<<We instinctively kill those like Charlie and Bobby>> I smell some truth and evolutionary probability here...though it's not pretty.
[?] On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
<<inline: B60.gif>>
