|
| Thread: British Fritzl (!) jailed |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 27, 2008 04:44 PM |
|
|
JJ:
I don't know about a daughter, but if anybody murdered any of my family members, then I'd want their murderer dead. Is that a more acceptable statement?
I think that ultimately the fate of the evildoer should be up to the victims, in this case. They should get some advice as to what to do, and then they may well decide what you advocate.
And I understand that the debt can't truly be canceled. But in everything else, you are wrong.
Moonlith:
Quote:
But I would reason there should none the less be a minimum. There ARE people who are too soft and would forgive the most vilest of men, and there ARE people who are simply too harsh that they don't even fit in a civilized society. How do you deal with those?
So you want to take away people's right to forgive? That's nice.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:01 PM |
|
|
@JJ: That's what you think now, but maybe if it would truly happen you would change your views.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
I don't know about a daughter, but if anybody murdered any of my family members, then I'd want their murderer dead. Is that a more acceptable statement?
I think that ultimately the fate of the evildoer should be up to the victims, in this case. They should get some advice as to what to do, and then they may well decide what you advocate.
And I understand that the debt can't truly be canceled. But in everything else, you are wrong.
There are some problems with the statement. While it is completely ok that you want their murderer(s) dead, the trouble is that the murderer(s) must be found (a) and their guilt must be proven without any doubt (b). You wouldn't want to be responsible for the death of an innocent now, would you?
Moreover a death conviction cannot be solely the decision of the family members of the victim. There are many ways someone may get killed - deliberately, wantonly and cruelly, accidentally and so on. Let's say a car accident: girl crossed a road, got hit by a driver. Driver swears she just suddenly ran over the street into his car. Burned rubber from braking shows he might have gone 10 km/h or so too fast, let's say 40-45 in a 30-zone.
NOW WHAT?
And where am I wrong? I don't think I'm wrong.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ: That's what you think now, but maybe if it would truly happen you would change your views.
Well, *I* didn't start making points about how I would surely feel IF.
What I said was that you cannot make a reliable statement about how you will feel in a basically unimaginable situation.
Which means that it makes no sense to start a point with, "IF I had this and that I would SURELY..."
This is not about MAYBE and IF, ok, Ash?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:06 PM |
|
|
If I was convinced by the court proceeding that the murderers were who they were, then I would be willing to accept the moral burden of having sent the wrong people to die.
And, of course, I'm referring to deliberate murder, not to accidents.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:20 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:25, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
If I was convinced by the court proceeding that the murderers were who they were, then I would be willing to accept the moral burden of having sent the wrong people to die.
Moral burden? That's because you don't care about it anyway. I guess some solid punishment would make you think twice before? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:24 PM |
|
|
You didn't amswer where I was wrong, though.
About the rest - on one hand you are willing to "risk" killing someone who is completely innocent, while on the other your daughter will be dead no matter whether murdered or killed by accident.
Whether it is murder or not is a question trying to be answered in the proceedings as well. How many kilometers per hour must a driver go too fast so it isn't an accident anymore, but a killing? How much must he have drunk to be considered guilty - no matter whether the girl did really cross the road "suddenly" and unexpectedly.
So, you want to tell me that, emotionally, if a court hearing would result in the court judging it murder you'd claim the life of the accused, while if the court would decide bad luck, accident or whatever you'd let him go? Where's the emotional logic here?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You want people to give you one good reason not to kill him, yet can you give me a good reason to keep him alive, Joker?
Of course I can. If you kill him you rob the victims one way to get over it - asking for the why, trying to understand, giving the victims some hold over the evildoer, so that they can come to terms with it . Because coming to terms with it they must one way or another, or do you believe they will just start a new life and be happy with it?
And you'll never be done with it if you keep them alive, so why bother?
I asked for a good reason. Do you honestly think these murderers and rapists are going to provide the victim's family and friends with the closure they so desperately seek? That's naive. What obligation does the murderer have to reveal anything? You aren't doing the victim or the victim's family any good by keeping the person that ruined their life alive.
As to the drunk driver scenario, it's like pointing a gun into a crowd and firing. Getting in your car wasted is like pulling the trigger. At that point, a person should understand the course of action he is taking is extremely reckless and that there is a possibility that he could cause an accident, hence all the drunk driving laws.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 05:56 PM |
|
|
It doesn't matter. As long as it wasn't intentional, I wouldn't pursue the death penalty. The logic is that I want to kill the guy who was evil enough to purposely kill my daughter. If it's an accident, and he's really sorry, then I would not seek to put him to death, because he didn't intend to do it.
And you are wrong. If he had murdered my daughter and gotten away with it, that would be much, much worse for me than if he had killed her and was executed in return. If he was punished, I would feel empty. If he wasn't, I'd feel even worse.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 06:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I asked for a good reason. Do you honestly think these murderers and rapists are going to provide the victim's family and friends with the closure they so desperately seek? That's naive. What obligation does the murderer have to reveal anything? You aren't doing the victim or the victim's family any good by keeping the person that ruined their life alive.
As to the drunk driver scenario, it's like pointing a gun into a crowd and firing. Getting in your car wasted is like pulling the trigger. At that point, a person should understand the course of action he is taking is extremely reckless and that there is a possibility that he could cause an accident, hence all the drunk driving laws.
Those murderers and rapists are SICK. One way or another they WILL talk - if that's what the victims want, mind you. But I thought we were talking about this case here where we are taling about a family affair, so-to-speak.
In any case I wrote "giving the victims some hold over the evildoer". That's a very wide phrasing, if you know what I mean. Who knows what may be necessary in some cases for the victims to come to terms with it.
However, the main thing is to realize that it's neither revenge nor punishment that is most important. Most important are THE VICTIMS and doing everything for THEIR wellbeing. I can only hope we agree about that. And in that case it's the DOCTORS who would have the say here, which is fitting because we are talking about sick and traumatized here.
Don't you think it should be left to THEM, how to close things?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 08:05 PM |
|
|
We should let pyschologists determine the fate of criminals? That's a bad idea and would set an awful precedent. Plus it'd consume even more of the judiciary's time and resources.
Even if they suffer from a "sickness," why should we attempt to rehabilitate them? Why should they get a second chance after killing or raping? They blew it. They lost their chance.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 08:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why should they get a second chance after killing or raping? They blew it. They lost their chance.
i agree 110% on this. IMO they not only lost their chance their rights too. The only type of criminals i understand are thieves. Most of the thieves steal because they are poor. IMO they are the only ones who deserved to rot in prison and pay their debt by making furniture or something. Rapists and murderers must be punished more severely,medieval style.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 09:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Even if they suffer from a "sickness," why should we attempt to rehabilitate them? Why should they get a second chance after killing or raping? They blew it. They lost their chance.
If someone has a sickness you can't treat him/her like a normal person -- for example, a mental sickness. What if they are dizzy and rape by dizzines because of their sickness? Should you treat them like someone who does it on purpose?
Quote:
Rapists and murderers must be punished more severely,medieval style.
What exactly does that accomplish more than 'killing' them simply? I mean, any economic gain or any kind of gain for the victim or victim's family? That won't bring back the victim.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 10:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If someone has a sickness you can't treat him/her like a normal person -- for example, a mental sickness. What if they are dizzy and rape by dizzines because of their sickness? Should you treat them like someone who does it on purpose?
So due to a mental illness, we should forgive their vile act whereas if they didn't have an illness, we would punish it? Funny how people want equality in everything except punishment.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 10:30 PM |
|
|
No they need proper treatment of course and if you can't then you have to kill him. But that's it. Killing him is necessary only to STOP him -- no need for torture or any other crap.
(that is if he can't be "treated" or if he is beyond help or if he is a grave danger still)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 10:32 PM |
|
|
Why bother treating them though? They still killed someone and there will always be the risk of relapse. Furthemore, what kind of message does that send to the victim and victim's family? So long as he's treated, we'll let this person continue to live on whereas you're still victimized/raped/dead.
As to torture, I only advocate that when information can be obtained. Otherwise it's just a waste of time.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 10:44 PM |
|
|
You have no points, just claims. For eaple, WHY would it be a bad idea if psychologists had a say? WHY? I read no reason.
So here's a question for you:
If someone has the plague, unknowingly, spreads it, killing a couple thousand men, being contagious, but surviving it himself - would you afterwards execute him?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 10:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
All sentences that begin with IF I HAD (WAS) are plain stupid to bring up in a discussion: If I had only a week to live, If I was living in some slum in Kalkutta, If I was one of 99 wives in some Arabian harem, you should just KNOW that you NEVER know except when it is reality.
Quote:
If someone has the plague, unknowingly, spreads it, killing a couple thousand men, being contagious, but surviving it himself - would you afterwards execute him?
Yes. He or she is still a threat to society.
Why would it be bad for psychologists? People are puzzles to shrinks. They'd turn them into case studies and find a way to keep them alive so they can continue researching them. It probably wouldn't happen all the time but it could happen enough to taint the system. Additionally, the pyschologist's invidual beliefs regarding capital punishment might also come into play, keeping him from properly diagnosing and making an unbiased judgment. Lastly, it's not the psychologist's place to determine guilt; that's the judge or jury's role.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 11:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
All sentences that begin with IF I HAD (WAS) are plain stupid to bring up in a discussion: If I had only a week to live, If I was living in some slum in Kalkutta, If I was one of 99 wives in some Arabian harem, you should just KNOW that you NEVER know except when it is reality.
Quote:
If someone has the plague, unknowingly, spreads it, killing a couple thousand men, being contagious, but surviving it himself - would you afterwards execute him?
Yes. He or she is still a threat to society.
Well, this is no IF, because it actually happened a lot in history. People were not killed for having something like the plague - they were only quraantined for being contageously ill. To my best knowledge, no one EVER killed someone surviving the plague.
Quote:
Why would it be bad for psychologists? People are puzzles to shrinks. They'd turn them into case studies and find a way to keep them alive so they can continue researching them. It probably wouldn't happen all the time but it could happen enough to taint the system. Additionally, the pyschologist's invidual beliefs regarding capital punishment might also come into play, keeping him from properly diagnosing and making an unbiased judgment. Lastly, it's not the psychologist's place to determine guilt; that's the judge or jury's role.
I still see no points. A bias (people are puzzles to shrinks). An invalid conclusion (Therefore they would fnd a way... taint the system). By the way, if the system WAS tainted, the current system is tainted as well. A "might come into play" - with a completely unfounded singular: the psychologist? There would be more than one, of course. Lastly, the psychologists wouldn't determine guilt, so this is a non-point. They would simply try to determine the best course of action for the VICTIMS.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 11:44 PM |
|
|
So you want even more outside influences on the outcome of the case? Have a shrink tell a jury what he believes would be the appropriate punishment to satisfy the victims? The punishment is up to the jury (or judge) and jury alone.
If you want psychologists determinig the best course of action for the victims, then the victim can schedule a hearing and talk about his or her problems.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
|
|
