Which person is more worthy of punishment in your eyes?

[Dis]

doh! I voted for the wrong one. I meant to vote for #1.

[Traianvs]

Anyone seen "Memento"? In the end it turns out he's a killer for some maffia guy (or who knows what else!!). Would you execute him even if he didn't have a clue that he killed other people all the time?

[Dr Strangelove]

Isn't killing 100 people worse than killing 10? I vote for #2.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Trajanus
Anyone seen "Memento"? In the end it turns out he's a killer for some maffia guy (or who knows what else!!). Would you execute him even if he didn't have a clue that he killed other people all the time?

What mafia guy? Corrupted cop=mafia guy?

[Ramo]

1. Neither "deserve to die." I have doubts about how some of the people who want to kill these people so badly can properly function in free society.

2. A sociopath like person #2 needs to be detained more than person #1 since clearly it's more likely that #2 would continue to kill people than person #1 would.

[Zero]

Guy 1. Im more likely a guy 2 than 1, so why would i want to vote for killing myself?

[tinyp3nis]

Guy 1 is more evil I guess. Guy 1 and 2 are dangerous. Get rid of both. In my eyes both lose their all rights as humans. Could the guy 2 be calc II on a rampage versus sadists and kills 100 of them? Then I'd give him a medal as long he won't hurt anyone who doesn't deserve to die. But hmmm, maybe he will, should we use Bush strategy?


But.. uh... seriously, some people.
Why portray people who get "bloodthristhy" after their loved ones get killed by a sadist, same as the sosiopath? There is no need. The sadist provides the need for the "bloodthirsthiness" and should also provide. I would be mean or stupid or just plain unfair if I thought that people who want some sort of revenge(any) are hostile all the other time too. There is no connection.
It's like me saying to the people who want low sentences on rapists that they are potential rapists themselves. Is that fair? No and I also don't think it's true either.

Nothing wrong with fighting againts hate generally, but in this case we should fight againsts the source of it instead, and let the victims hate. It's their right imho.

[Dis]

ack! don't spoil the ending of memento . I haven't seen it yet. soon I will see it, I promise.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by 1
Guy 1... no question. There was active hate involved. I'd rather be killed by someone who didn't mean it personally. lol

I feel quite the opposite. Its flattering, in a sadistic sort of way, to think that someone hated you enough to kill you. Hey at least you made an impact on someone, even if it was negative.

Originally posted by Dissident
ack! don't spoil the ending of memento . I haven't seen it yet. soon I will see it, I promise.

Or do you mean spoil the beginning?

[Robert]

How can one say that neither of them deserves death?
They both killed more than 5 people. Do to them like they did to their victims, but do it in a human way.

No torturing, just a fast and painless death.

And no, if the governament punishes someone to death it's not like the governament is an equal murder as they are. It's justice.

[Rogan Josh]

It is not my place to decide who should be 'punished'. To punish someone requires judgement, but since everyone sins, everyone is unfit to judge. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

We should not send people to prison to punish them - we should only do it to protect society. Anyone who can be a fruitful member of society, contributing to societie's wellbeing, should not be in prison no matter what they have done.

In the above case, #1 should be locked up to stop him doing it to other people; #2 should go to a secure pyschiatric facility.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by CyberShy
How can one say that neither of them deserves death?
They both killed more than 5 people. Do to them like they did to their victims, but do it in a human way.

No torturing, just a fast and painless death.

And no, if the governament punishes someone to death it's not like the governament is an equal murder as they are. It's justice.

Sometimes death is a reward. Besides, even though these individuals committed murder, it does not change the fact that they are still human beings that have rights.

[Drogue]

Guy 1. Guy 2 knows no different, his intent may be to kill, but it is not to cause harm, he does not see it as being a bad or harmful thing to do, but he is in need of help. To me, intent and reasons is far more important than means or end. Guy 1 is a nasty person, who intentionally causes harm. Guy 2 is someone who knows no difference, and must be helped. Guy 1 chooses to be nasty. Guy 2 does not think he is. Should we execute people because they canot understand good and bad?

[Frankychan]

I just can't comprehend how so many people can vote for number 1. He knows what he's done and regrets doing it, while numbah 2 is a sociopath....

[Drogue]

It's exactly because he knows what he is doing that it is worse. Number 2 cannot help himself, he is a sociopath, and thus does not have the 'free will' to choose whether to kill or not. Whereas #1 has chosen to kill, and he is of sound mind and body. Who says he has shown regret? Number 2 needs to be detained, for his own and others protection,a nd needs to be rehabilitated, whereas #1 deserves to be punished and rehabilitated.

If the question was who needs to be detained and removed from society more, I would say #2, but #1 deserves punishing more. His intent was worse, he has chosen to kill. #2 just can't do anything else. If someone kills because of mental illness, then they should be helped, rehabilitated, and detained, but not punished just for the sake of punishing them. If they are of sound mind and body, and have chosen to kill, then they deserve to be punished.