When is Damien going to die?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[78478]

78478 Posts in 6928 Topics by 701 Members
Latest Member: ace32

[DogIsYourName]

Your life is all you can give back Farm.

No, it is not the same as three, but it is as close as you can get to full retribution.  It is closer than "life without parole."

I never changed my mind.  I think my position is pretty clear.  The "self defense" thing was just an analogy to explain why taking a life in retribution is just.

[Farm]

Your life is all you can give back Farm.

So there's nothing "just" about it, is there?

No, it is not the same as three, but it is as close as you can get to full retribution.

There is no retribution, Dog - only revenge.

I never changed my mind.  I think my position is pretty clear.

Which post?

The "self defense" thing was just an analogy to explain why taking a life in retribution is just.

Well, your "analogies" clearly need some work.

[DogIsYourName]

Judging from your responses, maybe you are getting the feeling that my logic is pretty air tight.


You're saying there is nothing "just" about giving up your life after taking someone else's?

You're saying that the death penalty is not retribution?  (Justified revenge is really the same thing in my book.)

As for my analogy:

If you were there when those little boys were getting killed, would you have killed the perpetrator for them?

If so, isn't it because the perpetrator deserved to die?

What about this is hard to understand?

[Tricky8oy]

Kimbo, to his or her credit, made a very interesting analogy. If i was the owner of a dog that attacked people i would feel very guilty i.e i would have to accept some  responsibility for the actions for my dog.........But we're not talking about pets are we? Now ask yourself this question What if this was your son or your daughter that committed this crime? Would you be so quick to say "well hey, I'm going to have to put you down now"?..........

I'm not saying its as simple as that. I just happen to put a greater value on human life.........Right now in my city they are celebrating World Youth Day (just down the road from me actually) and, even though I'm not a practicing catholic, i felt the need to watch Passion of th Christ.

All of this is rhetorical as i don't expect a response or reaction to my reply post.

I will say this.

In a case such as this, for me to be truly convinced (of their guilt), i guess i do need to be Thomas sticking my finger into the wounds i.e i need to see the physical evidence, the smoking gun, the bloodstained knife.

As for the argument of the Death Penalty?, In the country I live in? I will never agree. I believe life imprisonment is something i can sleep with knowing my taxes are paying for that rather than justifiable homicide. Of course this is my humble opinion.

[chitown_alex]

I also agree that state-sanctioned homicide is no better than the homicides for which it is used as punishment.

[Kimbo]

Hi Tricky,

No we’re not talking about pets, we’re talking about emotions. Remember that scene in PL where Misskelley Snr was filmed speaking to his then girlfriend about Junior’s guilt? Basically she said that if Misskelley Jnr was proven guilty “they” would wipe their hands of him. Snr interrupted and said no way. “He’s my son!” he wailed in a very emotionally raw scene.

Misskelley Snr, if you’ll permit my padding of the analogy, is the dog owner who loves his dog so much that when the court order for the vicious animal to be put down comes through, his dog has gone “missing”.

The dog "ran away", they say. He ate a bait and died. He got hit by a car. The owner's love is too strong for them to turn the dog in, and sometimes, in their eyes, the dog did no wrong. The kid that was mauled was teasing the dog. Someone savaged grabbed his ears. So the dog disappears. Morality gets overlooked for love and faithfulness. It's age old, understandable and not all bad in parts, and it does explain some folk.

Your point of view is appreciated, Tricky. We aren’t discussing case facts in this thread; it’s about feelings and opinions, and I respect yours, although I don’t share it. I don’t think there is a right/wrong answer to the DP debate, with the understanding that my opinion is of course the most correct.  :laugh:

Kimbo

[Tricky8oy]

I don’t think there is a right/wrong answer to the DP debate, with the understanding that my opinion is of course the most correct.

Cool, I'll give you that.  ;)

[Farm]

Judging from your responses, maybe you are getting the feeling that my logic is pretty air tight.

No, Dog - you're still a blathering idiot.

You're saying there is nothing "just" about giving up your life after taking someone else's?

I'm pointing out how incredibly ignorant your comparison of a child to an apple is - you brainless moron.

(Justified revenge is really the same thing in my book.)

Then where did you come up with your stupid "Give an apple back" nonsense?

You do understand these children can't be replaced, right?

They weren't "produce".

[DogIsYourName]

Obviously, a slain child can't be replaced.  If they could, then the punishment would involve giving them back.

Instead, you apply "eye for an eye" the best you can: the perpetrator gives up his life.  That's "justice."  Anything less is, at least to a degree, called "forgiveness."

This isn't rocket science Farm.  It's more like elementary math.

I find it amusing that the one sound argument (logical--not pure emotion) against the death penalty is the one argument that nobody dares to raise here.  I bet you even know what it is...

In the meantime, how about you answer these questions:

(1) If you were there when those little boys were getting killed, would you have killed the perpetrator for them?

(2) If so, didn't the perpetrator deserve to die?

[TJM]

Dog, You mentioned in your post, something from the bible 'an eye for an eye', to back up thoughts on pro d/p.  I believe in the same paragraph, you mentioned the word 'forgiveness'.  You do realize that is also in that same book, and it is just as important of a word. 
I will never, ever, never forgive anyone for murdering another person, UNLESS it is in self defense, or defense of someone precious to them (children are precious to all of us, I am assuming, and hoping anyway.  So, that should give you thoughts on what would happen if anyone walked up on Damien, J & J murdering those children, any other children, or any person that was obviously unable to defend themSELVES against these three monsters.)  I'm not sure what I would do, if capable and had even walked up on Damien stomping the Great Dane, as animals are precious to me also.  I am a sinner, a big one at times and I have a personal problem with the forgiveness part, often.  Especially with certain things. 

I think that it is crazy that you have now posted and asked the question twice what Farm would do if he walked up on that horrible, horrible thing.  I am not seeing it really having anything whatsoever to do with someone believing in the death penalty or not.  I may be wrong here, but that to me is a very stupid, bad question to ask and then try to use it to defend the death penalty.

TJM

Oh, and the one sound, logical, not emotional argument against the death penalty that noone dares to raise here............you surely would not be referring to what has been raised and posted on this very thread by someone on Damiens mental status would you?
If so, go back through the posts, and I am not going to mention *her name, but she raised it, and also went on to express how you supporters (sorry, but I am not buying your fence sitting position) have most likely contributed to Damiens future arrangements.  I am sorry upfront if this rubs anyone the wrong way, however I personally feel that he would have confessed loooooooooong, looooooooooooooong ago, had it not been for stepping into the Super Hero position for Lorri and whoever else has made financial gain from him and this 'innocent' charade. 
Ohhhhhh, enough of my rantings on this subject for now, as I could post pages and pages on this very thought.

TJM

[Tammy]

I personally feel that he would have confessed loooooooooong, looooooooooooooong ago, had it not been for stepping into the Super Hero position for Lorri and whoever else has made financial gain from him and this 'innocent' charade. 

Not me.

[DogIsYourName]

You mentioned in your post, something from the bible 'an eye for an eye', to back up thoughts on pro d/p.  I believe in the same paragraph, you mentioned the word 'forgiveness'.  You do realize that is also in that same book, and it is just as important of a word.  

Yes.  There is a time and a place for forgiveness.  I do not support State mandated forgiveness of those who do not even ask for it, like many here apparently do.  

I think that it is crazy that you have now posted and asked the question twice what Farm would do if he walked up on that horrible, horrible thing.  I am not seeing it really having anything whatsoever to do with someone believing in the death penalty or not.  I may be wrong here, but that to me is a very stupid, bad question to ask and then try to use it to defend the death penalty.

It is not a stupid question at all.  Because if your answer is that you would have shot the perpetrator dead, then, in effect, YOU would have carried out the death penalty yourself.  You are saying the perp. deserved to die.  That's why Farm is dodging the question.  He knows he is being illogical.  I am sure he would've killed them then, but now acts like it is suddenly unjust for the State to do so now.  Does the perp. no longer deserve to die now that he has carried out the act of murder?  The answer is no.

Oh, and the one sound, logical, not emotional argument against the death penalty that noone dares to raise here............you surely would not be referring to what has been raised and posted on this very thread by someone on Damiens mental status would you?

No, that is not the one.  Although, I do agree that only those capable of intending death should be subject to the death penalty.

[TJM]

No, that is not the one.  Although, I do agree that only
.

Just today in another thread, I mentioned having a war in my head over the death penalty and whether I think it wrong or right.   I said that I flip-flop, etc.
I want to 'Thank You' Dog. 
I just read your entire post, all the while reading it, I was gathering my thoughts as of what to say back to some of your comments.  Your last sentence, for some reason just gave me a very concrete thought on this subject, that suddenly changed alot of my previous thoughts.   
I don't know if I have ever agreed with you on anything before, however I am so very strongly agreeing with you on this issue.  This debate really bugs me and has for a very long time.  It's something that I haven't really even talked about much to others, before I joined this forum.
Again, you said "  those capable of intending death should be subject to the death penalty".  And that is IMO correct.  Thank You Dog, really. 

And yes, you were correct........if I had walked up on D, J & J in the woods harming Michael, Chris and Stevie...........if I had had a gun.......Yes, without a second thought, without any remorse, without any hesitation, I would have shot whomever I witnessed torturing the children.  If I had not had a gun, who knows what the outcome would have been, as I would still have done something. 

Damien, Jason, AND Jessie were fully capable of planning, intending and carrying out the act of torturing and murdering the three children.  Whether egged on by Lorri, HBO, Riordian, supporters, or whomever.........they are not remorseful for the crime, only for getting caught and justice being served, and for the sad, wretched,  pitiful lives that they once lived in West Memphis.

What has happened here is you have pushed a 'real' fence sitter on the d.p. over the fence.  So, if you have ever had a thought down deep that maybe you will change someones mind, or make them see things the way that you do when you come here.........you just did it.  And again, thank you!

TJM

[sheer]

Jesus.

I've had people that have made me question my stance, sadly Dog is not one of them.

He picks and chooses his parameters to suit his own argument, refusing to see that the terms he throws about cannot be applied to every situation.

I would have shot them too, but I'm still anti dp. They aren't the same thing at all. Once again Dog is mixing up self-defence, defence and revenge to suit his own argument.

They aren't the same Dog. If I defend someone that is being attacked, revenge plays no part. I am defending someone against attack. The DP is about revenge, and never about defence.

sheer

BTW Farm did reply to your question, I think that you just didn't understand his answer.

[DogIsYourName]

TJM,

Glad to hear it!

Sheer,

my "self defense" analogy illustrates what the person "deserves."  If they did not deserve to die, you would not have killed them.

If you think the perp. deserves to die when he is attacking the children, but doesn't deserve to die for some reason after he actually kills them... well... then I don't think you can really get on me for "picking and choosing parameters." 

I agree that the DP is about revenge.  But it is also about sticking up for slain children who could not defend themselves.  The concepts are a little more related than you wish to acknowlege.

I think that TJM gets it.  If the killer is not requesting forgiveness - and will not even admit he did it -- why should we spare his life and forgive him?

-dog