Human filth, the case for extermination

[NotHardUp1]

There are members of society irredeemable.

They are not fit for communal living in or out of a prison.

Society's best solution is to be rid of them, to exterminate them as surely as any other vermin.

And contrary to eugenics, genocidal hatred, or nationalist zealots, it is entirely due to objective behaviors, taboo acts, unacceptable crimes. The perpetrators are not subhuman, nor are they to be tolerated due to any plethora of alleged maladaptations to society.

The perpetrating of a prison system with life prisoners is merely encouraging barbarism among the society of criminals, as they live there in corrupt, unmanaged tribes that corrupt guards, kill fellow prisoners, and rule brutally from within their world. Life imprisonment is an overt invitation to breed worse crimes.

Case in point: Kevin Bui and Gavin Seymour in Denver, Colorado, both aged 17. The teenagers, along with a third unnamed juvenile, set fire to a home in Denver in August 2020. They did so in an act of imagined revenge. Bui was previously robbed of his cell phone while trying to buy a gun (illegally), and traced the phone via an app to the home of the victims. He later confessed that none of the occupants of the home were the robbers. He and Seymour also claim they had no plan when they went to the home, yet security footage clearly showed them carrying a gasoline container and dousing the house with it.

The teens wore masks to to be unrecognizable in any doorbell cameras or security footage. The captured image shows them to be the ghouls they are:

As always, the hoodies worn are purely coincidental and clearly have no role in causing crime, only continue to be the favorite obscurers of identity by ciminals. See how that works?

The fire killed three adults and two children in the home. Three others survived after leaping from the 2nd story.

Bui and Seymour will be tried as adults, due to penalties for juvenile court being too limited to be appropriate for this type of murder. Neither teen had any record or indication of mental defect or mental illness, apparently only afflicted with viciousness.

No matter what penalty is ultimately exacted, it will not be enough. The law currently doesn't allow for them to be doused with gasoline and set ablaze, the only just punishment for what they did.

2 teens suspected of killing 5 in Denver arson to be tried as adults; trauma from fire “defies comprehension,” judge finds

Two of the three teenagers charged with murder for allegedly setting a Denver home on fire and killing a family of five inside will be tried as adults, a judge ruled this week, noting the trauma in…

www.denverpost.com

This website is unavailable in your location. – WFTV

www.wftv.com

Deadly arson suspect Kevin Bui appears before judge for drug charges

A suspect in a deadly arson faced a judge on Thursday for charges not related to the fire.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[NotHardUp1]

While in prison awaiting trial, Bui has been caught dealing fentanyl within the prison, and is believed to have been dealing drugs along with his sister before the arrest for arson and murder.

 

[unloadonme]

Who's to decide precisely what level of scumbaggery deserves extermination? No, lock them up for a long time, but don't play God and take lives.

 

[cabinfever]

Who's to decide precisely what level of scumbaggery deserves extermination? No, lock them up for a long time, but don't play God and take lives.

I have to agree.

On a purely initial emotional response I agree with NotHardUp1 but I would not want my emotional response to be the law.

The precedent it would set is also dangerous.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

extermination at 6am? lord almighty.

 

[Vannie]

Build lots of guillotines.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Who's to decide precisely what level of scumbaggery deserves extermination? No, lock them up for a long time, but don't play God and take lives.

Respectfully, who decides any crime and punishment? Societies do. Murder at this level is universally condemned. We have laws to ordain magistrates, juries and trials and punishments. Extermination is a misnomer, obviously, as these people will always occur, but execution is the proper term.

What is less god-like about meting out a life sentence of imprisonment? How is that less controlling or less condemning than execution? Both take ultimate control of the criminals.

And we need another metaphor for secular authority, since as you aptly point out, not all of society's member believe it is possible to play god. The phrase is more aptly accusing the law of presuming the authority of the law, the ultimate statement of a society's authority.

I have to agree.

On a purely initial emotional response I agree with NotHardUp1 but I would not want my emotional response to be the law.

The precedent it would set is also dangerous.

Yet the crimes are dangerous, and egregious, and outrageous. If citizens are outraged, they SHOULD be.

The precedent is already set. Executions are as ancient as human society, and for the same reason, to express society's rejection of the ultimate wrongs. Murder, especialy capital murder, has been such a taboo for thousands of years.

For a human to have reached an age to choose the crime these have chosen, they have reached an age of accountability. It is not just a religious dogma term.

 

[Peloso]

Designate an area of the country, surround it with an impenetrable wall, and ship them all there where they could form their own fucked up society based on their values and morals.

We could call it Florida.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

What is less god-like about meting out a life sentence of imprisonment? How is that less controlling or less condemning than execution?

How is life in prison different from murder? Um, let's see....

 

[unloadonme]

What is less god-like about meting out a life sentence of imprisonment? How is that less controlling or less condemning than execution? Both take ultimate control of the criminals.

I'm opposed to capital punishment on principle. One reason is made flesh in this recent news report from California:

Maurice Hastings: US man in prison for 38 years freed by new DNA evidence

Maurice Hastings was wrongfully convicted of murder and repeated requests for DNA testing were denied.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[nycguydowntown]

Society is very imperfect and unfair and people are fairly dumb so deciding who lives and dies is random. We have an insane ex president still free and not behind bars. Probably never will be. He’s guilty of manslaughter- the people 5 killed on Jan 6 He is responsible. But he is not only free but could run for president -only in America or some third world country

 

[NotHardUp1]

I'm opposed to capital punishment on principle. One reason is made flesh in this recent news report from California:

Maurice Hastings: US man in prison for 38 years freed by new DNA evidence

Maurice Hastings was wrongfully convicted of murder and repeated requests for DNA testing were denied.

www.bbc.co.uk

While I certainly respect your view on capital punishment, I'm still not clear how the citing of an exception to justice in the penal system constitutes a complete indictment of capital punishment. Yes, the man is innocent, but so are tens of thousands of citizens killed each year in my country by crime, murdered. Where is the scale that makes their blood acceptable and a few mistakes by juries not acceptable? Why the gross imbalance?

And I repeat my ongoing litany of why are a percentage of accidental deaths acceptable, by design, all across the building industry, transportation industry, manufacturing industry, medical care industry, and many others? Yet not in justice and the prison industry? Why the double standards?

Society is very imperfect and unfair and people are fairly dumb so deciding who lives and dies is random. We have an insane ex president still free and not behind bars. Probably never will be. He’s guilty of manslaughter- the people 5 killed on Jan 6 He is responsible. But he is not only free but could run for president -only in America or some third world country

Again, I ask why we accept the murderous intent of very shrewd, very ruthless thugs, but not the good intent of police, judges, and juries? What percentage, do you suppose, are wrongfully convicted. I believe we are perpetually misled by advocates, propagandists, liars, and media sellers to see the injustices in the system as typical instead of exceptional, highly exceptional.

As for Trump, I must admit that I do not view him as a capital criminal, or not that we know, only an enemy of the state. He should indeed be imprisoned for life for what he did in refusing to protect Congress from the mob he sent to bully them. If any Tory tax collector ever deserved to be tarred and feathered, then our past president most richly deserves it for his knavery. But we digress.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Designate an area of the country, surround it with an impenetrable wall, and ship them all there where they could form their own fucked up society based on their values and morals.

We could call it Florida.

Yet the movie was called "Escapt from New York City, " if memory serves me rightly.

 

[Peloso]

While I certainly respect your view on capital punishment, I'm still not clear how the citing of an exception to justice in the penal system constitutes a complete indictment of capital punishment. Yes, the man is innocent, but so are tens of thousands of citizens killed each year in my country by crime, murdered. Where is the scale that makes their blood acceptable and a few mistakes by juries not acceptable? Why the gross imbalance?

Good question. It's bit of an emotional issue and emotions can be detrimental to logic, yet at the same time, logic usually plays a part in one's emotional response. I don't think the two can ever come together and see eye to eye. This, I believe is why the world is the way it is.

Political ideology isn't doing us any favors. Political extremism is dangerous. As the extreme right tows the line as far as they possibly can and the extreme left does the same, the center will break and millions of Americans will have nothing to hold onto.

Yet the movie was called "Escapt from New York City, " if memory serves me rightly.

"Escape From New York". Your memory serves you well enough but your thumbs betray you.

 

[peeonme]

Some people deserve the death penalty... that doesn't mean that society is under an obligation to meet out that punishment. A true life sentence with no possibility of parole would keep people safe from the worse of criminals.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Where is the scale that makes their blood acceptable and a few mistakes by juries not acceptable?

This is the most bizarre thing I've ever read, but I'm glad you said the quiet part out loud so the audience can decide for themselves if any of this makes sense. "If the jury gets it wrong a few times, meh." As part of the demographic that is disproportionately on the chopping block when the jury "makes a mistake" this is absolutely disturbing.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Yeah, I didn't see the typo either.

Never saw the movie either, as it didn't seem imaginative enough. Wasn't it with Kurt Russell?

I liked Beyond Thunderdome, but because it was a great story, with great characters. Survivalist and zombies movies leave me cold. Just boring and grisly.

(This thread is acting weird with the quote function. The words above were posted last night, but gone today, but appeared when I clicked to reply to Peeonme. )

Some people deserve the death penalty... that doesn't mean that society is under an obligation to meet out that punishment. A true life sentence with no possibility of parole would keep people safe from the worse of criminals.

That seems odd to say. Is society under obligation to mete out justice to anyone? Is society obligated to create just laws for the citizenry to see that justice is done? Is that not the core of our founding in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Those documents have been used to oppose capital punishment, but both included the fundamental assumption that capital crimes received capital punishment, a necessary consequence as part of justice.

As you know, life sentence is a bit like using the term "athletic scholarship," an inherent oxymoron, which you seem to acknowledge by adding the qualifier "true" before "life sentence." Admitting that life imprisonment isn't even possible in this country, by law, in many states, indicates a growing failure of the state to pursue justice. By allowing murder to go unanswered except by a forfeiture of mere years in exchange for the life of another leaves the populace well aware that the state has abandoned them in preference for the "rights" of the malefactors. Reform has supplanted justice. The well-being and potential of the murderer has been jimmied into the equation with a shrug for the rights of the murdered citizen(s).

How is that justice? How can a citizen willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, murder another citizen, and the consequence be care for the long term redeemability of the murderer and his theoretically possibly rehabilitation, and for the victim, "oh well, these things happen"?

How is the rendering of 20 years of the murderer's life in prison a fair retribution for the stealing of 30, 40, 50, 60, or 80 years of life of an innocenct victim? What is the math here that makes that fair and just?

 

[peeonme]

Yeah, I didn't see the typo either.

Never saw the movie either, as it didn't seem imaginative enough. Wasn't it with Kurt Russell?

I liked Beyond Thunderdome, but because it was a great story, with great characters. Survivalist and zombies movies leave me cold. Just boring and grisly.

(This thread is acting weird with the quote function. The words above were posted last night, but gone today, but appeared when I clicked to reply to Peeonme. )


That seems odd to say. Is society under obligation to mete out justice to anyone? Is society obligated to create just laws for the citizenry to see that justice is done? Is that not the core of our founding in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Those documents have been used to oppose capital punishment, but both included the fundamental assumption that capital crimes received capital punishment, a necessary consequence as part of justice.

As you know, life sentence is a bit like using the term "athletic scholarship," an inherent oxymoron, which you seem to acknowledge by adding the qualifier "true" before "life sentence." Admitting that life imprisonment isn't even possible in this country, by law, in many states, indicates a growing failure of the state to pursue justice. By allowing murder to go unanswered except by a forfeiture of mere years in exchange for the life of another leaves the populace well aware that the state has abandoned them in preference for the "rights" of the malefactors. Reform has supplanted justice. The well-being and potential of the murderer has been jimmied into the equation with a shrug for the rights of the murdered citizen(s).

How is that justice? How can a citizen willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, murder another citizen, and the consequence be care for the long term redeemability of the murderer and his theoretically possibly rehabilitation, and for the victim, "oh well, these things happen"?

How is the rendering of 20 years of the murderer's life in prison a fair retribution for the stealing of 30, 40, 50, 60, or 80 years of life of an innocenct victim? What is the math here that makes that fair and just?

The law is neither fair or just (imo) if it were it would allow a family member to mete out justice to a perv. that touched their child, or to kill a person that took the life of a member of one's family. We would have to ask about the disproportionate number of minorities given harder sentences for the same crimes as the larger majority that can in most cases afford better legal counsel. We would have to go for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. However our legal system (once again imo) is tempered with some mercy (hence no cruel or unusual punishment) and also infected with prejudice to some degree towards the less fortunate.
It is my belief that all human life is important, regardless of race, color, creed, financial standing or any other factor. Some feel this way and use "from the cradle to the grave" I say "from the womb to the tomb." So the taking of a human life in any case other than self defense (true self defense) is wrong. An actual life sentence should be imposed in cases of first degree murder. Taking the life of a murderer doesn't restore the life that has been taken by that murderer. There have been many documented cases where a miscarriage of justice had taken place, the prisoner was released and some were compensated (how do you compensate for 10 or 15 years?) but once an execution has taken place and it comes out that this person was not guilty, is not society then guilty of murder?

 

[NotHardUp1]

You seem to be suggesting I am advocating vigilanteism. Nothing of the sort. I'm arguing strictly for strict law.

As for arguing the disproportionate outcomes of the poor vs. the wealthy, or the educated vs. the ignorant, no argument at all. It is the way of the world, and always has been, and by no means a unique condition for America over other nations. Anywhere a poor underclass exists, they have less justice. However, that doesn't equate to a greater injustice of allowing murder to not be appropriately punished, and capital murder to be treated softly.

No, the execution of the murderers does not restore the victims, but it does exact the appropriate penalty for depriving another citizen of his life permanently. The goal of law and punishment is not necessarily restoration. A thief my steal an $80k vehicle, wreck it, and never be able to pay for it ever. An arsonist may burn down his ex-wife's house in a fit of rage, but will never be able to either pay for another or to restore personal items destroyed forever. The law never imagines that restoration is possible, but compensation is, and in the case of capital crimes, that is death.

And again we see an argument alleging miscarriage by wrongful conviction but no proportion. "Many documented cases" may be 1,000, but if it is out of thiry million convictions over that same time, then the numbers are almost negligible. It is not sufficient to argue that one is too many while allowing even more deaths from design flaws and design failures in industry, the workplace, and transportation design. Those deaths are just as innocent. But those accidents are acceptable but in the justice system, not? BTW, courts can and do pay settlements for wrong imprisonment, but they are no more justice than life sentences are for murderers, only feeble gestures.

To you point about societal guilt, yes. Society is guilty of miscarriage of justice when it allows it to happen, just as it is guilty of the deaths of millions to road accidents and automobile design, just as it is guilty of the deaths of tobacco deaths for looking the other way, just as it is guilty of the deaths of migrants as they die in the desert trying to get here to mow lawns, pick crops, wash dishes, and build houses. Society is guilty of all of it. What is your point? Remediation through legislation, not litigation only.

 

[Kulindahr]

While I certainly respect your view on capital punishment, I'm still not clear how the citing of an exception to justice in the penal system constitutes a complete indictment of capital punishment. Yes, the man is innocent, but so are tens of thousands of citizens killed each year in my country by crime, murdered. Where is the scale that makes their blood acceptable and a few mistakes by juries not acceptable? Why the gross imbalance?

And I repeat my ongoing litany of why are a percentage of accidental deaths acceptable, by design, all across the building industry, transportation industry, manufacturing industry, medical care industry, and many others? Yet not in justice and the prison industry? Why the double standards?

There's no double standard: accidents happen despite the best efforts to prevent them --but capital punishment is not an accident, it is a deliberate act fully intended to end a life. A government which blithely allows innocents to be put to death under its authority loses all moral authority -- it's why Thomas Jefferson said it is better for a thousand guilty to walk free than one innocent be punished (magnifying the maxim at the time that it was better for a hundred guilty to walk free than one innocent be punished).

The only moral capital punishment is that carried out by the hand of an intended victim.