Irrelevant legal and pseudo-moral details.

If a criminal deserves to die, he should quickly
get what he deserves. Pure and simple.

A psychotic serial killer, a multiple-premeditated murderer,
any dangerous irreversibly violent person,
is a danger to all the rest of us and must be executed forthwith.

No more legalistic or immoralistic or cowardlyisticness, please.

[QUOTE=davar55;250220]Irrelevant legal and pseudo-moral details.

If a criminal deserves to die, he should quickly
get what he deserves. Pure and simple.

A psychotic serial killer, a multiple-premeditated murderer,
any dangerous irreversibly violent person,
is a danger to all the rest of us and must be executed forthwith.

No more legalistic or immoralistic or cowardlyisticness, please.[/QUOTE]
Glib, simplistic and crude. It says much about retribution and little about justice.

You might start by defining exactly what you mean in each case. A pointer; the psychotic actor is subject to delusions beyond his (her) power to resist. How do you say justice (as distinct from convenience) is served by convicting, let alone killing, a sufferer from psychosis who commits an act that might be criminal on the part of someone who is not?

The first and last paragraphs are patronising. Keep them to yourself.

[QUOTE=davar55;250220]Irrelevant legal and pseudo-moral details.

If a criminal deserves to die, he should quickly
get what he deserves. Pure and simple.

A psychotic serial killer, a multiple-premeditated murderer,
any dangerous irreversibly violent person,
is a danger to all the rest of us and must be executed forthwith.

No more legalistic or immoralistic or cowardlyisticness, please.[/QUOTE]

if you don't like legal you don't like moral or ethical, also how do we know who's a psychotic killer without testing ( a lot of courts make sure people get tested). can you prove premeditation without police or a court system ? can you prove irreversibility without psychoanalysis (usually court done if someone claims insanity) ? by that notion someone could openly call you psycho and have you killed without a trial to prove it just from the way they think you are, doesn't that mean someone else gets to kill them since they killed you ? if so who is the last person standing ? because by that logic there should be only one left by the time it's done.

moral and law are 2 distinct thing. don't mix them.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;250277]moral and law are 2 distinct thing. don't mix them.[/QUOTE]

never seen a difference. My point was that if everyone who killed was killed all but that last person would be dead, as it follows that the killer of the killer would be killed then that killer of a killer and so on until the other animals would have to kill the last human to satisfy the cycle.

[URL="http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine-Laurent_de_Lavoisier"]Antoine-Laurent_de_Lavoisier[/URL] (dead killed [COLOR="LemonChiffon"]by justice[/COLOR])

see sentence

[QUOTE=99.94;250233]Glib, simplistic and crude. It says much about retribution and little about justice.

You might start by defining exactly what you mean in each case. A pointer; the psychotic actor is subject to delusions beyond his (her) power to resist. How do you say justice (as distinct from convenience) is served by convicting, let alone killing, a sufferer from psychosis who commits an act that might be criminal on the part of someone who is not?

The first and last paragraphs are patronising. Keep them to yourself.[/QUOTE]

Patronizing? That's insulting, isn't it? Check out the Intolerance thread
in the soapbox. And the Religious Intolerance thread.

And there were no cases mentioned in my post.

Any non-fixable criminal is a threat.

Their eventual penalty threat must be execution, duely enforced.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;250261]if you don't like legal you don't like moral or ethical, also how do we know who's a psychotic killer without testing ( a lot of courts make sure people get tested). can you prove premeditation without police or a court system ? can you prove irreversibility without psychoanalysis (usually court done if someone claims insanity) ? by that notion someone could openly call you psycho and have you killed without a trial to prove it just from the way they think you are, doesn't that mean someone else gets to kill them since they killed you ? if so who is the last person standing ? because by that logic there should be only one left by the time it's done.[/QUOTE]

Good questions, all answerable. Try re-thinking and we can discuss
these issues. My quick answer is: the US Constitution, the Declaration
of Independence, and proper legal statutes based on these.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;250289]never seen a difference. My point was that if everyone who killed was killed all but that last person would be dead, as it follows that the killer of the killer would be killed then that killer of a killer and so on until the other animals would have to kill the last human to satisfy the cycle.[/QUOTE]

Think of the consequences of the human Right of Self-Defense.

[QUOTE=davar55;250302]Think of the consequences of the human Right of Self-Defense.[/QUOTE]

okay you take a persons life they have no right to self defense left the cycle continues.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;250323]okay you take a persons life they have no right to self defense left the cycle continues.[/QUOTE]

Not what I meant.

The basic human right to Self_Defense is:

if someone is trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself,
you have the right to defend your own life,
even to the point of killing the attacker.