Death Penalty

[TikindiDragon]

Yes indeed it was. And if you read about the kind of life he was forced to lead after his release, and the fact that he was not allowed to seek further help as he was not allowed to mention what he had done to anyone except to any future girlfriend – I can see why he was driven to all that. As I said- he was left with no hope.

To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There was a fair amount of evidence that there had been a sexual aspect to the killing of Jamie Bulger in the first place, and that was an issue that was apparently never adressed at any point with either of the boys. They simply wouldn't talk about it, and denied that anything of the kind had happened despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

And we're somehow surprised he was into child porn? The violent affray and cocaine I can give him from the kind of life he was forced to lead, but not that I'm afraid.

[Fuzzbucket]

To a certain extent yes, to a certain extent no. There was a fair amount of evidence that there had been a sexual aspect to the killing of Jamie Bulger in the first place, and that was an issue that was apparently never adressed at any point with either of the boys. They simply wouldn't talk about it, and denied that anything of the kind had happened despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

And we're somehow surprised he was into child porn? The violent affray and cocaine I can give him from the kind of life he was forced to lead, but not that I'm afraid.

Given that he had no real chance of a real relationship - that I can also understand. If you were a girl his age - given that he would have had to tell you - BEFORE THE FIRST DATE EVEN - what he had done - how much further would you have taken it.

 

Yes there may well have been a sexual aspect to the killing - but we will never know and I am not at all sure that they even understood that there was.

[TikindiDragon]

Given that he had no real chance of a real relationship - that I can also understand. If you were a girl his age - given that he would have had to tell you - BEFORE THE FIRST DATE EVEN - what he had done - how much further would you have taken it.

 

Yes there may well have been a sexual aspect to the killing - but we will never know and I am not at all sure that they even understood that there was.

Go check some of the past details about it, as it's not something I can go into here. But certainly I discovered evidence of it in the reports I've seen.

 

Incidently not being able to get a girlfriend could, to my mind, excuse ordinary porn and hookers, but still not kiddie porn. Sorry, I'm afraid no matter how harsh your life has been that's not something the vast majority of people would contemplate. Nothing, but nothing, can 'force' a person to turn to that if it's not something that's in their head already.

[elderberrysyrup]

Go check some of the past details about it, as it's not something I can go into here. But certainly I discovered evidence of it in the reports I've seen.

 

Incidently not being able to get a girlfriend could, to my mind, excuse ordinary porn and hookers, but still not kiddie porn. Sorry, I'm afraid no matter how harsh your life has been that's not something the vast majority of people would contemplate. Nothing, but nothing, can 'force' a person to turn to that if it's not something that's in their head already.

And so, instead of addressing the issue, we simply kill them all off. Is that what our message as how we perceive justice should be?

Edited December 5, 2011 by soullesshuman

[Princess Artemis]

And so, instead of addressing the issue, we simply kill them all off. Is that what our message as how we perceive justice should be?

We as a society seem to have a real issue with keeping people who predate on children away from them. What does that tell them? When we let them out into society time and time again only to catch them preying on children time and time again? What message does that send?

 

It's not an issue that can be addressed, unfortunately, with any amount of counseling or consequences.

[TikindiDragon]

And so, instead of addressing the issue, we simply kill them all off. Is that what our message as how we perceive justice should be?

Personaly I think that if they're so dangerous to society they can never be let out of prison that we should kill them, yes.

 

Given how long it takes to process a death penalty I think that's plenty of time to study the person so we can learn enough to stop it happening again. But once someone is broken that badly I don't think there's a chance to fix them, no.

[elderberrysyrup]

Personaly I think that if they're so dangerous to society they can never be let out of prison that we should kill them, yes.

 

Given how long it takes to process a death penalty I think that's plenty of time to study the person so we can learn enough to stop it happening again. But once someone is broken that badly I don't think there's a chance to fix them, no.

The only difference between this man and the many many people who will be institutionalized their entire lives due to their problems is that those who have been institutionalized managed to be forced into hospitals before they killed someone or themselves. If you're truly a fan of killing off whatever you percieve to be too much of a danger to keep around, why not just slaughter them all?

 

We as a society seem to have a real issue with keeping people who predate on children away from them.  What does that tell them?  When we let them out into society time and time again only to catch them preying on children time and time again?  What message does that send?

 

It's not an issue that can be addressed, unfortunately, with any amount of counseling or consequences.

It's called institutionalizing them. If they have mental problems, why are we treating them like they don't and just prey on children just 'cause they find it funny? I never said to let them out into society. I said to lock them up forever they're such a danger, try to treat them, something that isn't 'hey let's just KILL EVERYONE AND HOPE THE PROBLEM GOES AWAY'

Edited December 5, 2011 by soullesshuman

[The Evil Doer]

The only difference between this man and the many many people who will be institutionalized their entire lives due to their problems is that those who have been institutionalized managed to be forced into hospitals before they killed someone or themselves. If you're truly a fan of killing off whatever you percieve to be too much of a danger to keep around, why not just slaughter them all? Go ahead. Kill me. I'll even give you my address.

Its not about enjoying killing, its all about safety.

If you pose a threat to my future kids sure thing, I'll off you without thinking of it twice, logic is simple - either you die or my kid dies, I choose you...

[elderberrysyrup]

Its not about enjoying killing, its all about safety.

If you pose a threat to my future kids sure thing, I'll off you without thinking of it twice, logic is simple - either you die or my kid dies, I choose you...

Don't hide behind the idea of 'safety' if you're willing to kill of people just 'cause locking 'em away ain't good enough for you. If you're going to want to kill, say it. State it. Why're we trying to justify it? C'mon, everyone with me, 'I want them all to die, removing them from society isn't enough, institutions aren't enough, I want to kill them'.

[Sir Barton]

It's called institutionalizing them. If they have mental problems, why are we treating them like they don't and just prey on children just 'cause they find it funny? I never said to let them out into society. I said to lock them up forever they're such a danger, try to treat them, something that isn't 'hey let's just KILL EVERYONE AND HOPE THE PROBLEM GOES AWAY'

Yes, because institutionalization has been so successful. It's not like we have infinite resources and space to lock people up. Abuse happens in institutions that makes the problem worse and what happens if they manage to escape.

 

Institutionalization is for offenders who truly don't know right from wrong due to some defect. Death row is for those who do know what they did was wrong but chose to do it anyway.

[elderberrysyrup]

Yes, because institutionalization has been so successful. It's not like we have infinite resources and space to lock people up. Abuse happens in institutions that makes the problem worse and what happens if they manage to escape.

 

Institutionalization is for offenders who truly don't know right from wrong due to some defect. Death row is for those who do know what they did was wrong but chose to do it anyway.

You realize that killing a person and all the things that lead up to the death costs more than keeping them in there for all their lives?

 

I never said institutionalization was successful. I said if they have mental problems, /address them/.

 

Look, if you want to kill them, do it. I don't see why we can't just lock people away for life. If we are in a situation in which we've run out of room for our jails because there's that many damn murderers, rapists, and child molestors running around then I think something's wrong with society as a whole.

[The Evil Doer]

Don't hide behind the idea of 'safety' if you're willing to kill of people just 'cause locking 'em away ain't good enough for you. If you're going to want to kill, say it. State it. Why're we trying to justify it? C'mon, everyone with me, 'I want them all to die, removing them from society isn't enough, institutions aren't enough, I want to kill them'.

Im not hiding behind any ideas, certain members of society bring nothing but pain and suffering, I want that to stop and the only way to make sure those individuals will never cause suffer to anyone else is to kill them.

Locking them up is not a solution, people escape prisons, people kill within prison walls, people can keep causing suffering in various ways from prison cells, the only solution that makes sure they will never hurt anyone is death.

Killing is not fun, killing is sometimes a necessity, I would love to live in a world where nobody enjoys torturing/raping/killing others but thats not the reality of things, so we do what we must....

[Sir Barton]

You realize that killing a person and all the things that lead up to the death costs more than keeping them in there for all their lives?

 

I never said institutionalization was successful. I said if they have mental problems, /address them/.

 

Look, if you want to kill them, do it. I don't see why we can't just lock people away for life. If we are in a situation in which we've run out of room for our jails because there's that many damn murderers, rapists, and child molestors running around then I think something's wrong with society as a whole.

Yet again, the reason that it cost so much to execute someone is centered around the court cost dealing with endless appeals until the sentence is carried out. You have the cost of upkeep and housing along with court cost. The chemicals involved in lethal injection aren't what is making this a costly process. Fast track, limit the number of appeals and it will be much more cost efficient.

 

You do realize that we have already run out of room, right? We have had to put prisoners in tents in the prison yards because there was no where else to go with them. Yes, there is plenty wrong with society that needs to be fixed but that is another can of worms.

[elderberrysyrup]

Yet again, the reason that it cost so much to execute someone is centered around the court cost dealing with endless appeals until the sentence is carried out. You have the cost of upkeep and housing along with court cost. The chemicals involved in lethal injection aren't what is making this a costly process. Fast track, limit the number of appeals and it will be much more cost efficient.

 

You do realize that we have already run out of room, right? We have had to put prisoners in tents in the prison yards because there was no where else to go with them. Yes, there is plenty wrong with society that needs to be fixed but that is another can of worms.

I don't think killing people in the name of some self-denying justice will solve society's problems. If you want to kill them, then I'll ive you the gun and you can be the jury, the judge, and the lawyer's all in one, ok? That way, it'll be the most efficient and cost effective as possible.

 

Im not hiding behind any ideas, certain members of society bring nothing but pain and suffering, I want that to stop and the only way to make sure those individuals will never cause suffer to anyone else is to kill them.

Locking them up is not a solution, people escape prisons, people kill within prison walls, people can keep causing suffering in various ways from prison cells, the only solution that makes sure they will never hurt anyone is death.

Killing is not fun, killing is sometimes a necessity, I would love to live in a world where nobody enjoys torturing/raping/killing others but thats not the reality of things, so we do what we must....

 

1. You talk like this is in the mideval ages in which people escape from jail with some ingenuity. No. That's not how jails work anymore, and escapes aren't exactly WOOPEE YAY HAPPENS EVERYDAY!

 

2. So, you're worried about the other criminals, but not /these/ ones, no. What if murderers kill manslaughters? Oh no, let's just kill the murderers! What if someone who does violent assault gets violently assaulted? OH NO! LET'S KILL THEM ALL.

 

3. The only way you can make sure no one shall suffer is to kill everyone. If you have that ideal, then say so.

Edited December 5, 2011 by soullesshuman

[Sir Barton]

I don't think killing people in the name of some self-denying justice will solve society's problems. If you want to kill them, then I'll ive you the gun and you can be the jury, the judge, and the lawyer's all in one, ok? That way, it'll be the most efficient and cost effective as possible.

If they prey on my family and friends I will most certainly take you up on that offer. The other night I had to carry a knife and a baton just to give me the impression of being able to keep myself safe while walking a couple of blocks to my car. I shouldn't have to live like that. No one should. If we remove the violent criminals from society completely I wouldn't have to feel that way.

 

Think about it this way, we as a society have no problem killing an endangered species who escapes from a zoo and mauls someone. Just had a case of exotics running loose who didn't harm anyone but instead of recapturing them they were shot on sight. Why should a rouge human who has already cause harm be treated any different? If they are found guilty put them down.

[The Evil Doer]

I don't think killing people in the name of some self-denying justice will solve society's problems. If you want to kill them, then I'll ive you the gun and you can be the jury, the judge, and the lawyer's all in one, ok? That way, it'll be the most efficient and cost effective as possible.

 

 

 

1. You talk like this is in the mideval ages in which people escape from jail with some ingenuity. No. That's not how jails work anymore, and escapes aren't exactly WOOPEE YAY HAPPENS EVERYDAY!

 

2. So, you're worried about the other criminals, but not /these/ ones, no. What if murderers kill manslaughters? Oh no, let's just kill the murderers! What if someone who does violent assault gets violently assaulted? OH NO! LET'S KILL THEM ALL.

 

3. The only way you can make sure no one shall suffer is to kill everyone. If you have that ideal, then say so.

I never suggested death penalty should apply to all crimes, nor did I claim that prison breaks happen every day but I'll tell you what does happen..

 

- prison breaks, not every day but yeah those occur sometimes

- criminals get released out of prisons and do crimes again (violent crimes) the only difference is that in prison they become smarter, and avoid capture, people who were in the system adopt and learn how to work the system

- criminals from within prisons order hits on the outside, send mails taunting their victims, keep causing pain even though they are in prison

- inmates kill other inmates

 

So, yup, certain crimes should be an auto death penalty, plain and simple and I have said so many times thus far.

 

[elderberrysyrup]

If they prey on my family and friends I will most certainly take you up on that offer. The other night I had to carry a knife and a baton just to give me the impression of being able to keep myself safe while walking a couple of blocks to my car. I shouldn't have to live like that. No one should. If we remove the violent criminals from society completely I wouldn't have to feel that way.

 

Think about it this way, we as a society have no problem killing an endangered species who escapes from a zoo and mauls someone. Just had a case of exotics running loose who didn't harm anyone but instead of recapturing them they were shot on sight. Why should a rouge human who has already cause harm be treated any different? If they are found guilty put them down.

An endangered animal who got out and kills people is considered a tragedy, not a justice. That's the difference here. There's no justice in killing. It's just killing. You shouldn't have to live like that, of course not. However, letting the idea that wonton slaughter is okay in any sense of the word in our legal system, the thing that rules what is wrong and right, to try and prevent the idea that killing is okay is like a child that rips the flesh off their own arm and eats it in a sandwich to curb their hunger.

 

If you want them to die, don't pretend it's some kind of justice. Just say it as it is- kill them because you don't think their lives are worth living anymore. Justice be damned, just kill 'em all.

 

I never suggested death penalty should apply to all crimes, nor did I claim that prison breaks happen every day but I'll tell you what does happen..

 

- prison breaks, not every day but yeah those occur sometimes

- criminals get released out of prisons and do crimes again (violent crimes) the only difference is that in prison they become smarter, and avoid capture, people who were in the system adopt and learn how to work the system

- criminals from within prisons order hits on the outside, send mails taunting their victims, keep causing pain even though they are in prison

- inmates kill other inmates

 

So, yup, certain crimes should be an auto death penalty, plain and simple and I have said so many times thus far.

 

1. Murder happens, every day, and everyone's capable of murder, just like all inmates might just be capable of escape. Can I kill everyone now?

2. I never said I wanted them to be released. If you're gonna lock someone away for such a crime, lock 'em up in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives.

3. This happens to all criminals, violent assault, robberers, extortionists, manslaughter. Why are rapists and murderers any different?

4. Inmates of ALL CRIMES kill other inmates. What's your point?

 

So, yup, even though the person may only be accused of the crime, or when the person is proved innocent, or when the jury is proven to be biased, we should kill them all.

 

You know, personally, I'm anti-death penalty just because I find the idea of pretending it's anything more than slaughter repugnant. Killing is killing, there is no 'good' killing, there is no 'bad' killing. I don't see why we need to justify slaughtering people if you want to gut 'em like a pig for what crimes you perceive of them, say so, not with this idea of justice or whatever.

Edited December 5, 2011 by soullesshuman

[Sir Barton]

An endangered animal who got out and kills people is considered a tragedy, not a justice. That's the difference here. There's no justice in killing. It's just killing. You shouldn't have to live like that, of course not. However, letting the idea that wonton slaughter is okay in any sense of the word in our legal system, the thing that rules what is wrong and right, to try and prevent the idea that killing is okay is like a child that rips the flesh off their own arm and eats it in a sandwich to curb their hunger.

 

If you want them to die, don't pretend it's some kind of justice. Just say it as it is- kill them because you don't think their lives are worth living anymore. Justice be damned, just kill 'em all.

Where do you see wanton slaughter within the legal system? You act as if every criminal is sitting on death row. Wanton slaughter is what happens at the hands of criminals not at the hands of the justice system. Hell, we even put them to death painlessly which is much more then can be said for the victims.

 

The death penalty is justice. It is the repercussion of deciding it is within your right to take someone else's life. When a criminal murders they already know the possible consequences of that action so they are the ones who made the decision that their life wasn't worth living, not me.

[elderberrysyrup]

Where do you see wanton slaughter within the legal system? You act as if every criminal is sitting on death row. Wanton slaughter is what happens at the hands of criminals not at the hands of the justice system. Hell, we even put them to death painlessly which is much more then can be said for the victims.

 

The death penalty is justice. It is the repercussion of deciding it is within your right to take someone else's life. When a criminal murders they already know the possible consequences of that action so they are the ones who made the decision that their life wasn't worth living, not me.

There's plenty of wanton slaughter when people are getting killed daily because people think it's a good idea. You act like making thir deaths comfortable somehow makes it less of what it is. We kill them because we think that killing is ok.

 

There's no justice in slaughter. There's no justice in killing a man. There's only death and the fact that we inflict it.

Edited December 5, 2011 by soullesshuman

[The Evil Doer]

1. Murder happens, every day, and everyone's capable of murder, just like all inmates might just be capable of escape. Can I kill everyone now?

2. I never said I wanted them to be released. If you're gonna lock someone away for such a crime, lock 'em up in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives.

3. This happens to all criminals, violent assault, robberers, extortionists, manslaughter. Why are rapists and murderers any different?

4. Inmates of ALL CRIMES kill other inmates. What's your point?

 

So, yup, even though the person may only be accused of the crime, or when the person is proved innocent, or when the jury is proven to be biased, we should kill them all.

 

You know, personally, I'm anti-death penalty just because I find the idea of pretending it's anything more than slaughter repugnant. Killing is killing, there is no 'good' killing, there is no 'bad' killing. I don't see why we need to justify slaughtering people if you want to gut 'em like a pig for what crimes you perceive of them, say so, not with this idea of justice or whatever.

1.a I dont think every murder is the same, hence not all murderers should be on death row.

1.b Everybody is capable of murder that is true however we are not discussing prevention of "possible murderers" but instead prevention of more harm done by already "self proclaimed" murderers.

1.c Not everyone is capable of being a serial child rapist nor a serial killer so, nope, I disagree that everyone is capable of certain things since certain things demand a certain state of mind, you must enjoy doing so in order to do so.

 

2. Solitary confinement isnt a solitary confinement in most prisons, even from solitary confinements messages can easily find their way out and I dont believe certain people should be left to live, find it hypocritical that a father of a little girl who was raped, tortured and killed by mister XX should pay taxes to provide for the same mister XX.

 

3. Because In my opinion not all criminals are the same, and many of them deserve a second chance, serial killers and serial child rapists dont.

 

4. My point is that an inmate who cheated on his taxes is less likely to commit a vicious crime than an inmate who is a sadistic serial killer and who enjoys torturing others. Makes sense ?

 

Like I said, not all, just certain offenders....

 

I dont see killing as you do, killing is not "killing", I will not go and hunt a deer for the fun of it, I will however kill that deer if I need to feed myself, I dont have the slightest problem of killing someone if its to protect my life or the life of someone I care about, or even to protect someone I dont know, I will however never kill anyone because its fun, simply because kiling isnt fun.

If you cant see the difference between killing for enjoyment and killing as a necessity, then... well I dont know how else to explain it....

 

I mean if Im coming at you with a knife do you just stand there and accept it ?

If Im attacking your family in front of your eyes, planning to kill them all, would you just stand there, raise your hand and say "no please, stop it, its not cool" ? Would you ?

[Sir Barton]

There's plenty of wanton slaughter when people are getting killed daily because people think it's a good idea. You act like making thir deaths comfortable somehow makes it less of what it is. We kill them because we think that killing is ok.

 

There's no justice in slaughter. There's no justice in killing a man. There's only death and the fact that we inflict it.

If you are talking about wanton slaughter in war then that is a different animal and that is not in the justice system. Please show me where in the justice system people are getting killed everyday. Perhaps we lose criminals who kill each other behind bars but I'm not entirely sure that would be an every day occurrence nor does that have anything to do with justice. That is animals killing each other. Nothing more.

 

We do not kill because we think killing is okay. That is your misconception. We kill to prevent future danger from these individuals. There is no difference in killing an dangerous animal to protect the innocent and killing a convicted murder.

 

We execute because some criminal decided the laws didn't pertain to him. He or she didn't play by the rules of society and put himself above it. They have proven themselves to be a danger to the general populace. They gave up their humanity through their deeds. Their death is the end result of an action they themselves set in motion. That is justice.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Sir Barton

[Soruc The Dragon]

Not a fan for the reasons stated on the first page.

[JaziandCo]

Including the Armed Forces and the executioners?

Hate the war, not the soldier. War is ridiculously destructive, but the soliders in them on both sides are fighting for what they believe will create safety for the people they're fighting for. It's practically self defense.

 

Executioners are doing the job no one else wants, the "dirty work" of society. From speaking to soldiers who came home from war and police officers who have had to fire at a suspect, they're pretty messed up from it. I can't imagine how an executioner must feel then, to be doing it for a living. That's very different from someone who tortures their victims with a smile.

 

And armed policeman are also protecting something. Us. They have very strict rules about when they're allowed to fire their weapon, and even then they're supposed to try to be nonlethal if they can.

 

1. Murder happens, every day, and everyone's capable of murder, just like all inmates might just be capable of escape. Can I kill everyone now?

2. I never said I wanted them to be released. If you're gonna lock someone away for such a crime, lock 'em up in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives.

3. This happens to all criminals, violent assault, robberers, extortionists, manslaughter. Why are rapists and murderers any different?

4. Inmates of ALL CRIMES kill other inmates. What's your point?

 

So, yup, even though the person may only be accused of the crime, or when the person is proved innocent, or when the jury is proven to be biased, we should kill them all.

 

You know, personally, I'm anti-death penalty just because I find the idea of pretending it's anything more than slaughter repugnant. Killing is killing, there is no 'good' killing, there is no 'bad' killing. I don't see why we need to justify slaughtering people if you want to gut 'em like a pig for what crimes you perceive of them, say so, not with this idea of justice or whatever.

 

1. Everyone is capable of murder, that's true. Not everyone will act on that capability just because they have it. Removing those who have decided that rules don't apply to them is a lot different than just shooting everyone because you think they might be capable of murder.

 

2. So you're okay with seriously screwing them up mentally but you're not okay with killing them peacefully?

 

3. Those who have acted with intentions to maim, kill, or violate another human being is exactly the same as those who steal money or skip on their taxes, is that what you're saying?

 

4. Because nonviolent offenders are thrown in the same place as the violent ones, and in order to fight to survive in prison most people learn to "toughen up" or they're picked off. Then when they're let out, they've been taught how to be a violent offender. That's bad.

 

Or we should do what has been said many times; not execute without full knowledge that the person is guilty and clean up legal loopholes.

[elderberrysyrup]

If you are talking about wanton slaughter in war then that is a different animal and that is not in the justice system. Please show me where in the justice system people are getting killed everyday. Perhaps we lose criminals who kill each other behind bars but I'm not entirely sure that would be an every day occurrence nor does that have anything to do with justice. That is animals killing each other. Nothing more.

 

We do not kill because we think killing is okay. That is your misconception. We kill to prevent future danger from these individuals. There is no difference in killing an dangerous animal to protect the innocent and killing a convicted murder.

 

We execute because some criminal decided the laws didn't pertain to him. He or she didn't play by the rules of society and put himself above it. They have proven themselves to be a danger to the general populace. They gave up their humanity through their deeds. Their death is the end result of an action they themselves set in motion. That is justice.

1. People are killed in the name of justice daily. It's called the death penalty.

 

2. Of course you kill because you think killing is ok. You kill to 'prevent future danger' (why can't we just keep them locked up, does the same thing), thereby justifying killing, so that killing is ok.

 

3. He or She didn't play by the rules of society, which is to avoid killing someone else. So we kill him or her, which makes it ok to kill, which makes it within the rules of society to kill. It's either you're ok with killing people or you're not ok with killing people. Are we ok with killing people or aren't we?

 

4. I'd really like to ask how we can go around killing people, knowing that if we allow the death penalty, innocent people will be killed in the name of justice.

[TikindiDragon]

Look, if you want to kill them, do it. I don't see why we can't just lock people away for life. If we are in a situation in which we've run out of room for our jails because there's that many damn murderers, rapists, and child molestors running around then I think something's wrong with society as a whole.

Because they *don't* lock them away for life. I'm not sure which part of that you're failing to understand here. Trust me, I come from a country that doesn't have the death penalty currently. Life does not mean life.

 

And, yes, the jails are getting full. And, yes, there is something majorly wrong with society as a whole.

 

Incidently there is quite a large difference between the potential to do harm, and the actuality of having done harm. I wouldn't put down a dog that had never bitten someone, even if it was from a breed that had a bad reputation. A dog that savaged a child, on the other hand, I would put down without a second thought. Same applies to people, in my mind.