So your argument adds up to an unsupported value judgment and an appeal to popularity.
Damn, it is Illogical Argument Day!
You Had One Job. . .
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Damn, it is Illogical Argument Day!
ah, good questions. Serial killer as defined in Wiki:
A serial killer is, traditionally, a person who has murdered three or more people[1][2] over a period of more than a month, with down time (a "cooling off period") between the murders.[3][4] Some sources, such as the FBI, disregard the "three or more" criterion and define the term as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone" or, including the vital characteristics, a minimum of two murders.[4][5]
The motivation for serial killing is usually based on psychological gratification.[3][4] Most of the killings involve sexual contact with the victim,[6] but the FBI states that motives for serial murder include "anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking".
Maybe a psychological assessment would be needed. Certain criteria would need to be met. Psycopathic tendancies. Sadistic killings?
How to explain to victim#4: I guess the same as they do now. Once the label serial killer is given that would change sentencing.
Last edited:
I picked 4 and 9 because in the U.S., a "mass murder" needs five victims. I'm sure it's very reassuring to the families of the Boston Marathon dead that it wasn't a mass murder.
I favour the death penalty for anybody who causes death or grievous bodily harm to another, and anybody whose criminal action causes a loss of more than $5000 dollars to each of more than 100 people.
I'm not married to those numbers, by the way.
As far as psychological evaluation goes, I think anybody who has without justification killed or raped or maimed another person has given us all the psychological information we need.
I'd be ok with mass murderers also being sentenced to the death penalty.
I think a death penalty sentence shouldn't be just about how many killed/raped so much as the motive behind it. Cruel, callousness or sadistic pleasure. I just don't see this sort of person as being of value. Or having a place in this world. If they can't feel empathy for another living creature, then they can't be trusted to not kill / rape again.
? Solution?
(I've had one cup of coffee and it's not yet hit my brain)
I'd also be ok with the courts using these people in science experiments to further human understanding of the brain. Not cruel Nazi experiments, but painless probing the brain to see what it does and if frontal labotomies COULD be perfected to prevent rapists, pedophiles, and psychopaths. It would be for the betterment of mankind.
Sorry, snarky. I meant a person who's been executed can definitely be trusted not to hurt anybody else.
I'm a mite queasy about that, myself. I realise it may seem a little inconsistent saying the state can take your life but can't do things short of taking your life. I'll have to mull it over.
I'm not a black or white issue kind of person. So, I don't find your feelings on that inconsistent. Life is inconsistfent and I think that it's ok to have differing criteria per an idea or approach.
I can see why human experimentation could be upsetting.
They are actually. In fact the State Government of Massachusetts refused to allow the people of Massachusetts to vote on it because we would have passed the death penalty. The state legislature let the petition die because they did not want it on the ballot.
Because it lowers us as a society dropping us to their level could be my argument and I do actually believe that.
My heartfelt reason is, why should they die so easily? The rest of us will suffer through multiple rounds of chemo, or heart disintegration or some other hideous disease. It is human to suffer. They should suffer the humiliation of aging. They should suffer the cruelty of no freedom for as long as their body holds out.
Execution is too expensive and too humane.
I'd support the death penalty if they hung the Governor for premeditated murder in the case where an executed person is later found not guilty. To me, that would be more just. Plus, I don't really like politicians. :lol:
I like it...bet the rate of "absolutely guilty without a doubt" would go up and executions would drop
Nope. Killing somebody because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and killing somebody to protect and to remove are two entirely different things. Not on the same level at all.
Besides, every coupla decades we (by which I mean the U.S. and Canada) go kill a bunch of people that had nothing to do with hurting any of us, and lionise the agents of our killing, so how could killing somebody who did hurt us be "lowering" us?
Oddly, I consider "making them suffer" as morally questionable as you consider killing them. If an executioner is a murderer, then how is a jailer not a torturer?
Rope's cheap.
Just because it does. The person is now incarcerated they are no longer a danger to society. It is a form of revenge and according to everything I have read there is no such thing as closure for the victims friends and relatives. They hope there will be, but it would appear that from a psychological perspective, it does not work. Thus why bother? It is too expensive. Keep them alive.
A jailer is a protector of society. They can never be allowed into public again. People will die to gain their freedom so guess which one we humans value more?
but all of the appeals are not...your fees are expensive
I also like the guillotine, it worked much better than rope or frying, or apparently injection