|
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 08:44 kmillz 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. I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence.
Why do you think this?
|
On May 26 2013 08:44 kmillz 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. 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.
Since you obviously didn't read the discussion before you decided to pick a line out and argue against it, no.
"once a decision is approved to arrest a suspect, or bind him over for trial, either by a prosecutor issuing an information, a grand jury issuing a true bill or indictment, or a judge issuing an arrest warrant, the suspect can then be properly called a defendant, or the accused.
Only after being convicted is the suspect properly called the perpetrator (or murderer)"
I'm specifically talking about a person during the course of a trial. This is because he never got around to when this victim judging would occur (logically I would put it at either the beginning or end of a trial). In both cases, accused works. Perpetrator/murderer only works for labeling if they flip the the life/death coin after conviction.
As for pissed off motherfucker, what words would you use to accurately describe the emotional state of the relatives while also exhibiting their likeliness to engage in logical, moral conduct?
Not too worried about my hypothetical insensitivity.
|
On May 26 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 08:44 kmillz 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. I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence. Why do you think this?
If we are willing to consider all mitigating factors (such as if the perpetrator was abused, mental problems, etc..) we must also consider the exacerbating ones (like if a father was killed and the widowed mother must now raise her kids alone for example)
|
On May 26 2013 09:47 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 08:44 kmillz 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. I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence. Why do you think this? If we are willing to consider all mitigating factors (such as if the perpetrator was abused, mental problems, etc..) we must also consider the exacerbating ones (like if a father was killed and the widowed mother must now raise her kids alone for example)
Not really. The reason we consider abuse/mental problems is because it affects the perpetrator's ability to make decisions, not because we feel pity for him/her.
|
On May 26 2013 10:02 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:47 kmillz wrote:On May 26 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 08:44 kmillz 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. I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence. Why do you think this? If we are willing to consider all mitigating factors (such as if the perpetrator was abused, mental problems, etc..) we must also consider the exacerbating ones (like if a father was killed and the widowed mother must now raise her kids alone for example) Not really. The reason we consider abuse/mental problems is because it affects the perpetrator's ability to make decisions, not because we feel pity for him/her.
Although the circumstances he mentioned would probably be very pertinent to a followup civil suit.
|
On May 26 2013 10:06 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:02 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 09:47 kmillz wrote:On May 26 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 08:44 kmillz 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. I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence. Why do you think this? If we are willing to consider all mitigating factors (such as if the perpetrator was abused, mental problems, etc..) we must also consider the exacerbating ones (like if a father was killed and the widowed mother must now raise her kids alone for example) Not really. The reason we consider abuse/mental problems is because it affects the perpetrator's ability to make decisions, not because we feel pity for him/her. Although the circumstances he mentioned would probably be very pertinent to a followup civil suit.
For sure. But the point of criminal prosecution is to deal with the criminal viz. society and his rights + crime, not the emotions of the victim, which are often irrational.
|
On May 26 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 08:44 kmillz 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. I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence. Why do you think this?
Possibly because at the end of the day victims of crime are people and how injured they were by the crime is relevant to sentencing. Aggravating circumstances are just as valid as mitigating circumstances.
Justice is not just impersonal and it is not supposed to be either. Justice is supposed to be first and foremost for the victims. Not vengeance which is something different.
|
This is confusing as well. Have we reached that point in society already?
|
On May 26 2013 10:07 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:06 Jormundr wrote:On May 26 2013 10:02 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 09:47 kmillz wrote:On May 26 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 08:44 kmillz 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. I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence. Why do you think this? If we are willing to consider all mitigating factors (such as if the perpetrator was abused, mental problems, etc..) we must also consider the exacerbating ones (like if a father was killed and the widowed mother must now raise her kids alone for example) Not really. The reason we consider abuse/mental problems is because it affects the perpetrator's ability to make decisions, not because we feel pity for him/her. Although the circumstances he mentioned would probably be very pertinent to a followup civil suit. For sure. But the point of criminal prosecution is to deal with the criminal viz. society and his rights + crime, not the emotions of the victim, which are often irrational.
The example I gave had nothing to do with emotions, it had to do with factual repercussions the family has to cope with because of the crime committed against them. I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure these are actually taken into consideration during the sentencing process (in the U.S. anyway)
|
On May 26 2013 10:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 08:44 kmillz 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. I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence. Why do you think this? Possibly because at the end of the day victims of crime are people and how injured they were by the crime is relevant to sentencing. Aggravating circumstances are just as valid as mitigating circumstances. Justice is not just impersonal and it is not supposed to be either. Justice is supposed to be first and foremost for the victims. Not vengeance which is something different.
But saying that a death penalty in the name of justice would be satisfying the justicefeelings of a victim family is a false conclusion.
Over the years many have pronounced that an execution is the way that survivors of
murder will be healed. They say, “The death penalty is for the victims.” That is not
my experience. Grieving and healing are lifelong processes with no shortcuts.
Quote from a victim
source
|
On May 26 2013 11:26 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 26 2013 09:01 Shiori wrote:On May 26 2013 08:44 kmillz 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. I do think that their testimony to how the tragedy impacts their lives is crucial for the jury to determine the sentence. Why do you think this? Possibly because at the end of the day victims of crime are people and how injured they were by the crime is relevant to sentencing. Aggravating circumstances are just as valid as mitigating circumstances. Justice is not just impersonal and it is not supposed to be either. Justice is supposed to be first and foremost for the victims. Not vengeance which is something different. But saying that a death penalty in the name of justice would be satisfying the justicefeelings of a victim family is a false conclusion. Show nested quote +Over the years many have pronounced that an execution is the way that survivors of
murder will be healed. They say, “The death penalty is for the victims.” That is not
my experience. Grieving and healing are lifelong processes with no shortcuts. Quote from a victim source
That's a nice anecdote, so what? So that means nobody experiences closure/relief when the person who ruined their lives gets the death penalty?
|
|
|
|
|
How could there be 3 soldiers one of them gets stabbed and they don't stop the guy o.o.
It said they were patrolling so I assume they were armed.
|
But saying that a death penalty in the name of justice would be satisfying the justicefeelings of a victim family is a false conclusion.
I think what you meant to say is that arguing that the death penalty is justice because it satisfies the feelings of a victim's family is a false conclusion. And you would be right. Execution by the state has to be done, if it is to be done, for reasons that meet a broader and higher standard.
|
On May 26 2013 12:29 tokicheese wrote:How could there be 3 soldiers one of them gets stabbed and they don't stop the guy o.o. It said they were patrolling so I assume they were armed.
I guess the attacker was smart and used surprise. He probably walked up behind the last soldier, stabbed him in the neck and then legged it. That would not take very long to carry out such an ambush. The two remaining soldiers would have probably been torn between chasing the attacker, watching for more attackers and helping their injured colleague. Indecision of only a few seconds could be enough to lose the attacker in a crowd.
|
On May 26 2013 22:45 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 12:29 tokicheese wrote:How could there be 3 soldiers one of them gets stabbed and they don't stop the guy o.o. It said they were patrolling so I assume they were armed. I guess the attacker was smart and used surprise. He probably walked up behind the last soldier, stabbed him in the neck and then legged it. That would not take very long to carry out such an ambush. The two remaining soldiers would have probably been torn between chasing the attacker, watching for more attackers and helping their injured colleague. Indecision of only a few seconds could be enough to lose the attacker in a crowd.
I actually see these 3 man patrols quite often whenever I take the train.
What you described is probably what happened because they sometimes walk in a line (not line abreast) so that the last one can see the first two but no one sees the last one. Which buys the attacker just enough time to leg it.
Also I don't see a soldier starting to shoot his assault rifle in the middle of a crowded train station (or wherever they were at that time).
|
There is a fundamental problem with islam in Europe and the west in general, first terrorist attacks, Islamic rape gangs, Sharia zones and now even beheading of soldiers by islamic Jihadists, meanwhile the Islamic community does very litlte to report on them.
There is only one solution, massive de naturalisation and deportation of these thugs. Take choudry in the UK for instance who calls for Sharia and 2nd rate status of Christians he should be deported without a trial they are using Europe's own rules and laws against it.
Europe is Europe, if you want to follow a old and backwards religion of Islam ( lets admit Islam is) then you have to conform to the modern age, woman rights, homosexual rights etc. have to be accepted.
Europe in 2050? More like Eurabia,
|
On May 26 2013 05:44 EchoZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:37 ihufa wrote:
Wow that's how fked up islam can get u,, nice religion Every religion has fanatics.
Its just Islam has far more of them. could you link me the Christian / Buddist and Hindu terrorist attacks this week?
2013.05.26 (Pattani, Thailand) - Muslim 'separatists' shoot a 44-year-old woman several times in the chest.
2013.05.25 (Samarrah, Iraq) - Seven Shia pilgrims on a bus are sent straight to Allah by Sunni bombers.
2013.05.25 (Makhachkala, Dagestan) - Children are among the casualties when a female suicide bomber detonates in a public square.
2013.05.24 (Kabul, Afghanistan) - Fedayeen attack a humanitarian aid office, killing a 6-year-old child and three others.
2013.05.24 (Peshawar, Pakistan) - Two other people are killed when a suicide bomber targets a rival cleric.
2013.05.24 (Pattani, Thailand) - Muslim 'separatists' murder five security personnel with a roadside bomb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
