Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/14/07 04:03 AM, Boltrig wrote:

At 3/14/07 12:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote:

For once I agree with you. The ppeople on death row have obviously committed heinous enough crimes that warrant their execution, they could at least provide some use before they die.

Apparently the 8th Ammendment and basic human morality and barbarism no longers applies to society.

---

At 3/14/07 03:43 PM, zeus-almighty wrote:

At 3/14/07 03:20 PM, Boltrig wrote: Seconded

Thirded. At least they will go out with the pleasure of knowing that in their sacrifice they spared an insignificant (for example) lab mouse's life.

;
How can you say the mouse is insignificant.
That mouse could be a lovely meal for someones pet Boa.
Although if we test on Activists, we are still technically at least testing on animals.
Man = animal, so for me anyway, I don't mind testing on certain animals... guilty ones or in the case of activests, PETA members etc.

---

Testing on animals is nothing more than a middle man in the production of the product. It still must be tested on people before it can go on the market. Testing on animals might help them forsee the most serious and imediate of problems, but it serves little more than that purpose.

---

At 3/14/07 04:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/14/07 04:03 AM, Boltrig wrote:

At 3/14/07 12:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote:

For once I agree with you. The ppeople on death row have obviously committed heinous enough crimes that warrant their execution, they could at least provide some use before they die.

Apparently the 8th Ammendment and basic human morality and barbarism no longers applies to society.

Explain how you can justify capital punishment, and not medical research?
A serial killer, convicted and awaiting execution for the murder of 15 people. Infect him with the cold to test anti cold drugs. You see a dillema here?

I guess my morality seems a bit barbaric, but if someone violates anothers right to life without due cause, then they should forfeit it as well. They technically are a dead man walking, so why not?

---

Look its just better to test on animals ok, they are just so usless for anything elses other than killing them for some other useful reason or as pets, i mean if there not pets their either meat, test animals or sport for proud gun bearing americans such as myself so really we are just utilizing them in ohter ways than the conventional

---

Meh, if we're going to kill them for consumption, then we should be able to experiment on them. Fuck it. Their brains are too small to suffer from what's going on.

---

At 3/14/07 05:10 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 3/14/07 04:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/14/07 04:03 AM, Boltrig wrote:

At 3/14/07 12:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote:

Explain how you can justify capital punishment, and not medical research?
A serial killer, convicted and awaiting execution for the murder of 15 people. Infect him with the cold to test anti cold drugs. You see a dillema here?

He's being infect(purposely) with a virus that serves no purpose to the law or to the safety of the community. If the sentence was to be infected with that virus, then sure fine.

But beyond that, it's an unwarranted invasion on thier rights(even if they be criminal's, they still have them)

I guess my morality seems a bit barbaric, but if someone violates anothers right to life without due cause, then they should forfeit it as well. They technically are a dead man walking, so why not?

People on death row are also dead men walking, why not stick them in cages in the zoo and have some practice shots on them.
Because anything outside due process of that law is cruel and unusual.

---

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote: Personally I believe that we should use humans for scientific experimentation, just because it would give slightly more accurate data.

I don't see you lining up for experiments.

---

At 3/14/07 06:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/14/07 05:10 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 3/14/07 04:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/14/07 04:03 AM, Boltrig wrote:

At 3/14/07 12:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote:

Explain how you can justify capital punishment, and not medical research?
A serial killer, convicted and awaiting execution for the murder of 15 people. Infect him with the cold to test anti cold drugs. You see a dillema here?

He's being infect(purposely) with a virus that serves no purpose to the law or to the safety of the community. If the sentence was to be infected with that virus, then sure fine.

But beyond that, it's an unwarranted invasion on thier rights(even if they be criminal's, they still have them)

What it is is the criminals owing a debt to society, and society collecting by testing on them. Also, if thats a problem, let last hour death row inmates have a choice: be executed , or be forever used for medical testing.

---

At 3/14/07 06:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

People on death row are also dead men walking, why not stick them in cages in the zoo and have some practice shots on them.
Because anything outside due process of that law is cruel and unusual.

Because taking potshots at them serves no purpose. There is no benefit to the population at large. Medical testing does serve a purpose.

---

At 3/15/07 08:34 AM, Boltrig wrote:

At 3/14/07 06:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Because taking potshots at them serves no purpose. There is no benefit to the population at large. Medical testing does serve a purpose.

Doesn't matter, it's an invasion of thier own rights and since this isn't thier punishment it's not applicable.

---

At 3/14/07 06:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

He's being infect(purposely) with a virus that serves no purpose to the law or to the safety of the community.

What does that have to do with the community? He's on death row, he gets to play lab experiment.

But beyond that, it's an unwarranted invasion on thier rights(even if they be criminal's, they still have them)

And that's where society's logic fails. So much for equality.

People on death row are also dead men walking, why not stick them in cages in the zoo and have some practice shots on them.

Well, i'm not exactly one to care.

Because anything outside due process of that law is cruel and unusual.

What truely amazes me personally is how people feel no sadness when they see someone die in a traffic accident, yet are up in arms over a murderer being used as a test subject to further medical development.

---

At 3/15/07 07:28 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/14/07 06:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

What does that have to do with the community? He's on death row, he gets to play lab experiment.

And the 8th Ammendment says what about this?

And that's where society's logic fails. So much for equality.

Actually, that would still be equality.

Well, i'm not exactly one to care.

Nothing new.

What truely amazes me personally is how people feel no sadness when they see someone die in a traffic accident, yet are up in arms over a murderer being used as a test subject to further medical development.

Because one of these is avoidable, while the other isn't.

---

goddammit not this bullshit again. i just finished fighting with the fucking ALF

animal testing is the reason that we have medical sciences. all of these fucking animal rights activists are going on the word of the same people who think that burning down a building, destroying someone's life's work to cure fucking diseases, beating people on the street, kidnapping an killing people, car bombings, and burning down houses is morally justifiable because someone wanted to try and see if they could cure cancer in a fucking gerbil

and stop acting like you know what goes on in laboratories. they don't abuse the animals when they test them, they don't mutilate them, and if they are going to do something like try a new surgery, they are required by law to give them the same courtesies as they would a human patient. the cages and facilities are extremely clean, the animals are taken care of well, the doctors are oppose to animal abuse and generally enjoy being around animals, and pretty much all the tests are just giving a drug via ONE injection, or changing the diet to see how different levels of different nutrients affect living systems (not extreme changes either). and it isn't like they go into it blind. they've been doing this shit for a while now. they have a general idea of how to keep things from being killed by the chemicals they give, but they need to see exactly what the chemicals do, and animal testing lets them do that

and animals are different from us yes, but thy use animals that are very close in terms of DNA to humans (which is why they use mice), and the animals that they use and humans all have the same basic design to them. and even though the animals are different from humans, that doesn't really change anything. they're interested in seeing what happens, but more interested in seeing WHY it happens.

if they give a mouse a drug and it causes the muscles near its hind leg to atrophy, then they look at the reasons why it happened, look for the chemical process that set it off, try to see if it poses a danger to humans, and if they can, they'll change it, but if they can't, then they know that you shouldn't let animals ingest it in large quantities. i'd like to keep being safe in the knowledge that the medicines and treatments that i get aren't going to hurt me somehow.

and animal testing is only one step. it isn't the first step, but it is a crucial step, and guess what the next step is: HUMAN TESTING! YAY! after they're sure that a drug or treatment will do more good than bad, they get human volunteers, and then they see how the treatment works in comparison to other things.

i forgot the name of the drug, but i'm sure this will come up as some dumbass goes to google or wikipedia in an attempt to go "OMG UR GHEY ANIMAL TESTING IS LIEK BAD" and bring this up so i'm gonna tell you dumbasses a little story

once upon a time this drug company that i think is british tried to make heart medication. everything, including the human testing went very well, but when they mass produced and sold it, people started to complain about some shit with their eyes, that to be fair was really bad (forgot what it is. might of been corneal degeneration or something), so the company recalled the drug and tested it a bunch more times on animals and humans. thing was an extremely small amount of the people were affected and they were never able to reproduce the side effects, and i don't think they ever did find out what caused it. but i'm pretty sure they took it off the market anyways.

point is, we need animal testing. without it we get a whole new, probably bigger, thalidomide generation

---

At 3/15/07 07:34 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

And the 8th Ammendment says what about this?

It says Cruel And Unusual Punishment.

It is not cruel because they were going to die anyway. And it is ONLY unusual because we don't do it. But because he/she murdered someone with no motive and in cold blood, it is only rational that his body be put to something that will benifit the rest of the population.

So really, it isn't cruel because his punishment equals that of the person he killed.

Actually, that would still be equality.

Nope!

Torture + death =/= death
Torture + death = Torture + death

Equivalence is the key. Since humans are indeed animals, and that we do experiment on what some would call "innocent" animals, then why should murderers be treated with care?

It makes no logical sense.

Nothing new.

And you should know that.

What truely amazes me personally is how people feel no sadness when they see someone die in a traffic accident, yet are up in arms over a murderer being used as a test subject to further medical development.

Because one of these is avoidable, while the other isn't.

And yet it still makes no logical sense. You feel sadness that a murderer or rapist dies, yet no sadness to those who did nothing wrong. You wouldn't feel any sadness if a murderer or rapist were killed on the streets by someone like a gang member, now would you?

---

he obviously doesn't feel any sympathy for the people physically harmed by ALF

---

At 3/15/07 09:07 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/15/07 07:34 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

\

It is not cruel because they were going to die anyway.

Uhm, no. That doesn't make the punishment not cruel, because with that logic, then no punishment that performed on a death row inmate is cruel. So, from now on, were allowed to throw people into the Brazen Bull, or even better lets hand, draw and quater them as well.

And it is ONLY unusual because we don't do it. But because he/she murdered someone with no motive and in cold blood, it is only rational that his body be put to something that will benifit the rest of the population.

And apparently, they don't have rights anymore either.

Inmates have the right to be free, under the Eighth Amendment, from inhuman conditions because those conditions constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment. The term "cruel and unusual" was not defined at the time the Amendment was passed, but it was noted by the Supreme Court in 1848 that such punishments would include "drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive," among other things. Today, many of these punishments may seem antiquated, but the basic scope of the protection remains the same. Any punishment that can be considered inhumane treatment or that violates the basic concept of a person's dignity may be found to be cruel and unusual.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/articles/1462.htm l

So really, it isn't cruel because his punishment equals that of the person he killed.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind
Ghandi

Nope!

Torture + death =/= death
Torture + death = Torture + death

Your quote:
And that's where society's logic fails. So much for equality.

My reference was that by keeping the prisoners with thier rights, that is equality.

It makes no logical sense.

With that logic, I should now be allowed to hunt and skin humans, since were just animals.

And you should know that.

Thats nice.

And yet it still makes no logical sense. You feel sadness that a murderer or rapist dies, yet no sadness to those who did nothing wrong. You wouldn't feel any sadness if a murderer or rapist were killed on the streets by someone like a gang member, now would you?

Who said I feel sadness when they die. I have yet to even type that down, rather your own assumptions have gotten the better of you again.

One thing is protecting the rights of everyone, regardless of thier situation. Thats what I feel. Just like these criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extant of the law, because that is what the victim is obligated to. And just like the criminal has his rights protected from unwarranted and cruel and unusal punishments.

By stooping to thier level, you basically become them.

Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Friedrich Nietzsche

---

At 3/15/07 09:32 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Uhm, no. That doesn't make the punishment not cruel, because with that logic, then no punishment that performed on a death row inmate is cruel.

And...?

As you know, i'm talking about those who murder in cold blood. There are exceptions in case you didn't figure that part out by now.

So, from now on, were allowed to throw people into the Brazen Bull, or even better lets hand, draw and quater them as well.

No, that provides no use.

And apparently, they don't have rights anymore either.

Give me a good reason why they should.

Inmates have the right to be free, under the Eighth Amendment, from inhuman conditions because those conditions constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment.

No no. We can still be (I hate this word) "humane" about the testing after all. Think of it as a way for them to pay back their debt to society.

Today, many of these punishments may seem antiquated, but the basic scope of the protection remains the same. Any punishment that can be considered inhumane treatment or that violates the basic concept of a person's dignity may be found to be cruel and unusual.

Nor does the constitution say "Seperation of Church and State". It says that "CONGRESS shall make now law...". You know, that could very well be interpreted that the states can do as they wish regarding religion.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind
Ghandi

Ghandi has no logical thought.

You're letting your emotions get in the way of progress.

My reference was that by keeping the prisoners with thier rights, that is equality.

Victim's rights were taken while the rights of the prisoners are kept in tact.

You're foolish to believe that this is equality.

With that logic, I should now be allowed to hunt and skin humans, since were just animals.

I was using your side's political opinion. Demonstrating how hypocritical it can be. To me, humans are better, but human murderers and rapists are worse as they are capable of making the 'right' decision.

Someone who knows to do right and does not is worse than someone who does not know to do right and does wrong.

Thats nice.

It is.

Who said I feel sadness when they die. I have yet to even type that down, rather your own assumptions have gotten the better of you again.

And still people cannot determine when i'm talking about people in general with the word "you".

One thing is protecting the rights of everyone, regardless of thier situation. Thats what I feel.

And it's not logical.

Just like these criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extant of the law, because that is what the victim is obligated to.

Even if the victim is dead.

And just like the criminal has his rights protected from unwarranted and cruel and unusal punishments.

Really? Explain the electric chair. Pain and death. And in some cases, this still happens. So why is it any worse to you when their possible death could provide a medical breakthrough that could benefit the community?

Isn't prison meant to hold someone in confined quarters? Heh, it's funny that I didn't see experimentation on that list.

By stooping to thier level, you basically become them.

*sigh* the typical response I would expect from someone with no sense.

Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

You're telling me to abide by the rules of people who cannot produce any kind of rational thought. I mean after all, with that kind of logic, you'd be condemning every soldier fighting the war right now.

A man who murders does so for himself and no one else (with exceptions). But using these people to save innocent lives is a much better approach.

As I suspected, you're letting your emotions blind you. Instead of giving equality and caring about future generations, you care more about the murderer rather than the victim.

---

Game, Set, Match:
Memorize

---

At 3/15/07 09:57 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/15/07 09:32 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

And...?

That conflicts somewhat with predisposed law.

As you know, i'm talking about those who murder in cold blood. There are exceptions in case you didn't figure that part out by now.

Really, I could not see that. Jeeze, I'm just really slow today.

No, that provides no use.

It would provide entertainment to crowds and crowds of people, there's a use.

Give me a good reason why they should.

Because predisposed law already says they do.

No no. We can still be (I hate this word) "humane" about the testing after all. Think of it as a way for them to pay back their debt to society.

Thats what the punishment is intended for, in most cases of crimal law it is the intention. Thats why we have a series of laws and punishments, to pay back the crime to society.

Nor does the constitution say "Seperation of Church and State". It says that "CONGRESS shall make now law...". You know, that could very well be interpreted that the states can do as they wish regarding religion.

Unless of course you take into regard the Free Exercise Clause of the First Ammendment. See, you would be suprised what you still remember from a Sophmore year Justice and Society class.

Ghandi has no logical thought.

Danger Family Robinson, Danger.

You're letting your emotions get in the way of progress.

Well, considering that humanity is ruled by it's emoitions, and that progress to one person can be a decline to another.

You're foolish to believe that this is equality.

That the prisoner is no longered entitled to the rights that are given to him in the founding documents of our Nation, yet he is also sentenced and jailed because of the rights of others that he imposed.

That sounds like equality.

I was using your side's political opinion. Demonstrating how hypocritical it can be. To me, humans are better, but human murderers and rapists are worse as they are capable of making the 'right' decision.

My side. I wasn't aware that I wasn't an individual anymore, It's nice to know that I can no longer carry an individual opinion. Thanks for clearly that up.

Someone who knows to do right and does not is worse than someone who does not know to do right and does wrong.

Ah yes, the argument of the Clockwork Orange(quite a good book acutally). But with that argument, could it be considered that if the person that knows whats right and freely choose to do wrong, that(since he is human) he may later choose to good.

And it's not logical.

So the 14th Ammendment and Enlightenment are illogical.

Even if the victim is dead.

The rights are still exerted.

Really? Explain the electric chair. Pain and death. And in some cases, this still happens. So why is it any worse to you when their possible death could provide a medical breakthrough that could benefit the community?

The Electric Chair is a piece of barbarity and a remnant from our more industrialized society. The Electric Chair came on the promise of a less barbaric and less painfull death then the previous(hanings) and it promised what it brough.

Isn't prison meant to hold someone in confined quarters? Heh, it's funny that I didn't see experimentation on that list.

Depends on the type of prison. For example, death row in intened to be just a holding cell(one that takes six + years) for the man.

*sigh* the typical response I would expect from someone with no sense.

Sense to one man is the folly of another.

You're telling me to abide by the rules of people who cannot produce any kind of rational thought. I mean after all, with that kind of logic, you'd be condemning every soldier fighting the war right now.

I'm telling you to abide by the rules of your country, the one that if you ever become a citien of(god help us) that you promise loyalty to. Regardless of whether or not if you agree with the law or not, it is still the law.

As I suspected, you're letting your emotions blind you. Instead of giving equality and caring about future generations, you care more about the murderer rather than the victim.

How is using the criminal as a lab rat going to bring the victim back to life, or erase whatever damage that was done to it.

It won't, it never will. The damage is done and nothing can get rid of it.

Label me what you will, I have no qualms about it. Rather or not that you see a law as logical or not, is also pointless in this method, because it is still the law.

So unless you can ever make the Supreme Court in your lifetime and try to find more people that agree with you, or get a new ammendment to fix the Bill of Rights in whatever view you wish this will remain the law.

---

At 3/15/07 10:21 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Really, I could not see that. Jeeze, I'm just really slow today.

Good that you can admit it.

It would provide entertainment to crowds and crowds of people, there's a use.

No real rational use. Unless you want to flip your stance.

Because predisposed law already says they do.

Many places do not have the same laws. Laws without a reason are not good laws.

Thats what the punishment is intended for, in most cases of crimal law it is the intention. Thats why we have a series of laws and punishments, to pay back the crime to society.

How is it that they pay back their debt by living off the tax payer's money?

Nor does the constitution say "Seperation of Church and State". It says that "CONGRESS shall make now law...". You know, that could very well be interpreted that the states can do as they wish regarding religion.

Unless of course you take into regard the Free Exercise Clause of the First Ammendment. See, you would be suprised what you still remember from a Sophmore year Justice and Society class.

Free exercise does not mean the state cannot promote which religion they see fit as long as they do not forbit others to practice a different religion.

This is all taking it word by word. But i'm sure you knew what I meant of course, no one can be that n
aïve.

Well, considering that humanity is ruled by it's emoitions, and that progress to one person can be a decline to another.

How can a possible cure be a decline?

That sounds like equality.

And yet he takes a life while making that person suffer just so he can die in his sleep, painlessly.

Regardless of what the document says, that's not equality.

My side. I wasn't aware that I wasn't an individual anymore, It's nice to know that I can no longer carry an individual opinion.

Generalization. Assumption. Sarcasm.

Ah yes, the argument of the Clockwork Orange(quite a good book acutally). But with that argument, could it be considered that if the person that knows whats right and freely choose to do wrong, that(since he is human) he may later choose to good.

Wouldn't that then be contradictory to the law you keep bringing up regarding crime?

So the 14th Ammendment and Enlightenment are illogical.

Not if everyone can be tried and convicted the same. As to being sent for experimental testing, then no.

The Electric Chair came on the promise of a less barbaric and less painfull death then the previous(hanings) and it promised what it brough.

Heh, and yet in some cases, we still have it. See, you use your opinion to call it barbaric while yet that person's suffering and death is more equal to his crime then being put to sleep and killed without pain.

This isn't about opinion, which you keep attacking me with. You can even use simple addition if you wanted to better explain it.

Depends on the type of prison. For example, death row in intened to be just a holding cell(one that takes six + years) for the man.

Depending on your perception of death, and if what happens afterward is nothing but blackness is true, then the mere fact that the murderer is still able to breathe, cry, laugh and have any other human emotion, is completely illogical on the fact that he can still exert these feelings when the victim cannot.

Regardless of whether or not if you agree with the law or not, it is still the law.

And yet under pressure by the protests in the 60's, the United States cowardly legalized abortion.

Bill Clinton comitted perjury, lied under oath, obstruction of Justice (of which Nixon would've been undoubtedly kicked out of office for), and tampering with a witness; all of which are impeachable offenses according to law and the constitution, he still got the "not guilty" verdict. Not because he didn't do anything wrong, but because the people had no sense.

And what's truely amazing is that all of these law breakers are closer related to you than they are to me.

How is using the criminal as a lab rat going to bring the victim back to life, or erase whatever damage that was done to it.

How is locking him up in a cell giving him free food, clothes and housing an accurate portrayal of how he treated the victim?

This has nothing to do with bringing the victim back to life. If you want the criminal to pay back his debt to society, then he should do so in a way that's not wasting tax payer's money by placing him in jail where he can provide no future good.

It won't, it never will. The damage is done and nothing can get rid of it.

Then why do you feel sympathy for the criminal?

Label me what you will, I have no qualms about it. Rather or not that you see a law as logical or not, is also pointless in this method, because it is still the law.

I used that exact same arguement against Ravial (or however you spell it) about Clinton's trial. The only thing he could come up with was "I don't like it" regardless of what the law said. But in this case, this topic, the law can read differently to different people. Making what I just said about it, not against the law.

So unless you can ever make the Supreme Court in your lifetime and try to find more people that agree with you, or get a new ammendment to fix the Bill of Rights in whatever view you wish this will remain the law.

The Supreme Court. The one place where the constitution doesn't mean anything.

---

At 3/15/07 11:19 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/15/07 10:21 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Good that you can admit it.

Like I've said in other posts, self knowledge is a very powerfull tool in life.

No real rational use. Unless you want to flip your stance.

But wouldn't rational use depend on the individiual. For example, I consider most of Hollywood to be irrational and illogical, yet it has developed into an Empire that consumes people lives.

Or we could use it like the British did for crowd control or pleasure. There's a reason the gallows was in the town square.

Many places do not have the same laws. Laws without a reason are not good laws.

Where not talking about other places though. And there is a reason for these laws, as in there's a reason for the crea

How is it that they pay back their debt by living off the tax payer's money?

One could use the same argument with executions in our country.

Free exercise does not mean the state cannot promote which religion they see fit as long as they do not forbit others to practice a different religion.

I'm so sorry, I referenced to the wrong clause. I was currently in the middle of a History paper that I had to do and my mind was elsewhere.
Please forgive me though.

What I meant is the establishment clause of the first ammendment which is interpretted as prohibiting the national establishment of one relions or the preference of one religion over another. This clause was put into effect in such cases as the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

But the relevance of this topic to the original idea is of no concern.

How can a possible cure be a decline?

If a person does or doesn't believe that the ends justify the means. Really, it's up to the individual as a whole.

And yet he takes a life while making that person suffer just so he can die in his sleep, painlessly.

No death is painless, even today with Lethal Injection pain is being shown through. What is being put through is the though of a more painless death.

Generalization. Assumption. Sarcasm.

I'm not going to preach on assupmtions or the fact that sarcasm as noted is incredibly hard to dicate through the internet because of the lack of body signs or voice tone.

Wouldn't that then be contradictory to the law you keep bringing up regarding crime?

In what way? Please provide further of your rebutall.

Heh, and yet in some cases, we still have it. See, you use your opinion to call it barbaric while yet that person's suffering and death is more equal to his crime then being put to sleep and killed without pain.

State rights are still in discussion here but that is also beyond the point. While I pointed out earliers that pain is still shown in lethal injection, and I will still point out that I am one who doesn't believe in the theory of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Depending on your perception of death, and if what happens afterward is nothing but blackness is true, then the mere fact that the murderer is still able to breathe, cry, laugh and have any other human emotion, is completely illogical on the fact that he can still exert these feelings when the victim cannot.

Have you ever seen death row cells? The though that one is entrapped into a 6 by 8 cage for so long with minamal outside interaction is something quite frightening. But I like the idea tha that you brough up of perception of death. For example, I am a Christian, I believe in God and Christ and his teachings. I believe in the whole though of judgement of the soul and whatnot. So the though that I get to go into a paradise after the stressors and pains of life is something to be slightly enjoyed. While I find that though agreable, one finds that you can still find enjoyment on this earth as a whole.

And yet under pressure by the protests in the 60's, the United States cowardly legalized abortion.

And 70's as well(it was legalized in 72). One can put the blame on such a decesion as the peoples involvement in government . And as one that despises the very premise of abortion, I still know that it is a law and that I will use every force that I can to change that law in a legal manner.

Not because he didn't do anything wrong, but because the people had no sense.

Thats where the small problem comes in with the phrase "beyond a shadow of doubt". Somehow you seem to think that I like Clinton.

And what's truely amazing is that all of these law breakers are closer related to you than they are to me.

Because your of course know me or are you just generallizing again?

How is locking him up in a cell giving him free food, clothes and housing an accurate portrayal of how he treated the victim?

Because law is no longer based on the theories of an eye for an eye. When law developed, the state took the rule as the punisher. So, in that theory, any crime or illegal activity is a crime against the state. Thus in practice crimes began to rise to a utilitarian level.

Along with that theory is the individuals though on social evolution.

This has nothing to do with bringing the victim back to life. If you want the criminal to pay back his debt to society, then he should do so in a way that's not wasting tax payer's money by placing him in jail where he can provide no future good.

The theory of humanist movement is that jail is mean to be a reformatory and a protector against society from the individual. So, to that theory the debt is being paid.

Then why do you feel sympathy for the criminal?

Because he is still a man and a human being.

I used that exact same arguement against Ravial (or however you spell it) about Clinton's trial. The only thing he could come up with was "I don't like it" regardless of what the law said. But in this case, this topic, the law can read differently to different people. Making what I just said about it, not against the law.

I addressed this earlier with the shadow of a doubt theory. Besides I think it's Ravieral.

The Supreme Court. The one place where the constitution doesn't mean anything.

Then you better start expanding your education on law.

---

At 3/16/07 03:34 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

But wouldn't rational use depend on the individiual. For example, I consider most of Hollywood to be irrational and illogical, yet it has developed into an Empire that consumes people lives.

There's nothing illogical about it. What they do appeals to the public, so it's only natural that they turn into an empire.

Where not talking about other places though. And there is a reason for these laws, as in there's a reason for the crea

And I never said this was specifically about the US.

One could use the same argument with executions in our country.

It's true. Living in prison is tax payer's money. Execution is tax payer's money. So why not make it useful?

This clause was put into effect in such cases as the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

And so, just like law, it can overturned.

If a person does or doesn't believe that the ends justify the means. Really, it's up to the individual as a whole.

Only someone ruled by emotion would say that.

No death is painless, even today with Lethal Injection pain is being shown through. What is being put through is the though of a more painless death.

Or are you just using those few select cases where the injection process went wrong?

In what way? Please provide further of your rebutall.

Mentally Handicapped people who comitt a murder are to not be executed.

I am one who doesn't believe in the theory of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

And that is not equal, as I said.

Have you ever seen death row cells? The though that one is entrapped into a 6 by 8 cage for so long with minamal outside interaction is something quite frightening.

And yet they're still breathing while contributing absolutely nothing.

I still know that it is a law and that I will use every force that I can to change that law in a legal manner.

Exactly. The law can change.

Thats where the small problem comes in with the phrase "beyond a shadow of doubt". Somehow you seem to think that I like Clinton.

I was giving an example of the general population.

Because your of course know me or are you just generallizing again?

No. Because I do not believe in civil rights for murderers because they do not deserve any. And you're protecting them.

Because law is no longer based on the theories of an eye for an eye.

And that's why my Uncle is a career criminal. He can't get a job, so he just comitts an illegal act to be placed back into prison so he can live.

The theory of humanist movement is that jail is mean to be a reformatory and a protector against society from the individual. So, to that theory the debt is being paid.

And many of them repeat their offense in today's federal prisons.

Because he is still a man and a human being.

Hardly. He cannot even amount to the dirt I scrape off my shoe.

Then you better start expanding your education on law.

Oh, yes, they might interpret it. But also notice that the right to privacy isn't in the constitution. Abortion was illegal and they gave way to the protestors despite what they thought of it.

---

At 3/16/07 03:48 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/16/07 03:34 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

And I never said this was specifically about the US.

The whole discussion has been about the legality of the issue and the powers of the US Constitution and the 8th Amendment, how many other places are we talking about here?

It's true. Living in prison is tax payer's money. Execution is tax payer's money. So why not make it useful?

In our current time period and legal precedents, it's more economically viable to keep the criminal alive.

Even then, usefull is an abstract term that can be interpreted to the individual.

And so, just like law, it can overturned.

Yes, it is a possibility, as in anything in our Constitution can be overturned or ammended. The probality of it being changed though is something else.

Only someone ruled by emotion would say that.

All humans are controlled by emoitions, to say otherwise is idiocy. We aren't robots. Human nature is emoition.

Or are you just using those few select cases where the injection process went wrong?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/26/scotus.inje ction/index.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/08/106 5601914123.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4444473.stm

In what way? Please provide further of your rebutall.

Mentally Handicapped people who comitt a murder are to not be executed.

Because that brings in the argument of intent and mental clarity.

And that is not equal, as I said.

To you, maybe. I don't know you well enough to judge your own views and feelings, but to the Constitution it is equality. That victim and criminal get to keep thier rights.

Exactly. The law can change.

Yes, any law can change. The Constitution is a living document that can bend and expand with the generations that come with it.

No. Because I do not believe in civil rights for murderers because they do not deserve any. And you're protecting them.

And I do believe in cival rights for murders. I believe in rights for everyone.

And that's why my Uncle is a career criminal. He can't get a job, so he just comitts an illegal act to be placed back into prison so he can live.

I'm suprised, would have though that he would of just manipulated the welfare system.

And many of them repeat their offense in today's federal prisons.

Statistic?

Oh, yes, they might interpret it. But also notice that the right to privacy isn't in the constitution. Abortion was illegal and they gave way to the protestors despite what they thought of it.

The interpretation changes.

The right to privacy is linked to the case of Griswold v. Connecticut where they use the 9th Ammendment and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Abortion is also legalized with the same though of privacy and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

I feel different about that.

---

At 3/16/07 05:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The whole discussion has been about the legality of the issue and the powers of the US Constitution and the 8th Amendment, how many other places are we talking about here?

No, I made this arguement about equality on punishment. Not specifically about US laws.

In our current time period and legal precedents, it's more economically viable to keep the criminal alive.

I didn't say it wasn't. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that since they provide no benefit to the community by purely being locked up and living off the tax payer's money, then they should be put to some kind of use.

Even then, usefull is an abstract term that can be interpreted to the individual.

And emotional attachment is the problem.

And i'm not bringing emotion into dealing with fairness and equality.

Yes, it is a possibility, as in anything in our Constitution can be overturned or ammended. The probality of it being changed though is something else.

As history has shown, it takes public outrage and protest along with crime to be able to force them to legalize anything.

All humans are controlled by emoitions, to say otherwise is idiocy. We aren't robots. Human nature is emoition.

And emotion gets in the way of progress.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/26/scotus.inje ction/index.html

"the drugs could fail". Which implies that the only reason this practice is in question, is because there were a few select cases that went wrong as opposed to the majority of them. How anyone can express any sorrow for a cold blooded murderer is one way emotions get in the way of progress. Emotions should not be expressed for those who comitted these atrocities, but to those who haven't, to those who are innocent.

Because that brings in the argument of intent and mental clarity.

Exactly.

That victim and criminal get to keep thier rights.

That explains the limitations imposed upon them. They have 'right to privacy' while in prison.

I'm suprised, would have though that he would of just manipulated the welfare system.

Even he says Federal Prison living is better than living off welfare.

Statistic?

Around .4%, give or take. link

Depending on how many are and are not monitored it can go up or down. Altho to me it seems as if 24 years isn't very accurate considering the amount of time people can spend in prison as well as the age of the offender.

As well as 2.5% of rapists are repeat offenders. Though when it comes to little things like robberies, around 70% are repeat offenders.

The interpretation changes.

Then how does that make what you and I say any more right or wrong?

Abortion is also legalized with the same though of privacy and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That truely is pathetic.

---

At 3/16/07 06:18 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/16/07 05:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

No, I made this arguement about equality on punishment. Not specifically about US laws.

Then excuse me.

I didn't say it wasn't. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that since they provide no benefit to the community by purely being locked up and living off the tax payer's money, then they should be put to some kind of use.

There could be many things that they could be used for. Clean up labor, farm hands, chaing gangs ect ect.

And emotion gets in the way of progress.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Depends on the "progress" in discussion. Anyways it's not like emoitions are ever going to leave humanity otherwise.

That explains the limitations imposed upon them. They have 'right to privacy' while in prison.

Actually they don't. Thats why the have bedchecks every so often. Due Process has stripped them of that right.

Even he says Federal Prison living is better than living off welfare.

So he's had expierence then?

Around .4%, give or take. link

Can you point out the sections if you will?
Trouble to pinpoint which area your aiming for.

Then how does that make what you and I say any more right or wrong?

Because I'm not debating the morality of it.
If I was debating morality of the situation, I would just reverty to biblical scripture, but I felt that was uneeded and inproper for the present situation.

That truely is pathetic.

Give me time and I'm sure I'll work something.

---

Isn't it just great how we went from talking about animal experimentation to the legal rights of prisoners on death row?

Ok, just let me use an analogy: animals are different from humans, yet they are the same. For example, a desk is different from humans in the sense that it is not living. However it is like humans in the sense it is made of solid matter. Therefore, if we cut the desk in half, we can assume that it is possible to cut humans in half.

So far so good? lets continue.

Now, lets move on to animals. As a basic principal, it is unethical to experiment on humans without consent from the subject. Seeing as there are many types of research that most people would not volunteer for, we use animals. Animals that share many common biological systems, such as pigs( you can argue about how different pigs and humans are, but genome maps show they share 99% of our genetic code) This of course means that we can obtain results that are very accurate without actually experimenting on humans. It's nature's wonderous loophole in the laws of human ethics!

Or if you are one of those who argue that animals still have feelings(which I'm not saying they dont, because I consider myself to be a loving dog owner) then we could just do exactly what that crazy Nazi concentration camp doctor did with human prisoners (sorry, I forgot his name). OR what about that secret Imperial Japanese division composed of doctors who experimented on POW's. I'm sure those are both vast improvements to animal experimentation.

I guess that, in a brief summary, my argument would be that we got no better options.

---

Animal experimentation is just what it is. Animal experimentation. Why should we use experimentation on convicts as a sollution to a completely different issue?

---

At 3/16/07 09:21 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Animal experimentation is just what it is. Animal experimentation. Why should we use experimentation on convicts as a sollution to a completely different issue?

;
IF the experiments conducted on the animals, is as an end result trying to determine if a product/surgical technique is ok for people. Using a person already will remove any doubt that say a rat can be cured but for some reason a human rejects the cure.

We no longer have to torure innocent creatures.
I mean I have no problem killing them & eating the tasty little bastards, but I don't believe torturing them is right.

Criminals who are proven beyond any doubt & are on death row could be used to serve a greater good.
There was a great deal of scientific research done on humans by the Nazi's.
Much of what we know about how a human submerged in cold water & how hypothermia affects a body (different weights, gender etc.) was carried out by the Nazi researchers usually killing the subject.
This info was later used (by us) to make better life rafts & immersion suits .
Medical experimentation on wounds, reattaching limbs etc. was conducted using a human gave better more exact results.

After all, if all your going to do to someone is inject them with a lethal cocktail of drugs to stop their heart, why not use them for a better end result.
I'm not saying to torture them & leave them screaming in pain (not that they don't actually deserve that) treat them just like any terminally ill patient is treated.
Pain management, & conduct the experimentation that could better serve your fellow man down the road.
They (murderers) have a debt to society they can never repay. You cannot as of yet bring back a dead person. But maybe by having experimented on these murders who are only going to be killled anyway, they can be apart of breakthru's that can serve mankind in the future.

---

I think animals should have rights too. Experimenters are meant to handle animals with care when they are tested on yet lots fail to do this. Experimenting for cures i agree with but it has to be done properly.