unconditional abortion in the first two trimesters, and in the third to save the life or physical health of the mother, so you can't get me on that one.
How interesting that many death penalty opponents who don't want to kill vicious murderers have no problem with abortion on demand up to 10 seconds before the water breaks. No unborn child ever committed murder in the first degree.
I prefer the gas chamber to the other methods used, especially the lethal injection, which shows murderers the mercy we give an innocent animal and they don't deserve.
Well, being convinced Atheist, I strictly believe that no human being is entitled to take the life. Even if this life belongs to the murderer, it isn't the "property" of State. Let's start with these who represent the State: the Judges, a sinful mortals in pursue of their own carriers; then let's mention the family of the Condemned to Death: as bad as it may be, it doesn't deserve the unimaginable suffering that surpasses even the sufferings of the avenged victim's family. And (that is extremely important) - did you hear about the Miscarriages of Justice, that equate the very Crime, and under the fatal circumstances of practicing Death Penalty, are irreversible?
And now, as a matter of fact, I'm strictly against the abortions after the first three months.
Listen to your enemy, for God is talking
"How interesting that many death penalty opponents who don't want to kill vicious murderers have no problem with abortion on the demand up to 10 seconds before the water breaks. No unborn child ever committed murder in the first degree."
I agree. In my country (Sweden), Sister Helen Prejean was invited in the 90s to speak at an annual all-Christian conference including almost all denominations. I put the question to myself then, whether they would have considered inviting a pro-life activist? No way in hell.
No, this was simply a way of having the nun as a martyr living in an unjust society, lecturing on the evils of capital punishment, the underlying theme of course being "look at those barbaric Americans, and see how civilized we all are here". Meanwhile, we are yearly putting more than 35 000 unborn babies to death here out of a population of nine million. And the same churches who are horrified at capital punishment for murderers have no problem at all with this, obviously.
I do not find these prevailing views to have anything at all to do with true Christianity, it's politics calling the shots, even in the house of God. And I would not want to have anything to do with Sister Helen Prejean as a servant of God.
Interestingly, my wife and I saw this movie and while she found it to speak strongly against capital punishment, I found it speaking elequently for capital punishment.
I never saw any real remorse or repentance in the mind of this killer or sympathy for his victims. Just a whining complaint that it's wrong to kill people when it was his time to pay for his actions.
Likewise, I never understood why murderers who become born-again Christians in jail should get off easier? Being born-again, they would all the more want to pay their debt to society and be ready for the hereafter.
"Likewise, I never understood why murderers who become born-again Christians in jail should get off easier? Being born-again, they would all the more want to pay their debt to society and be ready for the hereafter."
There is a certain logic to your way of thinking, isn't there? I doubt very much that anyone asked the "good" sister how she felt about abortion, and in all probability, meaning no offense to you or your wife, it is my guess that most of her European audience were atheists and agnostics. Opposition to capital punishment was probably the only thing on which they agreed with her.
Many years ago, a condemned murderer in New York named Joseph Francis Harris was about to die in the electric chair for murder. He was asked by the prison chaplain, a Roman Catholic priest, if he had any regrets. He replied that he had one regret - that he got caught. At least, in the end, he was honest.
"...meaning no offense to you or your wife, it is my guess that most of her European audience were atheists and agnostics. Opposition to capital punishment was probably the only thing on which they agreed with her."
No. That's just the point. Her audience were all "good Christians" who were all in agreement on the barbariousness of capital punishment, while not flinching about abortions. Perhaps you will understand how the mindset over here works if I tell you that for a long time, it has been a definite no-no in most churches for a Christian man to do national service bearing arms, and those who do have been considered almost on a par with murderers.
So there it is. Having the state take innocent lives in droves is fine. Taking the lives of murderers or invading soldiers is unthinkable. Logical, isn't it?
Not very. At least there are still some Christians in Western Europe. The way American pseudo-intellectual Europhiles tell it, you're all atheists and agnostics. I'm afraid that secular politics are taking control of Christianity and Judaism all over the world. Your country has only fought in a few minor UN actions in the last 150 years, more like police actions than wars. You've been very lucky. However, that could have led to a moral complacency. I won't judge your country, but I wish some of your countrymen weren't so quick to judge my country. My family has fought for America for 5 generations, my son being the 5th. We're very proud of that. From what you tell me, many of your countrymen would consider us a clan of murderers.
shareWell, I haven't quite given up hope for my country. Many of my countrymen are sound. It's just that the massmedia and other important institutions are still dominated by a loudmouthed minority who tell you what to think. I believe you have some of that in America also.
You're right about us being very lucky, having had peace for over 200 years while others bled and died for our freedom. That's nothing to be shamefaced about, I think, as long as due gratitude is shown. Which it is not in some quarters. As for myself, I always felt a great debt of gratitude for what the allied did and especially the U.S., saving Europe first from Hitler and then from being dominated by Communist Russia. Deep down, I think that's one of the reasons leftists over here hate America so much -- you made sure the revolution never happened here as it did in Russia.
I think that's the problem with being able to take peace, freedom and indepencence for granted -- it becomes cheap. All our neighboring countries, Denmark, Finland and Norway, were occupied during WWII, and they know better. I only hope it doesn't take a war to wake us up.
"Because it's wrong."
It's opinion that it's wrong and nothing more. That is NOT fact. Now they signed up for it, that IS a fact. We all take the consequences of our actions in life; also FACT. People despise dangerous criminals who hurt people. I think a punishment that satisfies all the victims' family members should be carried out, if such a decision could be made.
I mean, what the fu|ck are these people doing anyway!? Why is it necessary to find a person on the street, drag them away, and do horrible, disgusting things to them and kill them?! Why is this such a mandatory duty for these people? Is it too much to ask for people to just KEEP THEIR FU|CKING HANDS TO THEMSELVES AND STOP SLIMING ON AND FU|CKING OVER THE INNOCENT?! Is that really such a tall order, and a great demand on the human population?! Is it really that taxing and exhausting for these pieces of sh!t to just leave people the fu|ck alone?! IS IT?!
And YES, THEY SIGNED UP FOR IT. Here's why: It's simple. They committed a heinous crime in a land where the punishment for said crime is the death penalty. Therefore, they signed up for the death penalty. They signed the deal, the contract. You can't get someone else's side of a deal, and then, after you got what you want, decide "No, I don't think I want to pay for this." That is not how it fu|cking works.
I swear, some people on these boards seem to think rape and murder and whatever other disgusting sh!t these "people" do are just legitimate acts that we all have to ponder over and discuss: "Hmmm, I wonder why this magnificent human being did these things. He must be unhappy. He must have been abused when he was a kid." The fact is, many people are abused horribly as children, and don't turn out like this. To sum up, I don't give a sh!t what happened to these MONSTERS to make them MONSTERS. They're fu|cking MONSTERS!! No matter how you slice it. Slap down the real punishment and stop panzying and pussyfooting around the obvious. Jesus, people!
And don't come back with the same old "no, these people have problems and we need to take the high road and help them along so they can be functioning members of society." That pussy sh!t just don't cut it. Never did. We have enough functioning members of society. We don't need these aszholes to become functioning members too. It just ain't necessary. So, someone come up with a REAL response or don't even bother. NO MORE SISSY STUFF!
You are my man!!!
I am deeply impressed of your speech and hoped, more people would think like that.
But unfortunately our "culture" is ruled by those liberal sissies.
I wish, we had death penalty here in Germany. But unfortunately it was abolished.
And do you know why? Because after World War II some German politicians wanted to
prevent, that more nazi war criminals get executed! It´s true. I´ve learned it in
university.
For me it is natural, that war criminals should be killed- but as well ordinary murderers,
rapists. pedophiles...and other "likeable victims".
I think, death penalty is not only good, because it gives the relatives of the
victims (or the victims themselves, in the case of a rape or sth.) satisfaction,
but also it saves the state a lot of money, that would
be spend to feed this scum otherwise.
And don´t come with the "argument", we have no right to kill another person.
Who forbits it to the USA? God? Are the USA a theocraty or what?
Actually, this is NOT TRUE.
For a simple answer, you can refer to the following links:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070508083314AAeW0lM
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/dp_qa.html
For more detailed information, you can refer to Sr. Helen Prejean's book upon which this film was based.
Statistics prove that no executed murderer has ever killed again. If a murderer hated someone enough to kill him, it should be worth it to him to die for it. If he murdered to stay out of prison, then obviously he should prefer death to rotting in prison.
Oddly enough, "lifers" in America today serve an average of nine years, the same as they did in 1890. The big difference is today, after nine years they're paroled. Back in 1890, after nine years, they died. I think I would have rather hanged and get it over with.
PS: Sister Prejean is full of crap. She should be trying to prevent young criminals from turning into murderers, not trying to save them once they've done it. If she thinks they're innocent and she's trying to reverse the convivtion like The Innocence Project does, that's a different story.
I see nothing wrong with killing a guilty person. You people always acct like killing a monster is somehow equivalent to killing an innocent person.
shareNope, not equivalent. Am I losing sleep when a convicted child murderer is put to rest by the state? No. Ignoring the number of wrongfully-convicted individuals who have been put to death or are on death row I just think it's wrong. The reason the death penalty has so many supporters is that it is exceedingly easy to hold up the worst scumbag murderers humanity has to offer and make the argument that they "don't deserve to live," as if that has any bearing on the morality of state-sanctioned murder. One of the things that makes Dead Man Walking such a great movie and not one of those preachy anti-death penalty screeds is the fact that it does not go light on Penn's character's evil actions. He is not a wrongfully-convicted man, hell, he's not even a nice man. Doesn't matter WHO he is, the death penalty is still wrong.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
[deleted]
Again, I'm tired of the "it's just wrong" arguments. They carry no weight, since no one on here can back them up. The statement always ends in a period and nothing more. You have to do better than that.
And give AN EXAMPLE of a wrongfully convicted individual who has been put to death. That is sounding like an urban myth, the more I hear about it.
"The reason the death penalty has so many supporters is " that it's fair. NO ONE CAN DENY THE FAIRNESS. It's the fairness that wins support from so many people. If you're going to deny the fairness, then you're going to have to write an epic essay to counter it. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." It's a corny cliche, I know, but it's true. That's the essence of fairness. It's not like it doesn't count if you do something really, really bad. It's not "do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless you do something horrible to others, then you should expect nothing back."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates
Check the citations if you're not comfortable with Wikipedia as a source of information.
I don't know if you should be playing the "fairness" card since you're on record as being pro-torture of convicted criminals.
On your first point, I would ask you how the hell I'm supposed to "back up" the assertion that ANYTHING is wrong. You say "murder is wrong" but can you back up why? What does "back up" even mean? Aren't you the one that talks about "karmic balance" and other intangible justifications for the death penalty? Can you back that up? No? I guess I'm right then.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
I like Wikipedia. I think it is a great source of information.
The pro-torture is part of the fairness thing. So I'm playing the card. How does torture fall outside of fairness? Equal treatment is fairness. You do something horrible to a person, that treatment should be visited upon you. What more "backing up" does that need?
I'm not the one who brought up the "karmic balance" thing. But I can't say I disagree with it. Can I back it up? Yes. I already have. Equal treatment.
I guess I'm just asking for the second part of this sentence:
"Killing monsters is wrong because..."
That's really all I'm looking for.
I said something along the lines of "Killing monsters is right because it's fair, treatment equal to the way they treated innocent people."
"Can you back that up? No?"
Are you jumping the gun on your own question? I did back it up. Fairness. That's all anyone needs.
"Killing monsters is wrong because" it makes the society that kills them monsters as well.
As for the "fairness" thing each individual has his own idea of what's fair and what isn't. Unless you can show me some Karmic fairness chart I'm still gonna think it's bull. Honestly your talk about fairness makes you sound like Two-Face in The Dark Knight.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
It's not subjective. Monsters hurt or kill innocent people, with the intent of making the experience fearful or painful. It's right there in any definition of the word 'monster'. Monsters don't hand out suitable penalties to monsters. That's not what monster means. Same with fairness. If the same thing that a monster did to someone innocent happens back to him, that's fair. Right from the definition of that word too. This "own idea of what's fair and what isn't" concept just doesn't fly.
But have it your way, dude. No one's convincing anybody of anything. You're going to think it's all bull, chart or no chart. If the actual literal definitions of 'monster' and 'fairness' don't convince you, nothing will.
Your "Two-Face" comparison is pretty funny, though. Maybe he had a point, to a certain degree. Threatening to kill Gordon's wife and kid was going way too far. But he should have killed the Joker. That would have been fair. I didn't like how he gave up on the Joker so easily, and said he was just a 'mad dog', like he wasn't to blame for his actions. Made that movie a bit lame for me.
Not sure if you ever answered this one. Can't get a straight answer from any softy. What about making these monsters test subjects for harmful chemical products? Save the innocent animals. Or exiling these monsters forever to distant islands in the middle of the ocean? Those alternatives don't involve the death penalty. Would either of those things be fair to you?
Oh I'm a "softy" now. Jesus. I really don't want to be a prick but I'm kind of sick of discussing the death penalty over the internet with strangers. I had a potential medical emergency recently (turned out to be nothing) and it kind of took the fight out of me. Your thoughts on Two-Face are interesting. Have a nice life - please don't go into the legal or law enforcement fields.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
You've been a softy this whole time. But I'm not gonna argue about it. No one's saying you're a prick. I know that everyone's opinion is valid; I'm not dismissing yours. I'm just saying you can't contradict the definitions of words.
Wow, I really can't get an answer on the test subject and exile thing, can I? Is it really that hard to answer?
I'm happy your medical emergency turned out to be nothing. But I may disappoint you on the legal or law enforcement fields. I may just go into law enforcement. My ideas and point of view can only benefit the system.
Anyway, so long. Have a nice life.
[deleted]
I was just skimming through this thread and decided to jump in with a little devil's advocate (I am ambivalent on the issue, although tending towards pro-execution).
It's not subjective.Pretty much everything is subjective mate, especially interpretation of language. Numeracy is objective because its values are finite but language is not since many words have multiple definitions.
Also from dictionary.com
Monster:
4. a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.
That's exactly what these people are.
And as for fairness, I don't see how anyone can argue that the same actions returned to the perpetrators could be called unfair or unjust. Certainly people's concept of unjust differs. But the people who think the death penalty is unjust have little to support that other than they think all killing is wrong.
Why is it wrong? Because it violates basic rights: life, liberty, and freedom. So is imprisonment wrong too? It violates freedom. No, because that right can be waived by the criminal. Well, then so can the right to life.
Maybe 'equal treatment' is more accurate than 'fair' for what I'm arguing, since 'fair' seems to have the drawback of being subject to everyone's differing view. 'Equal treatment' does not.
So I insist on 'equal treatment' of criminals. They get back what they do to others. What's wrong with that?
No, I think there's a little more to my argument than simple 'conviction in my beliefs'.
OK, So you are against state sanctioned murder. I actually think it is humane to the alternative. Imagine if the state released the murdered to the custody of the relatives and friends of the victim who could give the murderer a far worse death. State sanctioned execution saves the prisoner from the wrath of the victims families. If Sean Penn's character did what he did to one of my family members, he would be begging to be executed lest I get his hands on him.
share"State sanctioned execution saves the prisoner from the wrath of the victims families."
Only in the false scenario that you proposed. The murderer is "safe" from the victim's family during a life imprisonment, although I do doubt that this is one of the main priorities of most prisons.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
"I'm kind of sick of discussing the death penalty over the internet with strangers"
Apparently, not sick enough. 'Cause here you are again.
Do you have an answer on the test subject / exile thing? As an alternative to the death penalty, do you think it's alright to make these criminals test subjects for various harmful chemicals or products? Save the poor innocent animals. Or to exile the criminal to a distant island forever?
Exile would definitely be better than executing them, although I don't think many people would go along with it considering the possibilities for escape. As using them as experimental tests, as long as it was voluntary I wouldn't have any qualms. Besides, that very idea is the subject of the greatest movie ever made The Thing With Two Heads.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
I see. I was talking about involuntary test subjects though. I don't see how anyone would want to volunteer to be test subjects. I'm talking about the spray-on-eye tests and whatever else. I also don't see why it should be voluntary, but that's my view.
That's the greatest movie ever made? Really? I'll have to give it a look.
If it is sanctioned by the state, then it is legal. If it is legal, then it is not murder. Statistics prove that executed murderers don't kill again. It most certainly matters who the killer is and what he did. That's why there are two degrees of murder and two degrees of manslaughter.
shareSo I don't end up sounding like too much of a douchey self-righteous liberal
So you're against the death penalty, but it's okay to kill babies. You liberals can't have it both ways.
You're right. I am against the death penalty and yet, contradictorily, I am also not opposed to the murder of babies. It's a difficult stance but I manage to soldier on day-to-day.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
So I don't end up sounding like too much of a douchey self-righteous liberal
"Because it's wrong."
Wrong by WHAT standard? And if it really IS as bad and immoral as say the murder of innocents like for instance our main antagonist have committed here, why was it implemented in the law, given that law by its virtue does believe and is meant to be way above morally the criminal elements it intends to punish?
People who use the "revenge is wrong" argument are assuming that capital punishment is about revenge.
We who are in favor of a carefully-applied death penalty in capital cases are not bloodthirsty revenge-seekers.
We look at the dead person lying there and the murderer still standing there with blood on his hands, either actually or figuratively, and we conclude that this is wrong.
Why should the murderer be supported for the rest of his life (assuming a life sentence without parole) at public expense, against the wishes of those who are in favor of justice? The murderer made a decision to end someone else's life. He could have chosen to back out of the situation, or never to have entered into the situation to begin with. He could have chosen to volunteer at a local hospital to help people who really need it, or some other beneficial activity, but he chose to end someone else's life instead.
About the dead person: Now that the person is dead, he is removed from the decision, by the action of the murderer I might point out. What about his voice? Why is he now ignored? Is it because he is now just a despised lump of rotting flesh and deserves no further consideration? Think about what you are doing, people.
Why should those who seek justice be forced by you to support these murderers for the rest of their lives in prison (where they are essentially free to commit more murders)? It costs far more per year to support one murderer in prison than people like me receive per year, and I behave myself. If you are so interested in preserving their lives, why don't you lobby your legislators hard to get a law passed whereby you people pony up the money for their incarceration, through grants, bequests, deductions from your paychecks, etc. and you] can pay for saving these cretins? You can start a "save the thugs" movement.
What about cases where the charge is reduced to manslaughter or whatever and the killer is released after three and one-half years? Usually when the victim was brown- or black-skinned? Often to kill or maim again?
Think about it, people.
For you , and plenty of others I'm sure, capital punishment isn't about revenge but for some it is.
The public expense argument is a strange one as the death penalty actually costs more than life imprisonment does. There is a simple answer to deal with cases where the killer is released: life imprisonment. Murderers should never be let out. For cases where the charge is reduced to manslaughter then I would say that if it truly was murder then why was the charge reduced? There have also been cases where juries - even if places where support for the death penalty is high - have convicted people who are clearly guilty of murder of manslaughter instead because they don't want to be responsible for an execution. This means that dangerous people can get out of prison sooner than they should. It was one of the reasons for the abolition of the death penalty in the UK.
The dead person can never have a voice because nobody can truly say what they would want. You might assume they would want the death penalty but they might think life imprisonment is more suffering so would prefer that. They might not want the family members of the killer to go through the pain their family is. There have been people who have survived torture and attempted murder and not wanted the death penalty so it is possible.
That's because they still live. The interests of society comes before all else, but the vast majority of survivors of murder victims want the murderers to pay with their lives.
share Funny this question was asked. This movie did more to address all sides of the capital punishment issue than any movie made that I'm aware of. Every time the viewer began feeling sorry for Sean Penn's character, a flashback to the murders was shown or the ongoing grief of the victim's families displayed. It also showed the ordeal of the murderer's family as his execution date approaches.
I think the final scene with Sister Prejean praying for peace with Earl Delacroix was a fitting end to the movie.
[deleted]
Sorry your ass!
I wanna kill myself after watching this movie!How's that enough for feeling sorry?
No not at all. We arent SUPPOSED to feel anything. Why would you judge a movie like that? This movie meerly wants to expose both sides of the story and give us perspective on one of the most controversial topics in our society.
shareYou'll get more perspective if you read the book.
shareThe ones who truly are punished when it comes to the death penalty are the family of the executed. The criminal is dead - he doesn't feel anything.
The victims family and the family of the executed are both punished, and they are both innocent.
That's because for them, no matter how bad their relative is and how guilty he is, it is always sad to lose a loved one. But then, one could say something similar in cases someone got killed in self defence or even jailed for life - as necessary and inevitable as it is though. Should all of that be avoided too to avoid making them sad and distraught? And what about some cases where a criminal has no relatives as such?
shareThe most important thing to try to remember is that one act of violence is no kind of redemption for another.
I think that is a better message displayed in this movie.
Bruges? Its in Belgium.
Why isnt revenge valid? Its a natural thing to get even. You'll feel better afterwards, and you'll make sure that the scum wont hurt anyone else.
shareWho says "you'll feel better afterwards"? I read an interview with a woman whose son was murdered who initially supported his killers execution but now says that in the long run it made her feel worse. I also saw a documentary about a woman whose father was killed by a bomb planted by the IRA and she met up with the man who planted the bomb and said that she found the experience of confronting him very healing. If he had been executed she would have been denied that experience. When the serial killer Harold Shipman committed suicide the families of his victims said they felt robbed of the opportunity to confront him and find out his reasons for the murders so obviously the death of the murderer isn't what they want or what would make them feel better. There are family members who initially support the executions of the killer but afterwards say they it didn't bring them any relief as they believed it would. There are plenty of examples of families of murder victims who do not want the death penalty, the web address below is the website Murder Victims Families For Reconciliation which is a website where all the members have had people in their family murdered but they still oppose the death penalty and don't believe it would or did help them.
mvfr.org/
Just because something is natural that doesn't make it alright. Underage pregnancy, adultery, cats torturing mice, humans living like cavemen and letting people die of diseases rather than offering them unnatural drugs that will cure them or relieve their pain are all perfectly natural.
[deleted]
What is the alternative then? Life in prison? Spending tax dollars for the upkeep, healthcare, education of someone who commits a heinous crime and risking the safety of other prisoners or the chance of escape? I do not see the point in locking someone for the rest of his life which to me seems a lot more cruel than execution itself. If the hope is for rehabilitation, who among us would live a peaceful life with a convicted murderer next door?
shareThe death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.
shareNot if you remove all the appeals processes, and streamline the process to remove all of the inefficiencies. By shortening the time between accusal and execution, we can make the death penalty cheaper than a 1 year jail sentence.
After all, that's what it's all about anyway, isn't it?
It's this darn moral code of ours that keeps the death penalty so expensive. Eliminate morality, and the death penalty will be quite cheap to administer.
Not that I would support it anyway, but when I hear of innocent people who have been on death row, or been executed, it only cements my belief that this should not be practiced. If you execute ONE innocent person, you're no better than the criminals themselves. Expediting the process would only ensure that people who may be innocent or who may not deserve the punishment of death will have no chance at all to be exonerated.
On top of that, why is it that states like Texas and Florida execute far more prisoners than other states? Are their criminals that much more vicious and guilty, OR are the state's laws just more biased and vengeful? The fact that their rates of crime and murder are no different than anywhere else shows that the death penalty is an ineffective method of punishment, primarily because the sort of crimes that lead to such a conviction can't be predicted or stopped.
And people say "Well, I can stop THIS guy from killing someone else," but if you locked him up for life, he would have far less a chance of killing anyone but another murderer anyway.
We're not animals, and none of us is so perfect so as to be justified in making the decision of whether someone else lives or dies-- that's the crime murders commit, believing that they have the right to take someone else's life from them. I would much prefer to live in a soceity with a conscience than one thirsty for vengeance, no matter the cost to its own soul.
A person whose relative was killed with a bomb planted by the IRA is totally different than a person whose love one was killed in a prolonged act of random sadism and violence.
People who commit the kind of crime Poncelot commits in DMW need to be tortured and made to suffer to the furthest length of the imagination. That's justice.
Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.
"A person whose relative was killed with a bomb planted by the IRA is totally different than a person whose love one was killed in a prolonged act of random sadism and violence"
How is it totally different? It is random, it is violent and if the person doesn't immediately die from the explosion then it is very painful and terrifying.
See? This is the problem with the anti-DPs. This is the fu|cking problem right there. They really can't see the difference between a bomb going off and killing someone versus a monster raping, sodomizing, burning, and slicing up a person over the course of several days. This is the problem. No need for me to explain this glaringly obvious mistake. lormand, you just took yourself down a few notches with that post. Congratulations.
shareI'll explain your mistake to you. Senator Corleone said that there is no comparison between an IRA bombing and Poncelets crime. Poncelet did not commit a crime that involved "raping, sodomizing, burning and slicing up a person over the course of several days" so your post is not making an accurate comparison. Poncelet raped a woman and shot a man in one night. I assume you consider a comparison between raping and shooting 2 people in 1 night compared to a bomb going off and killing a bar full of people so derisively illogical because you assume that the victims of bomb attacks are killed instantly. Well that is false. People killed in a bomb can take hours to die and be in agonizing pain from injuries such as crushed body parts, limbs blown off, horrendous burns, lung damage, raptured ear drums and the list goes on.
If dying in that way is so incomparable to the suffering of Poncelets victims then I'm afraid you'll have to explain to me how.
"I'll explain your mistake to you."
So your idea of arguing with me is just saying it was my mistake because I said it was your mistake (very imaginative, by the way)? And then further cementing my previous post by still showing confusion over the difference between torture and killing versus setting off a bomb? THEN making a distinction between "rape, sodomize, burn, and slice" versus "rape and shoot"? Are you serious? Oh, is that all he did then? Was I being too hard on him? Was I being unfair? I should really back off, eh? Golly, I can be so mean sometimes! I almost concluded he was a bad person there. Silly me!
Seriously, no distinction between torture and killing versus a bomb? But YES, a distinction between "rape, sodomy, burn, and slice" versus "rape and shoot"?
No, sadistic torture and killing is worse than any other violent crime, including setting off bombs. And no, I don't need to explain how, it's obvious as daylight. Just like that other nutbar angeldeb, you think all ways to die are the same.
I didn't say that rape and shooting was not a heinous crime as I didn't think it needed saying. Of course it is but you made a comparison between keeping people alive for days and people dying from a bomb so while I was comparing the bomb with Poncelets crime you weren't.
I would agree that keeping people alive for days is worse than killing people with a bomb because the suffering is more drawn out however I disagree that raping and then shooting people in one night is worse than people dying from a bomb.
Of course not all ways of dying are the same but I don't see how inflicting a very painful death on a people through bombing is any better than raping then shooting them. The suffering is great in both cases so the crimes are equally terrible.
If you set a house on fire knowing people are inside and cannot escape then in my mind your crime is as bad as if you broke in a house and set them on fire yourself because you enjoy inflicting pain. Therefore if you inflict agonizing deaths on people by planting a bomb then you are just as guilty as if you inflict an agonizing death by raping them then shooting them.
If you disagree with that then thats fine but your view is not the only legitimate one.
Fair enough. No, my view is not the only legitimate one. I guess I'm saying something that's more up close and personal such as direct rape and torture, is worse because it's done directly. But whatever. Your opinion is your opinion. It doesn't really matter I guess, because anyone who would do any of those things should be wiped from the Earth.
I'll ask you this: what do you think about making these people be test subjects the rest of their lives? Test harmful chemicals and commercial products on them. Save the poor animals. That's not the death penalty. Or how about exile on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Is that reasonable?
I don't believe in testing for commercial products. I'm a reluctant supporter of medical testing because as much as I love animals if testing on them can save human lives then I think that is more important but I see no reason to torture anybody human or animal just for a new brand of shampoo. I have mixed feelings about testing on humans rather than animals; part of me supports it because the animals are innocent and at least a convicted murderer has done something to deserve their fate but another part of me feels that many of the arguments I use against the death penalty (risk of wrongful convictions, pain to family members etc) would also apply to the testing. I don't know if exile would be practical but I suppose it could be worth trying.
I find it interesting that the way you would apply the death penalty would mean that it would used extremely rarely, even less than it is now. I do respect the fact that you take the risk of innocent people being executed seriously instead of the "sh!t happens" attitude that I've seen some pro-DP people expressing.
Assuming the killing was on tape would you support the death penalty for:
A pro-life activist killing an abortion doctor?
A wife who has been brutally beaten for years murdering her husband?
A 19 year old who sadistically tortured a young child to death when he was 12 years old?
A woman who claimed to have been raped by the man she killed but it wasn't proven?
A schizophrenic who had gone to a psychiatric hospital begging for help saying he was dangerous but was refused then diagnozed as mentally ill after the murders?
A vigilante killing a pedophile?
Somebody who wanted revenge against someone who murdered their child but got the wrong person?
I ask more out of curiousity rather than trying to make a point.
I like these kinds of questions. I'll give my answers.
Assuming the killing was on tape would you support the death penalty for:
A pro-life activist killing an abortion doctor?
A wife who has been brutally beaten for years murdering her husband?
A 19 year old who sadistically tortured a young child to death when he was 12 years old?
A woman who claimed to have been raped by the man she killed but it wasn't proven?
A schizophrenic who had gone to a psychiatric hospital begging for help saying he was dangerous but was refused then diagnozed as mentally ill after the murders?
A vigilante killing a pedophile?
Somebody who wanted revenge against someone who murdered their child but got the wrong person?
I ask more out of curiousity rather than trying to make a point.
"Well, I kinda think you were trying to make some point there. It seems you believe there is something to the age or mental state arguments, since you asked about those like those should excuse someone"
No. I just chose situations that are morally complex and would lead to debates.
I totally agree, mightyduckk. It was the most interesting thing about this movie. While you feel really sorry for the parents who lost their kids and hate the 2 criminals, you also sympathize with the criminal on the death row.
Sean Penn does a marvelous acting job in the movie, fantastic enough for the audience to really understand what 'feeling the breath of death on one's neck' means to the bad guys, as it does to the good guys.
Sean Penn was, again, brilliant in the movie. The scene in which he burst out to tears when he confessed about the killing was breathtaking!
I felt sorry for him the whole movie until the end when he said he did commit the crime.
shareI am against the death penalty, but I don't think you should call the execution of a murderer "murder." I don't detest the death penalty because of its cruelty--if you murder someone, I think that you deserve far worse than lethal injection. However, we will never--no matter how good DNA testing gets--be able to be 100% that the right people are being executed 100% of the time, so it's not worth it. But I think that one should be careful in equating the murder of a completely innocent person with the execution of the person who murdered him or her. I strongly disapprove of the latter, but the former is the true tragedy. To clarify: obviously, anytime a human being becomes so corrupt and evil that they kill someone, that is a tragedy. But there is a difference between the death of an innocent person and the death of the person who knowingly, willfully, cold-bloodedly caused that innocent person's death. I think that killing someone who killed someone (assuming no mental problems, etc.) is justice, but higher forms of justice exist--like life in prison--and as a society, we should strive towards those higher forms.
Again, this is coming from an exceedingly liberal, against-the-death penalty Democrat. :)
Original poster, you're supposed to feel...whatever it you choose to feel. You're not "supposed" to feel sorry for him, nor are you "supposed" to despise him. That's not the film's intention, to glorify or demonize him. The intention is simply to show both sides of the issue as it is. That yes, he did do a horrible crime against two innocent teens. But he is still a human being despite that. And on the flip side, the families of the 2 murdered teens would understandably desire retribution for their losses. But yet it is VITAL that you NOT make the families of the victims the "bad guy,"; that is, make it an us-vs-them situation. And despite the inmate's deed, he still has loved ones too, like the teens did, who also experience a loss.
shareDepends on the meaning of the term life in prison. I'm Canadian and a criminology student and over here, life is prison is actually a prison term for 25 years. By law, a person who serves 2/3s of his sentance is granted statutory parole.=, which brings that term down to 16 years.
I studied the US system as I support the death penalty and there are already opponents of life in prison or life in prison without parole, abhoring it as a exceedingly cruel. I hate the tendency activists have, of taking a criminal centered approach and sympathzing/ victimizing them. No one mentions the 30 odd couples whom the real life criminals on whom this movie is based on, assaulted prior to the murders.
Nothing is infalliable but it's the price we pay to protect a society where murder is becoming so commonplace that we being our sympathies with the criminals and forget the nameless victims in the trail of blood left behind.
Yep, even life in prison or life in prison without parole are considered "exceedingly cruel". I read elsewhere that it's against a person's rights to have no hope of eventual release. What ISN'T CRUEL to these fu|cking activists anyway? I hate those ass|holes.
I'm Canadian too, and our pussy justice system is so fu|cking lame, it makes me sick. There was a crime here (in the city of Surrey) in which a group of ass|holes swarmed this 20-year-old guy at a party or something, and chopped the back of his neck with an ax, severing his spinal cord. They beat him really badly on top of that. He is fully paralyzed now, probably for life. And the worst sentence handed down to the ass|hole most responsible (the one who did the chopping) was something like 3 years. Another judge had to overrule the original judge's decision and made it 9 years (of course minus time already served, and he'll probably be paroled much sooner.) One of the other ass|holes got a 20-month sentence of house arrest. Crime is not taken seriously in this country AT ALL. It's despicable.
I actually feel bad for police because they have to keep arresting the same idiots over and over and over again for the same crimes, and judges keep letting them loose. Police have been beating these criminals up too sometimes out of frustration, and I don't blame them.