Why have the death penalty for. What happens if this dumbass confesses 10 days after the execution. How can u pay them back just give the life sentence (in serious cases without parole). This way, they suffer for the rest of their lives.
Also, why are we making all these jails all fancy and posh. Get them back to the old ones, one bed, toilet and tap. Why are we giving them computers and all this crap. They live better in jail then some people outside jail, they get fed and guess what, we pay for this while we could be using the money on something better.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! I FOUND THE LIST OF WI/HT SPAMMERS ITS HERE- if you are angry, PM me! (:
"The Wi/Ht forum is now a post count +1 shit hole. Do you agree?"- Join the Debate
I agree on the jails, but not the death penalty. We all know that the death penalty does not deter crime, but can you seriously stomach a guy raping and killing a 9 year old girl and then spending the rest of his life in the ramada prison inn? I can't. I hate to say it, but some people deserve to die. But I agree on one thing, prisoners should have to manufacture things to pay their own way. Didn't they used to make license plates in the old days? Or was that just the movies?
The death penalty is wrong for many reasons. I hate to say this but 2 wrongs do not make a right! Here in the UK we dont have it, but how many criminals would not comit a crime because they die instead of rotting in prison.
I think the inmates should recive things like a PC for good behavior, it may help keep order. However it would also work if it was only given to prisoners who dont have more then 2 convictions.
At 1/10/07 02:52 PM, jdm1995 wrote: The death penalty is wrong for many reasons. I hate to say this but 2 wrongs do not make a right! Here in the UK we dont have it, but how many criminals would not comit a crime because they die instead of rotting in prison.
I think the inmates should recive things like a PC for good behavior, it may help keep order. However it would also work if it was only given to prisoners who dont have more then 2 convictions.
I respect your opinion, but let me ask you something (I'm sorry to be a little morbid): Are you saying that if someone kidnapped someone close to you, tortured them, sexually assaulted them, and then killed them, you would be okay with that person just living the rest of their life in a nice, cozy, prision environment?
I think the death penalty is used too much. I don't think that simply committing a murder warrants the death penalty, simply because it's very easy to get the wrong person in such a case. A person who kills another person in cold blood should be given a life sentence without parole if faced with indisputable evidence. Simply because framing a person for a single murder is a relatively easy thing to do.
Particularly gruesome and repetitious murders should be put to death, though. And if they are accompanied by rape. And especially if the motive was for money.
Example:
Guy who robs a house and shoots and kills the resident who catches him - Life in prison
Guy who robs a house, and murders an entire family - Life in Prison
Guy who robs more than one house, and murders an entire family in each - Death
This is not because I have any mercy for those who murder families, but because there is a much greater chance of having the right man if TWO cirme scenes support the evidence against him.
And murder should be the ONLY crime punishable by death, not rape. I'm not sure if rape is still a capital crime in Texas. I don't have any sympathy for rapists, but the fact is that a woman can easily just change her mind as to whether or not the act was "consensual" any time she wants. I don't beleive it is right to put a man's life in the hands of a person who can decide whether or not she wants him to be guilty. Child rapists are sick in the head and need to be sent to an assylum, not the execution chamber.
I say abolish the death penalty. 40% of all cases that end up in executions have testimony by inmates who only testify because they've been made a deal. Who wouldn't lie to get in on that.
WHile I do agree that prisons have become too comfortable and should be stripped down further to save taxpayer money and to free up money to reduce the overcrowding, I disagree about the death penalty.
I feel that the death penalty is used far too lightly in many cases and many people are too eager to throw it out as a punishment, but the death penalty is still necessary. A single man raping and then killing a child is not worthy of the death penalty. Not even close. A serial murder/rapist who tortures the victims for several hours beforehand is worthy of the death penalty. The DP should be reserved for criminals who are so heinous, so vile, that rehabilitation is completely impossible-- when only their removal from this world can wipe the stain away.
However, criminals like that do exist, so the death penalty must exist as well. It is overused, but necessary.
On a side note, the "it's inhumane" argument is foolish; we are willing to send thousands of innocent youth into wars where they are killed, and we respect and honor them, so why is it unreasonable to kill the vile in a non-heroic way? If we refuse to kill the worst criminals, we put our own ideals to shame.
Why would this topic starter care about the dealth penalty when his own country has abolished it?
At 1/10/07 02:52 PM, jdm1995 wrote: The death penalty is wrong for many reasons. I hate to say this but 2 wrongs do not make a right! Here in the UK we dont have it,
Yes we do. Treason is still punishible by death.
And I think they should let certain criminals choose to be exicuted.
why must we pay for there plender, and deal with the consequences
Too bad the victims and their friends and families will never get any second chances. I say kill these reprobates and be done with it. It's a helluva lot more effective than the alternative of sticking them in prison for life where the have a chance of escaping and contiuing their crimespree.
Look, here's how I see the death penalty:
There is a common myth that the death penalty is less expensive than life in prison. Not so in the US. Since we put so much value on our citizen's lives, we go through a whole bunch of legal BS and red tape to deprive them of their right to live. These court costs far outway the cost of keeping the prisoner alive.
Also, the punishment of life in prison is obviously more painful for the perpetrator. I would not consider an environment were you are ass-raped and being confined within concrete walls which represent the fact that you have caught yourself in a trap which you will only escape with the sweet release of death extremely comfortable.
Also, after the death penalty was instituted in Texas, the crime rate went up, suggesting that the death penalty does not really provide a deterent to crime.
Therefore, with all the information provided above, I conclude that the death penalty is completely retarded (with the exception of treason).
How I see it.
Murder: Life/death (also depending on situation)
Rape: Have his balls cut off (I don't care what you say about it being dominance, no man would rape after having his happy place removed)
Child Abuse: 15-30 years in prison with hefty fine with monitoring for the rest of his life.
Child Molestation: Death (no questions)
Child Killer: Death (no questions)
Why harsh penalties for the child cases? Because doing it to a fully grown adult is one thing, doing it to a purely innocent and helpless child is another.
I am against the death penalty. Here's why.
1. Wrongful execution. If you throw somebody in jail, you can let them out if it turns out they're not guilty after all. You can compensate them monetarily for the time they have lost, and even if they cannot gain that time back, they still have time ahead of them. Not so with an execution.
2. It fails to deter crime, and may even increase criminal aggression. If someone is so screwed up in the head that they would molest and rape a child, what makes anyone think that they're going to be rational enough to sit down a weigh the consequences? Even if they are rational enough to do so, if the penalty for that is death, what reason would they have to not kill the child, too? If a criminal shoots a convenience store clerk to death, thus guaranteeing himself the death penalty, why wouldn't they take some shots at police officers, too?
3. It's not real justice. When someone demonstrates that they can't be part of society, or need to be seperated from society for a while, they need to be locked in jail. There is nothing that executions do that life in prison without parole doesn't, other than artificially induced death. Regardless of what you sentence a child molester to, it doesn't undo his damage. That's why people aren't put in jail to undo the damage they've done, it's to remove them from society—to prevent them from doing even more damage. And life without parole in a secure facility does that just as well as the death penalty, and is often cheaper.
At the same time, however, there needs to be a reform in our nation's prisons and laws. We need to stop going after stoners and start locking up the people who actually pose a threat to other people, rather than to their own health. Prisons should have less frills. There is nothing cruel and unusual about being put into a cell with a bed and toilet, access to showers, and 3 bland, but still nutritous, meals a day. And maybe access to a small library of books. If it's good enough for college students, it's good enough for prisoners. There is no valid reason why our most dangerous criminals should have access to even an in-prison society; let alone the outside world, like they are, even in SuperMax.
So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we had the key...
At 1/10/07 02:33 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: Why have the death penalty for. What happens if this dumbass confesses 10 days after the execution. How can u pay them back just give the life sentence (in serious cases without parole). This way, they suffer for the rest of their lives.
the american justice system does its best to stop innocent people from being executed. this is why trials take so damn long. i am personally in favor of the death penalty, 'cause it costs taxpayers a hell of a lot of money to support a felon in jail.
At 1/11/07 11:09 PM, HippyDippyGandalf wrote: BS and red tape to deprive them of their right to live.
Right to live? That's a good one right there. What of the victim's own right to life? A murderer pretty much forfeits his or her own right to live when he or she denies said "right" to the victim.
At 1/12/07 12:27 AM, Joodah wrote:At 1/10/07 02:33 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: Why have the death penalty for. What happens if this dumbass confesses 10 days after the execution. How can u pay them back just give the life sentence (in serious cases without parole). This way, they suffer for the rest of their lives.the american justice system does its best to stop innocent people from being executed. this is why trials take so damn long. i am personally in favor of the death penalty, 'cause it costs taxpayers a hell of a lot of money to support a felon in jail.
About 40% of prison inmates are actually in jail for nothing besides simple marijuana possession. Think about the money we'd save if we decriminalized it.
And we shouldn't be executing people to save money.
At 1/12/07 12:10 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I am against the death penalty. Here's why.
I'm gonna try to refute em, wish me luck?
1. Wrongful execution. If you throw somebody in jail, you can let them out if it turns out they're not guilty after all. You can compensate them monetarily for the time they have lost, and even if they cannot gain that time back, they still have time ahead of them. Not so with an execution.
Painful life, or peaceful death? That's basically a question you have to ask yourself, what is more discomforting. A man who spends 30 years in jail only to be released with a "so sorry" is going to find it inextricably hard to cope with the lost time. Not only will the world he left be vastly different than the world he finds himself, but he also carries no skill or trait with him.
His life will be rotten, and though he will have life, it would not be one that any normal person would want to endure. Beyond a certain point in time, releasing an innocent prisoner should be deemed impossible due to the severe psychological trauma one would endure in the aftermath.
I've also never heard of anyone being compensated monetarily for the time spent wrongly in prison. Most I've ever heard of anyone getting are "severe and deepest apologies". You'd have to show me some evidence on that one.
2. It fails to deter crime, and may even increase criminal aggression. If someone is so screwed up in the head that they would molest and rape a child, what makes anyone think that they're going to be rational enough to sit down a weigh the consequences? Even if they are rational enough to do so, if the penalty for that is death, what reason would they have to not kill the child, too? If a criminal shoots a convenience store clerk to death, thus guaranteeing himself the death penalty, why wouldn't they take some shots at police officers, too?
If someone is so unfit in the head that they are deemed unfit to EVER join society (which is a life sentence), what is the point of having them in "Correctional" facilities, ie, prisons? If they are rational enough to return to society (the goal of prison systems), they wouldn't carry life sentences.
And yes, I am suggesting death as a mild form of societal cleansing (best term I could think of, since it's not ethnic or racial cleansing really).
If a man believes he will get death for what he does, there is no guarantee that he won't go shooting police. There is no guarantee in any case though, as the man would know that either way whatever he called his "life" would summarily end when caught. We're not talking rational people who would think in such a way as to go down in a blaze of gunfire.
3. It's not real justice. When someone demonstrates that they can't be part of society, or need to be seperated from society for a while, they need to be locked in jail. There is nothing that executions do that life in prison without parole doesn't, other than artificially induced death. Regardless of what you sentence a child molester to, it doesn't undo his damage. That's why people aren't put in jail to undo the damage they've done, it's to remove them from society—to prevent them from doing even more damage. And life without parole in a secure facility does that just as well as the death penalty, and is often cheaper.
Key words in your first sentence, "for a while". In other words, it is believed those people should one day return to society, after being behaviorally corrected. Life in prison w/out parole means no one thinks they'll ever be able to reintegrate. So why should I pay a correctional facility to take care of someone who they believe cannot be corrected? I'm basically paying for people to NOT do their jobs at that point.......
It's not justice for the family of a victim to know that the perpetrator, deemed unfit for society for life, still gets to keeps his isolated away. I would compare it to the feeling police have when a crook escapes over a national boundary. Sure, he's out of the country (society), but you know he still got away with something (life sentence). Not exactly the same, but.....meh...best I could come up with at the moment.
At the same time, however, there needs to be a reform in our nation's prisons and laws. We need to stop going after stoners and start locking up the people who actually pose a threat to other people, rather than to their own health. Prisons should have less frills. There is nothing cruel and unusual about being put into a cell with a bed and toilet, access to showers, and 3 bland, but still nutritous, meals a day. And maybe access to a small library of books. If it's good enough for college students, it's good enough for prisoners. There is no valid reason why our most dangerous criminals should have access to even an in-prison society; let alone the outside world, like they are, even in SuperMax.
BINGO! I think if the death penalty laws were reformed so as to make it a cheaper and more efficient process, a lot of people would change to pro-death stances. As is, they do have valid reasons for being against it, but I think they're mostly financial and superficial. Fact is, the death penalty has widely been considered a form of justice throughout human history.
Writing Forum Reviewer.
PM me for preferential Writing Forum review treatment.
See my NG page for a regularly updated list of works I will review.
Yes, let's get rid of the death penalty, because going through the rest of your life in a prison cell with no freedom is just so much more humane. -_-
At 1/12/07 12:42 AM, Aserg wrote:At 1/11/07 11:09 PM, HippyDippyGandalf wrote: BS and red tape to deprive them of their right to live.Right to live? That's a good one right there. What of the victim's own right to life? A murderer pretty much forfeits his or her own right to live when he or she denies said "right" to the victim.
Ah, but you already assume that the defendant is guilty. Try, if you will, to grasp the concept of "innocence until proven guilty". That is, just because someone was arrested does not mean they committed the crime. It just means that either the cops were corrupt or they have enough reson to detain the suspect. Please come back when you have a more thorough understanding of the American legal system.
Also, the death penalty doesn't work out well for the executioner. There are many cases of PTS(Post-Traumatic Stress) occuring in executioners. It could just be a very weird coincidence, but there is a VERY strong coorelation.
Dude I belive in the death penalty. Only thing is they should be dead in WEEKS NOT YEARS! But seriously killing them makes room for the drug affenders.
At 1/13/07 08:39 PM, HippyDippyGandalf wrote:
Ah, but you already assume that the defendant is guilty.
In which, almost all are.
That is, just because someone was arrested does not mean they committed the crime.
Since when do we execute someone until giving them a verdict?
It just means that either the cops were corrupt or they have enough reson to detain the suspect. Please come back when you have a more thorough understanding of the American legal system.
I think all of "you" should come back when you learn was equal exchange is.
At 1/13/07 08:39 PM, HippyDippyGandalf wrote:
Ah, but you already assume that the defendant is guilty. Try, if you will, to grasp the concept of "innocence until proven guilty".
I was talking about after the defendant was proven guilty.
Also, the death penalty doesn't work out well for the executioner. There are many cases of PTS(Post-Traumatic Stress) occuring in executioners. It could just be a very weird coincidence, but there is a VERY strong coorelation.
Well boo-fucking-hoo. If you can't stand the heat, go back to preparing salad you whiny little bitch.
I find it funny all this talk about how giving someone the death penalty is justice to the victims. Victims oftentimes are not allowed any sort of say in the punishment that a perpetrator receives; and if they are allowed a victim impact statement, there's no guarantee that it will be considered. That's really all the input that a victim would have, that victim impact statement and the initial decision to initiate the charges. After that, the state argues on behalf of the victim; it isn't the victim's case.
Perhaps there are victims who do not wish that the perpetrator of the crime against them or their family receive the death penalty. How would it be justice for those victims if the perpetrator is executed anyway? How can we sit here and decide for the victims what we deem as justice?
At 1/13/07 08:42 PM, Experimental wrote:At 1/13/07 08:39 PM, HippyDippyGandalf wrote:In which, almost all are.
And what of the minority who didn't do anything? Say It with me people: "...with liberty and justice for all." Allow me to translate: Not only are the criminals guaranteed punishment, but the innocent are also protected from being punished. You must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury is not always impartial.
Since when do we execute someone until giving them a verdict?
That would be correct. I was merely using this fact to hammer in the point that there is innocence until proven guilty.
I think all of "you" should come back when you learn was equal exchange is.
Equal exchange? Like in Fullmetal Alchemist? Sure, let's throw away all of our current concepts of government and justice, declare martial law, and substitute those principles with an unproven law of an archaic form of chemistry. "Brilliant", as they say in the Guiness commercials.
You know what, screw it. I'm tired and it really isn't worth my time or anyone else's to argue with people who rely too much on pop culture and not enough on hard, empirical evidence when making important moral/political decisions.
At 1/13/07 09:00 PM, qygibo wrote: I find it funny all this talk about how giving someone the death penalty is justice to the victims. Victims oftentimes are not allowed any sort of say in the punishment that a perpetrator receives; and if they are allowed a victim impact statement, there's no guarantee that it will be considered. That's really all the input that a victim would have, that victim impact statement and the initial decision to initiate the charges. After that, the state argues on behalf of the victim; it isn't the victim's case.
So if I and nobody else witnessed somebody steal an elderly woman's purse, I should just stand by and do nothing? I shouldn't bother stopping the thief? After all, "it's none of my business."
Perhaps there are victims who do not wish that the perpetrator of the crime against them or their family receive the death penalty.
I don't think that the victims would have much to say being dead and all. If you are talking about why friends and family wouldn't want the criminal to feel the same pain they feel and the victim felt while still alive ... well what kind of person do you know who is like that?
How would it be justice for those victims if the perpetrator is executed anyway? How can we sit here and decide for the victims what we deem as justice?
Let's say I manage to abduct some of your friends and family members. Afterwards, I subject them to hours of excruciating pain and torture and kill them afterwards. I even record the whole scenario. Then, I deliver the video to you in person. After watching such a thing, how would you feel toward me?
Also, you actually believe that how some people think that giving a person the death penalty is justice for the victim is funny? Well how is this for funny:
Saddam Hussein is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent lives and what does he get for it? A trial that lasts for more than three years followed by a hanging. A fricking hanging.
Meanwhile, back in the 17th century during the witch hunts, many innocent people are hunted down, tortured and -get this- burned alive just because they were falsely accused of having been practitioners of "witchcraft". There wasn't even much of a trial for them.
Isn't that just a hoot?
At 1/13/07 10:15 PM, Aserg wrote:At 1/13/07 09:00 PM, qygibo wrote: I find it funny all this talk about how giving someone the death penalty is justice to the victims. Victims oftentimes are not allowed any sort of say in the punishment that a perpetrator receives; and if they are allowed a victim impact statement, there's no guarantee that it will be considered. That's really all the input that a victim would have, that victim impact statement and the initial decision to initiate the charges. After that, the state argues on behalf of the victim; it isn't the victim's case.So if I and nobody else witnessed somebody steal an elderly woman's purse, I should just stand by and do nothing? I shouldn't bother stopping the thief? After all, "it's none of my business."
Do point out where I ever said this.
Perhaps there are victims who do not wish that the perpetrator of the crime against them or their family receive the death penalty.I don't think that the victims would have much to say being dead and all. If you are talking about why friends and family wouldn't want the criminal to feel the same pain they feel and the victim felt while still alive ... well what kind of person do you know who is like that?
Friends and families of a dead person are victims in their own right, for one. And for two, there are actually a number of friends and family members of various victims who do not approve of the death penalty for the perpetrators of crimes against their loved ones:
http://www.flyernews.com/article.php?volume=5 1&issue=8
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/06/eve ningnews/main2335119.shtml
http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/murder_survi vor_speaks_against_death_penalty_as_connectic ut_legislature_takes_historic_vote.php
I could pull up several more about various victims (alive and represented by friends and family) who, despite horrendous crimes committed, opposed the death penalty as "justice" for the crimes committed. There are also groups out there that consist of victims and their families who are opposed to the death penalty, such as deathpenaltyinfo.org.
How would it be justice for those victims if the perpetrator is executed anyway? How can we sit here and decide for the victims what we deem as justice?Let's say I manage to abduct some of your friends and family members. Afterwards, I subject them to hours of excruciating pain and torture and kill them afterwards. I even record the whole scenario. Then, I deliver the video to you in person. After watching such a thing, how would you feel toward me?
Also, you actually believe that how some people think that giving a person the death penalty is justice for the victim is funny? Well how is this for funny:
Saddam Hussein is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent lives and what does he get for it? A trial that lasts for more than three years followed by a hanging. A fricking hanging.
Meanwhile, back in the 17th century during the witch hunts, many innocent people are hunted down, tortured and -get this- burned alive just because they were falsely accused of having been practitioners of "witchcraft". There wasn't even much of a trial for them.
Isn't that just a hoot?
I would consider what you did to be a series of horrible, depraved acts, if you were to commit such a crime. However, I would not advocate for your death. I would advocate for you to be placed in a maximum security prison for the rest of your life, with few amenities. Death is a punishment but once; living your life with the barest of essentials and with little stimulation other than your own thoughts is something that can haunt everyday. I'd even attempt to reinstate how they did jailtime in the older days: little stimulation other than a Bible (or Torah, or Koran, or etc, as required according to whatever religion or non religion you adhered to), while you sat there and gradually went insane. Never leaving your cell, not even for an hour of exercise, just sitting.
At 1/13/07 10:36 PM, qygibo wrote:
Friends and families of a dead person are victims in their own right, for one.
I know that much is true.
And for two, there are actually a number of friends and family members of various victims who do not approve of the death penalty for the perpetrators of crimes against their loved ones:
So there are people who care more about the well-being of a convicted murderer than the very people they know and trust? Humans are such strange creatures.
I would consider what you did to be a series of horrible, depraved acts, if you were to commit such a crime. However, I would not advocate for your death. I would advocate for you to be placed in a maximum security prison for the rest of your life,
Where I would also have had the chance (albeit a small one) of escaping and resuming my campaign of violent murder. I'm sure by now you can see that the death penalty is pretty much 100% effective of keeping these kinds of degenerates from preying upon the innocent.
Death is a punishment but once; living your life with the barest of essentials and with little stimulation other than your own thoughts is something that can haunt everyday. I'd even attempt to reinstate how they did jailtime in the older days: little stimulation other than a Bible (or Torah, or Koran, or etc, as required according to whatever religion or non religion you adhered to), while you sat there and gradually went insane. Never leaving your cell, not even for an hour of exercise, just sitting.
Permanent incarceration instead of execution. That's real Christian of you, Maggie. In fact, isn't that how your God does things? Instead of annihilation, God has the souls of the dead roast for all eternity in a fiery hell. But not only does God punish those who have done mostly evil in this manner, but also those who have done mostly good and doesn't believe in and/or kiss his ass? That's either what the Bible says or how the Fundamentalists interpret it anyway.
And you would accuse me of horrible and depraved acts assuming I commited them?
Give me a break.
At 1/10/07 02:33 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: Why have the death penalty for. What happens if this dumbass confesses 10 days after the execution. How can u pay them back just give the life sentence (in serious cases without parole). This way, they suffer for the rest of their lives.
Also, why are we making all these jails all fancy and posh. Get them back to the old ones, one bed, toilet and tap. Why are we giving them computers and all this crap. They live better in jail then some people outside jail, they get fed and guess what, we pay for this while we could be using the money on something better.
It's proven fact that harsher punishments have a heavy influence on crime, we see it in history, in india and in the middle eastern countries with low crime rates because punishments are so brutal.
One needs to find a balance between the need to have a country with low crime, and one's ethics which tell you to be forgiving and kind to even the most undeserving of criminals.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 1/13/07 11:23 PM, Aserg wrote:
And for two, there are actually a number of friends and family members of various victims who do not approve of the death penalty for the perpetrators of crimes against their loved ones:So there are people who care more about the well-being of a convicted murderer than the very people they know and trust? Humans are such strange creatures.
Perhaps they go by their own sense of morality which might go something along the lines of how they might, say, believe that advocating for the killing of a murderer won't heal anything. There are plenty of people who manage to heal the pain that the loss of a loved one brought on by speaking to groups of people currently incarcerated (possibly for life, possibly not). There are people who have lost loved ones or who have survived brutal attacks by criminals who still felt a lack of justice even after said criminal was executed.
I would consider what you did to be a series of horrible, depraved acts, if you were to commit such a crime. However, I would not advocate for your death. I would advocate for you to be placed in a maximum security prison for the rest of your life,Where I would also have had the chance (albeit a small one) of escaping and resuming my campaign of violent murder. I'm sure by now you can see that the death penalty is pretty much 100% effective of keeping these kinds of degenerates from preying upon the innocent.
There actually isn't that much evidence to suggest that the death penalty is a deterrent.
Death is a punishment but once; living your life with the barest of essentials and with little stimulation other than your own thoughts is something that can haunt everyday. I'd even attempt to reinstate how they did jailtime in the older days: little stimulation other than a Bible (or Torah, or Koran, or etc, as required according to whatever religion or non religion you adhered to), while you sat there and gradually went insane. Never leaving your cell, not even for an hour of exercise, just sitting.Permanent incarceration instead of execution. That's real Christian of you, Maggie. In fact, isn't that how your God does things? Instead of annihilation, God has the souls of the dead roast for all eternity in a fiery hell. But not only does God punish those who have done mostly evil in this manner, but also those who have done mostly good and doesn't believe in and/or kiss his ass? That's either what the Bible says or how the Fundamentalists interpret it anyway.
And you would accuse me of horrible and depraved acts assuming I commited them?
Give me a break.
First off, I find it interesting that you apparently decided that you had to know more about me and so most likely went on MySpace in order to bring out more of my character in an effort to turn this into an emotional debate. To which I say that I'm flattered you would take the time to do that.
I'm not a fundamentalist, and at times I take a rather liberal interpretation of the Bible. I don't know whether or not people are actually condemned to hell for all eternity or whether they might manage to redeem themselves, although I would tend to have an idea that perhaps there is hope for all. I would also disagree with those Fundamentalists who would insist that anybody who doesn't believe in a specific version of the Christian God is destined for hell, especially seeing as nobody on earth has the power to condemn a person to Heaven or to Hell.
Also note carefully my words. Your scenario is as follows:
Let's say I manage to abduct some of your friends and family members. Afterwards, I subject them to hours of excruciating pain and torture and kill them afterwards. I even record the whole scenario. Then, I deliver the video to you in person. After watching such a thing, how would you feel toward me?
To which I state that I would consider your ACTIONS to be horrible and depraved. This is not a judgment on your character or your person, merely the actions that you have performed. If this particular scenario did play out, I would want to know more about you, learn what brought you to the point of committing those actions, and so on. It wouldn't be fair to come to a conclusion on your character without being able to observe multiple dimensions of your character.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.23 / 5.00 3,881 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.93 / 5.00 4,634 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
