• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Why Don’t We Just Shoot Condemned Inmates?

Thanks for your valued contribution to spoiling this thread. Real mature.
 
get your dad to beat up his dad and we're getting somewhere

douchebagsaywhhaaat???

lol, why cant we just kill people we disagree with on the internet?
 
I have learned to stay out of a few arguments/discussions, abortion, death penalty, anything to do with AA/NA are a few..
 
.:Holy::Toast:. said:
This thread is a fucking train wreck
This is why we can't have nice things
Click to expand...
jesus_crucifixion_cross_237412.jpg

Execution_chair_with_man_JPG_240x360_q85.jpg
 
Pmose I hope im able to be there to see your souls reaction when it finds out who its been working so hard for.<3;)
 
Set aside a very remote section of land, large enough to where they would get lost, say, in Alaska somewhere, or Canada (buy some land). Drop them in there without anything (no clothes, even). Let them die wild. They chose to be so vile... They can live away from society, and just see how much they needed it. Perhaps they might survive, I don't know... But it won't be for long. If they do approach the borders of this section of land, they will be warned that they will be shot if they approach any further. If they do, it's their choice. The shooting will be automated. The only thing they will be fitted with is a tracker, so that the automated guns won't shoot wildlife, that would wake up the weapons. If the person continues to approach, they are choosing to die this way, and it's them pulling the trigger. This would in a way be their only tool. The border will be fenced. I'm not sure how big of an area it needs to be. Maybe a large island. Not tropical. Not too cold. The aim would be to let them starve, die of some illness, or be eaten, and to process in the time being.
 
What 23 said:
Set aside a very remote section of land, large enough to where they would get lost, say, in Alaska somewhere, or Canada (buy some land). Drop them in there without anything (no clothes, even). Let them die wild. They chose to be so vile... They can live away from society, and just see how much they needed it. Perhaps they might survive, I don't know... But it won't be for long. If they do approach the borders of this section of land, they will be warned that they will be shot if they approach any further. If they do, it's their choice. The shooting will be automated. The only thing they will be fitted with is a tracker, so that the automated guns won't shoot wildlife, that would wake up the weapons. If the person continues to approach, they are choosing to die this way, and it's them pulling the trigger. This would in a way be their only tool. The border will be fenced. I'm not sure how big of an area it needs to be. Maybe a large island. Not tropical. Not too cold. The aim would be to let them starve or be eaten.
Click to expand...

This sounds unbelievably expensive (trackers and armed and trained border patrol and what not), and then the end result would be a large portion of land littered with corpses and skeletons and then society is left wondering what happened to it's humanity.
 
not if the weapons are sniper rifles. not if the border patrol is also automated. very little human involvement would be needed. corpses would be removed. i think it's more humane than direct involvement in their killing. it's essentially saying, "we live inside these walls, and here is the outside- here you go, you aren't welcome anymore". But in a world where there is less and less land that is wild, this is the better way.

Basically, I don't think we owe a mass murderer jack. We don't owe them our thoughts. We should have killed them on the spot. No thought about it. The problem is we have too much fucking time on our hands. We've lost priorities. We owe them nothing. We owe ourselves reality. Yes, just shoot them.
 
So we don't owe accused murderers justice?
A fair trial?
A presumption of innocence (until proven otherwise in a court of law)?

See, I don't know if people know exactly what they're advocating when you pull out this "tough talk" about executing your fellow citizens. Makes for a society I wouldn't be too interested in living in - and with these taboos about even discussing the issue - from a nation with such global "military presence"; for all the great things about the USA historically (and today) - there is something a little ironic about the "kill all killers" routine.
It doesn't make a nation more civilised, more just, more safe; it just puts the US in a league of its own as far as "western democracies" go, and more in line with your more brutal dictatorships; North Korea, China come to mind.
Under revolutionary Communist rule or certain interpretations of Sharia Law, I can see where the death penalty fits the ideology of the state. But in a nation so vocal about "freedom", "justice" - as well as elements of varying forms of Christianity right through society and politics ("in god we trust" etc etc) something just doesn't seem to fit.
It's like certain parts of the US are clinging to some notion of 'frontier justice' - in an age where prisons are run by corporations, and law enforcement start resembling pirates, aiming for the rich crooks to share in the spoils of their plunder.
Oh well - as they say "it's a free country" (so long as you don't want to talk about gun control, abortion, capital punishment or US military culture). Uncomfortable or annoying as it might be, these all seem like fascinating things to talk about, and i guess I refuse to let hypocrites or fundamentalists dictate what I can or can't talk about.

And before some bright spark says I'm anti-American; it's actually the opposite. I'm disappointed and expect much more from this "great society".
Each to their own:)
 
Last edited:
Assuming we know they are guilty.

This is unless we find some way to actually fix these sick people. Killing them can be compassionate for all parties. I don't believe in evil, except as a side effect of sickness/malfunction.

If your leg gets gangrene, cut it off.

Perhaps my proposed method is sick as well. But I did mention how starving can be peaceful.

And I'm not sure why we should feed them (if proven guilty). It seems like we are just stroking ourselves.

I'm arguing as well. But if I could say, go back and have a clear shot against Hitler and Himmler, I doubt I would hesitate. Not that the sickness wouldnt manifest elsewhere. That might be my only source of doubt.
 
Last edited:
Murdering Hitler, as you used as an example, is the best option for the whole world and using a dictator committing mass genocide against entire races, religions, and those of sexual orientation as an example is not the same.
It was not so simple as to go on a man hunt and arrest Hitler, he was the leader of a nation of both indoctrinated and frightened citizens with a very powerful army and therefore comparing him to already arrested criminals is hardly a fair comparison.
If it were possible to arrest Hitler, hold him on trial, and convict and imprison him indefinitely it would be no doubt in my mind both the best and least morally objective option.
 
I'm not willing to pay money to feed him or build a prison or pay guards.

How is confining a human any less morally objectionable?

"For the curse of life, is the curse of want."

I'm pretty sure we would have executed Hitler. The only alternative might be studying him.
 
Last edited:
@What23 (a couple of posts up the page...)

Really? No doubt in the objective, impartiality of the legal system?

Shit, i used to be in favour of capital punishment until i realised how many wrongful convictions there are (across the board).
Throw in law enforcement corruption, trial-by-media, racial profiling, arrest quotas, profit-driven privately owned "correctional facilities", misleading use of forensic data and a whole fucking jailhouse full of tricks and scams employed by the so-called justice system (LE routinely perjuring themselves, televised show-trials, the various implications of "celebrity culture" in the legal system generally).
Don't get me wrong - I'm not some ideologue who can't understand what you're saying - but I've known people who have been wrongfully accused of all sorts of crimes.

i know a guy who served twelve years of a life sentence for a murder he didnt commit. He was released and exonerated - but no amount of compensation can give him back his youth or his innocence.
If we still hanged people here...i probably never would have met the poor bastard. The cops totally framed him, because the pressure was on them to find a killer; any "killer".
I'm not so naive to think it doesn't happen all the time, no matter how many checks and balances are in place.
 
Last edited:
You have me.

I have this idealism of if we knew for sure. That's not possible yet, a lot of times.
 
What 23 said:
I'm not willing to pay money to feed him or build a prison or pay guards.

How is confining a human any less morally objectionable?

"For the curse of life, is the curse of want."

I'm pretty sure we would have executed Hitler. The only alternative might be studying him.
Click to expand...
Yea because he would be tried for war crimes and guaranteed have been executed, but that doesn't mean that it would have been the correct thing to do imo.
 
^ yet the people that knowingly lied about Iraqi WMD walk free.
Like Kissinger. Like Oliver North. The victors define and punish war crimes (Nuremberg, Treaty of Versailles etc) and in the case of blatant atrocities/indignities carried out by the (non-defeated armed forces, the power players/wealthy get off scot-free (see: GWB/Rumsfeld and Lynndie England)
Not all violent criminals/torturers/murderers are equal, are they?
Same goes for rich or poor alleged violent criminals, it seems.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top