|
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK |
On May 26 2013 04:10 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 03:40 farvacola wrote:On May 26 2013 03:39 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:Shiori:
Just because the US has been on the right side of international wars doesn't mean that their domestic policies are perfect by any means. Irrelevant response. The issue is not the perfectness or lack thereof of domestic policies, it's the implication that my country is not civilized, i.e. is barbaric (as is every other country that has the death penalty). An insult that no patriot would or should take sitting down if directed at their country. Please don't be so obtuse. Nachtwind:So by your logic a war = daily judical system?..  Not at all, I'm at a loss to explain how you managed to come up with that. I just think that Britain would not want help from barbarians. So don't ask us for it next time the way they did last time, I don't think they'd want to sully themselves by doing that. Or at least not that guy. Thankfully most Britons are a little more discerning. I think you're confusing patriotism with blind nationalism. Are you suggesting that support of the death penalty amounts to blind nationalism? No, I'm suggesting that you have to be a blind nationalist to take a (realistic) insult towards the death penalty personally.
Was not an insult towards the death penalty I objected to, was the intentional and implied insult towards the country and society. Insult the death penalty all you like, I'm not going to defend it against insults. Don't say that countries aren't "truly civilized" if they put people to death after 2 separate trials (first to determine guilt, second to determine if execution is justified), numerous automatic appeals, and a decade+ wait on average before execution with total freedom to also appeal to the governor for clemency.
I'm suggesting I don't care for your post-modern cynical bs parade.
|
On May 26 2013 05:01 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 04:49 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 04:37 Nachtwind wrote:On May 26 2013 04:30 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2013 18:54 sc4k wrote:On May 25 2013 03:31 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars. lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death? get a grip seriously It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal. Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals. Exactly. One of the indicators of a truly civilised country is the lack of a death penalty. Society has moved beyond the barbaric attitude of 'An eye for an eye'. I still can't get my head around this. Every time I revisit the phrase on TL and and IRL etc, I can't see what precisely is wrong with taking an eye for an eye. It is the very embodiment of justice. It only goes wrong when people take more for an eye, and then the original wrongdoers believe the justice exerted was disproportionate, so retaliate and so on. If everyone did actually take an eye for an eye, there probably wouldn't be any trouble. It gets complicated when the crime committed is less simple than murder, for example rape or blackmail...in which case a certain amount of prison time serves as the only reasonable proxy. The people who cared about this beheaded guy have been wronged. The mother and father have seen their baby boy who they raised and loved murdered brutally...with no evidential uncertainty as to who actually did the act. I'm not saying they do, but if the parents DID want the murderers to be executed, I (currently) believe they should have the right to pursue that eventuality through the legal system. The only exceptions I see as valid to the death penalty are evidential uncertainty and cost (and they are very big - unless the murderers are caught standing around the body clearly indicating ownership of the actions, carrying meat cleavers with their hands bloodied). The egregiousness of the method of killing, the lack of retaliatory motivation in the perpetrators and the utter disrespect for the man's dignity should also feature as factors when deciding to allow the wronged people to pursue that penalty. [NB: I am not talking about petty theft, what the fuck is that about lol] You talk about it not being disproportionate. That's dumb as fuck. An eye for an eye doesn't make much sense when somebody is already blind. The point here is that eye for an eye rarely results in a truly equal trade. Hence why, historically, it never created a crime free society. As long as a person is willing to accept/ignore the consequence of an action, they generally come out on top because their 'eye' is worth less than what they expect to gain. Also your comment about the parents being allowed to make the choice is hilarious. Why cant they just be the judges? Why stop at execution? Shouldn't all forms of torture be on the board? Eye for an eye is child justice; nothing more than gut reaction. Well, you are right that eye for an eye doesn't result in an equal trade for most crimes, which is why prison is used as a proxy. But it does for murder. You kill, you get executed. Simple. And I don't believe that it's society's place to punish criminals. I believe it's entirely its place to prevent harm. However I do believe in the right of innocent people to achieve justice, and I believe that justice is done for a family of people whose relative has been murdered by allowing them the right to have the perpetrator executed. I believe he has forfeit his right to life by taking the life of another unlawfully. This is all, of course, with the proviso that I don't believe it is justified for 99% of murders because the level of evidence required is basically lots of corroborating video evidence from different sources. Not confessions or even a high quality of DNA evidence. The Dnepropetrovsk maniacs come to mind. They were completely sane and murdered multiple people, recording the murders in high quality. No evidential uncertainty. Funny. Then why is it that many victim familes in the us denyed that their justicefeelings are satisfied with the death penalty. And that there also victim families that even doesn´t wanted the death penalty and now it comes... they sticking together with the offender families to treat their sorrows. Wow. Well if the relatives of the victim want to grant clemency to the offender I see no reason why it should be witheld on the dogmatic grounds that there must be blood spilled in order for justice to be achieved. If the victim's relatives unanimously want the perp spared, so be it. I agree that executing the person who murdered your loved one will do nothing to bring them back, and I probably would not select that option if one of my loved ones were murdered...but you never know what it feels like I guess. What magic dust are you smoking which makes it seem logical to have the accuser be the judge? Why should an accuser ever get to decide the sentence? That's childish, emotion based reasoning, and nothing more. It goes against impartiality (you know, a core part of modern legal systems) and rejects morality in favor of mob justice.
Well I considered this for some years. Back when I thought there would be no reasonable argument in favour of a death penalty, I was proposed the question 'what about the victims?'. After ruminating on it for a while, I decided that you have no right to tell the innocent relatives of a victim of a murder in cold blood that any desire for vengeance they have is childish. It may be basic and unfortunately unsophisticated, but you have no right to deny it - in favour of the right to life of the perpetrator.
My reasoning was informed in part by the ideas of the ECHR, namely that some rights exist in perpetuity and cannot be denied people - for example the right to not be tortured, which is an absolute right. However the right to life is considered in the ECHR to be a qualified right which can be forfeit after due process of law or various other mitigating circumstances.
|
On May 26 2013 02:03 KwarK wrote:
The reason I just put it as others disagree with you is because this area comes down to beliefs and arguments rather than an objective truth. I believe that people aren't born criminals and that even the worst criminals are, in part, victims of their circumstances. If they cannot be fixed then indefinite confinement is fine, I believe that's how it generally works with life sentences anyway, they try and work out if the guy is going to reoffend and if they are then they don't release him. I don't believe there is anything intrinsic or special within me that makes me not a criminal, I believe that the people I grew up with, the influence of my parents and so forth are responsible for that. Had I been switched with another infant in the hospital I could have ended up in a very different place and if that were the case I would want society to try and help me back on track.
I'm not saying that we should be soft and allow people who are going to reoffend to reoffend or that the people shouldn't be protected, rather that criminals, especially once they've been caught, are often the biggest victims of their crimes and the way we structure our society should be for the good of the people. If you were told that you would be reborn as a random child born tomorrow would you keep the rules of society the same? I got lucky last time I was born but luck is a poor foundation for a moral society.
I think in the case of particularly horrific serial murderers/torturers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, the sociopathy/psychopathy is so deep that the chances of any sort of rehabilitation is basically nil. In such cases holding them for life in prison in the hope that they will redeem themselves does seem somewhat pointless and if they are to remain in prison indefinitely, arguably, executing them may well be just as humane as forcing them to live out their years in captivity.
As for the argument about being reborn- if I was born again and tortured and killed people for no other reason than my own pleasure, I can't imagine that I would hold it as any great injustice that my own life should now be forfeit for the crimes I committed.
|
On May 26 2013 05:04 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 04:55 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 04:30 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2013 18:54 sc4k wrote:On May 25 2013 03:31 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:
[quote]
You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death.
The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar?
Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society. Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars. lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death? get a grip seriously It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal. Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals. Exactly. One of the indicators of a truly civilised country is the lack of a death penalty. Society has moved beyond the barbaric attitude of 'An eye for an eye'. I still can't get my head around this. Every time I revisit the phrase on TL and and IRL etc, I can't see what precisely is wrong with taking an eye for an eye. It is the very embodiment of justice. It only goes wrong when people take more for an eye, and then the original wrongdoers believe the justice exerted was disproportionate, so retaliate and so on. If everyone did actually take an eye for an eye, there probably wouldn't be any trouble. It gets complicated when the crime committed is less simple than murder, for example rape or blackmail...in which case a certain amount of prison time serves as the only reasonable proxy. The people who cared about this beheaded guy have been wronged. The mother and father have seen their baby boy who they raised and loved murdered brutally...with no evidential uncertainty as to who actually did the act. I'm not saying they do, but if the parents DID want the murderers to be executed, I (currently) believe they should have the right to pursue that eventuality through the legal system. The only exceptions I see as valid to the death penalty are evidential uncertainty and cost (and they are very big - unless the murderers are caught standing around the body clearly indicating ownership of the actions, carrying meat cleavers with their hands bloodied). The egregiousness of the method of killing, the lack of retaliatory motivation in the perpetrators and the utter disrespect for the man's dignity should also feature as factors when deciding to allow the wronged people to pursue that penalty. [NB: I am not talking about petty theft, what the fuck is that about lol] You talk about it not being disproportionate. That's dumb as fuck. An eye for an eye doesn't make much sense when somebody is already blind. The point here is that eye for an eye rarely results in a truly equal trade. Hence why, historically, it never created a crime free society. As long as a person is willing to accept/ignore the consequence of an action, they generally come out on top because their 'eye' is worth less than what they expect to gain. Also your comment about the parents being allowed to make the choice is hilarious. Why cant they just be the judges? Why stop at execution? Shouldn't all forms of torture be on the board? Eye for an eye is child justice; nothing more than gut reaction. Well, you are right that eye for an eye doesn't result in an equal trade for most crimes, which is why prison is used as a proxy. But it does for murder. You kill, you get executed. Simple. And I don't believe that it's society's place to punish criminals. I believe it's entirely its place to prevent harm. However I do believe in the right of innocent people to achieve justice, and I believe that justice is done for a family of people whose relative has been murdered by allowing them the right to have the perpetrator executed. I believe he has forfeit his right to life by taking the life of another unlawfully. This is all, of course, with the proviso that I don't believe it is justified for 99% of murders because the level of evidence required is basically lots of corroborating video evidence from different sources. Not confessions or even a high quality of DNA evidence. The Dnepropetrovsk maniacs come to mind. They were completely sane and murdered multiple people, recording the murders in high quality. No evidential uncertainty. Again, you're wrong. You assume that one person's life is equal to another. Unless you're going to simplify down to eternal souls or something equally ridiculous, you have no accurate way to quantify their value. Furthermore, you conflate justice, vengeance, and retribution. What you propose is vengeance. Vengeance does not achieve justice (and often perpetuates a cycle of violence). I don't understand your point about saying different lives are worth different amounts. You should not be spared execution if you murder an 80 year old or a paraplegic in cold blood as opposed to a 10 year old or attractive 21 year old. A life is a life. There's no further distinction needed. Yes I do propose vengeance. Justified vengeance. What I propose does not have any reason to propagate further violence. Disproportionate revenge perpetuates violence. State sanctioned revenge does not. It may engender ill will however. I believe the wronged family has the right to vengeance/justice/damages...because as I say I believe the perp has surrendered his right to life in that circumstance...
What if an 80 year old with terminal cancer murders a 10 year old? They're dying anyway. Is that person's life fair compensation?
As for part 2:
You're wrong on pretty much all counts. Justified vengeance is a contradiction. The victim's family gets revenge. The accused family gets wronged. That is not justice.
And holy shit you can't honestly think that ordering someone dead isn't a likely recipe for further revenge.
![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/82e6a2efd1c08e6de2af650eb7a96696/tumblr_inline_mjqt069yr51qz4rgp.jpg)
|
On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
What if an 80 year old with terminal cancer murders a 10 year old? They're dying anyway. Is that person's life fair compensation?
You are just thinking in the wrong frame of mind. I'm not after fair compensation. I'm saying if the family of the murdered child wish for the murderer to be executed, I don't believe you should deny them that.
On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
As for part 2:
You're wrong on pretty much all counts. Justified vengeance is a contradiction. The victim's family gets revenge. The accused family gets wronged. That is not justice.
And holy shit you can't honestly think that ordering someone dead isn't a likely recipe for further revenge.
I fail to see how the accused family gets wronged, Jormundr. If their family member murdered someone in cold blood, what are they expecting?
I do accept your final argument. Potentially, people might blame you for choosing the execution option rather than jail. But then that would be your choice - how much do you want the killer of your loved one to be executed. I wouldn't take that choice away from the victim's family.
|
On May 26 2013 05:08 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:01 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 04:49 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 04:37 Nachtwind wrote:On May 26 2013 04:30 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 00:14 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2013 18:54 sc4k wrote:On May 25 2013 03:31 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:
[quote]
lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death?
get a grip seriously It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal. Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals. Exactly. One of the indicators of a truly civilised country is the lack of a death penalty. Society has moved beyond the barbaric attitude of 'An eye for an eye'. I still can't get my head around this. Every time I revisit the phrase on TL and and IRL etc, I can't see what precisely is wrong with taking an eye for an eye. It is the very embodiment of justice. It only goes wrong when people take more for an eye, and then the original wrongdoers believe the justice exerted was disproportionate, so retaliate and so on. If everyone did actually take an eye for an eye, there probably wouldn't be any trouble. It gets complicated when the crime committed is less simple than murder, for example rape or blackmail...in which case a certain amount of prison time serves as the only reasonable proxy. The people who cared about this beheaded guy have been wronged. The mother and father have seen their baby boy who they raised and loved murdered brutally...with no evidential uncertainty as to who actually did the act. I'm not saying they do, but if the parents DID want the murderers to be executed, I (currently) believe they should have the right to pursue that eventuality through the legal system. The only exceptions I see as valid to the death penalty are evidential uncertainty and cost (and they are very big - unless the murderers are caught standing around the body clearly indicating ownership of the actions, carrying meat cleavers with their hands bloodied). The egregiousness of the method of killing, the lack of retaliatory motivation in the perpetrators and the utter disrespect for the man's dignity should also feature as factors when deciding to allow the wronged people to pursue that penalty. [NB: I am not talking about petty theft, what the fuck is that about lol] You talk about it not being disproportionate. That's dumb as fuck. An eye for an eye doesn't make much sense when somebody is already blind. The point here is that eye for an eye rarely results in a truly equal trade. Hence why, historically, it never created a crime free society. As long as a person is willing to accept/ignore the consequence of an action, they generally come out on top because their 'eye' is worth less than what they expect to gain. Also your comment about the parents being allowed to make the choice is hilarious. Why cant they just be the judges? Why stop at execution? Shouldn't all forms of torture be on the board? Eye for an eye is child justice; nothing more than gut reaction. Well, you are right that eye for an eye doesn't result in an equal trade for most crimes, which is why prison is used as a proxy. But it does for murder. You kill, you get executed. Simple. And I don't believe that it's society's place to punish criminals. I believe it's entirely its place to prevent harm. However I do believe in the right of innocent people to achieve justice, and I believe that justice is done for a family of people whose relative has been murdered by allowing them the right to have the perpetrator executed. I believe he has forfeit his right to life by taking the life of another unlawfully. This is all, of course, with the proviso that I don't believe it is justified for 99% of murders because the level of evidence required is basically lots of corroborating video evidence from different sources. Not confessions or even a high quality of DNA evidence. The Dnepropetrovsk maniacs come to mind. They were completely sane and murdered multiple people, recording the murders in high quality. No evidential uncertainty. Funny. Then why is it that many victim familes in the us denyed that their justicefeelings are satisfied with the death penalty. And that there also victim families that even doesn´t wanted the death penalty and now it comes... they sticking together with the offender families to treat their sorrows. Wow. Well if the relatives of the victim want to grant clemency to the offender I see no reason why it should be witheld on the dogmatic grounds that there must be blood spilled in order for justice to be achieved. If the victim's relatives unanimously want the perp spared, so be it. I agree that executing the person who murdered your loved one will do nothing to bring them back, and I probably would not select that option if one of my loved ones were murdered...but you never know what it feels like I guess. What magic dust are you smoking which makes it seem logical to have the accuser be the judge? Why should an accuser ever get to decide the sentence? That's childish, emotion based reasoning, and nothing more. It goes against impartiality (you know, a core part of modern legal systems) and rejects morality in favor of mob justice. Well I considered this for some years. Back when I thought there would be no reasonable argument in favour of a death penalty, I was proposed the question 'what about the victims?'. After ruminating on it for a while, I decided that you have no right to tell the innocent relatives of a victim of a murder in cold blood that any desire for vengeance they have is childish. It may be basic and unfortunately unsophisticated, but you have no right to deny it - in favour of the right to life of the perpetrator. My reasoning was informed in part by the ideas of the ECHR, namely that some rights exist in perpetuity and cannot be denied people - for example the right to not be tortured, which is an absolute right. However the right to life is considered in the ECHR to be a qualified right which can be forfeit after due process of law or various other mitigating circumstances.
1. Thanks for offering your wisdom, you are correct. I don't just have the right to deny it. I have the fucking obligation to do so. I have an obligation to my country to make sure that we don't regress into a place where honor killings are acceptable.
2. This bypasses the entire concept of due process so I don't know why you even mentioned it. Due process requires judgement and sentencing to be passed down by an impartial mediator (the state).
|
On May 26 2013 05:25 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
What if an 80 year old with terminal cancer murders a 10 year old? They're dying anyway. Is that person's life fair compensation? You are just thinking in the wrong frame of mind. I'm not after fair compensation. I'm saying if the family of the murdered child wish for the murderer to be executed, I don't believe you should deny them that. Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
As for part 2:
You're wrong on pretty much all counts. Justified vengeance is a contradiction. The victim's family gets revenge. The accused family gets wronged. That is not justice.
And holy shit you can't honestly think that ordering someone dead isn't a likely recipe for further revenge. I fail to see how the accused family gets wronged, Jormundr. If their family member murdered someone in cold blood, what are they expecting? I do accept your final argument. Potentially, people might blame you for choosing the execution option rather than jail. But then that would be your choice - how much do you want the killer of your loved one to be executed. I wouldn't take that choice away from the victim's family.
The family of the accused gets wronged because some pissed off motherfucker gets to decide whether or not their family member gets to live.
|
On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
1. Thanks for offering your wisdom, you are correct. I don't just have the right to deny it. I have the fucking obligation to do so. I have an obligation to my country to make sure that we don't regress into a place where honor killings are acceptable.
Oh come on, this has nothing to do with honour killings.
On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
2. This bypasses the entire concept of due process so I don't know why you even mentioned it. Due process requires judgement and sentencing to be passed down by an impartial mediator (the state).
Due process requires that people have their legal rights respected by the state judiciary. You can get into a philosophical argument about how far this extends but your argument won't be very persuasive if the furthest it stretches to is a combination of ad hominems, swear words and facile one liners.
On May 26 2013 05:30 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:25 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
What if an 80 year old with terminal cancer murders a 10 year old? They're dying anyway. Is that person's life fair compensation? You are just thinking in the wrong frame of mind. I'm not after fair compensation. I'm saying if the family of the murdered child wish for the murderer to be executed, I don't believe you should deny them that. On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
As for part 2:
You're wrong on pretty much all counts. Justified vengeance is a contradiction. The victim's family gets revenge. The accused family gets wronged. That is not justice.
And holy shit you can't honestly think that ordering someone dead isn't a likely recipe for further revenge. I fail to see how the accused family gets wronged, Jormundr. If their family member murdered someone in cold blood, what are they expecting? I do accept your final argument. Potentially, people might blame you for choosing the execution option rather than jail. But then that would be your choice - how much do you want the killer of your loved one to be executed. I wouldn't take that choice away from the victim's family. The family of the accused gets wronged because some pissed off motherfucker gets to decide whether or not their family member gets to live.
I don't see your point. By the way stop using the word accused, use the word murderer. Calling the relative of someone murdered in cold blood 'a pissed off motherfucker' because they want the person to be executed is pretty incredible.
|
Wow that's how fked up islam can get u,, nice religion
User was warned for this post
|
On May 26 2013 05:33 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
1. Thanks for offering your wisdom, you are correct. I don't just have the right to deny it. I have the fucking obligation to do so. I have an obligation to my country to make sure that we don't regress into a place where honor killings are acceptable. Oh come on, this has nothing to do with honour killings. Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
2. This bypasses the entire concept of due process so I don't know why you even mentioned it. Due process requires judgement and sentencing to be passed down by an impartial mediator (the state). Due process requires that people have their legal rights respected by the state judiciary. You can get into a philosophical argument about how far this extends but your argument won't be very persuasive if the furthest it stretches to is a combination of ad hominems, swear words and facile one liners.
Why doesn't it? If you wrong the family, they should be allowed to choose whether or not they live. Why couldn't you logically extend that to within the family itself? Since the family obviously knows best in these matters.
You still haven't argued against #2. As your argument stands, this violates a person's legal rights. It's your burden to explain to me how it doesn't, because you are the one arguing against established precedent. Keep in mind I'm under the impression that this is all being framed around the proceeding of a criminal murder trial.
|
On May 26 2013 05:37 ihufa wrote:
Wow that's how fked up islam can get u,, nice religion
Every religion has fanatics.
|
On May 26 2013 05:30 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:25 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
What if an 80 year old with terminal cancer murders a 10 year old? They're dying anyway. Is that person's life fair compensation? You are just thinking in the wrong frame of mind. I'm not after fair compensation. I'm saying if the family of the murdered child wish for the murderer to be executed, I don't believe you should deny them that. On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
As for part 2:
You're wrong on pretty much all counts. Justified vengeance is a contradiction. The victim's family gets revenge. The accused family gets wronged. That is not justice.
And holy shit you can't honestly think that ordering someone dead isn't a likely recipe for further revenge. I fail to see how the accused family gets wronged, Jormundr. If their family member murdered someone in cold blood, what are they expecting? I do accept your final argument. Potentially, people might blame you for choosing the execution option rather than jail. But then that would be your choice - how much do you want the killer of your loved one to be executed. I wouldn't take that choice away from the victim's family. The family of the accused gets wronged because some pissed off motherfucker gets to decide whether or not their family member gets to live.
Yet the family of the murderer is not wronged when the murderer gets locked behind bars for the rest of their life? How would you like it if you could never hug your father and could only speak to him behind a plate of glass?
The family of a murderer is going to have to pay a price for the crime that was committed. You're just arbitrarily deciding which price is too big to be justified and acting like you have some divine truth on your side.
|
On May 26 2013 05:40 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:33 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
1. Thanks for offering your wisdom, you are correct. I don't just have the right to deny it. I have the fucking obligation to do so. I have an obligation to my country to make sure that we don't regress into a place where honor killings are acceptable. Oh come on, this has nothing to do with honour killings. On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
2. This bypasses the entire concept of due process so I don't know why you even mentioned it. Due process requires judgement and sentencing to be passed down by an impartial mediator (the state). Due process requires that people have their legal rights respected by the state judiciary. You can get into a philosophical argument about how far this extends but your argument won't be very persuasive if the furthest it stretches to is a combination of ad hominems, swear words and facile one liners. Why doesn't it? If you wrong the family, they should be allowed to choose whether or not they live. Why couldn't you logically extend that to within the family itself? Since the family obviously knows best in these matters. You still haven't argued against #2. As your argument stands, this violates a person's legal rights. It's your burden to explain to me how it doesn't, because you are the one arguing against established precedent. Keep in mind I'm under the impression that this is all being framed around the proceeding of a criminal murder trial.
Like I say, along the lines of the thinking in the ECHR, the right to life is a qualified right. When you murder someone in cold blood, you give up that right. Your family cannot defend your right to life because it doesn't exist anymore. You have no right to it. You gave it up. You made the choice by killing. And as the guy above me says, there is no such thing as the 'right to stop a family member facing legal punishment'.
And I am talking in the hypothetical situation where we know 100% that the person has committed a murder. Like I said, the only thing I would want the death penalty to apply to IRL would be situations with lots of different video sources and masses of other evidence. However, as I said, I still favour a ban in general because I don't trust the death penalty to be used responsibly enough. But I initially took argument with using the phrase 'an eye for an eye'. I don't like it, it doesn't make sense as far as I can see.
|
On May 26 2013 05:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:30 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 05:25 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
What if an 80 year old with terminal cancer murders a 10 year old? They're dying anyway. Is that person's life fair compensation? You are just thinking in the wrong frame of mind. I'm not after fair compensation. I'm saying if the family of the murdered child wish for the murderer to be executed, I don't believe you should deny them that. On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
As for part 2:
You're wrong on pretty much all counts. Justified vengeance is a contradiction. The victim's family gets revenge. The accused family gets wronged. That is not justice.
And holy shit you can't honestly think that ordering someone dead isn't a likely recipe for further revenge. I fail to see how the accused family gets wronged, Jormundr. If their family member murdered someone in cold blood, what are they expecting? I do accept your final argument. Potentially, people might blame you for choosing the execution option rather than jail. But then that would be your choice - how much do you want the killer of your loved one to be executed. I wouldn't take that choice away from the victim's family. The family of the accused gets wronged because some pissed off motherfucker gets to decide whether or not their family member gets to live. Yet the family of the murderer is not wronged when the murderer gets locked behind bars for the rest of their life? How would you like it if you could never hug your father and could only speak to him behind a plate of glass? The family of a murderer is going to have to pay a price for the crime that was committed. You're just arbitrarily deciding which price is too big to be justified and acting like you have some divine truth on your side.
No, in this example he has proposed, the guy would normally go to prison if left to the justice system. The family of the victim has the choice to have him killed instead. I'm not saying that one is better. I'm saying that it is wrong for the family of the accused to pass sentencing.
|
On May 26 2013 05:47 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 05:33 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
1. Thanks for offering your wisdom, you are correct. I don't just have the right to deny it. I have the fucking obligation to do so. I have an obligation to my country to make sure that we don't regress into a place where honor killings are acceptable. Oh come on, this has nothing to do with honour killings. On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
2. This bypasses the entire concept of due process so I don't know why you even mentioned it. Due process requires judgement and sentencing to be passed down by an impartial mediator (the state). Due process requires that people have their legal rights respected by the state judiciary. You can get into a philosophical argument about how far this extends but your argument won't be very persuasive if the furthest it stretches to is a combination of ad hominems, swear words and facile one liners. Why doesn't it? If you wrong the family, they should be allowed to choose whether or not they live. Why couldn't you logically extend that to within the family itself? Since the family obviously knows best in these matters. You still haven't argued against #2. As your argument stands, this violates a person's legal rights. It's your burden to explain to me how it doesn't, because you are the one arguing against established precedent. Keep in mind I'm under the impression that this is all being framed around the proceeding of a criminal murder trial. Like I say, along the lines of the thinking in the ECHR, the right to life is a qualified right. When you murder someone in cold blood, you give up that right. Your family cannot defend your right to life because it doesn't exist anymore. You have no right to it. You gave it up. You made the choice by killing. And as the guy above me says, there is no such thing as the 'right to stop a family member facing legal punishment'. And I am talking in the hypothetical situation where we know 100% that the person has committed a murder. Like I said, the only thing I would want the death penalty to apply to IRL would be situations with lots of different video sources and masses of other evidence. However, as I said, I still favour a ban in general because I don't trust the death penalty to be used responsibly enough. But I initially took argument with using the phrase 'an eye for an eye'. I don't like it, it doesn't make sense as far as I can see.
"And by the way I'm talking about an impossible situation that could never happen!"
The point where you ended the conversation.
|
On May 26 2013 05:52 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:46 BlackJack wrote:On May 26 2013 05:30 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 05:25 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
What if an 80 year old with terminal cancer murders a 10 year old? They're dying anyway. Is that person's life fair compensation? You are just thinking in the wrong frame of mind. I'm not after fair compensation. I'm saying if the family of the murdered child wish for the murderer to be executed, I don't believe you should deny them that. On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
As for part 2:
You're wrong on pretty much all counts. Justified vengeance is a contradiction. The victim's family gets revenge. The accused family gets wronged. That is not justice.
And holy shit you can't honestly think that ordering someone dead isn't a likely recipe for further revenge. I fail to see how the accused family gets wronged, Jormundr. If their family member murdered someone in cold blood, what are they expecting? I do accept your final argument. Potentially, people might blame you for choosing the execution option rather than jail. But then that would be your choice - how much do you want the killer of your loved one to be executed. I wouldn't take that choice away from the victim's family. The family of the accused gets wronged because some pissed off motherfucker gets to decide whether or not their family member gets to live. Yet the family of the murderer is not wronged when the murderer gets locked behind bars for the rest of their life? How would you like it if you could never hug your father and could only speak to him behind a plate of glass? The family of a murderer is going to have to pay a price for the crime that was committed. You're just arbitrarily deciding which price is too big to be justified and acting like you have some divine truth on your side. No, in this example he has proposed, the guy would normally go to prison if left to the justice system. The family of the victim has the choice to have him killed instead. I'm not saying that one is better. I'm saying that it is wrong for the family of the accused to pass sentencing.
Well the judge would pass the sentencing. 'You are sentenced to life imprisonment or death by lethal injection'. As Kwark said, I don't believe this distinction should be made by what does or does not convenience the general public. The people who go 'the bastard should be strung up, what for!!!'. However I believe the family, who have such a greater stake in the matter than the public, should be allowed to make this decision.
On May 26 2013 05:54 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:47 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:40 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 05:33 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
1. Thanks for offering your wisdom, you are correct. I don't just have the right to deny it. I have the fucking obligation to do so. I have an obligation to my country to make sure that we don't regress into a place where honor killings are acceptable. Oh come on, this has nothing to do with honour killings. On May 26 2013 05:26 Jormundr wrote:
2. This bypasses the entire concept of due process so I don't know why you even mentioned it. Due process requires judgement and sentencing to be passed down by an impartial mediator (the state). Due process requires that people have their legal rights respected by the state judiciary. You can get into a philosophical argument about how far this extends but your argument won't be very persuasive if the furthest it stretches to is a combination of ad hominems, swear words and facile one liners. Why doesn't it? If you wrong the family, they should be allowed to choose whether or not they live. Why couldn't you logically extend that to within the family itself? Since the family obviously knows best in these matters. You still haven't argued against #2. As your argument stands, this violates a person's legal rights. It's your burden to explain to me how it doesn't, because you are the one arguing against established precedent. Keep in mind I'm under the impression that this is all being framed around the proceeding of a criminal murder trial. Like I say, along the lines of the thinking in the ECHR, the right to life is a qualified right. When you murder someone in cold blood, you give up that right. Your family cannot defend your right to life because it doesn't exist anymore. You have no right to it. You gave it up. You made the choice by killing. And as the guy above me says, there is no such thing as the 'right to stop a family member facing legal punishment'. And I am talking in the hypothetical situation where we know 100% that the person has committed a murder. Like I said, the only thing I would want the death penalty to apply to IRL would be situations with lots of different video sources and masses of other evidence. However, as I said, I still favour a ban in general because I don't trust the death penalty to be used responsibly enough. But I initially took argument with using the phrase 'an eye for an eye'. I don't like it, it doesn't make sense as far as I can see. "And by the way I'm talking about an impossible situation that could never happen!" The point where you ended the conversation.
Well you obviously didn't read the beginning of my points because I quite clearly stated such elements of reasoning. I already concluded what the practical restrictions are but I was considering the moral value of the phrase 'an eye for an eye'.
As I said in my first post on the matter, I believe that the only two valid arguments against the death penalty are a) evidential certainty and b) costs. I am not persuaded by the moral arguments and was expounding on my position.
|
United States41948 Posts
On May 26 2013 05:58 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:52 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 05:46 BlackJack wrote:On May 26 2013 05:30 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 05:25 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
What if an 80 year old with terminal cancer murders a 10 year old? They're dying anyway. Is that person's life fair compensation? You are just thinking in the wrong frame of mind. I'm not after fair compensation. I'm saying if the family of the murdered child wish for the murderer to be executed, I don't believe you should deny them that. On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
As for part 2:
You're wrong on pretty much all counts. Justified vengeance is a contradiction. The victim's family gets revenge. The accused family gets wronged. That is not justice.
And holy shit you can't honestly think that ordering someone dead isn't a likely recipe for further revenge. I fail to see how the accused family gets wronged, Jormundr. If their family member murdered someone in cold blood, what are they expecting? I do accept your final argument. Potentially, people might blame you for choosing the execution option rather than jail. But then that would be your choice - how much do you want the killer of your loved one to be executed. I wouldn't take that choice away from the victim's family. The family of the accused gets wronged because some pissed off motherfucker gets to decide whether or not their family member gets to live. Yet the family of the murderer is not wronged when the murderer gets locked behind bars for the rest of their life? How would you like it if you could never hug your father and could only speak to him behind a plate of glass? The family of a murderer is going to have to pay a price for the crime that was committed. You're just arbitrarily deciding which price is too big to be justified and acting like you have some divine truth on your side. No, in this example he has proposed, the guy would normally go to prison if left to the justice system. The family of the victim has the choice to have him killed instead. I'm not saying that one is better. I'm saying that it is wrong for the family of the accused to pass sentencing. Well the judge would pass the sentencing. 'You are sentenced to life imprisonment or death by lethal injection'. As Kwark said, I don't believe this distinction should be made by what does or does not convenience the general public. The people who go 'the bastard should be strung up, what for!!!'. However I believe the family, who have such a greater stake in the matter than the public, should be allowed to make this decision.
That's literally the opposite of what I said. I said justice should be blind and should treat everyone fairly and evenly for the common good by not involving the most partial people they can find, ie the wronged party. They have absolutely no relevance to the justice system, it's not about revenge.
|
You are just thinking in the wrong frame of mind. I'm not after fair compensation. I'm saying if the family of the murdered child wish for the murderer to be executed, I don't believe you should deny them that.
No. The judicial system should be impartial. Neither the victim(s) nor the perpetrator(s) should have any say in the verdict. How can you even believe they should have a say? That would only lead to punishments blown way out of proportion. The system is for punishment and rehabilitation (if possible), not for fulfilling sick desires of vengeance.
No one has the right to take another person's life.
|
On May 26 2013 03:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:The perpetrator might be a right-wing radical angry at the legalization of gay marriage in France and deciding to do a copycat attack, emotions in the French far-right are running very high over that right now. Or he could be a Muslim. But I'd be willing to bet a lot that this is ideologically driven no matter what the ideology, I think the "it's crazies" argument needs to be put to rest. It seems like it's never people who are actually mentally ill.
As much as I dislike the far right, it's almost certainly not them.
The victim (thankfully still alive) has already confirmed that he was attacked because he was a military soldier.
http://www.bfmtv.com/societe/paris-un-militaire-poignarde-quartier-defense-522752.html
|
On May 26 2013 05:30 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:25 sc4k wrote:On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
What if an 80 year old with terminal cancer murders a 10 year old? They're dying anyway. Is that person's life fair compensation? You are just thinking in the wrong frame of mind. I'm not after fair compensation. I'm saying if the family of the murdered child wish for the murderer to be executed, I don't believe you should deny them that. On May 26 2013 05:19 Jormundr wrote:
As for part 2:
You're wrong on pretty much all counts. Justified vengeance is a contradiction. The victim's family gets revenge. The accused family gets wronged. That is not justice.
And holy shit you can't honestly think that ordering someone dead isn't a likely recipe for further revenge. I fail to see how the accused family gets wronged, Jormundr. If their family member murdered someone in cold blood, what are they expecting? I do accept your final argument. Potentially, people might blame you for choosing the execution option rather than jail. But then that would be your choice - how much do you want the killer of your loved one to be executed. I wouldn't take that choice away from the victim's family. The family of the accused gets wronged because some pissed off motherfucker gets to decide whether or not their family member gets to live.
The family of the accused? Let me get this straight. If you murder somebody and are convicted in court you are "the accused" and if you are the family member of someone who get's murdered you are "a pissed off mother fucker". That's pretty damn insensitive..I don't think that the family should get to decide whether or not the person has the death penalty but I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
