# It Took 15 Minutes To Kill An Ohio Man



## drifter (Jan 16, 2014)

Did you hear about the death row prisoner who was injected with an experimental drug and it took over fifteen minutes for him to die. His stomach heaved up and down. He omitted snore like sounds and other noises, then after five minutes, he raised up and looked toward his family, saying twice, "I love you." It was an unexpected spectacle.  (you can read more about the death penalty in the community forum, Speakers Corner).


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 16, 2014)

I don't dispute it, but I don't get it. In a world where they can knock you out to have a tooth pulled.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 16, 2014)

_Well i don't feel sorry for him as he raped and murdered a girl, might sound harsh but what he did is unforgiveable_


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 16, 2014)

I still don't get the pomp and ritual around the death penalty.  Guilty! ... short walk to a wall... bang.  End of section. 
 Yeah I hear all you but,but,but justice advocates Warri.  But honestly...  Even if they do keep up all this 20 years of appeals stuff why does the execution itself have to be made so damned complicated?  Why all the high end technology??  Why not just ...  Bang?.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 16, 2014)

In slaughter houses they use a stun gun. Easy peesy.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 16, 2014)

jrfromafar said:


> In slaughter houses they use a stun gun. Easy peesy.





  Poifick!  Not as messy as bang either.


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

Yes, just put on a helmet with 4 pneumatic stuns to hit him faster than he can blink his eyes. 

During the days of King Henry VIII beheading was the preferred way to go (quick and painless) - it was reserved for royalty - commoners were hung.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 17, 2014)

_Hanging should be the way to go not all this chemical stuff, just put the noose around the morons neck and let him drop_


----------



## jrfromafar (Jan 17, 2014)

I'm for it ! But leave it up to government to screw up something so simple!


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

I am not sure beheading was always quick and painless, there are tales of the axe-man missing; or forgetting to sharpen his axe; but it was the preferred method for royalty. Traitors tended to get hung, drawn, and quartered; enough.
i can not understand though, how it takes 15 minutes, with an 'experimental' cocktail of drugs.
sometimes I feel that civilisation hasn't moved forward much..


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 17, 2014)

_This explains it a bit for you Vivjen_ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ion-butter-pecan-ice-cream-fried-chicken.html


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

Thanks Jill.
those two drugs are used for last 24-48 hours of life in the UK, usually with an anti-emetic, and presumably in lower doses.
Small world...


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

"Unconstitutionally cruel", eh?

And rape and murder isn't? 

I still think the method of execution should be exactly the same as what _they_ did to their victim.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 17, 2014)

_Yeah an eye for an eye, trouble is who does the horrible deed_


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _Yeah an eye for an eye, trouble is who does the horrible deed_



Other convicted felons?

And sell tickets? Commemorative coffee mugs? Popcorn and hot dogs? All proceeds go to the victim's families, of course ...


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 17, 2014)

_Instead of all the pomp and ceremony, why don't they just make them swallow a cyanide pill_


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _Instead of all the pomp and ceremony, why don't they just make them swallow a cyanide pill_



Well, the story seemed to say that they had run out of the usual meds and were using this as a "backup" method, one that had never been tried before. 

I agree, though - the quicker the better, all things being as they currently are.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 17, 2014)

_between you & I Phil and keep this a secret now, i am glad it took 15 minutes_


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Too bad if he suffered...why should he get an easy death?

They should use this combo for everyone on death row.

The only problem I have with a death sentence is that it takes too long, I say no more than a year...get all ypur appeals, Then Bye Bye.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 17, 2014)

_And they live in luxury there too , well they do here they have all the mod cons TV , Library etc and good food 3 times a day and all those poor homeless guys are lucky to get 1 meal a week_


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _And they live in luxury there too , well they do here they have all the mod cons TV , Library etc and good food 3 times a day and all those poor homeless guys are lucky to get 1 meal a week_



I'm not sure I would call it "good" food, though - it's actually pretty bland and very starchy.

But yes, better than what a homeless guy gets.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

Don't forget their human rights.....the UK can't give whole life sentences because it takes away the human right of having some hope....


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

Well, I think they gave up their rights in the Human Club when they did their crime ...


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

Not here they didn't..


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

The criminal didn't care about human rights!


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Not here they didn't..



Sooo ... British killers are somehow closer to God than US ones? 

I just find it quite ironic that people will fight for the rights of someone who has no regard for the rights of others.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

Whole life sentences are'degrading' according to the European Court of human rights, therefore illegal.
just quoting the current legislation.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 17, 2014)

We've reinstated Life meaning just that relatively lately, in the 90s I think. Before that 'Life' equated to around 25 years. Not good enough.



> [h=3]Without the possibility of parole[/h] In the most extreme cases, the sentencing judge will refuse to fix a  non-parole period, which means that the prisoner will spend the rest of  their life in prison. In New South Wales, if the prisoner is convicted  of the murder of a police officer, they will automatically be sentenced  to life imprisonment without parole.[SUP][6][/SUP]
> Notorious criminals serving at least one sentence of life  imprisonment without the possibility of parole include backpacker serial  killer Ivan Milat (New South Wales), serial sex killer Peter Dupas (Victoria), Snowtown serial killers John Justin Bunting and Robert Joe Wagner (South Australia), sadistic rapist and murderer Barrie Watts (Queensland), child killer Dante Arthurs (Western Australia), Port Arthur gunman Martin Bryant (Tasmania), and police killer David Eastman (Australian Capital Territory).
> There are four women serving at least one sentence of life  imprisonment without the possibility of parole: cannibalistic husband  killer Katherine Knight (New South Wales), black widow Patricia Byers (Queensland),[SUP][7][/SUP] serial killer Catherine Birnie  (Western Australia) and one from Queensland, who tortured, raped and  attempted to kill a 13-year-old girl, but cannot be named for legal  reasons.[SUP][8][/SUP]



I do hope there's more than them in for life.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

We had the same, until 2003. Now we are considering an appeal to the European Court..,


----------



## Davey Jones (Jan 17, 2014)

re:Without the possibility of parole.*

That itself is a big joke...
 there is always the possibility of escape or killing a guard or fellow prisoner, or some soft-hearted Governor may someday reduce the sentence. *


----------



## Falcon (Jan 17, 2014)

What about the odd case where later the convict was found innocent?  Oops!  Sorry about that.

Re: Execution...How about using Dr. Kevorkian's method?


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

it happens but nowadays with DNA and further advances in science the chances are less and less.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 17, 2014)

I have never used Wikipedia so much.....
but that takes us back to juries, reasonable doubt, and the media.
what if there is only circumstantial evidence?
what if it is a cold case?
what if I am getting my threads mixed up?


----------



## Old Hipster (Jan 17, 2014)

Send them to North Korea.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 17, 2014)

Old Hipster said:


> Send them to North Korea.



... and make them bunk with Dennis ...


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> I have never used Wikipedia so much.....
> but that takes us back to juries, reasonable doubt, and the media.
> what if there is only circumstantial evidence?
> what if it is a cold case?
> what if I am getting my threads mixed up?



Circumstantial evidence cases are harder to prove and maybe if you are found guilty where there was no DNA, etc...you would only get life, not death...that sounds fair to me.


----------



## Anne (Jan 17, 2014)

If I heard it right, Missouri is now considering bringing back the firing squad for certain cases.  What?! At the price of ammo these days??!  Who would want the job of pulling the trigger??  

OTOH, in the Rowan Ford case, I might not mind that job, myself.....maybe a bit of russian roulette, to make it a game....


----------



## Falcon (Jan 17, 2014)

I heard that in some firing squads only a couple (or one or few) had actual bullets; the rest had blanks.

The rifles were handed out randomly.....SO, NOBODY knew which rifleman actually killed the condemned perp.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

Yes, I heard that too...

Of course if someone killed any member of my family I would derive much satisfaction from pulling the trigger myself.


----------



## Anne (Jan 17, 2014)

Oh now I remember hearing that, too.  Probably best, tho I agree with you CeeCee...I'd have no problem with it if someone in my family was hurt, either.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 17, 2014)

I actually think it would help some family members in their grieving process...not everybody but having that option would be nice.


----------



## That Guy (Jan 17, 2014)

What he did to deserve capital punishment is horrible but for us to torture him to death is unfathomable.  It is paramount that we be the keepers of humanity.  I have preached and preached to you folks ad nauseam that if we do unto him as he did to his victim then we become him.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 18, 2014)

That Guy said:


> What he did to deserve capital punishment is horrible but for us to torture him to death is unfathomable.  It is paramount that we be the keepers of humanity.  I have preached and preached to you folks ad nauseam that if we do unto him as he did to his victim then we become him.



I don't see it that way. 

Does anyone really think that a life sentence with no parole is NOT torture? It's a prolonged death, in a place where you have no freedom, no say and no physical contact with the real world. It's like being placed in an isolation tank and told to relax - after a while you go insane from the lack of stimuli.

Executions are actually an act of mercy compared to incarceration. But seeing as how they don't make money for the industrial-prison complex I'm not surprised that their paid lobbyists are found in the forefront of death-penalty protests.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm with TG on this.  Just from purely practical reasons rather than an ethical one.   I value revenge as much as anyone but i do agree that once it gets past a certain point it damages the avenger more than the offender.  I enjoy revenge cold, but also quick and clean, preferably before they know what hit them.  
Just shoot the buggers and have it over.  
Someone who has committed a despicable crime should be treated with the contempt they are due. Do we torture dogs who maul kids?  Or do we just put them down 'humanely' as quickly as possible and take them out of the equation?

 I don't see that showing sick murderous bastards that we are no better than they are proves beneficial to anyone.  If anything, to their own twisted thinking, it excuses their behaviour and they see you as the bad guy hypocrites.  

As to the toss up between 'life' or 'death'...  let 'em choose?  Many handle it reasonably well though, so then is it really punishment enough?
Give em 2 years in the worst of it to decide for themselves?  Or just shoot 'em?  Or zap 'em with Jnrs stun gun array.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 18, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> Someone who has committed a despicable crime should be treated with the contempt they are due. Do we torture dogs who maul kids?  Or do we just put them down 'humanely' as quickly as possible and take them out of the equation?



Dogs do not have the intelligence and reasoning ability to kill or not kill - they act by instinct. They are "dumb dogs" compared to us "smart humans", so you really cannot compare the two methods of elimination.



> I don't see that showing sick murderous bastards that we are no better than they are proves beneficial to anyone.  If anything, to their own twisted thinking, it excuses their behaviour and they see you as the bad guy hypocrites.



It might also serve as a warning to anyone contemplating similar crimes in the future. When you see the worst that can happen is being thrown in Club Fed with your buddies, then raping and slaying that family might not be a bad trade. 

But if you know you're going to die for it, you just might have a change of heart.

And please don't tell me about "rehabilitation" - prisons are no longer designed for that. 



> As to the toss up between 'life' or 'death'...  let 'em choose?  Many handle it reasonably well though, so then is it really punishment enough?
> Give em 2 years in the worst of it to decide for themselves?  Or just shoot 'em?  Or zap 'em with Jnrs stun gun array.



You mean, let the prisoner choose?


----------



## Old Hipster (Jan 18, 2014)

I don't understand how killing a murder makes us as bad as them. They killed an innocent person, they took a life and there is a penalty, you lose yours. It is as simple as that to me.

I would have absolutely no qualms about pulling a switch or a trigger on them. I'm too squeamish to jam a needle in their arm or chop a head off however. 

They had no regard for their victim or any pain or suffering they caused them, to say nothing or the abject fear and terror they had to endure at the end of their lives. 

Fry the bastards I say, oh wait their is an energy crisis, Hang the Bastards!


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm sorry, I thought I was commenting on the lynch mob mentality that takes hold when people talk about creeps on death row.  I'm not getting into a to and fro over the rights and wrongs of the death penalty in general, just have an issue with how it's carried out, and with how people *say *they want it carried out.

If you don't see how executing them in the cruelest way possible demeans only the executioner then I'm wasting my time.  Go for your lives.


(Darth Vader lives here today, not my usual sweetness and light, sorry.)


----------



## Old Hipster (Jan 18, 2014)

I don't advocate torturing them, my methods would be short and quick. But if something did go wrong and they suffered, I wouldn't care either. Maybe the families of the victims should be able to have a say in the punishment dished out.


(Darth Vader lives here today, not my usual sweetness and light, sorry.) 



Oh I needed a good laugh.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 18, 2014)

Here's an idea: 

Instead of executing them, send them to live with one of the capital punishment protestors. You could put a nice little tracking collar on their ankle so they would stay put, and I'm sure they would be a wonderful addition to that liberal household. They could do the dusting, clean out the litterbox, etc. and serve as the center of conversation during cocktail parties.

Win/win!


----------



## That Guy (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm not saying don't kill them.  What I insist is keeping our humanity which they have obviously lost.  As OH says, short and quick, and good riddance.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 18, 2014)

That Guy said:


> I'm not saying don't kill them.  What I insist is keeping our humanity which they have obviously lost.  As OH says, short and quick, and good riddance.



I agree, justice is one thing; revenge is another, and can eat people up inside.

I am not saying forgive and forget....but let impartial justice take it's course if possible.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 18, 2014)

In my self-defense classes the question would often come up, "how hard do you defend yourself"? To what lengths do you go? How much is too much?

Perhaps I'm not the leading authority on this topic since I did three months in County for using "excessive force" to defend myself against three guys, two of whom were armed. Nevertheless, this is what I told my students:

Only the best-trained, strongest person can choose to be merciful. Using a gun for self-defense takes away the ability to show mercy - it is flat-out designed to kill. And no, you don't aim at the arms or legs to wound them - that's a Hollywood fantasy. So the moment you use a gun to defend yourself you have to make the conscious decision to kill.

With a knife, stick, bat, etc. you are more likely to injure rather than kill, IF you are trained in the use of that particular weapon. All of these are capable of killing as well - in fact, it will be the un-trained user that is most likely to take a life with them. But they are, in trained hands, also capable of showing a type of mercy unachievable with a firearm.

Finally comes bare-handed defense. It is simultaneously the easiest and most difficult for the trained practitioner to show mercy with bare-hand techniques. Easy because, well, you have no weapon per se. Difficult because if you have the right assemblage of attributes it is actually easy to kill with bare hands - you have to exercise restraint in order NOT to.

In sum, it is easy to kill in a self-defense scenario. It is the combination of lack of control, both physical and emotional, and the associated flow of adrenaline-fueled fear and rage that makes showing mercy so difficult.

In other words, you have to be in control in order to show mercy. 

How does this apply to state-condoned executions?

If my theory holds - which it does for one-on-one shows of mercy - then it should also apply to these executions. You can only show mercy if you are in control.

With the apparent increase in serial killings, movie-house shootings, school invasions, home invasions and regular old everyday street slayings, would you say that we are in control?

I say no. I say strike back with everything you have. We are NOT in control.

Does shooting a deer make a hunter a killer? Technically yes, but does society punish him for that act? No, of course not. Why not? Because he's a human executing an animal. Yet, he gets a pass even when he botches the shot and only wounds the animal, leaving him to die a lingering, painful death. It's just "Oh, well - them's the breaks!".

What label do you apply to a serial killer? Many will refer to him (the majority of serial killers are male) as "an animal". How is it any different?

Make no mistake - we are defending ourselves against these "animals". We should adopt the same viewpoint as used on hunters - take your best shot, and if there's prolonged pain involved, oh, well, them's the breaks.


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 18, 2014)

I only know or can picture what I would do to a killer of any members of my family...I would probably lose control and go at him with whatever means they gave me and I don't think I would stop til I collapsed in tears on the ground....other than that I really don't care how tney carry out the death penalty on a criminal.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 18, 2014)

Soooo, you don't accept the 'put them down quick with a bullet like a savage dog' analogy but trot out one about deer hunting? 1 demerit point.





> Does shooting a deer make a hunter a killer? Technically yes, but does  society punish him for that act? No, of course not. Why not? Because  he's a human executing an animal. *Yet, he gets a pass even when he  botches the shot and only wounds the animal, leaving him to die a  lingering, painful death. It's just "Oh, well - them's the breaks!".*



So is an executioner "a human executing an animal"!

And no, no, no.  Your 'hunter' doesn't get a pass from me.  2 reasons.

1. If he deliberately botches the shot then he is not a hunter, nor an executioner, he is a sadistic bastard.

2. If he botches it accidentally then he needs to polish up his shooting skills until he can hunt with the confidence and skill we should be entitled to expect from *genuine* hunters.

We need expect nothing less of professional executioners either.  

Consider this, as an example of the double standards of what people say and what people do.  How's this for confusing??

 We  in OZ have had a billion dollar live export cattle trade crippled and damned near ruined by a concerted and orchestrated social media campaign by animal rights activists playing with the minds of the easily outraged.  
It was accomplished with a few minutes of footage,  of the particularly badly, and cruelly, botched slaughter of a few of our export cattle in a tin-pot slaughter house in Indonesia.  The footage was horrible to watch, but so was the vision of the untrained idiots who were hired to do the job.  But that gets complex so...

The *very same people* on forums who screamed with outrage at the cruel treatment of those few, out of many thousands, cattle, have no compunction whatever at calling for the torture of offenders under the death penalty!

  I'm sorry but do those people really think about exactly what it is that they are outraged about?  Isn't it the cruelty aspect that they objected to?  Just what the Hell exactly do they want?

Do they even know themselves?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 18, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> Soooo, you don't accept the 'put them down quick with a bullet like a savage dog' analogy but trot out one about deer hunting? 1 demerit point.



I never _said_ I didn't accept "PTDQWABLASD". (How's THAT for an acronym?)





> So is an executioner "a human executing an animal"!



Yes.



> And no, no, no.  Your 'hunter' doesn't get a pass from me.  2 reasons.
> 
> 1. If he deliberately botches the shot then he is not a hunter, nor an executioner, he is a sadistic bastard.
> 
> ...



I also never claimed that our executioner should NOT be trained.



> Consider this, as an example of the double standards of what people say and what people do.  How's this for confusing??
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



All I know is, your hatred of social-awareness groups aside, I want vicious killers dead. That way they won't kill again. I would gladly take a state-paid job as executioner. I already have the training, so they would save even more. 

#Winning!


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 18, 2014)

CeeCee said:


> I only know or can picture what I would do to a killer of any members of my family...I would probably lose control and go at him with whatever means they gave me and I don't think I would stop til I collapsed in tears on the ground....other than that I really don't care how tney carry out the death penalty on a criminal.



Exactly CeeCee, as would I, or anyone,  we'd  'lose control' and use whatever means were at hand.  You in the US are lucky to be able to grab a gun and blow his head off, I'd be left wielding whatever else I could grab which would be way messier.   
But loss of control in the heat of the moment is a very different thing to cold bloodedly plotting how to torture someone many years later.  
That's just for want of better word, evil.

I don't care what happens to the offenders, it's not them, or even what goes on in their minds and certainly not their 'welfare', that concerns me.  It's the 'mental welfare' of so many who express cruel 'wishes' on forums that labels them as latent sadists! 
 What are they thinking saying things like that?  Is that really 'them'? Do they really want others to see them as sadists?  WTF?

Perhaps they confuse a heat of the moment revenge reaction, with that expected after cold slow justice has run it's course.   

But I'm still wasting my time on this aren't I?


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 18, 2014)

If what you're getting at is that people talk trash from the safe anonymity of their Internet connections, then yes, I totally agree.

I cannot count the number of tough-talkers I've met, in both the virtual and real worlds, who run like scared rabbits when faced with a real situation.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 18, 2014)

> All I know is, your hatred of social-awareness groups aside, I want vicious killers dead.



I don't hate the basic tenets of what 'social awareness' people believe they stand for, I just hate the spin and bullsh*t they use to gain very little for their causes other than donations.  What I hate is how the radicals in their ranks go about it.  I hate the ones who use their Org.s as publicity stunt, media addicted ego boosters for themselves.

I want vicious killers dead too, along with a few other ferals among us who wouldn't be missed, but it's so much easier to shoot 'em than go through all the fancy rituals of high tech medical and electronic wizzardry which goes titsup all too often.



> I also never claimed that our executioner should NOT be trained.



Well they too need to polish up a bit don't they?  How much training does it take to operate a .38 at point blank range?  
Or if you want to think of them as more 'professional' then train 'em to use the stun guns that can take out a Brahman bull with a head like an armoured tank in a milli-second with no mess or fuss at all?  ZSSZZZzzzzzz, thump, over.  We don't need the rituals.

Why can't we just simplify this? 

I'm fast switching to Jrs stun gun solution over my original 'bang' theory solution.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 18, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> I don't hate the basic tenets of what 'social awareness' people believe they stand for, I just hate the spin and bullsh*t they use to gain very little for their causes other than donations.  What I hate is how the radicals in their ranks go about it.  I hate the ones who use their Org.s as publicity stunt, media addicted ego boosters for themselves.
> 
> I want vicious killers dead too, along with a few other ferals among us who wouldn't be missed, but it's so much easier to shoot 'em than go through all the fancy rituals of high tech medical and electronic wizzardry which goes titsup all too often.



Okay, that's understandable. It seems the further we get into merciful killing, the more things go wrong. We try too hard to be human.  



> We don't need the rituals.
> 
> Why can't we just simplify this?



Actually we DO need rituals - we need them to cleanse our spirits and feel complete, whole again. They are a comfort to us, they tell us that everything is okay. Why do you think religion is so popular? 

That horrible buzzword that's been making the rounds for a few years now - "closure"? That's what ritual gives us.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 18, 2014)

> Actually we DO need rituals - we need them to cleanse our spirits and  feel complete, whole again. They are a comfort to us, they tell us that  everything is okay. Why do you think religion is so popular?
> 
> That horrible buzzword that's been making the rounds for a few years now - "closure"? That's what ritual gives us.


 
What do mean "we' paleface!? 


 I can get along without supernatural supervision, I guess my problem is that I fail to see why others can't.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 18, 2014)

I agree with a couple of posters here who said to kill him the way he killed his victims, seems fair to me...and may be a deterrent for murderers in the future too, they'll be a more gentle breed if they know they'll get what they gave.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 18, 2014)

_Like that guy in that TV series i can't remember the name of it, get him to do it._


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 18, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> I agree with a couple of posters here who said to kill him the way he killed his victims, seems fair to me...and may be a deterrent for murderers in the future too, they'll be a more gentle breed if they know they'll get what they gave.



That deterrent theory has never been proved to work on serious offenders to my knowledge SB. 
 Mandatory life in jail has never stopped morons shooting at cops here.  None of them even gave the consequences a thought when the action was on. They are living exclusively in the 'now moment.'

 That's how it usually is, if they were in any condition to be thinking logically they wouldn't do what they do in the first place.  
It may work to stop those who let the thought idly cross their minds from planning things too far,  but it never enters the thinking equation of someone in full nutter mode.  Nor does it deter those who think they're smart enough to get away with it.  

Sounds reasonable, but more wishful thinking than a practical solution.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 18, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _Like that guy in that TV series i can't remember the name of it, get him to do it._



Dexter?  But he didn't deter anyone did he?  Just offed them because he's as big a psycho as they are.  Just perceived to be more tasteful in his choice of victims.  

Do we on forums think it's okay to be sadistic as long as we pick our victims carefully?  Still sadistic. Just sayin'.


I liked Dexter as a show, but to be honest I'd  shoot him too.  It's all fun to see that plot line pay out on baddies but that's not how things work, psychos capable of doing what he does aren't guardian angels to anyone.  It's just a TV show, it ain't real.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 18, 2014)

Di, my old mum would say that you are farting against thunder on this issue.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by some that should a member of my family fall victim to a rapist or killer then revenge would be uppermost in my mind. But revenge is not justice, and society must be founded on laws, justly applied to all. We will never achieve perfect justice but we should never stop trying to.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 18, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> That deterrent theory has never been proved to work on serious offenders to my knowledge SB.
> Mandatory life in jail has never stopped morons shooting at cops here.  None of them even gave the consequences a thought when the action was on. They are living exclusively in the 'now moment.'
> 
> That's how it usually is, if they were in any condition to be thinking logically they wouldn't do what they do in the first place.
> ...



Fair enough, forget about the deterrent part of it, and just give them what they dished out.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> What do mean "we' paleface!?



:rofl:



> I can get along without supernatural supervision, I guess my problem is that I fail to see why others can't.



Well, it isn't only religious ... we as a _species_ need ritual, how'z about that? Birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, the way we prepare our first cuppa ... they are all rituals. 

Checking into SeniorForums.com every day - ritual. 

They are the almost-automatic things we do that reassure us that everything is right with the world (even when it obviously isn't). We feel we are controlling our little corner of it.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Diwundrin said:


> That deterrent theory has never been proved to work on serious offenders to my knowledge SB.



The thing about proving a negative is that it's pretty much impossible. You cannot prove how crimes are NOT committed - what are you going to do, round up the usually suspects and ask them if they've cancelled any murder plots lately? 

We'll never know what works until the stats come in, and even then we have to take them with a grain of salt. 

I say, let's go with 5 years of gratuitously violent public executions, vigilante organizations and the shipment of the hardcore cases to some penal colony in Australia.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2014)

Haven't we tried that before?!


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Haven't we tried that before?!



"We" haven't - I believe a few _other_ places have ...


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2014)

Sorry, I meant we, as us Brits......what would Australia have done without us?! 
I am not sure that it was totally successful though...


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 19, 2014)

> I say, let's go with 5 years of gratuitously violent public executions, vigilante organizations and the shipment of the hardcore cases to some penal colony in Australia.



And from clay such as this we built a nation.

:highly_amused:


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Sorry, I meant we, as us Brits......what would Australia have done without us?!
> I am not sure that it was totally successful though...



Ah, yes, okay ... maybe you could give it another try? 



Warrigal said:


> And from clay such as this we built a nation.
> 
> :highly_amused:



MY nation will be very different, mainly because the soil has a lot more _sand_ in it. 

"Feet of clay" vs. "Having sand" ... see what I did there? layful:


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 19, 2014)

So you reckon China and the Saudis have it right then?  They still have crime.  The Indo prisons aren't the Hilton but they still have plenty of inmates.  There's a bunch of Aussies on death row over there for smuggling drugs.  There are signs in their airports the size of football fields informing tourists that carrying drugs carries a death sentence in Indonesia but they still smuggle drugs in.  

Their stories and pictures of the hell holes they are imprisoned in waiting trial are splashed all over the TV here because Indonesia likes to let us know these things but still they carry their little stashes in, and still they get caught.  If a cell, noose or firing squad in Indo doesn't faze them then I call 'deterrent' a failure.

You'll have to hurry with that convict shipment, we're filling up with the debris from the Middle East and Sri Lanka at the moment posing as refugees.  Many of our 'poor and huddled masses' from the M.E.  are getting popped in Syria lately.  They fled the joint as refugees,  conned the bleeding hearts here to get some new paperwork then took off to fight for Al Qaeda and ilk in the places they 'escaped' from. 
Then when they get caught they call on our Govt to bail 'em out as 'Australians'.  Thankfully most just get straight out shot.  So we wouldn't mind some cons that are already pre-identified, that would be nice for a change, thanks for that.


----------



## Vivjen (Jan 19, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> Haven't we tried that before?!



I don't think we were very successful, although I suppose we did start you growing. Not all we sent were guilty I suspect, either.
so I think you may have to 'make do' with the people that you so kindly take in now..


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 19, 2014)

Hey I have no problems with you Poms sending the dregs here, I can't believe our luck that you didn't leave 'em over there and move down here yourselves.   Oh, a lot of you have.



There's quite a bit of status in having convict ancestors now, I missed out, all free settlers, boring mob.
I'll be forever grateful that the Yanks put on that Independence stoush and you had to kick start OZ in replacement.  My forebears may have emigrated to Canada and I'd have bloody frozen over there.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

According to UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) murder rate stats, the world average is 6.9.

*Africa* leads the world with 17.0, followed closely by the *Americas* with 15.4 Both well above the world average.

*Asia, Europe* and *Oceania* come in at 3.1, 3.5 and 2.9, respectively.

They're doing _something_ right.


----------



## Old Hipster (Jan 19, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> According to UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) murder rate stats, the world average is 6.9.
> 
> *Africa* leads the world with 17.0, followed closely by the *Americas* with 15.4 Both well above the world average.
> 
> ...


Oh come on folks we aren't trying hard enough, with a little effort we could be #1 in no time.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 19, 2014)

Old Hipster said:


> Oh come on folks we aren't trying hard enough, with a little effort we could be #1 in no time.



I don't know ... they have quite a head-start on us, but damn it, this is the USA! 

*USA! USA! USA! WE'RE #1!!!* :rofl:


----------



## That Guy (Jan 19, 2014)

I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one . . . !


----------

