- Thread starter
- #1
A big fat FUCK NO. They should torture kill all those sick fucks and sooner rather than later so we don't have to pay for their existence.
A big fat FUCK NO. They should torture kill all those sick fucks and sooner rather than later so we don't have to pay for their existence.
I'm not an advocate of the state killing people in this context. That said, so long as we are killing people, I don't really understand the fuss over how painful it is. So long as we're not talking about outright torture. I'd be fine to go back to hanging or firing squad. Though based on last season of The Killing, hanging is actually quite a bit more complicated than I realized.
Why not just a bullet in the back of the head? Seriously.
Why not just a bullet in the back of the head? Seriously.
No, I want a PPV Running Man style execution with proceeds going to the victim's family. If the contestant survives you cut him and drop him in a tank of great whites.
Why not just a bullet in the back of the head? Seriously.
I don't personally have a problem with that - again, if we're starting from a point that we're going to kill people regardless - but I believe they went to a firing squad largely because of the pressures killing someone in that context place on the person who does it. At least in the firing squad, you're not sure if it's your bullet that did it.
Once the decision has been made and all appeals have been exhausted, then one bullet in the back of the head. No muss, no fuss and its cheap, quick, painless and 100% guaranteed to work.
A big fat FUCK NO. They should torture kill all those sick fucks and sooner rather than later so we don't have to pay for their existence.
It's not cheap if you then have to pay for counseling for the person doing the shooting. It's also not 100% guaranteed to work. Plenty of people have survived being shot in the head at close range, though it is a very short list compared to those who have not survived.
It's not cheap if you then have to pay for counseling for the person doing the shooting. It's also not 100% guaranteed to work. Plenty of people have survived being shot in the head at close range, though it is a very short list compared to those who have not survived.
I always find it strange that in every discussion of the death penalty, there are people who seemingly NEED the condemned persons life to end in the most brutal way possible. That's not my idea of being on moral high ground. We are no better than they are, if that's what it takes to give us satisfaction.
I understand your sentiment and don't disagree overall. But there's no doubt that those who want to punish the murderers are better than they are. I find it to be hyperbole when people say stuff like that. People who want someone who murdered to be tortured (as long as they have no actual control over the execution) is different than somebody who wanted someone to be tortured, when innocent, and does it. Is someone who gets off on this type of stuff innocent or a great person, maybe not. But they're better than those who go out and do it. We don't need to make everything equivalent. Yes the person who does nothing is better than the person who does the bad thing. Both can be criticized. Proportionately. The person who made that was very eloquent.