alright, said I was done, but I'm going to contradict myself and throw one more post at the both of you. I'm gonna stop being a condescending, argumentative douche whose enjoys playing debate games and give you something real world that will both help explain my position and hopefully illuminate the social dogma that permits me to advocate the death penalty.
Not knowing how old either of you are, I'm going to reference the Shasta Groene case from 2005.
She is the sole survivor of a sadistic, multiple homicide that took the lives of two of her siblings, her mother and her step-father.
Joseph Duncan III was a previously convicted sexual predator and and spotted Shasta Groene, an 8 year old girl, playing in the front yard of her family's house. He returned late, at night, and was somehow able to subdue and restrain the rest of her family; her mother, her step father, and her eldest sibling, keeping Shasta and her 9 year old brother Dylan in a separate room. He eventually took Shasta and her brother out to his truck and returned to the house where he bludgeoned the remaining family members to death with a hammer.
For the next few weeks, he kept both Dylan and Shasta at various campsites in wooded areas where he repeatedly raped, sodomized and tortured the two children, also video taping his actions and forcing Shasta to watch afterwards. Eventually he ended up murdering Shasta's 9 year old brother right in front of her, forcing her to stand so close to what he was doing that her brother's blood splattered on her clothes.
He kept Shasta alive after that, moving to a different campsite and finally, mercifully made the mistake of taking her to a local Denny's where she was spotted, recognized and the police were called while the waitresses stalled the two of them. She was rescued and Joseph Duncan was arrested.
It's the sort of story that pulls so stubbornly and vehemently against the heartstrings that a person can't help but question the social value of Joseph Duncan's life. People want him dead, with every ounce of decency in them, they want him dead.
Now the state is suppose to be an arbitrary voice in the resonating hatred surrounding this man's existence, but, the state is also a reflection of the populace will, which collectively fears for the safety of anyone associated with this man and rightfully so. He is that rabid dog I mentioned, the creature whose disembodiment is the only pure solution to protect the rest of us.
There is no reason, that I can see, to keep this man alive. None.
Your protest to the death penalty, in a case like this, is an insult to those of us who truly value the worth of society, of the social construct that encourages and rewards a humane and law abiding life. Your opposition to the death penalty places value on the lives of those that have no such reciprocation.
How could you possibly argue for this man's worth?
Your position, to cage him, is an outward admission that he is a violent animal and needs to be treated as such.. but.. but, you can't get past the principle that he is still a human being.
That is a personal conflict of your own creation, one that you put upon yourself.
Your argument that the death penalty is wrong is more statement of your own worth and a deference to a 'life giving entity' that you're afraid to betray.
In an abstract way, it really is and comes down to you.
What will happen to me if I agree with the murder of this man?
Both you and ACE are religious, or at the very least spiritual, it pisses ACE off that I infer that because he desperately needs me to be wrong and can't understand how I know that, it probably pisses you off also but to a lesser degree.
I also know you're both younger than me, as is evident by your stubborn adherence to ideal over practicality.
That's fine, I honestly hope you both figure this shit out.
But if either of you, right now, believe that Joseph Duncan III deserves the life he has.. you have a very long way to go.
That's my last.. take it easy.
