No, murder is NOT most often a crime of passion. Such is called manslaughter. There are cold blooded murderers who need to be put down, not as punishment... but because those who are a certain way are far more dangerous than a rabid animal. I have known such individuals. I knew Bobby B. and Squeaky. Lived across the street from them. Squeaky needed therapy. Lots of it. Endless therapy. Bobby B. and Charles Manson just needed to be put down. Charlie couldn't help being the way he is. Neither could Bobby. Still they needed to be put down, not as punishment, but because it is the most humane thing to do for them and their potential victims. These people don't just kill. They kill slow and enjoy every minute of it. They poison all of society within their proximity whether you know they are their or not. When they lived on Alamo Square, it was called the Little Alamo or Murder Square. Without them being responsible directly for any of them there was more than a murder a week in that one block park. We instinctively kill those like Charlie and Bobby. In their particular cases they still live but are dead to society.
http://niggerwise.com On Nov 5, 3:00 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<is it saying that punishment for some behaviors should be > considered relative to the environment that affected the criminal when > we > consider punishment like the death penalty? That we can't help > ourselves in > some situations? >> > > Possibly. One of the arguments against the death penalty for, say, > murder, is that murder is usually a crime of passion. In other words, > they don't think. Historically, the data did not support the idea > that the death penalty reduced the amount of murder. > > If that's true, why execute a criminal? > > But I think the question is more relevant to accidental crimes. If I > get drunk and run over a 10-year-old, why is my penalty so much > harsher than if I was merely weaving down the road and got pulled over > by a cop? In both cases, the crime is the same, driving under the > influence. > > I would argue that the penalty needs to be whatever is required to > stop the behavior and no more. The penalty attached to unintended > consequences is unlikely to be a deterrent because the unintended > consequences are...unintended. I don't intend to run over anyone, so > why should I be concerned about the penalty associated with that > behavior? > > Probably the underlying reason is that we feel that the perpetrator > "deserves" a harsher sentence. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
