Carry a cap gun and win a trip to jail

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You flatter yourself by thinking you or your government is God.  is that one simple enough.  You are simply lying when you say that.

<span id='postcolor'>

It isn't about playing God, it's about the rule of law. When someone flaunts the law, they are punished according to the severity their crime, because that is how society works and has worked for hundreds of years. The government is better than vigilante justice, and when shackled by an obtuse judicial system and an almost perpetual appeals process, the government has enough limits on it so that it can do its job without expanding beyond that (which in this case could be disastrous).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's not very likely...

<span id='postcolor'>

Why not? You seem to have an incredible amount of faith in the credibility of a murderer's character, while giving no credibility to the charcter of other law-abiding citzens (*cough* United States government *cough*).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you think they are in fact less human than us?

<span id='postcolor'>

Don't twist my words. The argument was whether murderers are just like us, not whether murderers are less human than us.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Putting any label on an individual that is talking to you is an insult. I never accepted any position in a humanist organization or anything like that. I also do not belong to any political party. The actual insult was you entire sentence, where you equated secular humanists to only understand extremely basic concepts.

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the implied insult was that secular humanists are only able to understand overly complicated, ambiguous concepts. But thanks for failing to understand that

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, that is all wrong. It is not okay to murder someone, and you should be accountable to the degree of your responsibility in it. Executions are completely un-civilized, barbaric revenge type decisions. Even apes would not steep to something this low. Are were leveling on the discussion now?

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, all criminals should be held accountable, and the punishment should be in accordance with the severity of the crime. Considering that murder is the most severe of crimes, then it warrants the most severe of punishments.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can still have a functional deterrant against murder without killing the guilty ones.

<span id='postcolor'>

Really? I'd love to hear it. Although I doubt telling them that they will get 10-25 years of group therapy on why killing people is naughty is going to deter that many people.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Although I doubt telling them that they will get 10-25 years of group therapy on why killing people is naughty is going to deter that many people.<span id='postcolor'>

Some poor fellow comes home to find his wife panting with another guy.  He pulls out a gun, aims, squeezes the trigger and then stops to consider whether his state has capital punishment laws or if he will merely get 10-25 years of group therapy on why killing people is naughty.

C'mon Tex.  Do you really think it happens that way?

And those who premeditate a killing don't much care about the consequences because they simply don't plan to get caught.

[Renagade 0]

so much quotage so little time to read it all so ill sum it up briefly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

You ignore the reason why I choose not to empathize with murderers. They killed someone, for no other reason than that they were an obstacle, or because their death was the salient goal. This shows blatant disregard for everything society has been working for, in addition to a fundamental inability/unwillingness to live in a society where violence against your fellow human being is not acceptable.

<span id='postcolor'>

tex u seem to think, and i may be wrong,that the murderers in question seem to by psychopath bad guy who would kill anyone to get ahead or perhaps the gang type scumbag who`d shoot someone for fun,mind u if thats what makes him happy he could the job as the excutioner in the jail,but what about the other cases.

Ill use the hitman example again.What happens if someone,not the mafia,orders a hit on someone say someone wanting to knock off a mistress and the hitman carrries out the task.Should the hitman get the chair for killing or should the person who ordered it get it instead for intent to kill.Instead of firing a gun he/she gave the order or should both get it and why.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

You can still have a functional deterrant against murder without killing the guilty ones.

Really? I'd love to hear it. Although I doubt telling them that they will get 10-25 years of group therapy on why killing people is naughty is going to deter that many people.

<span id='postcolor'>

or they could get slashed the moment they go in there.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 12 2003,19:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some poor fellow comes home to find his wife panting with another guy.  He pulls out a gun, aims, squeezes the trigger and then stops to consider whether his state has capital punishment laws or if he will merely get 10-25 years of group therapy on why killing people is naughty.

C'mon Tex.  Do you really think it happens that way?

And those who premeditate a killing don't much care about the consequences because they simply don't plan to get caught.<span id='postcolor'>

Already went over this. That is called a crime of passion, and usually will get you a 2nd degree murder conviction, which is not enough to receive the death penalty.

And of course they don't plan on being caught, but does that mean we should accommodate their stupidity? "Oh, you didn't think we'd actually catch you? In that case, let's knock a few years off your sentence, since we caused you such an inconvenience." It doesn't work like that. I think that the deterrent effect of any form of punishment for any crime is questionable. But deterrence isn't the reason we have punishment, we have it because by committing a crime, the criminal now has a debt to society, and the only way to pay that debt is to take the punishment. In this model, yes, capital punishment is harsh, but so is the crime committed. Any deterrence that stems from that is merely a happy side-bonus.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">tex u seem to think, and i may be wrong,that the murderers in question seem to by psychopath bad guy who would kill anyone to get ahead or perhaps the gang type scumbag who`d shoot someone for fun,mind u if thats what makes him happy he could the job as the excutioner in the jail,but what about the other cases.

<span id='postcolor'>

That is for the court to decide. Because you live in Britain (am I right?), you don't have the best understanding of how the US judicial system works. When a person is brought up on the charge of killing someone the prosecutor can bring several different charges against the defendant: 1st degree murder (sometimes called capital murder) 2nd degree murder (Usually reserved for crimes of passion, and will get you at most a life sentence), or manslaughter (unintentional killing of another human, which is usually 10 to 20 years with possibility of parole). Even when a person is convicted of 1st degree murder, the death penalty is not automatic. There is a sentencing hearing, where both sides plead their cases, and the decision is made whether the defendant will get a long prison sentence or the death penalty. The decision is neither arbitrary or easily come by, and this process reserves the most severe punishment for the most severe crime.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Ill use the hitman example again.What happens if someone,not the mafia,orders a hit on someone say someone wanting to knock off a mistress and the hitman carrries out the task.Should the hitman get the chair for killing or should the person who ordered it get it instead for intent to kill.Instead of firing a gun he/she gave the order or should both get it and why.

<span id='postcolor'>

If the hitman squeals and implicates his employer, then he might end up being able to plead down to a lesser sentence, or vice versa. However, both would be charged with murder.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,20:o5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is called a crime of passion, and usually will get you a 2nd degree murder conviction, which is not enough to receive the death penalty.<span id='postcolor'>Good.  Glad to see you don't advocate the state killing someone over a crime of passion.  But too bad it still happens.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,20:o5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> And of course they don't plan on being caught, but does that mean we should accommodate their stupidity?<span id='postcolor'>No and I didn't say we should.  I was only touching on the deterrence argument because you said...</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Although I doubt telling them that they will get 10-25 years of group therapy on why killing people is naughty is going to deter that many people.<span id='postcolor'>

Although, now you say...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,20:o5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that the deterrent effect of any form of punishment for any crime is questionable.<span id='postcolor'>

...and that's ok, I'd say.  

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Bn880 mentioned that there was a better way to deter criminals, and I was rather curious to see how rehabilitation could be viewed as functional deterrance

[Bernadotte 0]

Here's a quick question slightly away from the main topic:  Should a prison be allowed to serve only vegetarian diets?

Considering:

- no religion requires meat

- meat is more expensive

- some think meat diets adversely affects human behaviour

- lower health care costs

On a similar note:  Should prisons be smoke free environments?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,19:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You ignore the reason why I choose not to empathize with murderers. They killed someone, for no other reason than that they were an obstacle, or because their death was the salient goal. This shows blatant disregard for everything society has been working for, in addition to a fundamental inability/unwillingness to live in a society where violence against your fellow human being is not acceptable.<span id='postcolor'>

But government enforced violence against your fellow human beings is acceptable? A society can't enforce one set of moral standards for its citizens and operate by the exact opposite of those standards.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You enjoy oversimplifying things. When the criminal makes the conscious, rational decision to end another human's life, his own life is now forfeit. <span id='postcolor'>

This is based on the assumption that you lose your right to live if you kill a human being. This assumption is not supported by today's western societies.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly, and we maintain that in every civilized country in the world. But for the purposes of this argument, I have to make the distinction, in order to more clearly explain the concept of value. In practice, all human beings' lives are valuable, and for that reason, the people who choose to kill other human beings deserve to be punished in kind.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, you can't go violating the priciples you claim to uphold. It's not justice it's revenge.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And besides, it is an almost abusive use of euphemisms to call murdering a person "not conforming to society".

<span id='postcolor'>

Its exactly what it is. In our model some killing is allowed: military and police have generally that right. There are societies that isn't allowed either. There are societies where religious disbelief is considered worse then killing somebody. The model isn't essntial here, it's the way you deal with elements in society that you do not like.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to mention, that by your concept of removing people who don't fit the model, prisons are morally equatable with concentration camps. Because it is the same concept: a criminal doesn't fit society's model (which in this case would be "don't steal things"), and is removed from society and placed in prison. By your logic, this is wrong, and we should allow criminals to stay free men despite their crimes.

<span id='postcolor'>

Prisons (at least here) are indended as rehabilitation facilities. I would however if I was in charge grant apperhended criminals the right to leave the country. If you won't play along with the society's rules, then get out of the society. Not playing along with the rules of society doesn't however give the society the right to violate your human rights.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, that is exactly the same. It's barbaric, uncivilised and morally wrong. War is however intrinsically uncivilised and barbaric. If I executed a deserter it would be morally wrong and it would burden my conscience.

<span id='postcolor'>

I've stated so many times, the murderer freely surrendered the right to live when he committed the crime.<span id='postcolor'>

As I said 50 times before. No he did not freely surrender. If you asked him he wouldn't agree that he has given up his right. You decide for him that he has surrendered that right, and murder him.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But you would do it, because it is necessary to hold the fabric of the unit together. Executing a murderer is somewhat similar, although it is not morally wrong, because as<span id='postcolor'>

It is not at all similar. The principles of war is not at all somehting we want to embrace in a civilised society. It is a different rule book, a barbaric one.

You keep repeating that a person has a choice of comitting a muder or not. This is true in a very strict sense but not within a wider context. Your individual freedom is only as good as the social restrictions imposed on you. Do you think that it is a conincidence that white middle class people commit less crimes then black people from the ghettos? It is because the social segregation leads to weaker groups in society can more easily make a decent life for themselves through crime then through lawful work. The act of committing a murder is only the top of a huge iceberg. The iceberg has been created by

society and therefor society is the one responsible. You are seeking to punish individuals for the errors of society.

Can't you see how it is all connected? Bombing Iraq, guns for self defence, executions of murders, social segregation?

Your world is dominated by fear: fear of the monster criminals, fear of Iraq's WMD's, fear of armed citizens, fear of the death penalty. Such paranoia is not healthy in a society.

[Renagade 0]

Smoke restrictions in a jail is an interesting one.

tex can u explain a bit more on the degrees of murder u can be charged under a bit more im guessing that 1st is where premeditated etc and the 2nd u`ve kind of explained the 3rds a little vague,would someone whos driven over someone while drunk get charged with 3rd degree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bn880 mentioned that there was a better way to deter criminals, and I was rather curious to see how rehabilitation could be viewed as functional deterrance<span id='postcolor'>

The problem with it is if someone killed someone in such a way that they thought they would get the death penalty then the may just kill any witnesses or whoever they felt like becuase it wouldn`t make a difference .

as for the debt to society bit well then in turn doesn`t society have a debt to pay to homeless guy who turned nutty........ just kidding.

What hapens where the part of society someone lives in does have a climate of violence,u couldn`t apply the normal rules to somewhere like a ghetto or maybe u could,im not sure.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can't you see how it is all connected? Bombing Iraq, guns for self defence, executions of murders, social segregation?

Your world is dominated by fear: fear of the monster criminals, fear of Iraq's WMD's, fear of armed citizens, fear of the death penalty. Such paranoia is not healthy in a society.

<span id='postcolor'>

but its good for politicians and the complaint about the gun laws here were that they weren`t needed.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 13 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your world is dominated by fear: fear of the monster criminals, fear of Iraq's WMD's, fear of armed citizens, fear of the death penalty. Such paranoia is not healthy in a society.<span id='postcolor'>

That's true. But what can we do about it?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But government enforced violence against your fellow human beings is acceptable? A society can't enforce one set of moral standards for its citizens and operate by the exact opposite of those standards.

<span id='postcolor'>

The Social Contract states that the citizen gives up certain rights and gives power to the government so that the government can create a safer, more stable environment for its citzens. This is the point I am operating on, that we (in the US) give the government the power to deal with murderers in the most effective way possible (a dead murderer doesn't murder again). It is sad that society is still at this point, but the fact is that it is still necessary. The criminal, being part of the society, is bound to the Social Contract just like everyone else, and a caveat to the Contract is that you have to abide by the terms and conditions: the biggest of these being in big red ink "You may not kill another person; if you do, you will be severely punished". Morals go out the window, because the murderer has violated the terms of the Social Contract. Killing innocent people is immoral- killing a murderer is absolutely different.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is based on the assumption that you lose your right to live if you kill a human being. This assumption is not supported by today's western societies.

<span id='postcolor'>

Except for in the country that is the foundation of western society. The Constitution specifically states that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Constitution also stipulates that your rights only exist as long as you don't violate the rights of others.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its exactly what it is. In our model some killing is allowed: military and police have generally that right. There are societies that isn't allowed either. There are societies where religious disbelief is considered worse then killing somebody. The model isn't essntial here, it's the way you deal with elements in society that you do not like.

<span id='postcolor'>

That is a whitewash of the term murder, because you are putting it in the same category as homelessness and poverty. Murder is not a social ill, it is a crime, and the murderer should be punished. Your argument about how we deal with the elements in society is moot, because the only people we execute are convicted murderers. Our compassion and empathy is reserved for people who are victims of circumstance, not people who make the decision to commit murder. Therefore, we deal with a section of society like the homeless in a compassionate manner, with job and housing programs. The main flaw in your argument is that you are unwilling to concede that murder is a crime, and that the murderer is ultimately responsible for his own actions.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Prisons (at least here) are indended as rehabilitation facilities. I would however if I was in charge grant apperhended criminals the right to leave the country. If you won't play along with the society's rules, then get out of the society. Not playing along with the rules of society doesn't however give the society the right to violate your human rights.

<span id='postcolor'>

This is a rather irresponsible way to deal with things. You would rather dump your criminals on another country than deal with them yourself? Not only are you releasing the criminals from responsibility, you are shirking your own responsibility (at least by your logic) to fix what society has broken. At least by your argument, which is complete and utter tripe in the realm of murder.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said 50 times before. No he did not freely surrender. If you asked him he wouldn't agree that he has given up his right. You decide for him that he has surrendered that right, and murder him.

<span id='postcolor'>

He is a part of the society, and just like everyone else, he has to follow the rules. But he doesn't just break the rules, he commits the absolute worst crime possible. Noone forced him to pull the trigger.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You keep repeating that a person has a choice of comitting a muder or not. This is true in a very strict sense but not within a wider context. Your individual freedom is only as good as the social restrictions imposed on you. Do you think that it is a conincidence that white middle class people commit less crimes then black people from the ghettos? It is because the social segregation leads to weaker groups in society can more easily make a decent life for themselves through crime then through lawful work. The act of committing a murder is only the top of a huge iceberg. The iceberg has been created by

society and therefor society is the one responsible. You are seeking to punish individuals for the errors of society.

<span id='postcolor'>

And now we hit the core of the problem. You don't think people are ultimately responsible for their actions, and therefore shouldn't be punished. In a strict socio-economic sense, some groups are forced into petty crime, but murder is entirely different. Murder has nothing to do with socioeconomics, it is a conscious decision made to end a life which benefits noone. A gangbanger doesn't get rich from killing his targets; he takes their money and chases them off. He would have to make the conscious decision to kill his victims, entirely independent of any imposed social structure. Almost any petty crime imaginable can be committed without resorting to murder; that means that when a criminal does resort to murder, it isn't about the social structure, it has crossed the line into choices and repercussions. Maybe the criminal's circumstances forced him into drug-dealing, but his own choices are what ended up with him wasting the drug-dealer across the street that was encroaching on his territory.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">tex can u explain a bit more on the degrees of murder u can be charged under a bit more im guessing that 1st is where premeditated etc and the 2nd u`ve kind of explained the 3rds a little vague,would someone whos driven over someone while drunk get charged with 3rd degree.

<span id='postcolor'>

1st degree murder is premeditated murder, and if convicted will usually carry a life sentence or death penalty. 2nd degree murder covers things like crimes of passion, where an otherwise rational person does something they later regret. Carries pretty heavy prison sentences (from 10-20 or 20-life with parole), but never the death penalty. Maslaughter covers things like negligence, and there is a thing called vehicular manslaughter, which covers death in a car crash caused by substance abuse (although some states have started charging drunk drivers who cause a death with murder).

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,22:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Morals go out the window, because the murderer has violated the terms of the Social Contract. Killing innocent people is immoral- killing a murderer is absolutely different.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think so. I think the same moral is very much in effect. The government should set a good example.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is based on the assumption that you lose your right to live if you kill a human being. This assumption is not supported by today's western societies.

<span id='postcolor'>

Except for in the country that is the foundation of western society.<span id='postcolor'>

ROTFLMAO! You consider USA to be the foundation of western society? That's a good one. Ok, if you said Greece or Rome, but the US? You have to be shitting me. The US is an European colony, remember?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Constitution specifically states that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Constitution also stipulates that your rights only exist as long as you don't violate the rights of others. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes and the US constitution is an antiqued, obsolete document that was written for how the social circumstances were 200 years ago. You seem to be stuck there. The moral views of that time often don't apply to modern society. That's why just about every other country has changed and adapted their constitution.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He is a part of the society, and just like everyone else, he has to follow the rules. But he doesn't just break the rules, he commits the absolute worst crime possible. Noone forced him to pull the trigger.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, he breaks the rules of the society and society has to respond. That doesn't however give the society the right to violate its own princples.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And now we hit the core of the problem. You don't think people are ultimately responsible for their actions, and therefore shouldn't be punished. In a strict socio-economic sense, some groups are forced into petty crime, but murder is entirely different. Murder has nothing to do with socioeconomics, it is a conscious decision made to end a life which benefits noone. A gangbanger doesn't get rich from killing his targets; he takes their money and chases them off. He would have to make the conscious decision to kill his victims, entirely independent of any imposed social structure. Almost any petty crime imaginable can be committed without resorting to murder; that means that when a criminal does resort to murder, it isn't about the social structure, it has crossed the line into choices and repercussions. Maybe the criminal's circumstances forced him into drug-dealing, but his own choices are what ended up with him wasting the drug-dealer across the street that was encroaching on his territory.

<span id='postcolor'>

I believe in that society should be responsible for its own bi-products. When the criminal's circumstances forced him into drug-dealing the step to killing somebody is not a big one. The step for them to take is perhaps as big as it is for a middle class kid of getting a fake id to by booze.

But this is all irrelevant. My point remains that killing fellow human beings is wrong and immoral, no matter who does the killing. And I can take comfort that most of the world has realised that and so will USA one day.

[FSPilot 0]

Denoir, you mean to tell me that all your time in all those units posted in your sig, you never fired a single shot in anger?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 12 2003,22:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you mean to tell me that all your time in all those units posted in your sig, you never fired a single shot in anger?<span id='postcolor'>

In anger? Never. Then I would be in jail and not posting here

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, perhaps you can clarify?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 13 2003,03:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 12 2003,22:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you mean to tell me that all your time in all those units posted in your sig, you never fired a single shot in anger?<span id='postcolor'>

In anger? Never. Then I would be in jail and not posting here

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, perhaps you can clarify?<span id='postcolor'>

In wartime. Lol, I guess that's too broad a term.

You've never shot, or attempted to shoot, a fellow human being for whatever reason.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 13 2003,00:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You've never shot, or attempted to shoot, a fellow human being for whatever reason.<span id='postcolor'>

I've opened fire in the direction of another human being once, in Prizren, Kosovo. A sniper opened fire and killed a civilian. While we were taking cover I provided covering fire. I only shot a few rounds, it was with a smg (mp5) and the sniper was about 200-300 meters away. I never expected to hit anybody, and I didn't.

I've also shot myself once, but I guess that it doesn't count

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 12 2003,13:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You flatter yourself by thinking you or your government is God. is that one simple enough. You are simply lying when you say that.

<span id='postcolor'>

It isn't about playing God, it's about the rule of law. When someone flaunts the law, they are punished according to the severity their crime, because that is how society works and has worked for hundreds of years. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes except killing in such a controlled situation is uncivilized, and playing God.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's not very likely...

<span id='postcolor'>

Why not? You seem to have an incredible amount of faith in the credibility of a murderer's character, while giving no credibility to the charcter of other law-abiding citzens (*cough* United States government *cough*).

<span id='postcolor'> It's not like that at all. Why not, bacause under the proper conditions the person will never even think of killing again ,after being helped for so long to realize the major mistake htey made. Also there can be specialists who track the mental progress of the patient and decise if there could still be a problem.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you think they are in fact less human than us?

<span id='postcolor'>

Don't twist my words. The argument was whether murderers are just like us, not whether murderers are less human than us.<span id='postcolor'> I did not twist your words, you called them Homo Sapiens, remember? Missing a Sapiens. Homo Sapien Sapien is a modern human.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 13 2003,01:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 13 2003,00:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You've never shot, or attempted to shoot, a fellow human being for whatever reason.<span id='postcolor'>

I've opened fire in the direction of another human being once, in Prizren, Kosovo. A sniper opened fire and killed a civilian. While we were taking cover I provided covering fire. I only shot a few rounds, it was with a smg (mp5) and the sniper was about 200-300 meters away. I never expected to hit anybody, and I didn't.

I've also shot myself once, but I guess that it doesn't count <span id='postcolor'>

aren't we forgetting about that poor dog?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 13 2003,06:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've opened fire in the direction of another human being once, in Prizren, Kosovo. A sniper opened fire and killed a civilian. While we were taking cover I provided covering fire. I only shot a few rounds, it was with a smg (mp5) and the sniper was about 200-300 meters away. I never expected to hit anybody, and I didn't.<span id='postcolor'>

So you were willing to take another life?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've also shot myself once, but I guess that it doesn't count <span id='postcolor'>

Degenerate!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 13 2003,02:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you were willing to take another life?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, in a war situation. As I said earlier, war is barbaric and we shouldn't try to mimic its rules in normal society.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But this is all irrelevant. My point remains that killing fellow human beings is wrong and immoral, no matter who does the killing. And I can take comfort that most of the world has realised that and so will USA one day.

<span id='postcolor'>

This is where we disagree. I don't think that a murderer's life is worth the paper his birth certificate is printed on. But since I don't see this going anywhere but getting ugly, I'm willing to leave it right here, while everyone still respects everyone else. Truce?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 13 2003,07:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, in a war situation. As I said earlier, war is barbaric and we shouldn't try to mimic its rules in normal society.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok. I was just sort of confused when you were saying we shouldn't take another human's life.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 13 2003,02:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 13 2003,02:o4)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, in a war situation. As I said earlier, war is barbaric and we shouldn't try to mimic its rules in normal society.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok.  I was just sort of confused when you were saying we shouldn't take another human's life.<span id='postcolor'>

If the most effective way to protect the civilian population in that moment was to throw the sniper in a jail cell and not fire a single shot then that's probably what denoir would have done.  However, there was no such option.

I think you are mixing killing to defend with killing to punish.