It's not just a FAYZ discussion

Here we have a book where all of a sudden, all adult authority disappears. Some kids "go Bad" others are drawn to the good.

Albert is one kid that fascinated me in the first book. The way that he took over the MacDonalds was interesting and his foresight about the potential problems with a society where no one is working were thought provoking.

Stephen wrote: "Here we have a book where all of a sudden, all adult authority disappears. Some kids "go Bad" others are drawn to the good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a very interesting question to me since I just read The Sociopath Next Door and it made me think about East of Eden as John Steinbeck describes the woman in that book as being born a monster. I will sure be interested to read what you all think.

The Sociopath Next Door
East of Eden

I do think some people are just evil. For example, i think Drake had a pretty good life and his parents were nice to him, i dont think outside influences caused him to be a sadist. But, i also think some people are good, but were made bad. For example, I think Caine could be good, but he wasnt raised in a loving enviorment and that made him turn cold and mean.

Caine and Sam are a conundrum. It's suggested that they are fraternal twins rather than identical but either way, their genetic make-up is very similar.

Wolves and Racoons make very poor pets no matter how they are raised. It's been found time and again that certain animals are just too wild to be domesticated, so it's not too far a leap to suggest that some people may be that way too.

If one can look to TV for examples, Dexter and his brother are both serial killers and both of Dexter's parents were criminals (albeit the mother was primarily a drug addict)

However, with most humans I am of the opinion that most problems are due to "nurture" rather than "nature."

Actually, U can raise a wolve to protect u. It's just like a dog only it takes MUCH more work to train.

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious wrote: "Actually, U can raise a wolve to protect u. It's just like a dog only it takes MUCH more work to train."

I've seen a number of NATURE programs with naturalists who have tried and they'd tell you that wolves are very aggressive by nature. Also wolves don't have the same genes as dogs. There's a recent study that shows dogs read people's facial expressions the same way that people do. Only dogs and people do that. Wolves won't. I guess in some ways, wolves are NOT just like dogs.

From what I've understood, you MIGHT be able to raise a wolf to protect you. But their propensity to attempt to assert dominance through agression would make them an unreliable pet. Of course that's in general. There may be the unusual exception.

I guess what this question is really asking is do you think that some people just have a higher propensity toward evil than others.

hmmmm
i think no
but some ppl are weaker willed and give in 2 being creul/evil it has alot 2 do with how they're bought up
eg: orc, bad parents, bad hom, bad influence, he became the big bad bully at school
sam: bad home but loving mother, the "big hero" and evry1 in the fayz looked up to him
coincedent? no

i guess, but overall i think some people are just bad from the start, but others r good but become bad from influences.

meh

lime the cheese cake ninja wrote: "meh"

OK guys. The intent of this group is to discuss things. Please add new ideas and/or reasons for what you say. Try to substantiate your views. That leads to productive and interesting dialogue. Comments like Meh aren't really helpful in that regard. Perhaps citing an example that proves or refutes the last person's post would be better.

... And Super, can you explain why you think that? Do you actually know someone who "was bad from the start?" Was there any reason that they were that way?

Ninja: haha u got in trouble :P

Stephen: Well, I want to use my example of Drake, since he is the only person I know who is purely bad. I believe he grew up in a good enviorment, since it is not mentioned anywere in any books that his parents abused him, or didnt care for him. In fact, in the first book it is mentioned how Drake's dad taught him how to shoot a gun. This shows that not only did they get along, they spent time together. As well as Drake's dad liked Drake enough to share something he loved (His job) with Drake and also wanted Drake to grow up to be like him. But despite all of that, Drake is still bad. He had a good childhood from what I read, and still enjoys hurting people. So I suppose Drake was born a psychopath and sadist.

yeah i guess, the reason he was sent to coats is because he shot some random kid who annoyed him sooo yeah he is just screwed up in the head,
and sorry for my apparently awful crime of replying with "meh" it was at like midnight & its hard to think when ur half asleep :P

Ninja & Super... I'm not trying to suggest that either of you are "in trouble." I am trying to foster a mature discussion.

I'm not willing to concede that Drake is "pure evil" but I will concede that he deserves death. He has killed without anything that I judge as a reason to kill. He shows no remorse and seems willing to kill again. However, when he shot that kid at home, before coming to Coates, I think that he was just yielding to a momentary destructive whim. Not unlike the one Orc yielded to when wielding his baseball bat on Day one in the FAYZ. Orc however has since demonstrated remorse. I don't see him as a danger to the community.

In a society such as ours we have the resources and the ability to hold people indefinately and to render them (through incarceration) harmless to the community. Therefore I'm against capital punishment. In the FAYZ they don't have the same luxuries that we do and I would concede that killing Drake might be the right thing to do.

How do you two feel about capital punishment in OUR society? It doesn't seem to be much of a deterrant, (particularly if done in a humane manner) We HAVE life in prison as an alternative. And it's been shown that capital punishment costs more in legal costs and involved costs than keeping the same prisoner in prison for the rest of their mortal lives.

Is it still a valid sentence? Super & Ninja... What do you think? And please no answering at midnight when you're tired. I'd like a reasoned opinion.

look all im gonna say is they dun need 2 make a big deal outa it, when sum1 goes in2 the big house for the rest of there lives they might as well be dead, if anything it would be more mersyful to just kill them quickly and not just have them stewing in there own problems, BUT i do think they should be very careful in judjing them we dnt want another derick bently case on our hands

lime the cheese cake ninja wrote: (sic) "when sum1 goes in2 the big house for the rest of there lives they might as well be dead..."

Is it impossible to enjoy one's life when locked up? It is possible to reform? To "find God?" Is it possible that by keeping someone alive we acknowledge our own fallibility and a death sentence is something we cannot reverse.

Or as an alternative... Have you read Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro? What about declaring these people donors and requiring them to donate blood and organs for medical transplants. Wouldn't this be a less wasteful means of punishing the irredeemables that we currently execute?

I'm not necessarily advocating such a thing, but it bears thinking about.

Yeah, I think making death sentence inmates donate organs is a good idea. Also, I think that certain people should be put to death, a person who admits to killing a lot of people, shouldnt get just life in jail.

Charlotte- insert an inside joke here- wrote: "a person who admits to killing a lot of people, shouldn't get just life in jail."

What do you see as the value of a death sentence? Is it retribution or deterrant? The death sentences provided by the state are generally not as scary to hardened criminals as the death sentences they face on the streets. And one criminologist after another has admitted that as a deterrant the death sentance is ineffective. And with the retribution angle aren't we risking more Derek Bentley scenarios? Derek was the young British guy that was hung and then later found not guilty.

BTW... guys I'm NOT just trying to be argumentative here. I'm trying to get folks to voice their opinions and substantiate them. I was always annoyed by Astrid's moral certitude.

Well, I see it more as what people deserve, and people should be warned that death sentence is an option. Karma and all...

Sorry i havent been on in a while, i have a lot to say though.

Firstly, jail is not that bad a sentance because they are housed, clothed, and somewhat safer than they would be on their own. In some ways, going to jail is better because they dont have to work and have a better life than others.
I do think the death sentance is a good idea, and should be used. The government spends lots of money of jails, and they are actually running out of room in the jails and prisons. Its not fair that the government spends so much on criminals when they dont deserve it.
Also, i know Drake has done a lot of bad things, but i do not agree with him dying or being killed, many because he is one of my favorite characters :P
Stephen: I know you're not trying to start an argument, but you should, those are fun and everyone gets to voice their opinions. I personally love debates. :P

Sure. I believe there are people that are evil. Charles Manson comes to mind. He absolutely has no soul. Look at his eyes and hear him speak. I also think the death penalty is a good thing, a right thing. I am from Oklahoma and Timothy Mcveigh deserved to die for the horrible crimes he committed. Why should he live when he took the lives of so many? An eye for an eye.

Eye for an eye can be good or bad, depending on the situation

Jenn and Charlotte... Wouldn't life in prison perhaps in a work camp where he's forced to contribute something to society be a better punishment?

Eye for an eye is an old testament form of vengence when fewer options were available and it didn't work all that well even then.

When Oscar Wilde was sentenced, he was put into a prison where the inmates were forced to climb a treadmill that powered a machine for beating out oakum. We don't need Oakum much these days but how bout a treadmill that caused them to generate their own (and perhaps others electricity?)

Or as an alternative... the Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro? Deals with a lower class of human... clones/donors. What about declaring these people donors and requiring them to donate blood and organs for medical transplants. Wouldn't this be a less wasteful means of punishing the irredeemables that we currently execute?

While I found the idea initially abhorant, I think that the deterrant effects would be greater than a clean easy execution. And beneficial to society too.

Of course this is the discussion group for the FAYZ books and such punishments are NOT an option there.

I just find life in prison too soft for some cases. I know some would say life imprisonment is not soft but these people are housed and fed. They are allowed things. Some would say their freedom was taken away. Some would think that was the ultimate punishment. Well, what about the innocent lives taken away from families and friends? Lives cut short? This is of course,only my personal belief,others will feel differently. I believe in old fashioned punishment.

Stephen i have a project so i am wondering if you casn answer a few questions for me . I am 8th grade and is doing this for a report pls help me

I'm generlly willing to discuss these books anytime. Why not post your questions here and see what everyone can contribute?

Thanks but I've finished the report. Though I would like to inform you that one of our most loyal gone fans ,(the one who introduced the series to me) Zoe Miller has passed away. Please have a moment of silence for her.