Do you support the death penalty?

[Grim Goblin]

ok, Spider-bite...

1: the fact that you would turn around my calling out your rude way of dismissing other people's opinion had a huge leap in logic. I specificaly stated "if you actually did it on purpose, THEN you can kiss my ass" if you didn't do it on purpose you've got no reason to feel attacked.

2:Statistics are what they are. In this case you mention that 1 out of 4 abused victims become abusers themselves. That can be considered a statistic. The fact that you insist it applies to the case presented without any evidence (in this case it was actually stated otherwise during trial) that he was indeed abused MAKES IT a theory! More specificaly it makes it your theory and a flawed one at that.

they did the research before trial, he wasn't abused. let's move on to the topic at hand now.

3: life without parole isn't the punishment it used to be. today you get luxuries paid by the rest of society. Unles we're talking about your vision of it, solitary confinement until you die...

Hold on, I'll repeat that again. Solitary confinement until you die! you think that's more humane than killing quickly? Life without parole the way you mention it IS a death sentence. It's just a polite way of doing it, sparing ourselves the mess and the figurative "blood on our hands". It's a sugar coated death sentence where we, as a society, get to keep our pretention of "being civilized".

 

[Spider-Bite]

ok, Spider-bite...

1: the fact that you would turn around my calling out your rude way of dismissing other people's opinion had a huge leap in logic. I specificaly stated "if you actually did it on purpose, THEN you can kiss my ass" if you didn't do it on purpose you've got no reason to feel attacked.

2:Statistics are what they are. In this case you mention that 1 out of 4 abused victims become abusers themselves. That can be considered a statistic. The fact that you insist it applies to the case presented without any evidence (in this case it was actually stated otherwise during trial) that he was indeed abused MAKES IT a theory! More specificaly it makes it your theory and a flawed one at that.

they did the research before trial, he wasn't abused. let's move on to the topic at hand now.

I'm still yet to see the evidence he was not abused. what did they base that opinion on?

3: life without parole isn't the punishment it used to be. today you get luxuries paid by the rest of society. Unles we're talking about your vision of it, solitary confinement until you die...

true and I'm glad for that fact. I believe the fact that prison is better than it was before doesn't make it any less of a deterrent.

Hold on, I'll repeat that again. Solitary confinement until you die! you think that's more humane than killing quickly? Life without parole the way you mention it IS a death sentence. It's just a polite way of doing it, sparing ourselves the mess and the figurative "blood on our hands". It's a sugar coated death sentence where we, as a society, get to keep our pretention of "being civilized".

the solitary confinement is used to prevent escapees from escaping or dangerous inmates from hurting other inmates or hurting themselves.

I'll admit it. A big part of the reason I oppose the death penalty is because I don't want my hands dirty.

 

[The Overlord]

It can still happen, but as I said, a man who has murdered who is allowed to live gets a better deal than his victim ever will. That's inherently unjust.

Just state the facts. How do you explain to a murdered victim's family that the person who did this gets a better deal than they will?

Can you name one dangerous offender that has escaped from an ultra max in the last 10 years?

Your avoiding the main issue here. If they had put David Milgaard to death, who would have gotten justice? Not David Milgaard, who loses his lfe over something he didn't do, not Milgaard's family who loses a family member because due to crime he didn't commit, not the victim's family because the real killer would still be out there and not Larry Fisher, the real killer who would still be free. Let see if they killed Milgaard no one would have gotten justice, so how is putting an innocent man to death justice?

 

[Spider-Bite]

They are saying that he wasn't abused. His brothers and sisters are completely normal.

3 out of 4 abused do not grow up to be abusers. not to mention the fact that maybe they didn't have the same teacher he had. maybe the abuser seeked out the vulnerable child and not the other ones, since that is how they work. maybe the abuser was attracted to his age group at the time he was present. mabye the brothers and sisters had different friends and were influenced by different peers.

Your idea that everyone is apparently a victim is a theory. It has been proven wrong on occasion. It is not 100% right.

I don't believe it's been proven wrong. I believe there are many cases where we are unable to pinpoint what went wrong, because we don't know everything there is to know about that person's life.

the entire Clifford Olsen case.

ignoring it? I keep asking for the report. I keep asking for the evidence he wasn't abused. I keep talking about it. that's not ignoring it.

 

[War Lord]

Can you name one dangerous offender that has escaped from an ultra max in the last 10 years?

Your avoiding the main issue here. If they had put David Milgaard to death, who would have gotten justice? Not David Milgaard, who loses his lfe over something he didn't do, not Milgaard's family who loses a family member because due to crime he didn't commit, not the victim's family because the real killer would still be out there and not Larry Fisher, the real killer who would still be free. Let see if they killed Milgaard no one would have gotten justice, so how is putting an innocent man to death justice?

I couldn't name one offender in the ultra max, period.

If David Milgaard had been put to death, nobody would have gotten justice. However, the fact that countless murderers are being allowed to live, means that countless victims are failing to get justice as well. The fact that Larry Fisher was allowed to live means that he had the opportunity to kill again and again. The Canadian system of justice continually fails victims again and again.

We are rewarding murderers for what they do, thank you.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Clifford Olsen

Early on, Olson earned a reputation as a show-off. “When I taught him,” declared a former teacher, “he deliberately misbehaved to be the center of attention. Sometimes it was almost as if he wanted to be caught.” He was also skipping classes by the time he was 10 years old and by age 15 had failed his grade several times. He was jailed for the first time just after finishing Grade 8.
It was hard for anyone to get a word in edgewise when Olson was around. His compulsive talking was just one of the ways in which he controlled people. Forever the smart-alec, a loner, and a bully at heart, he never did have any close friends. Always in trouble, it was a lark for him to sell out-of-date lottery tickets door to door, steal milk money left on porches, and torment the local dogs and cats. It was rumored that he had smothered two local pet rabbits.

let's see his father served in world war 2. a good chance he had some mental problems which effected the way he treated his son. and all of the signs were present when he was a child that he was abused. th epoor grades, the skipping class at age 10, the constant cries for attention, cries for help, the disruptive behavior, the lack of discipline, the torturing animals. any phsychologist can tell you these are signs of abuse.

I also see neglect here. who stepped in to get this kid psychiatric help when he showed these signs? who? these are all of the signs of abuse I showed in the quote with the link on the previous page in this forum.

they make this statement but don't back it up with evidence.

there was virtually no traumatic event in his childhood that could be identified as the trigger of his homicidal rage.

there is no way for them to know that, especially with their pimitive 80's phychological technique for examination.

His parents had simply become inured to the regular visits from police officers, the shame of the newspaper reports and the continued disruptions their son’s behavior caused in their lives. They tried to help him out when they could, but they had long since given up hope of rehabilitating him. They aimed only to limit the damage he did to their lives.”

can you say neglect?

 

[Addendum]

give me one fact or piece of evidence that he was not abused? give me one. tell me how the people who wrote the report came to that conclusion? tell me about their evidence they prevented? your whole argument is that he wasn't abused because these people said so, without telling me why they said so.

Your argument is incredibly weak and hypocritical. I put the calculated odds out there that prove the odds of a person like him being abused are close to a hundred, but you just assume that he's that one out of a hundred that weren't.

and even if he wasn't abused, so what? that has no bearing on the fact that most are.

But in this specific case, there was no abuse.

You're the one who is making the claim that he was abused. It's up to you to provide the proof he was.

I will take the word of people who were involved in his trial, than some jackass with a computer posting on an internet message board

 

[Spider-Bite]

But in this specific case, there was no abuse.

You're the one who is making the claim that he was abused. It's up to you to provide the proof he was.

actually them, I can't remember if your one of them, brought him up in the first place, saying he wasn't abused. you make the claim he wasn't abused but refuse to prove it and them claim I'm required to prove my case even though you aren't required to prove yours. and I did prove mine a few minutes ago. which one of us accused which one of us is irrelelevant though to the question at hand.
I did provide very hard evidence he was abused just a couple minutes ago. Any modern phychologist would have seen these signs easily had they existed back then.

I will take the word of people who were involved in his trial, than some jackass with a computer posting on an internet message board

At a trial one guy says one thing and the other guy says the opposite. Was OJ innocnet just because a guy at his trial said so? Is the war in Iraq automatically justified just becuase the president says so? after all he's the president and were nothing but jack asses on message boards.

I could easily say I will take the word of phychologists over the word of jack asses on message boards.

 

[Addendum]

You provided nothing. Just an analysis of a person you've not met, not studied first-hand to back up your already made-up mind.

Read the transcripts of the trial, talk to the parents themselves, then get back to reality

 

[Grim Goblin]

I'm still yet to see the evidence he was not abused. what did they base that opinion on?

I'd be willing to believe that people would do the research before they bring up that matter during trial, don't you?

true and I'm glad for that fact. I believe the fact that prison is better than it was before doesn't make it any less of a deterrent.

how is getting 3 meals/day, a decent bed, clothing, internet, books, workout areas, all that for free, make prison a deterrent Hell, just saying all of that makes me wonder what I'm still doing out? And the rest of society is paying for that luxury. These bastards break the law and hurt people and we f***ing buy them some vacation time and you're glad about it WTF is wrong with you?

the solitary confinement is used to prevent escapees from escaping or dangerous inmates from hurting other inmates or hurting themselves.

I'll admit it. A big part of the reason I oppose the death penalty is because I don't want my hands dirty.

and THAT is f***ing hypocritical. you'd rather have monster stay alive, or even kill them slowly from isolation, than just executing them outright for their crimes! And all that just because it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[Spider-Bite]

You provided nothing. Just an analysis of a person you've not met, not studied first-hand to back up your already made-up mind

.

did you meet the guy? did you do these things? how did you come to your conclusion that he wasn't abused? you pulled it out of thin air. I provided hard facts to back up my case, and your your angry because you lost the debate. Pointing out the signs of abuse is not nothing. In fact I'm the only one providing anything to back up my claims. your whole argument is that he wasn't abused because somebody said so, without telling me why they said so.

Read the transcripts of the trial, talk to the parents themselves, then get back to reality

did you do these things? I am here in reality. I have posted statistics and the reality of what happens here in the world. How are they not real? which points that I have used to back up my opinion aren't real or grounded in reality? how is a statisitic not reality?

 

[Spider-Bite]

and THAT is f***ing hypocritical. you'd rather have monster stay alive, or even kill them slowly from isolation, than just executing them outright for their crimes! And all that just because it makes you uncomfortable.

hey man stop attacking me I'm not ashamed to be against killing somebody. sentencing somebody to life in prison or keeping people seperate from the ability to harm themselves or others is not inhumane and it is not killing them. how is giving them extra years to live killing them? your way they die now. my way they die of old and natural causes.

your accusing me of killing people because I refuse to kill them while you advocate killing them, and then call me hypocritical?

Who is advocating the switch here exactly?

 

[Addendum]

.

did you meet the guy? did you do these things? how did you come to your conclusion that he wasn't abused? you pulled it out of thin air. I provided hard facts to back up my case, and your your angry because you lost the debate.




did you do these things? I am here in reality. I have posted statistics and the reality of what happens here in the world. How are they not real? which points that I have used to back up my opinion aren't real or grounded in reality? how is a statisitic not reality?

The reality is that there is no hard evidence that Clifford Olson was abused. I did not pull that out of thin air. Those involved in the court case, of you are more than likely weren't, said that.

I have yet to see your hard facts

 

[Spider-Bite]

The reality is that there is no hard evidence that Clifford Olson was abused. I did not pull that out of thin air. Those involved in the court case, of you are more than likely weren't, said that.

if everybody involved in court cases were correct we would never need hearing or trials or courtrooms. That's why they are called opposing arguments in the courtroom. The evidence he was abused is overwhelming. yet not even one ounce of evidence has been presented to show that he wasn't abused. Tell me how you know he wasn't abused without saying somebody else said he wasn't.

I have yet to see your hard facts

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10393297&postcount=306

the signs of abuser there. I gave you guys links to show you waht the signs of abuse were, and then there in that report the same exact signs were present. why can't you refute actual points? you keep saying the same thing over and over again, but you wont refute the individual points.

 

[Grim Goblin]

hey man stop attacking me I'm not ashamed to be against killing somebody. sentencing somebody to life in prison or keeping people seperate from the ability to harm themselves or others is not inhumane and it is not killing them. how is giving them extra years to live killing them? your way they die now. my way they die of old and natural causes.

your accusing me of killing people because I refuse to kill them while you advocate killing them, and then call me hypocritical?

Who is advocating the switch here exactly?

ok, I admit that I might have come on strongly with the last post. it's just that frankly, of all possible reasons you can give me as to why you'd be against the death sentence, the ''I don't want to get my hands dirty'' is the reason I'll never have respect for. It's not just aimed at you, it's aimed at any one who would use that as a line of reasoning. it just feel to me like pretending to be righteous without being willing to pay the price for it.

As for the rest. yeah, I'm the one who's advocating to pull the switch, but that comes from a reasoning totally devoid of personnal feelings in the matter. The way I see it, to keep a man contained in a little room for the rest of his life, while you tell him that you ARE keeping him there until he dies, is no life at all. for all practical purposes you've already killed him. delaying the moment is just unnecessarily torturing the person. I'm just advocating being merciful and physically killing him now. Make no mistake about it, the way you describe it, they might live longer and die of natural causes, but they'll die as less than cattle. Because at least cattle serves a purpose. The only purpose a criminal in that situation has is waiting for death to come.

And I still stand by what I say about the luxury part .

 

[Addendum]

if everybody involved in court cases were correct we would never need hearing or trials or courtrooms. That's why they are called opposing arguments in the courtroom. The evidence he was abused is overwhelming. yet not even one ounce of evidence has been presented to show that he wasn't abused. Tell me how you know he wasn't abused without saying somebody else said he wasn't.




http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10393297&postcount=306

the signs of abuser there. I gave you guys links to show you waht the signs of abuse were, and then there in that report the same exact signs were present. why can't you refute actual points? you keep saying the same thing over and over again, but you wont refute the individual points.

1) Do you have a degree in psychology?
2) How long have you been work in that field?
3) Have you had any of your findings published in peer-reviewd journals? (This means that other psychologists review and comment on your findings)
4) Have any of those findings been accepted by the APA (American Psychological Association)

If you can answer all of those questions with answers that aren't all "No", then I'll consider your comments.

 

[Spider-Bite]

ok, I admit that I might have come on strongly with the last post. it's just that frankly, of all possible reasons you can give me as to why you'd be against the death sentence, the ''I don't want to get my hands dirty'' is the reason I'll never have respect for. It's not just aimed at you, it's aimed at any one who would use that as a line of reasoning. it just feel to me like pretending to be righteous without being willing to pay the price for it.

As for the rest. yeah, I'm the one who's advocating to pull the switch, but that comes from a reasoning totally devoid of personnal feelings in the matter. The way I see it, to keep a man contained in a little room for the rest of his life, while you tell him that you ARE keeping him there until he dies, is no life at all. for all practical purposes you've already killed him. delaying the moment is just unnecessarily torturing the person. I'm just advocating being merciful and physically killing him now. Make no mistake about it, the way you describe it, they might live longer and die of natural causes, but they'll die as less than cattle. Because at least cattle serves a purpose. The only purpose a criminal in that situation has is waiting for death to come.

And I still stand by what I say about the luxury part .

It's all good. people get angry when debating without even intending to. it happens to all of us.
I should have said it differently about the solitary confinement. they don't usually keep them there for life. they keep them there for a while and have daily rehabillitation untill it's safe to return them to the general population. It's not always a 100% accurate but you do the best you can. I actually watch Lock Up on MSNBC ocasionally.

 

[Grim Goblin]

if everybody involved in court cases were correct we would never need hearing or trials or courtrooms. That's why they are called opposing arguments in the courtroom. The evidence he was abused is overwhelming. yet not even one ounce of evidence has been presented to show that he wasn't abused. Tell me how you know he wasn't abused without saying somebody else said he wasn't.

By the same token, tell us why he WAS abused without resorting to somebody else's studies and statistics about the abuser's mindframe

you can't either, can you?

but in the exemple above, it was researched prior to trial. it's not just lawyers talking to impress a jury, it's a researched fact. if it wasn't, the defense would have brought it up immediately as a serious offense against the client's emotional scars.

 

[Spider-Bite]

1) Do you have a degree in psychology?
2) How long have you been work in that field?
3) Have you had any of your findings published in peer-reviewd journals? (This means that other psychologists review and comment on your findings)
4) Have any of those findings been accepted by the APA (American Psychological Association)

If you can answer all of those questions with answers that aren't all "No", then I'll consider your comments.

1. nope, but neither do you
2.. never and neither have you
3. nope, but I do discuss this ocasionally with a friend of family who rehabilitates domestic abusers and sex offenders, because I think phsychology is interesting.
4. yup


and 5. I did study criminology and profiling.

and 6. I am directly using comments made by modern phychologists commented on by other modern phychologists.

you refust to consider them because you can't refute them. and not all of them are my comments. they are the comments made by professionals. and modern professionals at that, rather than ones from decades ago.

 

[Addendum]

1. nope, but neither do you
2.. never and neither have you
3. nope, but I do discuss this ocasionally with a friend of family who rehabilitates domestic abusers and sex offenders, because I think phsychology is interesting.
4. yup


and 5. I did study criminology and profiling.

and 6. I am directly using comments made by modern phychologists commented on by other modern phychologists.

you refust to consider them because you can't refute them. and not all of them are my comments. they are the comments made by professionals. and modern professionals at that, rather than ones from decades ago.

But see, I'm not the one making claims that go against what was shown at the trial. I'm not making claims that family members abused him when the family members themselves (parents, siblings, grandparents) all have said there wasn't any abuse, nor has there been shown a history of abuse in his family.

Until you can show that evidence for this specific case, which is how criminal cases are tried (a case by case basis, even when it may go against the "statistics") why should I consider your comments?

 

[Spider-Bite]

By the same token, tell us why he WAS abused without resorting to somebody else's studies and statistics about the abuser's mindframe

It's quite possible that his father suffered from post war tramatic stress syndrome or whatever it's called. It's quite likely that his father or mother were abused as children. Whoever his alleged abuser was, was probably abused himself and so on. Abuse is like racism. it gets passed on from one generation to the next. people are born into this crappy environment.

but in the exemple above, it was researched prior to trial. it's not just lawyers talking to impress a jury, it's a researched fact. if it wasn't, the defense would have brought it up immediately as a serious offense against the client's emotional scars.

this case took place about 1980 I think. that means the phychologists invovled probably got their eduction in the 70's or even earlier. This is 2006. Phsychology has come a very long way since then.

 

[Addendum]

It's quite possible that his father suffered from post war tramatic stress syndrome or whatever it's called. It's quite likely that his father or mother were abused as children. Whoever his alleged abuser was, was probably abused himself and so on. Abuse is like racism. it gets passed on from one generation to the next. people are born into this crappy environment.

Quite possible. Quite likely. probably.

Nothing definitive, concrete or convincing. Just opinion

 

[Spider-Bite]

But see, I'm not the one making claims that go against what was shown at the trial. I'm not making claims that family members abused him when the family members themselves (parents, siblings, grandparents) all have said there wasn't any abuse, nor has there been shown a history of abuse in his family.

I'm sure somebody wanted to stand up and say right in front of everybody. "yup it was me. I molested the kid every day"

Until you can show that evidence for this specific case, which is how criminal cases are tried (a case by case basis, even when it may go against the "statistics") why should I consider your comments?

1. it's called a debate. I consider and refute every comment you guys throw at me, because I can. I feel that you don't because you can't.

2. I did show you evidence. I pointed out the exact same signs social workers look for when looking for abuse. The exact same signs.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Quite possible. Quite likely. probably.

Nothing definitive, concrete or convincing. Just opinion

well damn man. I don't everything there is to know about the entire freaking universe.

 

[Addendum]

And yet, nothing conclusive was turned up.

Statistics are just statistics. And social workers also handle their cases on a by-case basis. They don't make blind comments and move on to the next one.