Payday loans
RedShirts 2 Ad Banner for Kickstarter

I’d be a better man if I was ashamed of this

July 19th, 2007 by skippy

I’m probably going to hell.

The other day at work we were talking about the Supreme Court ruling governing the execution of the retarded. The general belief was that retarded people didn’t understand why they were being executed. And thus killing them was unfair.

I have slightly different take on the subject.

I think stupid is a very poor defense, sale cialis especially in a capital crime situation. And in this case, the argument seems to be “But they’re too stupid to understand that it’s wrong to kill people.”

To me, that does not seem like a particularly compelling argument to keep someone around. Where to order Tramadol in USA, this page http://marziniclinic.com/tramadol-pain/ provides reliable Ultram suppliers.

When I expressed this to my co-workers, I received some shocked expressions. One of them said “Don’t you think that executing someone who doesn’t understand why is cruel?”

Well it doesn’t have to be. It could actually be far less cruel than a regular execution. Just go to their cell, pop a mouse ear hat on their head, and tell them they’re going to Disney Land.

“Dih-Nee-Lan!” He’ll exclaim as he is lead down the hall to the gas chamber. (I’m imagining he sounds like Adam Sandler from ‘Bulletproof’)

“Dih-Nee-Lan!” As he’s strapped down.

Dih-Nee-Lan!” As gas starts to fill the room.

Dih-Nee-*!” As he asphyxiates.

Yeah I’m going to hell for that.

Subscribe to Comments for Skippy's List

50 Responses to “I’d be a better man if I was ashamed of this”

  1. Josh Says:

    Dude, if that’s the worst thing you’ve done that warrants an eternal weenie roast, your doing pretty damn good. :) Keep up the great stories.


  2. Lev Says:

    If your going to hell for that then I’m going to be the Devil’s right-hand-man when I die. I’m sick of all the people out there who think everyone should have certain rights. I’m sorry, but if you have no use what so ever in society, then you need to hurry up and die. Am I saying all mentally handicapped people should die? No, just the ones that are a waste of resources. Same with criminals. If someone can be rehabilitated and put back into society with a reasonable amount of time and spending, then go ahead and let them live. Life convicts, hardcore mental patients and all the other screw ups that are too far gone or would take asinine amounts of resources to reeducate need to be gotten rid of. I’m still all for using convicts for manual labor. Why should a guy sit in a cell and get fed for his crimes when he could be standing in a field picking oranges? That would also help with immigrant workers, but thats another story.


    StoneWolf reply on September 10th, 2008 9:15 pm:

    I most heartaly agree with your assesment. I don’t even see why we bother to sterilize lethal ingection needles. Can’t we just hang them or shoot them in the head? That’s not sarcasm, by the way. Hell, I think death row inmates should get one appeal, fast tracked so it happens within weeks not years, and if a second group of 12 Americans thinks they get the ax, the Balif should take them out back and shoot them.


    Billy reply on June 16th, 2009 5:06 pm:

    I can’t help but remember what Hannibal Lechter said, “a good society would have either killed me by now or they would have found a use for my.”


  3. SPC Hyle Says:

    That was pretty funny.

    However, executing the mentally incompetent is bad policy not because they don’t understand why, but because they are not as morally culpable as a normal adult. Would you execute a child? The state would not, because it (correctly) views the child as being incapable of being guilty of a crime to the extent of imprisonment beyond juvenile facilities, let alone execution. It’s the same principle with the retarded. They are, mentally, in the same boat as children. They have not developed mentally enough to be considered that guilty.


    Kit reply on October 5th, 2009 4:40 am:

    A child will grow up, and develop cognition.
    The mentally incompetent will not.
    It’s not like you can say, well, they’re going to get it later, and feel remorse, and learn to behave better.


  4. Dick Says:

    You sure bring up thought provoking ideas. But in the long run I have too agree with you if they can murder once, then how many times is enough if you forgive that once.


  5. Sgt Mike Says:

    SPC Hyle made a compelling argument regarding the moral status of children and mentally challenged, and I would normally agree except for one aspect: in this day and age children DO commit numerous murders, as do some mentally challenged. And some murderers are sociopaths, meaning that their “morals” exempt them from blame for murder. Morality is one aspect; social defense is another. Do these child/”retarded” murderers get a free break while the morally “right” who is brought up by society to trust the system to protect them become living-impaired? Something is inherently wrong in a society that allows the age/mental/moral deficient to kill, and then protects said persons while those more adjusted to the society have only the right to become “victims.”


    disgruntledcarpenter reply on June 24th, 2010 5:27 am:



  6. Noodles Says:

    I think that while some people are truely mental, and should be spared the death penalty, some are just jumping on the bandwagon to escape their punishment. after all, even if it was a child or someone mental who kills someone, then there has to be something already wrong for this to happen. what they did can’t be reversed, and a life has been snuffed out. but something even worse, in New Zealand, some laws are so relaxed you can’t believe it. a university student(not mental) speeds and runs over a 4 year old girl. punishment, 4 years in jail. some youths kill for money and get sent in for 18 months under the guise of man slaughter. Is that fair?


  7. P Says:

    I love the reasoning, that killing people should be allowed only if you are mentally retarded. I think it speaks loads about a system that itself kills people…


    NoOne reply on February 20th, 2014 6:15 am:

    I love people like you. They make me laugh. Yall read something like this, and with out any suggestion, or mention of what you just posted in the above text you jump to this conclusion. This guy never said anything like that, nor did he suggest anything like that. Try thinking about what you read before posting what you want to believe you read.


  8. Lou Turev Says:

    Yes well, the Nazis started with the mentally impaired so it’s not exactly a new idea…now is it.


    StoneWolf reply on September 10th, 2008 9:20 pm:

    True. They also came up with Blitzkreig, the assualt rifle, combined arms, and well organized and skilled armies. Besides which, calling someone a Nazi should be reserved for the most foul and despicable of persons. Calling people who are ok with exectuing retarded criminals Nazis is like calling guerilla warfighters terrorists. Though Guerillas often use the same tactics as terrorists, Guerillas attack military targets for a strategic purpose while terrorists attack civilian targets to sow fear. In the same way, exectuting a criminal who is retarded does not a Nazi make.


  9. James A. Says:

    Hahahahaha. I have the exact same take. You’re right.


  10. Devil's Advocate Says:

    I was just wondering HOW they’re going to actually classify people as being “retarded” or not…

    …and do politicians get a special exemption?


  11. Quixotico Says:

    Politicians get a special exemption for what? Being retarded or, as Lev put it, having “no use what so ever in society.”


  12. 'Tater Salad Says:

    Yeah, this is basicly a Ron White joke. You could have at least credited him with the Disney land bit.

    (Edit by Skippy: I spent a while trying to figure out if I should bother responding to this. It turns out Maddox did a good job on this one already. Please see his site http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1)


  13. SPC RANDALL Says:

    Just because somone is mentally ill dosent mean they cant be responsible for there actions. I know a few retards myself and they know that there actions bring consequence. So i say lead them to the gas chamber saying “Dih-Nee-Lan!”. Im already going to hell from what the muslims say so why not make my stay there more tolerable, and while im over here enjoying there hospitality why not kill as many as i can. ha ha ha


  14. Lou Turev Says:

    After reading that I have to wonder who’s the retard.


    NoOne reply on February 20th, 2014 6:18 am:

    If you really have to think about that.. well… need a helmet?


  15. Analee Says:

    Seriously, if that’s ALL you’ve done to deserve Hell, that’s not too bad. Besides, you won’t be alone. You’ll join me, and everyone else who thought that the last part of that story was hilarious…


  16. Mnemnosyne Says:

    Problem A: People see execution as a punishment. It’s not – if you’re dead, you’re not being punished, you’re not anything. Regardless of your beliefs on the afterlife or lack thereof, whatever you disposition, it is certainly out of the hands of humans at this point. What you are, is no longer a danger to others.

    Problem B: People think a person’s inability to understand their actions and the reasons for the resulting consequences should spare them from those consequences. On the contrary, logic dictates that if someone is unable to understand their actions are wrong and will have consequences, they are highly likely to do the same thing again.

    A child and a mentally retarded person are different in that the child is presumed to be able to learn and understand as they mature and grow, while a mentally retarded person is incapable of ever learning or understanding. Therefore there is a logical reason to give children the opportunity to learn, and a logical reason to deny the mentally retarded the opportunity to commit the same crime once again.

    So, off to disneyland with them!


  17. Theagapus Says:

    Thoughtful readership here. OK, here’s something to consider next time you hear or engage in any of the debates over the role of the criminal justice system.

    There will never be consensus on crime and punishment in the U.S. because the criminal justice system has evolved to meet 4 different and conflicting goals. Each philosophy has its “moments in the sun” as one or another issue flits across the collective political consciousness and energizes action and/or funding.

    Four functions of imprisonment:

    1. Justice/Punishment/Retribution – the view that a person has broken the social contract, inflicted suffering on another, and “deserves” to suffer proportionally in return.
    2. Isolation – the view that society at large needs to be protected from a threat by isolating that threat with others of the same type
    3. Deterrence – the view that unlawful acts should be discouraged or prevented by being seen to bear unacceptable consequences
    4. Rehabilitation – the view that lawbreaking my be viewed as a form of deviant behavior, amenable to behavior modification and restoration through retraining

    Because debates tend to center on specific events and the emotions they invoke, there is seldom consideration of the “goals and objectives” involved in imprisonment at all.

    Is ONE view correct? Probably not. The problem with one view is that lawbreakers do not fall into a single type category.

    Consider the following 4 cases of “homicide” (unlawful taking of human life):
    (A) Husband of 54 year marriage with wife painfully dying of end-stage cancer who (at her insistence) assists her to overdose on her pain medications.
    (B) Husband of 4 years who plans for 6 months how to murder his wife in a staged boating accident, and does so to collect her $3 million life insurance and avoid a potentially disastrous divorce
    (C) Nine year old child playing cops and robbers with younger brother, accidentally discharging handgun and killing him.
    (D) Gang member shooting a drug dealer during a buy to steal product and money.

    Have fun! Great site.


  18. Angella Says:

    Society, as a whole, is fucked up. Nothing, nothing will change that. Why not get a good giggle out of it?


  19. Lou Turev Says:

    Good thing the leaders of the American Revolution didn’t feel that way.


  20. Jase Says:

    G’day, I’m against capital punishment for three basic reasons. 1. It doesn’t work as a deterent. (except where rare cases where criminals can easily move the location of their crime: eg Pirates) 2. Under a western system of law, the whole process is actually more expensive than life without parole. Remember the average US prisoner spends like 8-10 years on death row, (some as much as 20 years plus) while also involved in the legal process. The time of Superior Court judges and barristors, solicitors, clerks etc over that time gets astronomically expensive. Also Death row prisoners are more expensive to imprison, due to guard to prisoner ratios and other complications. 3. If your wrong, or they were deliberately framed by the authorities (almost every country has examples of this in their recent history); you can’t unexecute them, but you can release them from prison. Think Rubin “Hurricane” Carter.
    When it comes to the mentally retarded; confine them in an appropriate institution, even an asylum for the criminally insane is better than prison. Also governments should stop continually slashing mental health budgets and budgets which cover assistance and care for the mentally (and physically) handicapped.
    Regardless there is a massive difference between your average “stupid” person and someone who is genuinely mentally handicapped.


  21. Glourung Says:

    Personally speaking I find the very existence of the mentally deficient, politician or person with down syndrome to be very unsettling. In hospitals if someone is brain dead the family has the option of putting them down, and in many cases society would prefer that to happen to stop the body from being a burden on society. Why then is there such a different opinion regarding the mentally incapable. Many of those with down syndrome will not live past 25, would it not make more sense to pull the proverbial plug early and save a lot of trouble for the family and those within proximity of this being?


  22. Epic Fail Guy Says:

    You’re a horrible, horrible person. But still really hilarious.


  23. Blade Says:

    heh. Found this post while browsing through archives. It _is_ pretty funny.

    Yet, at the same time I can’t help imagine my retarded daughter as the retarded person in question. And the scene makes me feel fundamentally sad…


  24. anon Says:

    retarded is a wide range.

    _i_ am retarded – most people cant tell this because its pretty mild retardation. dont class all retarded people under 1 rule. if i murdered someone i would know exactly what i was doing ;)



  25. Carni Says:

    Save me a seat! If we can catch a seat on the edge my mom can throw us ice for my dad to make drinks..


  26. 0345 and still alive Says:

    Thank You for the great stories. You have made me laugh more than most people who get paid to do so.


  27. Josh Says:

    After having many family members work in Texas prisons, I think that we need to start undoing the overcrowding situation and invent the electric bleachers. Tell them they are going to a football game instead of dih nee lan and get more in one jolt. This goes for *anyone* in the capital crimes not just retarded people. Besides, I have met more perfectly “normal” people that act more retarded than the few actual mentally challenged people I know.


  28. bward Says:

    to answer spc hyle yes i would


  29. sidhe3141 Says:

    To answer Glorung: You’re a bigot. Plain and simple. I don’t use that term often, because instances of TRUE bigotry rather than simple parroting of others’ beliefs (something else I have a problem with, but that’s beside the point) are VERY rare. Seriously, just because YOU find the existence of the mentally handicapped unnerving doesn’t mean that EVERYONE in their general proximity has the same reaction. I’ve spent two years working with them. Voluntarialy. Signing up for another go every half-year. And enjoying… well, I won’t say every minute of it, but a lot more minutes than I spent wishing I was doing something else.
    Now then, I’m proud of you for expending the effort to think for yourself (an altogether too uncommon occurence in this modern world), but you ought gather a little more information before forming your opinions. Let me provide you with some.
    *A person with Down’s syndrome was elected mayor of a town.
    *Albert Einstein, Ulysses S. Grant, and a number of other prominent historical figures are thought to have been autistic.
    *Same goes for Bill Gates and Temple Grandin.
    *A number of great authors were thought to have had dyslexia.
    In short, you really ought to do at least a little research before forming opinions.


    jebbers12 reply on February 1st, 2011 3:15 pm:

    umm with the Ulysses S. Grant you screwed your arguement a little his idea of “strategy” was same as stalins meat wall.


  30. Nav ET named Data Says:

    All of the country should be like Texas. If you kill someone we’ll kill you back, plain and simple.


  31. Morgan Says:

    @SPC Hyle: I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen some pretty screwed up, maniacal, evil children who most certainly deserve death.

    Anyway, this is so mean but so hilarious at the same time. I love all of it. XD


  32. Zuhu, representing Reason Says:

    I can assure you, with all conviction and humility, as a representation of unbiased human conscience, and having experienced severely exceptional reoccuring lucid nightmares for months regarding this – it is simply not the way.

    We need to learn from the people we have today with impairments and mutations to avoid compounding perpetually the problems. Sterilization is entirely inhumane, but a great deal better than murder. Murder is just a rediculous make-believe ‘remedy’ for any crusade. Rather than kill them use them to make studies into the cause, and perhaps genetic studies on seemingly ‘normal’ parents of children with impairments, target the causes, and actually invest in the deterance via gene analysis to predict impairments or seriously life-altering permanent fee systems to compensate medical costs of parentally inflicted disabilities.

    I have a deep fondness for ‘Hell’, and have had again terribly lucid dreams regarding burning alive, often having fallen through a floor and landing on red hot coals. In time I came to enjoy it a lot, so I would in no wise make any decisions based on an attempt at pious morality or hope of a heavenly afterlife. You can all sing hymns, or paint rainbows with your new doves wings – I rather like the peacful silence.

    Killing handicapped people. This is not evil, this is murder; and a form of murder which a person can be unwittingly agreeant to without ever having to experience it first-hand themselves.

    You laugh now, friend. But I and I is one and the same. I see past the two faces staring at one screen, and assure you with all Reason that murder under any name is still murder. If you can murder handicapped people for not being useful in your terms of the world, than I am sorry but Hell will not have you.

    I’d say at that point that your humoring the sick notion, and had you the opportunity to murder a disabled person you likely would not feel you were doing a good thing. Again, if you did then Hell is still to great a gift for you, and what might have had the pleasure of experiencing it will simply vanish. What you are describing is not of the nature of being which sheds flesh for a body of light or some crap; beit they go to heaven OR to hell – what you are describing is like a 10th degree removed affirmation of OK-ness which resembles a precurser to psychological help.

    It is not OK to murder people. They are still likely experiencing things, albeit in a different way. People with autism who cannot talk still relate to life around them. Our models of intellegence are inept, we disregard anything WE can’t relate to, and those to attempt to propagate murder on innocent people are committing a crime.

    You will see. LUX AGAPE, time and space are tricky, REMEMBER.


    ... reply on June 16th, 2009 2:30 pm:

    … you’re full of shit


  33. Um Says:

    You’d be a better man if you WERE ashamed of this. Hell is full of those who forget the subjunctive!


  34. Walter Says:

    I guess it depends just how mentally handicapped someone is. Who gets to decide that? I don’t know, probably a psychiatrist, but that’s another debate. Personally I find it hard to believe that mental retardation suddenly absolves someone of all personal responsibility when even young children know the difference between right and wrong.


  35. Devon Says:

    That really wasn’t that funny at all. I mean, I wasn’t offended or anything, it just wasn’t funny. It’s like dead baby jokes. You’re just trying to be funny by being as offensive as you can, which isn’t really humor. It’s just trying to upset people. It doesn’t involve cleverness or wit at all. Like I said… I’m not offended in the least. It just wasn’t that funny.


  36. Snyarhedir Says:

    The only factor that may actually necessitate the death penalty is the differences that do exist between adults and children with the same mentality: the adult is still bigger, stronger and faster than a child, so committing such crimes is made relatively easy, too easy in the case of an accident. A child may try and fail to do something to unwittingly harm another, but an adult with the mind of a child could easily succeed. Some people here may want to find a copy of Of Mice And Men to help put some things into perspective.

    On another note, one of the problems I perceive in the justice system is the length of sentences. One year in prison is by itself a lot to fathom, but ten, fifteen, twenty or more, even for murder? When you really think about it, that is mind-blowing, especially for the penitent convicts. Worse still is the fact that, at least in countries where church and state are separate, going through a religious ritual to make penance for one’s sins (including but not limited to the Sacrament of Reconciliation), you can still be arrested (even in the temple!) and prosecuted.


    Snyarhedir reply on January 26th, 2011 11:55 am:

    I am not, however, [fully] opposed to the indefinite imprisonment or execution of sociopaths and psychopaths. Also, people like deforestors (spelling?) need to be put to death by law of nature because, as they have compromised their planet’s capacity to support life, they relinquish the right to their own.


  37. Mr. Yyelo Says:

    A good way to deal with it, you would think, would be death for a death. But then, who’s going to kill the killer’s killer?


    NoOne reply on February 20th, 2014 6:33 am:

    How do you kill a state? or a government? Would you kill a soldier that killed an enemy under orders? Do you really think the executioners start their morning saying “I think I’m going to kill someone today”, and then go grab someone from death row? No. If you do decide someone has to take the blame who would it be? The person giving the injection? everyone in that room? Maybe the judge that declared the sentence? Or how about the jury that found him guilty? Maybe it was the lawyer who lost the case. It could have possibly been the arresting officers fault. Then again, it could have been the fault of the guy who committed the murder that resulted in getting himself on death row. If that’s the case, then the guy who killed the guy who killed the person is being killed. If that was confusing it goes like this. Bob killed Stacy, his actions resulted in him getting arrest and eventually put on death row. Bob is eventually put to death. As a result of Bob’s actions, he killed himself. If he had never killed Stacy, Bob would still be alive.


  38. Kay Says:

    We have definitely put innocent people to death via capital punishment. I’m still in favor of it, but I want a “smoking gun, DNA conviction”. More than 100 people have been freed from death row via DNA. As for the mentally impaired…. this gets tough. How mentally impaired? According to who?

    First, did they really do it? Did they knowingly take a direct action they believed would literally and permanently kill another person, and did they plan it? Here I have no problem with execution. I can however see a way for a fully competent sociopath to set a mentally impaired person up to commit homicide (not murder, homicide). For instance, teaching them to put protein powder into smoothies, and then giving them a “super special” protein powder (strychnine) for their “friend” who is coming by later. The list of possible ways to manipulate this goes on. I say this has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Do they have enough cognizance to understand what murder is? Do they have enough education to know that swinging a baseball bat at someone’s head could kill them? Have they ever seen death, in real life, at all? Have they ever had to face that a loved one will never be able to come back? do they understand it? Most mentally impaired are only mildly so, and most of this wouldn’t apply to them. Few impaired people are deliberately violent, but the violent ones get all the press. A low IQ shouldn’t inherently bar someone from the death penalty, but it does mean we should take a much closer look at the case. If they understand what death is, if they know that killing another person is wrong unless there is no other way to defend yourself, and deliberately took action they believed would end someone’s life, they should be executed just as we would any other murderer.


  39. social media marketing video Says:

    I have got study some good items right here. Surely price tag bookmarking with regard to revisiting. I delight what sort of bunch endeavor you place to make a really fantastic educational web-site.


Leave a Reply