India to execute 4 rapists

[Metahive]

Actually, we can't. The wishes of the victims can be directed at the wrong person. Therefore the court is at least necessary to establish guilt and the correct determination of guilty individuals (or parties, in case of criminal organizations). I understand your point, but there is no need to exaggerate. We can't do away with courts, but if we were to go for anything the victims want to happen to the perpetrators, this would certainly do away with any pretense at humanism in the penal system. Those who only lose property may want death for the thief, after all, and I think even if the court correctly determined the guilt, this would not be considered sane.

I exaggerated because MFG keeps using "what the victims want" as a trump card and as an excuse to paint DP-opponents as heartless, whining bastards.

On the other hand, we know as third-party observers that actual horrendous harm was done to the victim. So if we decide to terminate the lives of individuals responsible, it is our decision which is based on our own sense of justice. Sometimes victims may exhibit a Stockholm syndrome; a person subjected to years of slavery may advocate leniency for the captors, but again, as a third-party observer we have established the fact of severe brutality, enslavement and degrading of human dignity, so we often punish the perpetrators within the full extent allowed by our laws.

We must ever be vigilant that we don't confuse justice and vengeance. I my opinion the DP can only ever be vengeance, never justice, not as long as we as a society regard killing a defenseless, non-threatening person as a crime.

I think MFG is incorrect here. It is a lot less the subjective desire of the victims and a lot more the objective collective empathy towards the victims in society that guides our hand.

I know that if my sister were raped to death I'd probably howl for the blood of whoever was responsible but I also know my sister wouldn't come back even if I personally slowly sliced the murderer to pieces. There's simply no justice in taking a life because you can never make up for it.

You know, for someone who ranted in another thread about people jumping in and reading only the last line, and ignoring the fact that their arguments were addressed several pages ago, you have a funny habit of doing that yourself. Alanis Morisette would sing a song about that. What's it called again. Oh that's right - Ironic.

Back to the topic, I never claimed he should die that way instead of this way. I said he was cowardly for refusing to face his actions in trial. Next time I just going to ask you to read the thread because you, Singular Intellect and that other loser didn't bother to read it.

I have participated in this discussion before if you remember, so I'd ask you to stop being a smug asshole. No, I don't see there anything of you explaining yourself in satisfying way.

Anyway, you are not making sense. You act all triumphant that the perps were sentenced to death. The guy presumably knew he had no chance and so he decided to preempt his sentence. Why's that cowardous?

Since you sarcasm detector is broken and you didn't realise the statement "that's just a guess mind you", was fucking sarcasm I will back it up.

With articles from here,here and here. Which all pretty much state that the trial was still ongoing when he offed himself. So forgive me I keep up the vitriol. I am sure you won't mind.

I still needed to prompt you to cough up the evidence. That's not a failure of my part, that's par of course for discussions on this site.

As I said, you can call it barbaric, but you can't deny its insulting to the victim's relatives. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

Why don't you have the intellectual honesty to accept that people might have different opinions about this than you? Do you know what is insulting? To utilize the victim's relatives as a cheap ploy to silence your opposition. How's that different from all the other twits who scream "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" whenever they wish to murder a discussion?

For fuck's sake. THIS ARGUMENT WAS ADDRESSED WHEN I DEBATED THANAS.

Earlier I wrote

"So this now begs the question, why is the feelings of the victims (and their relatives) not important? Please note no one is claiming their feelings are the most important things only, * but it seems you don't even consider that important at all."

The reason why I wouldn't agree with the sodomize punishment among others, is that the victims feelings and ability to reach closure is not the only thing to consider, but you guys don't give a fuck about that. Seriously, did you three losers even bother to read the thread, or just the last few sentences I made.

Hey, maybe I just don't consider the answer you gave back then to be satisfying? Well, now you know for certain I don't. Explain yourself. You keep using the victim's wishes as your one (and only) trump card and viciously try to silence everyone arguing against you by painting them as heartless, uncaring monsters who spit on the victim's grave. Your answer is nothing more than a cheap excuse belying what you've been doing throughout the thread. Tell me in an precise way where you draw the line. If India was executing people old-skool (IE in very painful and brutal ways like the Breaking Wheel) would you still support it?

You gotta' put some more effort into this.

Another example of your negligence as you put it, and NOT FUCKING READING THE THREAD. I already stated that it was not the most important thing to consider. My point about the insulting the victims is not so much that the perps get a bigger punishment, but that the human rights crowd add insult to injury and won't even have the insight or courage to admit that.

I read the thread, I just think your arguments suck and want you to do better.

Yeah, you're arguing against many people here but maybe, maybe that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't been busy painting all DP-opponents as callous vermin which was completely unnecessary to make your point.

[K. A. Pital]

There's simply no justice in taking a life because you can never make up for it.

But why should you be "making up" before a serial rapist or a murderer? Are people guilty because they have decided to end this particular life? In my view, there is no guilt here.

I my opinion the DP can only ever be vengeance, never justice, not as long as we as a society regard killing a defenseless, non-threatening person as a crime.

The person is in my view not defenseless neither non-threatening - these terms only apply in a military context, and the judicial system is not a war. The person is not being summarily executed without a trial, and it is not his immediate state of captivity which matters, but his entire current and future existence.

Rape and murder in prison are common occurence. And to explain a bit more, subjecting a person to complete isolation from society (which is the only way to make a dangerous criminal truly defenseless and non-threatening to others, which includes other criminals that end in prison for less severe offenses)... in my view is a form of torture. Not only is complete isolation in solitary confinement for life a form of torture, it is also a state that is bound to cause severe mental deformations. In essence, if a violent criminal was not actually a mentally sick person to the best of our current knowledge, he or she will become one after spending many years in solitary confinement.

What then? Are we truly sure that no amnesty will ever release a person who killed or raped back into society? Are we sure this person will not be transferred from solitary confinement (after suffering mentally and becoming even more sick and wretched due to the very fact of solitary confinement!) to a normal prison, where he or she could continue to kill or rape, or torture, or both?

So the question is: why do we subject this person to isolation for life as opposed to just ending this life? Why do we create for this person a specialized hell instead of turning him into nothingness? I can't say which option is the more humane one.

[Metahive]

But why should you be "making up" before a serial rapist or a murderer? Are people guilty because they have decided to end this particular life? In my view, there is no guilt here.

Murdering a murderer is still murder. It's not dependent on how pure the victim was. If I murdered the guy who raped my sister to death I'd still be a murderer and never be able to remove this stain from my conscience since I only condone killing that's done in self-defense from an immediate threat.

The person is in my view not defenseless neither non-threatening - these terms only apply in a military context, and the judicial system is not a war. The person is not being summarily executed without a trial, and it is not his immediate state of captivity which matters, but his entire current and future existence.

See what I said above.

Rape and murder in prison are common occurence. And to explain a bit more, subjecting a person to complete isolation from society (which is the only way to make a dangerous criminal truly defenseless and non-threatening to others, which includes other criminals that end in prison for less severe offenses)... in my view is a form of torture. Not only is complete isolation in solitary confinement for life a form of torture, it is also a state that is bound to cause severe mental deformations. In essence, if a violent criminal was not actually a mentally sick person to the best of our current knowledge, he or she will become one after spending many years in solitary confinement.

That's an argument against badly handled prisons, but not prisons in and itself. Ideally prisons serve to both punish and resocialize their inmates and treat them with modicum of humanity. Some inmates probably can't be resocialized, but in their cases just keep 'em locked up until they die or are old and senile.

What then? Are we truly sure that no amnesty will ever release a person who killed or raped back into society? Are we sure this person will not be transferred from solitary confinement (after suffering mentally and becoming even more sick and wretched due to the very fact of solitary confinement!) to a normal prison, where he or she could continue to kill or rape, or torture, or both?

That's not a great argument. That's the Perfect Solution Fallacy. No you can't ever be 100% certain that dangerous people will stay locked up forever or until they are doddering old farts, but if you argue that way you might as well throw all laws out of the window since there'll always be someone to break them. Also, what about the innocent people who will get caught up with a death sentence due to judicial error or other unfortunate events? Can you ever be truly sure that only the people get executed who also deserved it? How do DP-proponents deal with that aspect?

Besides, it's been argued that the DP in and itself has a brutalizing effect on potential perps and society at large so there's that potential trade-off. You argue that prisons turn people worse, but so might the DP and in a more insidious and pervasive way.

[K. A. Pital]

I'd still be a murderer and never be able to remove this stain from my conscience since I only condone killing that's done in self-defense from an immediate threat.

If the victim could have killed the murderer in self-defence, which by all means is a preferrable outcome to what really happened, you would not object to the murderer's life being ended. Note, however, that at this very moment the murderer has not really yet even committed the murder in question; he or she is only trying to do so. If killed in the process, one can say that the victim is the only murderer left.

That's an argument against badly handled prisons, but not prisons in and itself. Ideally prisons serve to both punish and resocialize their inmates and treat them with modicum of humanity.

You and I both are probably intelligent enough to understand that you are referring to an ideal state of things where prisons exist to serve a declared purpose, a state which is not achieved and there is not even a goal set by the current governments to achieve this state. If we read Focault (which I presume we both did, feel free to correct me), we already know that the real origins of the prison system do not lie in the idea of rehabilitation. Prison is an institution of control. A well-run prison is an institution of total control, where every movement of the inmate is watched and controlled to ensure no wrongdoing is ever possible.

I am not sure what is worse, badly managed prisons or such a perfect prison.

That's not a great argument. That's the Perfect Solution Fallacy. No you can't ever be 100% certain that dangerous people will stay locked up forever or until they are doddering old farts, but if you argue that way you might as well throw all laws out of the window since there'll always be someone to break them. Also, what about the innocent people who will get caught up with a death sentence due to judicial error or other unfortunate events? Can you ever be truly sure that only the people get executed who also deserved it? How do DP-proponents deal with that aspect?

That is actually why I said that death penalty application should be limited to cases of unambigious repeat offenses. By a repeat offense I mean raping or killing again upon being released after serving one's sentence for the first crime. This is the safeguard - which, by the way, is far from a perfect solution. Every failure of this safeguard is paid by at least one another life - most likely innocent life - that the non-resocialized criminal takes when he or she commits this repeat offense. So my idea is to give everyone, even people who committed murder and rape, a second chance. But not a third one and no "always forgiven" state where this person is repeatedly killing and yet somehow managing to stay alive. Yes, this also allows serial rapists and killers to live and potentially walk free. But it does not give them a third chance at evading death.

You argue that prisons turn people worse, but so might the DP and in a more insidious and pervasive way.

I agree that this may very well be the case, but there are no studies that I'm aware of, which would show a correlation between the application of death penalty and, say, more murders after rape - which I presume is the dangerous outcome you are talking about. If anything, so as long as murder after or alongside rape is not punished severely, there is hardly any incentive at all for the rapist(s) to leave the victim alive because the victim is also a witness. A DP for rape+murder, but only a max sentence for rape alone may produce the necessary deterrent effect.

Does DP really make society at large worse? I am not sure. If applied in a summary execution fashion, under laws of war, certainly this becomes a brutalizing factor. If applied with due process as I suggested above, to an extremely limited number of cases and with publicity, but without specific populace-oriented brutality (no crowd-cheering electrocution shows on TV), it may not have severe consequences for the society - at least not more than the prison-industrial and the military-industrial complex have. Neither prisons nor armies are good, but plans to get rid of them have failed. I wish they had not, actually.

[Metahive]

If the victim could have killed the murderer in self-defence, which by all means is a preferrable outcome to what really happened, you would not object to the murderer's life being ended. Note, however, that at this very moment the murderer has not really yet even committed the murder in question; he or she is only trying to do so. If killed in the process, one can say that the victim is the only murderer left.

Murder is the killing of another person with malice aforethought. This obviously does not apply to killing out of immediate self-defense. I would also argue that you first duty when under lethal attack is to look for ways to run and evade. I have none of the Stand Your Ground macho nonsense.

You and I both are probably intelligent enough to understand that you are referring to an ideal state of things where prisons exist to serve a declared purpose, a state which is not achieved and there is not even a goal set by the current governments to achieve this state. If we read Focault (which I presume we both did, feel free to correct me), we already know that the real origins of the prison system do not lie in the idea of rehabilitation. Prison is an institution of control. A well-run prison is an institution of total control, where every movement of the inmate is watched and controlled to ensure no wrongdoing is ever possible.

What it's origins are is really not so relevant as the question what purpose they serve now and there I stick to "punishment and rehabilitation". Maybe they are Orwellian nightmares, but they're still transient ones. Death is permanent.

I am not sure what is worse, badly managed prisons or such a perfect prison.

A perfect prison in my mind would be one that achieves a 0% recidivism rate with its inmates. I obviously don't see that as a bad thing but something to aspire to.

That is actually why I said that death penalty application should be limited to cases of unambigious repeat offenses. By a repeat offense I mean raping or killing again upon being released after serving one's sentence for the first crime. This is the safeguard - which, by the way, is far from a perfect solution. Every failure of this safeguard is paid by at least one another life - most likely innocent life - that the non-resocialized criminal takes when he or she commits this repeat offense. So my idea is to give everyone, even people who committed murder and rape, a second chance. But not a third one and no "always forgiven" state where this person is repeatedly killing and yet somehow managing to stay alive. Yes, this also allows serial rapists and killers to live and potentially walk free. But it does not give them a third chance at evading death.

I argue that life-imprisonment achieves the same purpose and can be reversed in case of a judicial failure. Death can't.

I agree that this may very well be the case, but there are no studies that I'm aware of, which would show a correlation between the application of death penalty and, say, more murders after rape - which I presume is the dangerous outcome you are talking about. If anything, so as long as murder after or alongside rape is not punished severely, there is hardly any incentive at all for the rapist(s) to leave the victim alive because the victim is also a witness. A DP for rape+murder, but only a max sentence for rape alone may produce the necessary deterrent effect

If there's one thing I've learned then it's that the DP deterring effect is rather dubious. It's not the potential punishment that affects a potential criminal's calculations (if he calculates at all and isn't committing crimes of passion) it's the chance of getting caught. Think about it, if the punishment for every crime were a slow, torturous death but the law enforcement weak and toothless, would it deter you from committing crimes?

Here's some food for thought:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a ... th-penalty

Does DP really make society at large worse? I am not sure. If applied in a summary execution fashion, under laws of war, certainly this becomes a brutalizing factor. If applied with due process as I suggested above, to an extremely limited number of cases and with publicity, but without specific populace-oriented brutality (no crowd-cheering electrocution shows on TV), it may not have severe consequences for the society - at least not more than the prison-industrial and the military-industrial complex have. Neither prisons nor armies are good, but plans to get rid of them have failed. I wish they had not, actually.

It for sure doesn't make it better and I think that's the least prerequisite it should fulfill before it's taken into consideration IMHO.

[K. A. Pital]

Murder is the killing of another person with malice aforethought. This obviously does not apply to killing out of immediate self-defense. I would also argue that you first duty when under lethal attack is to look for ways to run and evade. I have none of the Stand Your Ground macho nonsense.

I agree; I merely ponder the problem. Has a person who commits a crime of passion actually kill with malice aforethought?

What it's origins are is really not so relevant as the question what purpose they serve now and there I stick to "punishment and rehabilitation". Maybe they are Orwellian nightmares, but they're still transient ones. Death is permanent.

I beg to differ. A normative case of life incarceration is actually permanent. It is way more permanent than anything. Why is Christian hell abhorrent? Because it is limitless suffering. In real life, fortunately, we are mortal, so eternal suffering is not possible. But life incarceration - especially in Third World prisons - is pretty much the closest you can get to that concept.

A perfect prison in my mind would be one that achieves a 0% recidivism rate with its inmates. I obviously don't see that as a bad thing but something to aspire to.

I am sure you will bring Norway or, more precisely, Bastoy up as an example here, but even in Norway recidivism is at 20% - that in a society with a generous safety net to support people after release from prison and the most generous provisions for prisoner welfare. Norway's prisoners are very few and the society is extremely rich, so extreme care can be paid to every prisoner (as well as the concept of a tightly controlled prison society - when numbers are low it is easier to do). Overcrowd the prisons, and you will soon have to deal with gangs, pack mentality and other not-so-nice things. So the state of prisons is deeply connected to overall society's capabilities.

That's why the question is not whether DP or life in Bastoy is better. The real question is choosing between DP and life in prison in a Third World nation which is very likely to leave one crippled mentally and physically.

I agree that societies in general should aspire to create the best possible solution. But transplanting Bastoy to India is hardly a feasible solution - outside the well-off society with extremely low numbers of offenders a Bastoy-like institution would collapse and soon be no different from a random Indian jail.

I argue that life-imprisonment achieves the same purpose and can be reversed in case of a judicial failure. Death can't.

Death is irreversible, but life in prison is not reversible either. When you are released from the prison at the end of your life, is there anything you'd feel except hate and anger?

If there's one thing I've learned then it's that the DP deterring effect is rather dubious. It's not the potential punishment that affects a potential criminal's calculations (if he calculates at all and isn't committing crimes of passion) it's the chance of getting caught. Think about it, if the punishment for every crime were a slow, torturous death but the law enforcement weak and toothless, would it deter you from committing crimes?

No; not really. Which is why I was talking more about affluent societies that could potentially implement the system properly.

[mr friendly guy]

I exaggerated because MFG keeps using "what the victims want" as a trump card and as an excuse to paint DP-opponents as heartless, whining bastards.

Actually I use that an example to show the human rights loser's lack of empathy to the victims. But don't let the fact that I already stated the what the victims want isn't the most important factor stop your spiel.

I have participated in this discussion before if you remember, so I'd ask you to stop being a smug asshole. No, I don't see there anything of you explaining yourself in satisfying way.

Buddy, the human rights losers go so far as to call their opponent's barbaric etc. Don't whine when I decide to fire back. If you guys flame me, I flame right back. I don't pretend my opponent's are the only ones acting smug or whatever. That would be you guys.

Anyway, you are not making sense. You act all triumphant that the perps were sentenced to death. The guy presumably knew he had no chance and so he decided to preempt his sentence. Why's that cowardous?

I explained earlier, but lets go through the motions again for you shall we.

1. You assume I called him a coward directly related to the fact he killed himself, rather than because he avoided facing the consequences. These consequences contrary to your simple thinking isn't just execution, but having his day in court where he can see what he has done.

2. This was clarified to you because it was quite clear that Stas was the only one who understood what I meant.

3. Stas even chipped in with an explanation of why its cowardice in a more detailed way because somehow this concept is foreign to you.

4. Your oh so awesome riposte was that his trial was already over. The implication being that he had already had his day in court, sentenced to death and decided to end it at a stage where it won't make a difference.

5. It was quite obvious from reading the article in OP that this was not so and that he killed himself before his trial, thus avoiding the entirety of it. Three articles later, you now accept that this was what happened and now fall back to point one, like a circle.

Got any new tricks?

I still needed to prompt you to cough up the evidence. That's not a failure of my part, that's par of course for discussions on this site.

Nice face saving line on your part. Apparently from where you come from it takes 6 months to sentence someone after they had already been found guilty.

If it somehow wasn't obvious to you from the article, within one minute of google would have netted you the articles in question. One minute.

Why don't you have the intellectual honesty to accept that people might have different opinions about this than you?

Ah, the old "you just can't accept opposing opinions" line. Haven't heard that one before. Tell you what. If you think that's what I believe as opposed to disagreeing with your opinion, show evidence that I said anything along those lines.

Hey I know. Why can't you human rights loser just accept that the people of India have different opinions about this than you? Why do you have to resort to name calling? See I can play this pathetic game too.

Do you know what is insulting? To utilize the victim's relatives as a cheap ploy to silence your opposition. How's that different from all the other twits who scream "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" whenever they wish to murder a discussion?

Did it occur to you I want you guys to keep on showing your lack of empathy. Because the more you do it, the more it becomes obvious how bankrupt your position is. Empathy for the perps and their relatives. Yep, just see Singular Intellect's statement think of the children think of the relatives of the executed perp. Empathy for the victims. None.

You know what's cheap. Some self righteous smuck calling the victim's relatives bloodthirsty and barbaric, followed by mass denials and avoiding the point.

Hey, maybe I just don't consider the answer you gave back then to be satisfying?

More like you didn't read it or misread it. Just like how misread one of my statements earlier before you left the thread.

Well, now you know for certain I don't. Explain yourself. You keep using the victim's wishes as your one (and only) trump card and viciously try to silence everyone arguing against you by painting them as heartless, uncaring monsters who spit on the victim's grave.

Actually its not my one and only trump card when I already stated to your face that its not the most important thing. I consider other things like the net benefit to society more important (which you would know, if you read my discussion with Thanas). Oops, you didn't read it. What a shock. Now I am going to see you go on the attack and ask about net benefit to society and totally ignore the point you were absolutely wrong about my stance on the victim's wishes.

I using the feelings of the victim's relatives to illustrate that human rights losers have their head so far up their arse they can't even display empathy for these people. This was originally in answer to Thanas question about what I object to AI. Unable to actually defend that point you concoct a giant strawman that I am using it to silence you when I want you guys to continue digging that hole. Which frankly, you guys have done.

Your answer is nothing more than a cheap excuse belying what you've been doing throughout the thread. Tell me in an precise way where you draw the line. If India was executing people old-skool (IE in very painful and brutal ways like the Breaking Wheel) would you still support it?

No. Oh that was difficult to answer. I quite content to execute them humanely rather than waste resources on scum like them. Now if for some weird reason the ideal method to execute them humanely is not available eg barbituates (which is used in European countries which allow euthanasia) then we go onto the next one, hanging or whatever.

You gotta' put some more effort into this.

Considering you can't even bother with one minute of googling if you disbelieve the article in the OP, that's quite a statement.

I read the thread, I just think your arguments suck and want you to do better.

Your arguments suck because I say so. Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo stick. Is that your excuse for failing to read the thread and seeing the arguments that have gone before. The point that you won't even admit that I stated my reason for why I called him a coward quite plainly (which is totally different from the reason you think) is quite telling. This is why I think you didn't read the thread despite your protestations.

Yeah, you're arguing against many people here but maybe, maybe that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't been busy painting all DP-opponents as callous vermin which was completely unnecessary to make your point.

Maybe if the human rights losers don't start calling their opponents blood thirsty or barbaric every time some country metes out justice, I wouldn't have made a sarcastic statement like that. Oh wait, its only bad when I do it, and its A-ok when your side does it. Gotcha.

[Singular Intellect]

Yep, just see Singular Intellect's statement think of the children think of the relatives of the executed perp. Empathy for the victims. None.

You know what's cheap. Some self righteous smuck calling the victim's relatives bloodthirsty and barbaric, followed by mass denials and avoiding the point.

You know, I was leaving you to your debate with others and not interested in dog piling you (especially when you mentioned that concern), but this point needs to be addressed.

I do feel a great deal of empathy for the victims. This does not mean their desire for revenge or punishment should in any way be appeased, however. That is why we have laws and the justice system instead of mob rule.

When I make the suggestion this kind of case brings out blood thirsty and barbaric assholes who are fucked in the head, I'm referring to shit stains who make the following statements:

One of the defendents apparently broke down in tears. Heh heh heh.

You here laughing at the sentence of death applied fellow human beings and the emotionally traumatizing effect on the defendant.

Oh, and the human rights crowd will start whining in 3,2,1...

And you here bitching about anyone who thinks human rights should be a consideration when dealing with criminals.

Your 'barbaric and bloodthirsty' commentary speaks for itself, and no amount of hiding behind your claiming it's motivated out of 'empathy' for the victim's loved ones will work.

It's ridiculously obvious your comment about how one of the defendants committing suicide is 'cowardly' is based solely upon your personal desire they should be tormented in some fashion, and then dressing up that desire as 'them facing the consequences'. The reality is you laugh at any pain inflicted on the defendants, cry foul about anyone bringing up human rights, and proclaim the defendant who committed suicide as 'cowardly', because apparently you want some time to laugh at any of their suffering and ignore consideration of what rights they still has.

I don't have a problem, in principle, with sentencing someone to death. I do have a serious problem with someone like you laughing about it, especially on the basis of the effect that sentence has on the defendant emotionally.

I don't have a problem with defendants losing basic rights when they violate the rights of others. I do have a problem with someone like you bitching about others who might have the audacity to suggest the defendants do indeed still have rights to be considered.

I don't have a problem with empathizing with the victim's loved ones affected by the crime in question. I do have a serious problem with someone like you pretending consideration for the defendant's loved ones and the pain they would suffer at the defendant's death somehow translates to 'don't care about the original victim's loved ones pain'.

You're a dishonest shit who hides behind additional victims in your blatantly obvious attempts to justify your own desire to see others suffer because you think they 'deserve it'. Hint: Some of the most vicious, inhuman and disgusting individuals who victimize others also think their victims 'deserve it'.

I easily put you in the same category as them, and no amount of you using other victims and their pain as a shield to hide your mental sickness will work.

[mr friendly guy]

I do feel a great deal of empathy for the victims. This does not mean their desire for revenge or punishment should in any way be appeased, however. That is why we have laws and the justice system instead of mob rule.

Addressed already with Metahive. That's why we have a fair trial so we can determine if who we charge really did commit the crime. However after they have been found guilty there should be consideration for the victims driven by our empathy to them. This is not the higher determinant of sentencing (which I stated twice already) but the problem with human rights losers, is that you don't even think it should have any bearing at all as demonstrated by your above statement. You seem to think either we must give in to them 100% or 0%. Talk about a black / white fallacy.

You here laughing at the sentence of death applied fellow human beings and the emotionally traumatizing effect on the defendant.

I see my laughing causes more outrage than raping and murdering a poor girl because you spent all that time attacking me rather without bother to at least attack them. Nice to know where you stand. Actions speak louder than words and all that.

And you here bitching about anyone who thinks human rights should be a consideration when dealing with criminals.

Actual human rights are good. The human rights crowd however has become a joke where they turn a decent concept into a perverse one. Try to tell them apart please.

Your 'barbaric and bloodthirsty' commentary speaks for itself, and no amount of hiding behind your claiming it's motivated out of 'empathy' for the victim's loved ones will work.

For a moment there I was shivering in my boots waiting for your superior ethical system to vanquish me, where its cool to rub it in to victims by labelling them bloodthirsty and barbaric. Oh I forgot, as long as you do like a Vulcan you somehow have superior morality.

It's ridiculously obvious your comment about how one of the defendants committing suicide is 'cowardly' is based solely upon your personal desire they should be tormented in some fashion, and then dressing up that desire as 'them facing the consequences'.

Ah, so we are back to the mind reading stick again are we? You see once you utilised your awesome mind reading bullshit, any claim must be because of <insert motive here> which becomes "ridiculously obvious". Of course I could point out way back in 2005 I also accused Australian politician John Brogden of trying to avoid facing the consequences of his actions by attempting to committing suicide as well, and that others also noted he was being cowardly for doing that. Heck I only wanted him to lose his job. But its really pathetic on your part that I even have to dig old posts to refute your mind reading powers. No doubt your equally impressive power of self delusion would still convince you I called him a coward for other reasons.

The reality is you laugh at any pain inflicted on the defendants,

Oh Mr High and Mighty doesn't laugh at the misfortune of others. Really? People laugh at the misfortune of others for lots of things, including from things varied as simply a sporting team down on their luck to political troubles. At least the people I laugh at in this thread goddamn deserved it.

cry foul about anyone bringing up human rights,

Pre-prepared speech ready I see. Because I am pretty sure I didn't deny them the right to a fair trial.

and proclaim the defendant who committed suicide as 'cowardly', because apparently you want some time to laugh at any of their suffering and ignore consideration of what rights they still has.

Awesome mind reading powers Batman.

I don't have a problem, in principle, with sentencing someone to death. I do have a serious problem with someone like you laughing about it, especially on the basis of the effect that sentence has on the defendant emotionally.

What difference will it make. Will we go to a lower level of hell if I laugh at his misfortune, one which he himself brought onto himself.

I don't have a problem with defendants losing basic rights when they violate the rights of others. I do have a problem with someone like you bitching about others who might have the audacity to suggest the defendants do indeed still have rights to be considered.

Translation - only I Singular Intellect decide when they lose these rights. When someone else does it, why its "they object to suggesting the defendent still has rights."

I don't have a problem with empathizing with the victim's loved ones affected by the crime in question. I do have a serious problem with someone like you pretending consideration for the defendant's loved ones and the pain they would suffer at the defendant's death somehow translates to 'don't care about the original victim's loved ones pain'.

Why aren't you actually addressing my point that when you start labelling entire groups barbaric etc for their DP views, you are also including the victim loved ones and hence are rubbing salt in the wound. Instead you turn it about me rather than my point.

You're a dishonest shit who hides behind additional victims in your blatantly obvious attempts to justify your own desire to see others suffer because you think they 'deserve it'. Hint: Some of the most vicious, inhuman and disgusting individuals who victimize others also think their victims 'deserve it'.

Villains think they are in the right. Say it ain't so Sherlock. If you don't think these guys deserved to be laughed, feel free to justify it rather than use gross generalisations that villains also think think they are in the right and insinuate that I am like them.

I easily put you in the same category as them, and no amount of you using other victims and their pain as a shield to hide your mental sickness will work.

In the world of Singular Intellect a person who laughs at the misfortune of others is the same morally as people who brutalise and kill a defenseless girl. That really says it all, and shows how ideologically fucked the human rights crowd is. Its almost like how Republicans try and paint their domestic political opponents in the same vein as America's enemies. This statement just says it all really about how fucked up in the head you are.

Where people who have the gall to criticise murders and rapists in a not nice way are in the same category as the murderers and rapists. You cannot make this shit up. If I said my opponent tried to equate me with murders and rapists I would be accused of creating a strawman. But apparently its true. Good job, couldn't have done it better myself.

This by the way, is why I know I won this debate. Because while you may have lost the plot for a while now, you have now aptly demonstrating doing so.

[Singular Intellect]

You weren't 'criticizing' or laughing at the 'misfortune' of others, MFG. You were laughing at the emotional trauma of the defendant facing death, bitching about others who bring up human rights (even for criminals) and declared the defendant who committed suicide as 'cowardly', and we have your own words to demonstrate how you like to behave towards the defendants still alive. The conclusions are obvious.

You laugh at the emotional trauma of a human being simply because they're a criminal, make a ruckus about human rights and name call one of the defendants when they have already paid the ultimate price for their choices in life.

As a judgemental person in this case, I've repeatedly stated I could condone a sentence of death, the loss of rights and empathize with victims of the entire situation.

What I won't do is laugh at the defendants traumatized by their sentence, bitch about anyone bringing up human rights, and certainly not hide behind and use additional victims in the situation as my 'excuse' for such behavior. Especially when the process of execution, if carried out, will create more victims you pretend to actually are about.

Yes, you are indeed fucked in the head, and the evidence is here for all to see.

[mr friendly guy]

Ah, the ooooh so awesome morality of Singular Intellect. Where people who have the gall to insult him and laugh at the misfortune of others are equated to real life murders and rapists. All the while real life murders and rapists are described as "failed by humanity", and their just punishments are described as "a situation of sadness" and how we must "make efforts to rehabilitate them". Hey, did you forgot about how society failed me (using your own perverse logic) and how you need to "make efforts to rehabilitate" me before condemning me. Obviously not because insulting you is a greater crime than sodomising a poor defenceless girl to death. That's is why you are a joke. That is why you just repeat the same lines already refuted and make this about me rather than about what is the appropriate sentence for murders.

[Singular Intellect]

Yeah, because you and I having a difference of opinion is the same as you laughing at the emotional trauma of other human beings sentenced to death, expressing disdain at human rights concerns, name calling the dead, mocking the concept of rehabilitation, and conveniently forgetting about other victims while using existing victims as a shield for your own perverse viewpoints disguised as 'empathy'. Hint: laughing at the emotional trauma of other humans is indicative of a sadistic and cruel mindset, never mind the rest.

I'm not laughing at any emotional trauma of yours, disputing the need to consider your human rights, name calling you after suicide or using your victim status to justify sadistic and cruel points of view.

I'm just calling it as I see it and pointing out your position and opinion for what it is. If you can't handle criticism of your position and opinions, keep them to yourself. If you act like an asshole, don't be surprised when people point out you are one. Cry some more.

[Singular Intellect]

And your furious back pedaling on how this is really about 'appropiate sentence for murderers' isn't fooling anyone. Had you actually been concerned about that issue, you wouldn't have conveniently snipped my first reply where I specifically ask about what efforts were made to determine rehabilitation possibilities for the defendants. You know, maybe kinda sorta hinting at determining if the sentence is appropiate?

[K. A. Pital]

I must question the very need to rehabilitate people who brutally murder a girl using a metal rod in a group like a pack of predators. Rehabilitation is something society offers you: like education, for example. Further education is not offered to people who consistently flunk classes, in fact they are barred from entering it through a process called exams.

Rehabilitation requires society to expend resources to reinstate a certain person (with a less than 100% probability) as a non-criminal member of society. Since society's resources are limited, and there are people who are not even criminals, much less murderers, who suffer from poverty and malnutrition in India, the expenditure of resources for rehabilitation should be justified. Rehabilitating a petty thief may be a worthwhile investment. A person injured only the property of others, and in a minor way which did not cause reverberating consequences throughout the nation.

People who gang-murder a weak victim are certainly not the first on the priority list for rehabilitation. There are many others who need attention, care and rehabilitation. Why should these people be denied this care and rehabilitation so that brutal murderers will get it? Remember the finite resources dilemma. India executes very few people. It really takes a major effort on part of the criminal to get such a sentence and put himself outside society's rehabilitation lists.

[Lagmonster]

I've wondered before whether or not the kind of resource scarcity you're talking about, coupled with ethical problems with the death penalty (not to mention the horrors of captivity), would lead people to lean in favour of exile. Granted, there aren't many options for exile that wouldn't end in death (say, strapping a parachute and a full pack of provisions and gear to a gangbanger and shoving them out a plane somewhere over Greenland), so take that as evidence that I haven't really thought it out. But there's a certain gut satisfaction to the idea of kicking people who abuse society out of society.

[K. A. Pital]

I've wondered before whether or not the kind of resource scarcity you're talking about, coupled with ethical problems with the death penalty (not to mention the horrors of captivity), would lead people to lean in favour of exile. Granted, there aren't many options for exile that wouldn't end in death (say, strapping a parachute and a full pack of provisions and gear to a gangbanger and shoving them out a plane somewhere over Greenland), so take that as evidence that I haven't really thought it out. But there's a certain gut satisfaction to the idea of kicking people who abuse society out of society.

That has been an idea I pondered as a way of dealing with such offenders in a future society. Expunging them leaves, theoretically, an option to survive. On the other hand, I was thinking more about expunging criminals to other nations which are ready to accept them (for whatever reasons) as opposed to dropping them to die in cold places.

[Singular Intellect]

I must question the very need to rehabilitate people who brutally murder a girl using a metal rod in a group like a pack of predators. Rehabilitation is something society offers you: like education, for example. Further education is not offered to people who consistently flunk classes, in fact they are barred from entering it through a process called exams.

For that analogy to work, you need to demonstrate the offenders here are repeat offenders for this type of crime and flunked chances to redeem themselves.

So far as I understand, this crime is a single incident.

Rehabilitation requires society to expend resources to reinstate a certain person (with a less than 100% probability) as a non-criminal member of society. Since society's resources are limited, and there are people who are not even criminals, much less murderers, who suffer from poverty and malnutrition in India, the expenditure of resources for rehabilitation should be justified. Rehabilitating a petty thief may be a worthwhile investment. A person injured only the property of others, and in a minor way which did not cause reverberating consequences throughout the nation.

Resource considerations are one of the primary reasons I accept the usage of the death penalty in principle in the first place.

In this case, however, I did not actually suggest the defendants can be rehabilitated. All I asked is what efforts were made to determine rehabilitation potential. Again, so far as I'm aware, no such efforts have been made whatsoever.

The fact a crime is a brutal and well publicized one doesn't automatically mean rehabilitation is a lost cause on that basis alone, ergo I reject your concern about 'reverberating consequences throughout a nation'. A lynch mob is still a lynch mob, even if it's at a bigger scale.

People who gang-murder a weak victim are certainly not the first on the priority list for rehabilitation. There are many others who need attention, care and rehabilitation. Why should these people be denied this care and rehabilitation so that brutal murderers will get it? Remember the finite resources dilemma. India executes very few people. It really takes a major effort on part of the criminal to get such a sentence and put himself outside society's rehabilitation lists.

You just undermined your own argument here, however. If execution happens so rarely, than at least assessing the rehabilitation possibilities for those who otherwise qualify for execution isn't going to be that big a jump in resource allocation.

Furthermore, there is a very significant difference between those who do not receive help from society and need to make it on their own, and those who do not receive help from society (or just an assessment on whether it would work) before society carries out their execution. The first group ends up having a tougher life, the second one has theirs forcibly taken from them.

In the end, I have no qualms about putting down a rabid animal that is guilty of vicious and deadly assault against people. But regardless of whether we're talking about a dog or a human being, anyone who takes pleasure in the process and doing what must be done needs a well deserved smack upside the head for being a sadistic fuck, like MFG was publicly doing.

As a society, I assert we have an obligation to explore all possibilities, not just jump to "Death!" without further consideration of alternatives that could be practical. If the sentence of death is such a trivial matter, one wonders what the fuck the issue is in the first place if the crime is killing a human being, never mind a small group of them.

My personal opinion on the death penalty is that it is something to be carried out of practical considerations and as a form of mercy, not malicious intent, puinishment and vengeance.

[Metahive]

I'm bowing out of the debate for now because right now I can't give the issue the time I think it deserves. I have however in mind to create a separate thread about the DP involving a particular case from good ol' Germany, the Metzler case in the near future. Until then.

[K. A. Pital]

For that analogy to work, you need to demonstrate the offenders here are repeat offenders for this type of crime and flunked chances to redeem themselves.

So far as I understand, this crime is a single incident.

I would prefer it to be that way, but it is not exactly the only way someone can be banned from getting a service from society. If you burn your own house and the insurance knows it, it is highly unlikely insurance will pay you. So the decision is up to the way a justice system is set up. If they feel that even one such offense is enough to cease offering rehabilitation, it's their call. I may disagree - like I said, I would prefer such a penalty only applied to repeat offenders. But since I do not object to its application in principle, I can also accept that the Indian justice system has a different opinion on that.

All I asked is what efforts were made to determine rehabilitation potential. Again, so far as I'm aware, no such efforts have been made whatsoever. The fact a crime is a brutal and well publicized one doesn't automatically mean rehabilitation is a lost cause on that basis alone, ergo I reject your concern about 'reverberating consequences throughout a nation'. A lynch mob is still a lynch mob, even if it's at a bigger scale.

No; by the "consequences" I meant a person who, say, plunders the national rice reserves and then dozens of people starve to death or end up malnourished. Unlike a petty thief, such a person could be executed. As for determining rehabilitation potential -that is the very process of judicial deliberation on whether incarceration or execution is the right way to go. Publicity does not matter to me, whereas brutality does - certain types of brutality (torture, for example, or extremely brutal rape-murders like in the discussed case) definetely make rehabilitation unlikely and not a priority.

I also think that there is hardly anything good about the fact people are executed; but there was nothing good about them commiting such a crime in the first place. The trial lasted 7 months, it was not a momentary decision. The defense argued for life imprisonment and presented their case - it was the decision of the judge after hearing both the defense and the prosecution.

[SMJB]

Oh, I just love how I always end up having more sympathy for my opponents on death penalty threads than my theoretical allies. Love it.

For fuck's sake, people stop acting like the fact that you don't support killing murderers and rapists makes you "more evolved" than people who do.

You know what, Singular Intellect? I really don't mind in the least that MFG laughed at the guy who killed himself. When I'd learned that Ariel Castro had killed himself, I laughed. I pictured in my head him sitting in his cell as it slowly dawned on him that this was going to be his life from now on and the associated feeling of existential dread building until he couldn't take it anymore, and I took joy from this image; when I learned that he had probably died of autoerotic asphyxiation, I was disappointed. It is a completely natural thing to do. It has nothing to do with lack of empathy, in my case at least, and everything to do with lack of sympathy. My empathy for his victims simply outweighed my empathy for him.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with anything--I came to my present position in the debate using logic, and it just so happens that I've seen no evidence that the death penalty in any way acts as a deterrent or is cheaper than life in prison (note that this only applies to how it's done in America, which is the only version I know anything about). There is of course also the issue that there's no backsies if it later turns out that the person you executed was innocent, after all, but the difference between death and life in prison here is one of degree rather than kind--you can free a man who has been in jail for several years, but you can't give him those years back, or take back whatever bitter resentment it has engendered in him. It's still different, of course, just not a "BAM! I win the debate forever!" button. And really, the fundamental question is if you trust your justice system to be making these kinds of decisions in the first place, knowing that it is imperfect. Which of course we do.

And to the guy who keeps making the "sating the god of revenge" or whatever comments--quit it. It wasn't clever the first time you said it, and it was less clever the tenth.

[Metahive]

Oh, I just love how I always end up having more sympathy for my opponents on death penalty threads than my theoretical allies. Love it.

For fuck's sake, people stop acting like the fact that you don't support killing murderers and rapists makes you "more evolved" than people who do.

Snotty, unwarranted declaration of one's own greatness, we are off to a fine beginning.

You know what, Singular Intellect? I really don't mind in the least that MFG laughed at the guy who killed himself. When I'd learned that Ariel Castro had killed himself, I laughed. I pictured in my head him sitting in his cell as it slowly dawned on him that this was going to be his life from now on and the associated feeling of existential dread building until he couldn't take it anymore, and I took joy from this image; when I learned that he had probably died of autoerotic asphyxiation, I was disappointed. It is a completely natural thing to do. It has nothing to do with lack of empathy, in my case at least, and everything to do with lack of sympathy. My empathy for his victims simply outweighed my empathy for him.

You know, at least stand up for it. Schadenfreude is human, but trying to make cheap, semantical excuses for it is just sad.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with anything--I came to my present position in the debate using logic, and it just so happens that I've seen no evidence that the death penalty in any way acts as a deterrent or is cheaper than life in prison (note that this only applies to how it's done in America, which is the only version I know anything about). There is of course also the issue that there's no backsies if it later turns out that the person you executed was innocent, after all, but the difference between death and life in prison here is one of degree rather than kind--you can free a man who has been in jail for several years, but you can't give him those years back, or take back whatever bitter resentment it has engendered in him. It's still different, of course, just not a "BAM! I win the debate forever!" button. And really, the fundamental question is if you trust your justice system to be making these kinds of decisions in the first place, knowing that it is imperfect. Which of course we do.

Every other opponent of the DP is an arrogant moron, only you are the rational, logical net-Vulcan who got it right. What I like most about you is your humility. Would be damn hypocritical of you if it were otherwise since you started complaining about other people's arrogance.

And to the guy who keeps making the "sating the god of revenge" or whatever comments--quit it. It wasn't clever the first time you said it, and it was less clever the tenth.

I will make sure to ask you for permission the next time I make quips because you're just such a great person, who humbly gives advice and would never think of yourself better than others. I mean, you didn't even feel the need to call me by my handle, that's how modest you are.

Sorry, I said I'd bow out, but this isn't technically about the DP, but about giving a troll a piece of my mind.

[Gaidin]

Frankly, I only know I need one crime for which there can arise the context for which I'd support a capital case for me to support capital punishment for a society. Every sentence is doled out individually based on the context of the case anyway, so I'm pretty indifferent as to statistics. Let the court determine guilt or innocence for that case. Let them determine sentencing for that case. If the death penalty came up let them work through their extensive appeals process to try to counter whatever possible errors or bias may arise in the process. The defense can fight and try to counter it every step of the way. India has this system according to the article, so this case can hardly be described as over anyway. I'm not exactly worried about errors yet. And this isn't exactly a case that screams ethics violation to me when capital punishment is brought in for reasons that Stas Bush put quite well in his latest post.

[SMJB]

Oh, I just love how I always end up having more sympathy for my opponents on death penalty threads than my theoretical allies. Love it.

For fuck's sake, people stop acting like the fact that you don't support killing murderers and rapists makes you "more evolved" than people who do.

Snotty, unwarranted declaration of one's own greatness, we are off to a fine beginning.

1) Um, what?
2) Because, you know, you haven't been at all arrogant.
3) If I'm better than you, it says more about you than it does about me.

You know what, Singular Intellect? I really don't mind in the least that MFG laughed at the guy who killed himself. When I'd learned that Ariel Castro had killed himself, I laughed. I pictured in my head him sitting in his cell as it slowly dawned on him that this was going to be his life from now on and the associated feeling of existential dread building until he couldn't take it anymore, and I took joy from this image; when I learned that he had probably died of autoerotic asphyxiation, I was disappointed. It is a completely natural thing to do. It has nothing to do with lack of empathy, in my case at least, and everything to do with lack of sympathy. My empathy for his victims simply outweighed my empathy for him.

You know, at least stand up for it.

...Um, that's what I was doing? As in, that was literally the entire point of what I said and what you quoted?

Schadenfreude is human, but trying to make cheap, semantical excuses for it is just sad.

Again: what. The difference between empathy and sympathy--assuming that's what you're blathering about--is quite a bit more than "semantics".

And it has absolutely nothing to do with anything--I came to my present position in the debate using logic, and it just so happens that I've seen no evidence that the death penalty in any way acts as a deterrent or is cheaper than life in prison (note that this only applies to how it's done in America, which is the only version I know anything about). There is of course also the issue that there's no backsies if it later turns out that the person you executed was innocent, after all, but the difference between death and life in prison here is one of degree rather than kind--you can free a man who has been in jail for several years, but you can't give him those years back, or take back whatever bitter resentment it has engendered in him. It's still different, of course, just not a "BAM! I win the debate forever!" button. And really, the fundamental question is if you trust your justice system to be making these kinds of decisions in the first place, knowing that it is imperfect. Which of course we do.

Every other opponent of the DP is an arrogant moron, only you are the rational, logical net-Vulcan who got it right. What I like most about you is your humility. Would be damn hypocritical of you if it were otherwise since you started complaining about other people's arrogance.

Technically, what I was complaining about was moralizing rather than arrogance, but whatever. It's kind of important to use logic rather than emotion to come to conclusions about public policy. Kind of more important than what conclusions you come to, as otherwise even if you're right it's only on accident.

And to the guy who keeps making the "sating the god of revenge" or whatever comments--quit it. It wasn't clever the first time you said it, and it was less clever the tenth.

I will make sure to ask you for permission the next time I make quips because you're just such a great person, who humbly gives advice and would never think of yourself better than others. I mean, you didn't even feel the need to call me by my handle, that's how modest you are.

I can't keep track of everyone posting on this thread. In my opinion your wit is quite lacking; if you're not used to such sentiment being expressed in hostile terms, then may I be the first to welcome you to the internet?

Sorry, I said I'd bow out, but this isn't technically about the DP, but about giving a troll a piece of my mind.

Right, I'm a troll. Because heaven forbid I should simply object to the tactics you use to get your point across and have the integrity to do so publicly in spite of us being theoretically on the same side--no, it could never be that!

[Singular Intellect]

I would prefer it to be that way, but it is not exactly the only way someone can be banned from getting a service from society. If you burn your own house and the insurance knows it, it is highly unlikely insurance will pay you. So the decision is up to the way a justice system is set up. If they feel that even one such offense is enough to cease offering rehabilitation, it's their call. I may disagree - like I said, I would prefer such a penalty only applied to repeat offenders. But since I do not object to its application in principle, I can also accept that the Indian justice system has a different opinion on that.

I don't dispute that the justice system anywhere may not be operating by standards I personally approve of. That said, I have no qualms about publicly arguing what my standards are and what I think they should be. I feel free to criticize the system and acknowledge any criticism of mine as well. Indeed, I welcome and encourage any (rational) criticism of my positions. If I didn't, I consider that an inherent concession one knows the position is flawed.

No; by the "consequences" I meant a person who, say, plunders the national rice reserves and then dozens of people starve to death or end up malnourished. Unlike a petty thief, such a person could be executed.

I question the validity of this analogy. You're bringing up a single guilty party causing the death of multiple others.

But in this case, it's the death of one victim and the execution of multiple offenders. By virtue of sheer numbers, more death is being inflicted than the actual crime caused, never mind the numerous additional victims created by essentially watching their loved ones get executed.

As for determining rehabilitation potential -that is the very process of judicial deliberation on whether incarceration or execution is the right way to go. Publicity does not matter to me, whereas brutality does - certain types of brutality (torture, for example, or extremely brutal rape-murders like in the discussed case) definetely make rehabilitation unlikely and not a priority.

I can see your point there, my only objection would be to have a system in place that determines that more reliably, not just blanket assuming that is the case.

I also think that there is hardly anything good about the fact people are executed; but there was nothing good about them commiting such a crime in the first place. The trial lasted 7 months, it was not a momentary decision. The defense argued for life imprisonment and presented their case - it was the decision of the judge after hearing both the defense and the prosecution.

I actually object to the concept of life imprisonment myself. It serves no purpose (and punishment for the sake of punishment is a concept I reject out of hand). Either imprisonment should be a means to achieving rehabilitation, or just execute the guilty party. Lifetime imprisonment is arguably a form of torture, and as you yourself noted, I fail to see the justification for providing food, shelter and protection for such individuals when they provide nothing in return to society. Never mind the unfairness of such provisions being something pretty much everyone else has to bust their ass off to obtain.

[mr friendly guy]

Yeah, because you and I having a difference of opinion is the same as you laughing at the emotional trauma of other human beings sentenced to death,

Except of course this isn't really the major reason is it. You see in Retarded Intellect world, people who aid and commit crimes such a raping a girl for how long, until she dies from her injuries are "failed by humanity", but people like me are even worse. Poor poor rapist and murderer sentenced to death. Never mind the poor victim. I guess the emotional trauma they subjected that poor girl and her male friend to doesn't count.

expressing disdain at human rights concerns,

Refuting several posts ago by pointing out I have problems with the human rights crowd, not human rights per se, but I know you will keep beating this dead horse.

name calling the dead,

Oh noes. I called dead person bad names. What are they going to do. Commit suicide a second time because I called them names.

In fact, since name calling is so bad, why are you calling me names when I could potentially become depress and commit suicide Isn't that causing more harm then calling a dead person names. Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

mocking the concept of rehabilitation,

Quote me on that please.

and conveniently forgetting about other victims while using existing victims as a shield for your own perverse viewpoints disguised as 'empathy'.

Evidence that these rapists are victims? Even if they were it certainly doesn't excuse their crimes so its pointless pointing it out.

Hint: laughing at the emotional trauma of other humans is indicative of a sadistic and cruel mindset, never mind the rest.

Hint laughing during a trial where you are guilty of raping a person to death is indicative of a sadistic and cruel mindset, never mind the rest. But you see, in Retarded Intellect world, these men are just "victims" and "failed by humanity" because being failed by society doesn't sound dramatic enough. The fucking double standard from you is amazing. And you wonder why I hold the human rights crowd in contempt.

You see in your fucked up world view, I am worse than these people who actually commit heinous crimes and laugh about it during the trial. Because I had the gall to question your unethical stance, so I have become the enemy. So I have become worse than the actual criminals. Hey, I am still waiting for you to say that I too have been "failed by humanity".

I'm not laughing at any emotional trauma of yours,

No you just mocking me for what you perceive to be "sadism" and inflicting emotional trauma. Oh I get it now. Inflicting emotional trauma is ok, but laughing about it is wrong. Gotcha.

disputing the need to consider your human rights, name calling you after suicide or using your victim status to justify sadistic and cruel points of view.

Hint - repeating the same lines which are clearly not true won't suddenly make it true.

I'm just calling it as I see it and pointing out your position and opinion for what it is.

That might actually mean something if how you see it wasn't actually not only false, claims unsupported except by mystical mind reading powers which only you have, and which are contradictory to statements made earlier. In other words a broken record method of debating.

If you can't handle criticism of your position and opinions, keep them to yourself.

If I can't handle criticism, why am I taking your arguments apart instead of just demanding you be censored? You aren't very smart are you? But I will give you A for effort and a B for rhetoric.

If you act like an asshole, don't be surprised when people point out you are one. Cry some more.

Keep digging that hole loser. You already shown in this thread that you consider people who criticise you worse than a real life rapists. That's right people like me are sick while rapists and murders are "failed by society". Keep it up.

BTW genius - I am still waiting for you to explain how you keep on disputing me labelling the guy a coward at the same time profess that why should anyone care whether he was a coward or not. Not sharpest tool in the shed are you? Or do you Americans use a different euphemism. How about you're a few fries short of a happy meal.

And your furious back pedaling on how this is really about 'appropiate sentence for murderers' isn't fooling anyone. Had you actually been concerned about that issue, you wouldn't have conveniently snipped my first reply where I specifically ask about what efforts were made to determine rehabilitation possibilities for the defendants. You know, maybe kinda sorta hinting at determining if the sentence is appropiate?

Bullshit. I asked you justify why rather than just assume its so.