egafd.com

Killing someone, in my book, should always be done only when there's no other way. A last resort, if you please. Killing someone to save your own life, or someone else's, is just; Killing someone for vengeance isn't. Tell me the difference between your philosophy and these 'honour killings'. That's where vengeance takes us. An eye for an eye and a perpetual cycle of death. I'd like to think I live in a society that's above that......well, I AM part of a society who, for the most part, is above that. Luck me.

I think it's crazy to send the message to children (and adults) "though shalt not kill...............or we'll kill you." Mental.

You can give me no good reason why a government killing 'defected citizens' is moral. Not when there's a ready alternative called prison.

I have perused this case at my leisure and I am frankly shocked at the obvious right wing, hysterical and totally biased reporting style of the Daily Mail, that has undoubtedly distorted all the facts, thus:

It is plainly obvious that Dr William Petits and his family were unashamedy middle class and thus moneyed. The so called "Murderers" were, from what would be considered to be the lower echelons of American society. Disenfranchised and disillusioned simple folk, simply trying to turn a coin to avail themselves from the drudgery, metered out by the brutal, moneyed classes, that could not possibly have an insight into their plight. Nay, ladies and gentlemen, their utter hopeless plight! For example, the accused could not even boast the most frugal of possessions. Ladies and gentlemen, neither could afford either a Blackberry phone let alone a Blu ray player!! Whilst the so called, "Good doctor" retained SAVINGS in his bank account, that he'd hoarded and flaunted supposedly for the future benefit of solely his own family and NOT, I repeat NOT for the poor and hopless waiflings as are the accused!!!tears!

I am further dismayed that the accused defence team has not only had this case dismissed on the grounds of extreme provocation by the Petits family but furthermore have NOT attempted to claim substantial damages against the Petits family for, "Knowingly and willfully and with total disregard for the welfare of the accused, did NOT aid and abet the accused in the course of their crime!"

I say free the Petit's "TWO!"

The other side of me says:

"FRY 'EM and FRY 'EM GOOD!"

[quote]Sorry Sam,i cannot agree.I see no point in keeping these animals alive.[/quote]

They're human beings, not animals. Not very nice human beings, but human beings all the same. Let me ask you a question: Is it normal to rape and set fire to innocent people?

[quote]No it is not normal.[/quote]

I agree.

Now, if the law permitted it, would you rape and burn to death innocent families?

Then you realise that it's not laws and threatened punishments that stop crimes like this happening. We don't kill because we don't want to kill. We empathise with others' pain which would make us horrified of our actions.

Given our conclusions it's reasonable to assume there is something mentally wrong with these two murderers. They don't empathise with others in the same way most people do. Mentally, they're abnormal.

If one's legs don't work as normal people's legs do, we don't blame them for being physically disabled. We don't blame a blind person, or deaf person for being blind/deaf. Why is it that if someone is disabled in a way that stops them feeling empathy (thus they don't give two fucks how others feel) do we change our opinion about who'd fault it is?

I'm not saying no-one should be culpable for their actions but executing people because they are abnormal in some way is uncivilised. Especially when prison is a real alternative. In instances of extreme cruelty like this we should thank our lucky stars that at least we don't act/think the way they do, just like we may have more appreciation of the ability to see after watching a blind person struggling to cross a busy street.

You still haven't given me one good reason why a government should execute 'defective' civilians. If we think murdering people is wrong, executing defects is hardly setting a good example.

'Insane' is just a label, PH. You admitted yourself you wouldn't kill, torture or rape even if the law allowed it. That means the feelings you get that stop you doing such cruel acts obviously aren't there in a minority of others. They chose to commit these acts but didn't choose how they deal with emotion, or their lack of empathy. You want them to die because you have some notion that '1 kill + 1 kill = quits' and this somehow keeps the universe in balance.

Yes, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. You didn't put up any argument against any of my points so I'm guessing you haven't really given the subject that much thought.