|
quoted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7708398.stm
+ Show Spoiler +Two men have been found guilty of causing or allowing the death of a 17-month-old boy. The child's mother had already admitted allowing or causing the child's death.
The trial highlighted a catalogue of missed opportunities to save his life and the case has chilling echoes of the death of Victoria Climbie. Baby P's clothes The boy's mother denied knowing anything about bloodstains
On 2 August 2007 police announced they were dropping an investigation into allegations of child abuse they had launched the previous December.
Baby P's mother was elated and told social workers she would go home to hug her son and bake cakes.
The next morning he was dead.
Baby P, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was pronounced dead shortly after midday on 3 August at the North Middlesex Hospital in Edmonton, north London.
But it was already clear when an ambulance arrived at his Tottenham home 45 minutes earlier that he had been dead for some time.
His mother described him in her 999 call as "blue, cold and stiff." In his short life he had suffered repeated - and unexplained - injuries.
The post-mortem examination revealed Baby P had suffered:
• Eight broken ribs and a broken back, with another area of bleeding around the spine at neck level.
• Numerous bruises, cuts and abrasions, including a deep tear to his left ear lobe, which had been pulled away from his head.
• Severe lacerations to the top of his head, including a large gouge which could have been caused by a dog bite.
• Blackened finger- and toenails, with several nails missing; the middle finger of his right hand was without a nail and its tip was also missing, as if it had been sliced off.
• A tear to his fraenulum, the strip of skin between the middle of the upper lip and the gum, which had partially healed.
• One of his front teeth had also been knocked out and was found in his colon. He had swallowed it.
The jury was not shown photographs of the child's actual injuries because it would be too upsetting but was shown computer generated images of his injuries. Baby P's head injuries, as recreated on a graphical representation The jury were shown computer generated images of Baby P's injuries
His mother, who is now 27, told her GP in September 2006 that her son "bruises easily" and she was worried she might be accused of hurting him.
The following month she returned to see Dr Jerome Iqwueke and explained away bruises on the child, saying he had fallen down the stairs the day before.
On 11 December 2006 Dr Iqwueke saw the child again and noticed more bruises, none of which the mother could adequately explain.
He immediately referred Baby P to paediatric specialists at the Whittington Hospital, where doctors concluded the marks suggested non-accidental injury.
Haringey social services were notified, Baby P was put on the child protection register and a police investigation began.
Five days later he was released into the care of Angela Godfrey, a close friend of the mother.
At the end of January 2007 social services decided to return Baby P to the family home.
Dr Heather Mackinnon, the paediatric consultant in charge of Baby P's care at the Whittington, said she had been unable to attend various case conferences concerning him but had made her report available.
'Systemic failure'
She said she would not have supported returning the child to his family.
She also said she did not receive the minutes of any of the meetings until after Baby P's death eight months later - something she described as "clearly a systemic failure".
Dr Mackinnon said many of those involved in the case felt sorry for the mother and she said there was "a collective thinking that this was more likely to be neglect rather than deliberate injury - which was not my view".
The police officer investigating the suspected abuse, Detective Constable Angela Slade, said she had also been opposed to Baby P returning to the family home because her investigation had not been completed.
But she said she was told by social services the mother was working well with them and a delay in returning would affect the re-integration of the family.
Social services had also been given assurances - which proved worthless - that the mother was living alone and there was no man in the house who could have inflicted the injuries.
During the trial the mother admitted this was a lie. Victoria Climbie The death of Baby P has chilling echoes of the Victoria Climbie case
The court heard that her 32-year-old boyfriend, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was frequently left in charge of Baby P and the first injuries coincided with his growing involvement in the household.
Baby P was taken to hospital twice more, in April and June 2007, with unexplained cuts and bruises.
The mother lied to social worker Maria Ward that she was away, which delayed a home visit for another six weeks.
When Ms Ward saw Baby P for the last time, a few days before his death, she found him sitting in his buggy, with a sore ear, a gauze over his finger and chocolate smeared over his face and hands.
Two prosecution witnesses claimed the mother and boyfriend had deliberately spread the chocolate on his face to hide bruises.
Baby P's final two weeks of life were marked by an escalation of the violence against him.
On 25 July Dr Iqwueke received a call from the mother, requesting his help to get social services "off her back".
When she brought the child in the following day the doctor noticed he was "withdrawn" and avoided contact.
'Miserable and cranky'
The prosecution claimed the child's back and ribs would have been broken before 1 August, when his mother took him to a child development clinic at St Ann's Hospital where he was seen by Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat.
In a police interview Dr Al-Zayyat said she had been unable to carry out a full physical examination because he was "miserable and cranky".
But in court she said Baby P only cried for a minute or so before she began her physical examination and he was in the room with her for over an hour.
Asked why she apparently changed her evidence she replied that the police had not asked her the right question at the time.
Dr Al-Zayyat denied his back could have been broken when she saw him.
It emerged during the trial that the mother had been placed on a parenting course, had been given stair gates, a fireplace guard and, even, shortly before his death, an offer of a seaside holiday.
This is not the first time Haringey social services has come under the spotlight.
In February 2000 eight-year-old Victoria Climbie was killed in Tottenham after a number of failings by Haringey social services and other agencies.
'I feel betrayed'
The public inquiry that followed, headed by Lord Laming, criticised the lack of communication between the different agencies and suggested an overhaul of child protection guidelines.
But Mor Dioum, director of the Victoria Climbie Foundation, says the lessons have not been learned: "I strongly believe this case is worse than Victoria Climbie.
"Personally I do feel betrayed by the agencies. Given the government's extensive reforms of the child protection system I never though I'd live to see another case so similar to Victoria Climbie. For the sake of public interest we ought to have a wider inquiry into this case to identify the mistakes made."
EDIT: Summary: A mother and her boyfriend essentially beat the SHIT out of the mother's 19 month old baby over a period of time. We're talking serious injuries -- 9 broken ribs, a broken back, etc. They couldn't even show the jury a picture of the baby because it would be too "upsetting." Social services was involved multiple times and didn't find problems until the baby was 2 days dead.
There are more updates on the trial at bbc.co.uk/news
|
Can somebody summarize please? I just can't fucking stand bullet-style news reports. It drives me insane.
|
That's just fucking sick man, I don't know how one could even do that to another human being. I can't think about a penalty that would serve those who did it right... Just sick ...
|
Ah the baby P thing, not good... Over 60 visits and they didn't notice anything, fucking retarded social workers.
|
Wow what a disgusting thing to do. The head doctor lady bitch fucked up bad too. What an excuse maker! She blames "the system", your the -head fucking doctor- it's your job to be the system. What a terrible read
|
I read this is the newspaper yesterday, summarized i think the babys mom??? and her boyfriend killed a 17 month old baby, even after social services or child protection or w/e checking there and saying everything was ok, the injuries are pretty disgusting and i really wonder what wonders through peoples minds to do something like this :\
|
|
On November 17 2008 02:41 Romance_us wrote: Can somebody summarize please? I just can't fucking stand bullet-style news reports. It drives me insane.
Yeah I edited the post
|
Wow. Not something I needed to read shortly after waking up.
|
group on facebook was created about this to get the social workers sacked
|
Omfg, this is ridiculous.
|
Does the UK have capital punishment?
|
United States13896 Posts
On November 17 2008 02:45 MiniRoman wrote: Wow what a disgusting thing to do. The head doctor lady bitch fucked up bad too. What an excuse maker! She blames "the system", your the -head fucking doctor- it's your job to be the system. What a terrible read Yes, but both parties are at fault here. Obviously it's the mothers fault for letting this happen, but it's inexcusable that the social workers and doctors were so negligent in their handling of this case. If they had been doing their job at an adequate level they could have easily seen that the kid was being abused and should have been removed from the parent's custody. This was 100% avoidable and the social workers screwed up bigtime.
|
Damn you TL..you and your depressive threads.
|
This makes me so angry.
This is totally offtopic, but last week I read an article in the newspaper about a girl in Somalia who was stoned to death for premarital sex after she went to report that she had been raped by three men.
As if that in itself wouldn't be disturbing enough, the stoning took place in a stadium in front of ~1000 ppl.; the girl was buried in the ground so only her head stuck out and stoned; after a couple of minutes what was left was dug out, but nurses, who went to check, found out that she was still alive.
So she was buried again and stoned until she was dead. When people in the crowd protested, the bystanding milita fired into the crowd, killing an 8 yo. boy.
Sometimes I wonder in what kind of world we are living in ...
|
Worse than death? Easy. Put them in front of the American media for a few weeks, then put them in an American prison. They will be torn apart.
|
On November 17 2008 02:58 poilord wrote: This makes me so angry.
This is totally offtopic, but last week I read an article in the newspaper about a girl in Somalia who was stoned to death for premarital sex after she went to report that she had been raped by three men.
[...]
Sometimes I wonder in what kind of world we are living in ...
happens in iraq (iran?) too for being gay, premarital sex and stuff. those death penalities r around for some while in some countries. but ye, very different rituals and laws they have, hard to understand with our ethics and western background.
can the op please use spoiler for this endless text, thank u
|
On November 17 2008 02:56 Rayzorblade wrote:Does the UK have capital punishment?  No, it was abolished in 1969. Too extreme apparently.
|
On November 17 2008 02:50 DownMaxX wrote:Wow. Not something I needed to read shortly after waking up.  Ugh yeah, now my day is going to be all fucked up.
|
Is it me or does this article read like it was written by someone in grade 8? Anyway, this is pretty fucked up. I'm glad Britain doesn't have the death penalty so scum like the mother and her boyfriend can rot in jail and be reminded of how fucked up they are every day of their miserable lives.
This was a computer generated image of what the baby's head looked like, and was shown to the jury...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
i think the most important thing to note is that children service actually went to their house for a couple of occasion and fail to do anything. you have to wonder whats the point to even pay a visit, or hire one of these staff.
|
On November 17 2008 03:22 Masamune wrote:Is it me or does this article read like it was written by someone in grade 8? Anyway, this is pretty fucked up. I'm glad Britain doesn't have the death penalty so scum like the mother and her boyfriend can rot in jail and be reminded of how fucked up they are every day of their miserable lives. This was a computer generated image of what the baby's head looked like, and was shown to the jury... + Show Spoiler + Wow thats fucked up.
|
The severity of a crime shouldn't make the death penalty justifiable, getting emotional in these cases is only going to lead to stupid decisions.
Yes, beating up a baby is not cool, we all know this but what really pisses me off is when a bunch of vigilantes go out on a witch hunt to persecute a criminal. I wish people wouldn't be such sheep. No they don't deserve the death penalty get a grip.
|
why the fuck would anyone beat their own kid? wow holy crap just how?
|
what justifies death penalty?
|
Oh god, that's extremely disturbing.
|
On November 17 2008 03:30 pyrogenetix wrote: why the fuck would anyone beat anyone, let alone a kid
|
On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? When you think about it death penalty is more humane than life in prison.
|
On November 17 2008 04:58 Rygasm wrote:When you think about it death penalty is more humane than life in prison. you think this way up until you do get death penalty.
|
On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? Nothing, revenge should not be part of any legal system. Prevention of further crimes is an issue, but killing should only only necessary, if no other methods are available, like for example in an act of self-defense.
|
Whats is more important is profiling these parents to be able to detect the threat in future cases. Find out what went on inside their heads. And review the ineffective methods of the social workers and make up better protocols and training.
As for the parents sterilise them. Don't let them have any more kids. Neither of them. Just skip the anestetics and painkillers.
|
On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens.
If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell.
|
On November 17 2008 05:04 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 04:58 Rygasm wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? When you think about it death penalty is more humane than life in prison. you think this way up until you do get death penalty. Just because i wouldn't want to die if sentenced with the death penalty that wouldn't change that its more humane than life in prison
|
How is playing god and deciding to take the life of another human being more humane than making them responsible for their crimes?
At least when you put someone in jail, you allow them to live, except away from society where they can potentially harm others.
|
This is frikkin sick, just incomprehensible. I couldn't even read through the whole post after reading what they did to the kid. Just unbelievable things.
|
On November 17 2008 05:24 Rygasm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 05:04 Sfydjklm wrote:On November 17 2008 04:58 Rygasm wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? When you think about it death penalty is more humane than life in prison. you think this way up until you do get death penalty. Just because i wouldn't want to die if sentenced with the death penalty that wouldn't change that its more humane than life in prison
Your argument lacks any kind of substance and doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of any kind of educated or intelligent debate on the death penalty. You do not attempt to even define humane. I imagine your argument is "it's what I believe, I don't have to justify it to you," which is fine, but also means you can't try to push it on others.
|
I wrote a poem about killing a baby for my friend who hates babies... Now I feel kinda bad.
|
That was such a disgusting read. How can you blame anyone but yourself in this situation? How can you not even suspect anything? Not that I was there, so fine, I shouldn't judge. But.. well.. can't help but judging anyway.
Retarded.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On November 17 2008 05:16 Clutch3 wrote:Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens. If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell. hopefully working 16 hours/day productively to repay society a small part of what they took from society; prisons wouldn't be that full if u knew it meant 16 hours work/daily while u were in them...
|
How about we give criminals a choice, and then do the opposite?
|
On November 17 2008 02:56 []p4NDemik[] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 02:45 MiniRoman wrote: Wow what a disgusting thing to do. The head doctor lady bitch fucked up bad too. What an excuse maker! She blames "the system", your the -head fucking doctor- it's your job to be the system. What a terrible read Yes, but both parties are at fault here. Obviously it's the mothers fault for letting this happen, but it's inexcusable that the social workers and doctors were so negligent in their handling of this case. If they had been doing their job at an adequate level they could have easily seen that the kid was being abused and should have been removed from the parent's custody. This was 100% avoidable and the social workers screwed up bigtime.
Well the mother let it happen, the article says she was a liar when she said she didn't know what was wrong with the baby. Thats so sad for the baby, how could anybody beat up one?
|
On November 17 2008 02:58 poilord wrote: This makes me so angry.
This is totally offtopic, but last week I read an article in the newspaper about a girl in Somalia who was stoned to death for premarital sex after she went to report that she had been raped by three men.
As if that in itself wouldn't be disturbing enough, the stoning took place in a stadium in front of ~1000 ppl.; the girl was buried in the ground so only her head stuck out and stoned; after a couple of minutes what was left was dug out, but nurses, who went to check, found out that she was still alive.
So she was buried again and stoned until she was dead. When people in the crowd protested, the bystanding milita fired into the crowd, killing an 8 yo. boy.
Sometimes I wonder in what kind of world we are living in ...
It's a VERY FUCKED UP world, and there are actually stories far worse than the stoning incident up there.
Edit: Fire the social workers for being idiots, Let the two monsters rot in jail
|
United States24680 Posts
In my opinion this shouldn't be about punishing people for being evil. People who do terrible things like this (the beating etc) are very sick. Very very sick. They aren't 'evil' per say... and what we need to do isn't 'make them pay' for what they did but rather deal with the fact that they are capable of and have done it (meaning make sure this never happens again). Whether they are alive, or kept in holding is a separate matter, and can be discussed independently of what actually occurred here.
|
|
On November 17 2008 06:54 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 05:16 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens. If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell. hopefully working 16 hours/day productively and repay society a small part of what they took; prisons wouldn't be that full if u knew it meant 16 hours work/daily while u were in them... Good point. 
However, the way the economy's going, maybe we'll need all the jobs we can get. Don't let those inmates take em.
|
GODDAM
|
Gotta find a puke bucket, brb.
|
On November 17 2008 02:58 poilord wrote: This makes me so angry.
This is totally offtopic, but last week I read an article in the newspaper about a girl in Somalia who was stoned to death for premarital sex after she went to report that she had been raped by three men.
As if that in itself wouldn't be disturbing enough, the stoning took place in a stadium in front of ~1000 ppl.; the girl was buried in the ground so only her head stuck out and stoned; after a couple of minutes what was left was dug out, but nurses, who went to check, found out that she was still alive.
So she was buried again and stoned until she was dead. When people in the crowd protested, the bystanding milita fired into the crowd, killing an 8 yo. boy.
Sometimes I wonder in what kind of world we are living in ...
Yeah I heard about this too. Twisted shit
|
Should put them in a dark room for the rest of their life and throw away the key.
|
i really hope they electrocute them, lethal injection is to good for them.
i cant believe those social workers can be so retarded and ignorant.
|
It's just too bad we live in such a corrupt world. There is never enough justice done to these people.
|
How the doctor failed to notice that he had a broken back when she visited him the last time appalls and astounds me. I agree with the Sun in saying that every person involved should lose their job and never be allowed to work in social services again. Death penalty for the two killers plz imo.
|
Beating up a 19 months old child like that. IMO, to kill them in the worst possible way is NOT considered as revenge, it is justice.
I know there's such a thing call basic human right. But these people behave such inhumanly so they don't deserve to be treated as human anymore.
|
this is just sad. the mother ... wow.
|
|
On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty?
In my opinion nothing does.
|
On November 17 2008 08:35 HamerD wrote: How the doctor failed to notice that he had a broken back when she visited him the last time appalls and astounds me. I agree with the Sun in saying that every person involved should lose their job and never be allowed to work in social services again. Death penalty for the two killers plz imo.
Is everyone a doctor here or something? How would YOU notice a broken back? This is not an adult who is telling him his back hurts. This is not something as straightforward as you make it out to be.
Retards like you who go on uninformed witch hunts are just as sad as the people who commit these crimes, show some goddamn restraint, you can't make an informed opinion about the jobs of these people based on some bullet points. Are investigations a thing of the past or something? Laws exist to keep criminals in jail, but they also exist to keep people like you from setting us back to the middle ages.
|
it disgusts me how we try and set up systems to protect against the very situations such as this, only to fail at the incompetence of those in power. i get the feeling that the social workers/doctors involved simply did not care, or chose not to care, or pretended everything was fine when they knew it was not. they by all rights should lose their jobs, but the realist in me says they will keep on working without consequence. depressing.
|
I don't agree with they should get the death penalty because it's the easy way out. Instead, they should receive life imprisonment in solitary confinement without the possibility of parole. That seems more like justice to me. Rotting in prison is similar to the death penalty except that you die much more slowly.
|
On November 17 2008 09:33 Frits wrote:In my opinion nothing does.
Yeah, well, you're wrong and you are exactly whats wrong with this world, letting criminals get away with murder. Ridiculous. In situations like this it is justified.
|
On November 17 2008 10:09 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 09:33 Frits wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? In my opinion nothing does. Yeah, well, you're wrong and you are exactly whats wrong with this world, letting criminals get away with murder. Ridiculous. In situations like this it is justified.
Frits is certainly not what´s wrong with this world, get a grip on yourself. Yeah it´s horrible, and yes, I am angry, too.
|
that is just fucking sick, they deserve to be fucking burned at a stake, who the fuck could do something like this to a child i have no fucking idea but they should be fucking tortured to death.
|
god, i still cant get over how sick this is making me, I want to kill these people.
|
On November 17 2008 10:09 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 09:33 Frits wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? In my opinion nothing does. Yeah, well, you're wrong and you are exactly whats wrong with this world, letting criminals get away with murder. Ridiculous. In situations like this it is justified.
You're saying that in lawful judgement revenge should be a factor, that's silly unless you want to live in a society where 'an eye for an eye' becomes the norm.
And how is life imprisonment letting someone get away with murder. Getting away with it implies not getting caught, which is irrelevant to it's punishment.
|
On November 17 2008 05:16 Clutch3 wrote:Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens. If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell.
No they shouldnt, they make the goverment spend huge amounts of money just to maintain them alive by giving them food, they should die, more cheaper, besides, killers like these, rapers and so on SHOULD die, there are many complications that follow up for example a rape...
This woman and her boyfriend are FUCKED up they should be the ones beated to death, worhtless human beings they are!! god im so pissed!!
|
On November 17 2008 10:38 PaeZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 05:16 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens. If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell. No they shouldnt, they make the goverment spend huge amounts of money just to maintain them alive by giving them food, they should die, more cheaper, besides, killers like these, rapers and so on SHOULD die, there are many complications that follow up for example a rape... This woman and her boyfriend are FUCKED up they should be the ones beated to death, worhtless human beings they are!! god im so pissed!!
Way to be uninformed, a death penalty costs way more money than life imprisonment.
Also if you stopped raging for a second you would realize that you want someone to die simply because it costs money to let them live, you are disgusting.
|
On November 17 2008 09:37 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 08:35 HamerD wrote: How the doctor failed to notice that he had a broken back when she visited him the last time appalls and astounds me. I agree with the Sun in saying that every person involved should lose their job and never be allowed to work in social services again. Death penalty for the two killers plz imo. Is everyone a doctor here or something? How would YOU notice a broken back? This is not an adult who is telling him his back hurts. This is not something as straightforward as you make it out to be. Retards like you who go on uninformed witch hunts are just as sad as the people who commit these crimes, show some goddamn restraint, you can't make an informed opinion about the jobs of these people based on some bullet points. Are investigations a thing of the past or something? Laws exist to keep criminals in jail, but they also exist to keep people like you from setting us back to the middle ages. Watch what you say about other people when u base ur opinion urself on ignorance. Broken back should be generally easy to spot because it limits motor functions, and babies have a certain motor function development requirements lack of which should warrant a physical
|
On November 17 2008 10:44 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 09:37 Frits wrote:On November 17 2008 08:35 HamerD wrote: How the doctor failed to notice that he had a broken back when she visited him the last time appalls and astounds me. I agree with the Sun in saying that every person involved should lose their job and never be allowed to work in social services again. Death penalty for the two killers plz imo. Is everyone a doctor here or something? How would YOU notice a broken back? This is not an adult who is telling him his back hurts. This is not something as straightforward as you make it out to be. Retards like you who go on uninformed witch hunts are just as sad as the people who commit these crimes, show some goddamn restraint, you can't make an informed opinion about the jobs of these people based on some bullet points. Are investigations a thing of the past or something? Laws exist to keep criminals in jail, but they also exist to keep people like you from setting us back to the middle ages. Watch what you say about other people when u base ur opinion urself on ignorance. Broken back should be generally easy to spot because it limits motor functions, and babies have a certain motor function development requirements lack of which should warrant a physical
What Im saying is that maybe we should let a doctor be the judge of that.
|
I would like to point out the stupidity of saying that life in prison is worse than the death penalty.
It is not difficult at all to kill ones self in almost any situation. People on death row do not kill themselves, they fight as hard as they can to avoid the death penalty. If life in prison was worse than the death penalty we would have no one serving life in prison because they would give themselves the death penalty.
I would like to know where some people get this ridiculous notion that there is something worse than death? In any case if life in prison is worse than the death penalty then if it is not justifiable to support the death penalty it can't be justifiable to support life in prison.
People in prison get fed and have shelter for nothing. All they have to really worry about is whether or not some other hardened criminal will kill them. Obviously if they are worried about that they must prefer life to death.
Obviously prison isn't a great place to be, but every prisoner has a choice and the vast majority don't choose the death penalty.
This should be so fucking obvious that it really hurts to have to say this.
|
On November 17 2008 11:38 evandi wrote: I would like to point out the stupidity of saying that life in prison is worse than the death penalty.
It is not difficult at all to kill ones self in almost any situation. People on death row do not kill themselves, they fight as hard as they can to avoid the death penalty. If life in prison was worse than the death penalty we would have no one serving life in prison because they would give themselves the death penalty.
I would like to know where some people get this ridiculous notion that there is something worse than death? In any case if life in prison is worse than the death penalty then if it is not justifiable to support the death penalty it can't be justifiable to support life in prison.
People in prison get fed and have shelter for nothing. All they have to really worry about is whether or not some other hardened criminal will kill them. Obviously if they are worried about that they must prefer life to death.
Obviously prison isn't a great place to be, but every prisoner has a choice and the vast majority don't choose the death penalty.
This should be so fucking obvious that it really hurts to have to say this.
You know there are people who tried to survive even in concentration camps or goulag... Honestly i don't know if it was really worth it when you know that you are doomed, but you know most of the people will try to survive even in harsh living conditions. But there are also people who will commit suicide, and actually suicide rates are quite high in prison 
|
On November 17 2008 11:45 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 11:38 evandi wrote: I would like to point out the stupidity of saying that life in prison is worse than the death penalty.
It is not difficult at all to kill ones self in almost any situation. People on death row do not kill themselves, they fight as hard as they can to avoid the death penalty. If life in prison was worse than the death penalty we would have no one serving life in prison because they would give themselves the death penalty.
I would like to know where some people get this ridiculous notion that there is something worse than death? In any case if life in prison is worse than the death penalty then if it is not justifiable to support the death penalty it can't be justifiable to support life in prison.
People in prison get fed and have shelter for nothing. All they have to really worry about is whether or not some other hardened criminal will kill them. Obviously if they are worried about that they must prefer life to death.
Obviously prison isn't a great place to be, but every prisoner has a choice and the vast majority don't choose the death penalty.
This should be so fucking obvious that it really hurts to have to say this. You know there are people who tried to survive even in concentration camps or goulag... Honestly i don't know if it was really worth it when you know that you are doomed, but you know most of the people will try to survive even in harsh living conditions. But there are also people who will commit suicide, and actually suicide rates are quite high in prison 
Certainly, but "quite high" means extremely rare instead of extremely extremely rare.
|
On November 17 2008 12:05 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 11:45 Boblion wrote:On November 17 2008 11:38 evandi wrote: I would like to point out the stupidity of saying that life in prison is worse than the death penalty.
It is not difficult at all to kill ones self in almost any situation. People on death row do not kill themselves, they fight as hard as they can to avoid the death penalty. If life in prison was worse than the death penalty we would have no one serving life in prison because they would give themselves the death penalty.
I would like to know where some people get this ridiculous notion that there is something worse than death? In any case if life in prison is worse than the death penalty then if it is not justifiable to support the death penalty it can't be justifiable to support life in prison.
People in prison get fed and have shelter for nothing. All they have to really worry about is whether or not some other hardened criminal will kill them. Obviously if they are worried about that they must prefer life to death.
Obviously prison isn't a great place to be, but every prisoner has a choice and the vast majority don't choose the death penalty.
This should be so fucking obvious that it really hurts to have to say this. You know there are people who tried to survive even in concentration camps or goulag... Honestly i don't know if it was really worth it when you know that you are doomed, but you know most of the people will try to survive even in harsh living conditions. But there are also people who will commit suicide, and actually suicide rates are quite high in prison  Certainly, but "quite high" means extremely rare instead of extremely extremely rare.
Suicide rate in prison is really high compared to the suicide rate of the whole population and i think it is true in every country. It isnt extremely rare at all -.-
|
United States10501 Posts
On November 17 2008 11:38 evandi wrote: I would like to point out the stupidity of saying that life in prison is worse than the death penalty.
It is not difficult at all to kill ones self in almost any situation. People on death row do not kill themselves, they fight as hard as they can to avoid the death penalty. If life in prison was worse than the death penalty we would have no one serving life in prison because they would give themselves the death penalty.
I would like to know where some people get this ridiculous notion that there is something worse than death? In any case if life in prison is worse than the death penalty then if it is not justifiable to support the death penalty it can't be justifiable to support life in prison.
People in prison get fed and have shelter for nothing. All they have to really worry about is whether or not some other hardened criminal will kill them. Obviously if they are worried about that they must prefer life to death.
Obviously prison isn't a great place to be, but every prisoner has a choice and the vast majority don't choose the death penalty.
This should be so fucking obvious that it really hurts to have to say this.
If we really want it to argue that it is a choice, people in prison should be offered suicide pills along with their meals. There's a lot of effort put into suicide prevention, and suicide isn't as easy as you'd think.
|
On November 17 2008 09:33 Frits wrote:In my opinion nothing does.
You clearly dont live in a country where there are kidnaps.
Ill enlighten you a bit how it works, the cops in conjunction with criminals stop you in your car, take you by force and kidnap you.
Then they call your family asking to the last penny the entire family has, and just to speed up the process they cut your finger and set it in a nice package to your mom.
You spend 8 months with a blindfold and tied, they cut you and send another 4 fingers just to keep the family scared, you are at the brink of crazyness, and finally the family is able to sell all their properties and belongings, get loans and get in serious debt, everything to gather the millions the kidnappers asked.
The family sends the money, and the kidnappers dont return you, they dont even have the heart to give you a speedy death, they torture you and hang you to instill fear in the next families.
This is not a story i made up, this happened not long ago, and this people dont have the "excuse" of a serial murderer that kills because of a mentall illnes, these are organizations in collusion with the police that do this for money.
Who on earth feels that these people do not deserve to die, seriously i want to know.
|
On November 17 2008 12:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 11:38 evandi wrote: I would like to point out the stupidity of saying that life in prison is worse than the death penalty.
It is not difficult at all to kill ones self in almost any situation. People on death row do not kill themselves, they fight as hard as they can to avoid the death penalty. If life in prison was worse than the death penalty we would have no one serving life in prison because they would give themselves the death penalty.
I would like to know where some people get this ridiculous notion that there is something worse than death? In any case if life in prison is worse than the death penalty then if it is not justifiable to support the death penalty it can't be justifiable to support life in prison.
People in prison get fed and have shelter for nothing. All they have to really worry about is whether or not some other hardened criminal will kill them. Obviously if they are worried about that they must prefer life to death.
Obviously prison isn't a great place to be, but every prisoner has a choice and the vast majority don't choose the death penalty.
This should be so fucking obvious that it really hurts to have to say this. If we really want it to argue that it is a choice, people in prison should be offered suicide pills along with their meals. There's a lot of effort put into suicide prevention, and suicide isn't as easy as you'd think.
Suicide isnt easy? are you stupid, you realize getting acces to a knife in prision is ridiculously easy right? just fucking slit your throat in the middle of the night, oh yeah so hard....
|
On November 17 2008 07:38 Clutch3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 06:54 Physician wrote:On November 17 2008 05:16 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens. If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell. hopefully working 16 hours/day productively and repay society a small part of what they took; prisons wouldn't be that full if u knew it meant 16 hours work/daily while u were in them... Good point.  However, the way the economy's going, maybe we'll need all the jobs we can get. Don't let those inmates take em.  They can "do the jobs Americans won't" then we can finally kick out all the mexicans.
Seriously though, I don't see anything wrong with the death penalty. Society is a sum of its parts: its citizens. The highest transgression an individual can perform against the collective, is to murder its components. I see death penalty as reciprocation; it is a rejection of that person: "return to sender" if you will. Is there some metaphysical reason that society shouldn't implement reciprocation?
|
Everyone is raging so much because they are projecting whatever they are angry about onto the story. Alot of people here have some crazy pent up anger that needs to be addressed. Just remember to control it before you become violent like these scum bags. Logic and emotion (to determine penalty) never mix, especially in cases like this.
|
On November 17 2008 09:37 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 08:35 HamerD wrote: How the doctor failed to notice that he had a broken back when she visited him the last time appalls and astounds me. I agree with the Sun in saying that every person involved should lose their job and never be allowed to work in social services again. Death penalty for the two killers plz imo. Is everyone a doctor here or something? How would YOU notice a broken back? This is not an adult who is telling him his back hurts. This is not something as straightforward as you make it out to be. Retards like you who go on uninformed witch hunts are just as sad as the people who commit these crimes, show some goddamn restraint, you can't make an informed opinion about the jobs of these people based on some bullet points. Are investigations a thing of the past or something? Laws exist to keep criminals in jail, but they also exist to keep people like you from setting us back to the middle ages.
Talk of restraint...you aren't exactly a paragon of that virtue. The fact of the matter is that this council had been under pressure for failing to prevent the previous tragic incident of gross negligence committed towards a child; and should have scrutinized every action involving anything to do with this issue. That I am appalled the doctor who examined the child didn't find a broken back, is worthy of being called a retard? Well fuck you. I'm not in some rage of passion, and of COURSE I am speculating; but why can't I make a statement like that. Jesus, half the fucking world would probably be similarly appalled. The woman could have saved the baby's life, could have found something at least.
And it wasn't necessarily an indictment on her capability or perception, just a statement of my being appalled at the fact. I don't know exactly how difficult it would have been to spot that the baby had a broken back, I'm sure it wasn't jutting out every which way. I would expect though that if the examination had been thorough enough something would have been found.
And can you put a fucking sock in these investigative journalist, devil's advocate, perry mason defense lawyer essays on examining evidence and making informed decisions in issues like this? Why I can't I express a knee-jerk reaction? I don't have the time or the desire to research on the facts on something like this. I've read a few papers and had a few discussions, and from what I've read I've concluded that I think the people involved should all lose their jobs. You can go and defend them, or pile on accusations...why should you or I care. The fact of the fucking matter is that this is forum speculation and nothing I say is important because we aren't making the decisions that matter.
Now as for your concept of the death penalty et al...it would have to be classified as a selfish desire that I want the pair dead. But when it comes down to the cold hard facts of day, this lodger guy is a total menace. There's no way he should be allowed into the public again. Thrown away under lock and key...and that he can get a maximum sentence of less than 20 years is, to me, ridiculous. He will hopefully be slaughtered in prison.
|
Oh my god, this story made me sick. Urgh...
|
What I find most surprising is how fervently you are arguing, with so little care for the specific issue at hand or the expressing of genuine outrage and sadness on behalf of this little toddler. You are just desperate for an argument, spoiling one would say...picking holes and setting up philosophy shop. It's just attention seeking, intellectual masturbation. If this were a discussion, using this case as case study, about the relatively merits of the death penalty and life imprisonment, witch hunting and media hype; then by all means your strident polemics would be welcome. I don't find it sitting well in a thread like this, however. It feels quite wrong to be arguing about it...essentially distracting one from the actual issue and therefore intellectualizing a clearly emotional episode in society. Arguments aren't always necessary in every thread.
|
........
is this a fuckign joke
|
On November 17 2008 13:08 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 07:38 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 06:54 Physician wrote:On November 17 2008 05:16 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens. If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell. hopefully working 16 hours/day productively and repay society a small part of what they took; prisons wouldn't be that full if u knew it meant 16 hours work/daily while u were in them... Good point.  However, the way the economy's going, maybe we'll need all the jobs we can get. Don't let those inmates take em.  They can "do the jobs Americans won't" then we can finally kick out all the mexicans. Seriously though, I don't see anything wrong with the death penalty. Society is a sum of its parts: its citizens. The highest transgression an individual can perform against the collective, is to murder its components. I see death penalty as reciprocation; it is a rejection of that person: "return to sender" if you will. Is there some metaphysical reason that society shouldn't implement reciprocation? Yes, because there is a cheaper, more humane and just as effective a method of punishment or "reciprocation": Life in prison.
|
It's only cheaper because of the current implementation's bulky appeals process, which can stall punishment for ~20 years.
As far as it being "inhumane": If it could somehow be determined that a person warrants capital punishment (the philosophical crux of the matter), a painless lethal injection would of course be more humane than a public stoning. Similar to how we differentiate humane and inhumane procedures for livestock culling.
My question was about merit, so countering with implementation details is inappropriate. It would be better to simply say that you don't think a person could ever merit having their life ended, regardless of their actions. Then we could debate that.
|
What if it wasn't their fault. What if they were neglected as a child and this is the reason why they lash out. What if society created their personality that urged them to do it?
|
Wow, that is pretty sickening. Rest in peace, baby Protoss.
|
wtf.....
wth is wrong w/ those fukin ppl??! jeez man... holy crap wat kind fo a sick fukin mother is that??!
omg...
On November 17 2008 13:55 HumbleZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 13:08 HeadBangaa wrote:On November 17 2008 07:38 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 06:54 Physician wrote:On November 17 2008 05:16 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens. If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell. hopefully working 16 hours/day productively and repay society a small part of what they took; prisons wouldn't be that full if u knew it meant 16 hours work/daily while u were in them... Good point.  However, the way the economy's going, maybe we'll need all the jobs we can get. Don't let those inmates take em.  They can "do the jobs Americans won't" then we can finally kick out all the mexicans. Seriously though, I don't see anything wrong with the death penalty. Society is a sum of its parts: its citizens. The highest transgression an individual can perform against the collective, is to murder its components. I see death penalty as reciprocation; it is a rejection of that person: "return to sender" if you will. Is there some metaphysical reason that society shouldn't implement reciprocation? Yes, because there is a cheaper, more humane and just as effective a method of punishment or "reciprocation": Life in prison.
i personally think prison makes them suffer more than death penalty....
maybe they can be like u r under death penalty and then on the day be like HA WE GOT U
u r going to life in prison... heh that would mess w/ their heads
EDIT:
On November 17 2008 16:48 stanley_ wrote: What if it wasn't their fault. What if they were neglected as a child and this is the reason why they lash out. What if society created their personality that urged them to do it?
how is it not their fault? they did it?? remember the world decided taht WE are responcible for OUR own actions... hence the nazi trials... they claimed they were just following orders... but ultimately it was them who carried it out and it was their decision and within their power to do it
lot of ppl have hard life since there's so many ppl in the world it's not surprising few will have fuked up lives but that doesn't justify that u cause other ppl misery as well... if anything u should suk it up and make sure that nothing ever happens to others that stuff ath happened to u...
not cause others misery just because u suffered a little....
|
On November 17 2008 10:41 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 10:38 PaeZ wrote:On November 17 2008 05:16 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens. If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell. No they shouldnt, they make the goverment spend huge amounts of money just to maintain them alive by giving them food, they should die, more cheaper, besides, killers like these, rapers and so on SHOULD die, there are many complications that follow up for example a rape... This woman and her boyfriend are FUCKED up they should be the ones beated to death, worhtless human beings they are!! god im so pissed!! Way to be uninformed, a death penalty costs way more money than life imprisonment. Also if you stopped raging for a second you would realize that you want someone to die simply because it costs money to let them live, you are disgusting.
I disagree, people like this are a worthless waste of space, they will never amount to anything and are only hurting our society, if it was more efficiant to have them killed than I would be all for it, they arent worth the air that they breath.
|
How can people be capable of doing this to a baby?
This really brought tears to my eyes...
I mean.. Not that I am intentionally cruel but I would torture those people so bad that they would hate the day their mothers gazed their fathers...
I am simultaneously enraged and so sad that such things happen...
|
On November 17 2008 03:08 HeadBangaa wrote: Worse than death? Easy. Put them in front of the American media for a few weeks, then put them in an American prison. They will be torn apart. Actually this is very true
There's a real pecking order in maximum security prisons partially based, especially initially, on the crime one is convicted of. Although I've never been to prison I'm pretty sure baby abusers/murderers are as bad or worse than pedophiles who are by far the most hated inmates. They generally have to be seperated from the general population during yard/exercise time but the guards could just sort of forget every single day for this special case(although I think they should just let the pedophiles get whats comming to them too).
|
On panorama, a famous and serious British program which finds out as much as possible about things like this; especially in situations where whistleblowers uncover the problems of government; they basically concluded that the main problem was money. Although Haringey council denies it, a whistleblower inside the council says that if a child will cost too much to protect, the council will not outstretch its budget.
The mother is insane...so caught up in love with her boyfriend who (together with the lodger) killed her baby that she basically blocked out anything they were doing to him.
Baby P was on the most severe level of protection before taking him into care, and it was the recommendation of several staff involved with him that baby P be taken into care (ie removed from house). He had in fact been looked after by his mother's friend for awhile, but she either didn't care that he was being beaten when she gave him back; or didn't know. There apparently just was too much paperwork and risk of job to make a fuss about it and get him into care.
Regardless...I am still appalled by the fact that baby P was brought into a clinical check-up, IN a hospital, not just in a home visit; and the doctor examining him; EVEN though the baby refused to move its neck because it hurt, failed to notice 7 cracked ribs and a broken back. That would have saved his life.
The two men who killed baby P are sick and twisted. There are lots of people like them in society but most can control their sadistic urges. The boyfriend had always been sadistic. Panorama interviewed someone who had worked with him, and she said he loved to knock out small animals like frogs, break their bones, then revive them with smelling salts; reveling in what he perceived to be their horror as they woke up.
Really, if it is the case that there is no way to have somebody executed without it costing more than life imprisonment; then they should get life imprisonment. But the biggest outrage is that they are getting 14 years, not even 25.
|
On November 18 2008 21:08 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 03:08 HeadBangaa wrote: Worse than death? Easy. Put them in front of the American media for a few weeks, then put them in an American prison. They will be torn apart. Actually this is very true  There's a real pecking order in maximum security prisons partially based, especially initially, on the crime one is convicted of. Although I've never been to prison I'm pretty sure baby abusers/murderers are as bad or worse than pedophiles who are by far the most hated inmates. They generally have to be seperated from the general population during yard/exercise time but the guards could just sort of forget every single day for this special case(although I think they should just let the pedophiles get whats comming to them too).
wait. Don't get ahead of yourself Americans. It happens in England too...child abusers get fucked up wherever they go.
|
why is a child more valuable than a grown person???
|
Because the meat is so tender it just falls right off the bone.
|
On November 18 2008 22:52 baal wrote: why is a child more valuable than a grown person???
because a child has done nothing wrong in their entire life, they are pure. And they cannot defend themselves
|
On November 18 2008 22:52 baal wrote: why is a child more valuable than a grown person???
what's your point?
|
8748 Posts
HeadBangaa, I think the main problem is that there isn't 100% certainty. If the court could determine someone's guilt with 100% certainty, then your discussion could be on the table.
|
On November 18 2008 22:58 HeadBangaa wrote: Because the meat is so tender it just falls right off the bone.
ROFL <3
|
On November 18 2008 22:58 Guss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 22:52 baal wrote: why is a child more valuable than a grown person??? because a child has done nothing wrong in their entire life, they are pure. And they cannot defend themselves
And when somebody puts a gun at you, can you defend yourself?
A child hasnt done anything, nor wrong nor good, so if being good or bad declares the value of your life, then a philantropist is worth MUCH more than any child in the world.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
lol baal always against the current
|
On November 19 2008 00:09 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 22:58 Guss wrote:On November 18 2008 22:52 baal wrote: why is a child more valuable than a grown person??? because a child has done nothing wrong in their entire life, they are pure. And they cannot defend themselves And when somebody puts a gun at you, can you defend yourself? A child hasnt done anything, nor wrong nor good, so if being good or bad declares the value of your life, then a philantropist is worth MUCH more than any child in the world.
Well that's very vague, what do you mean by 'worth'?!
|
On November 18 2008 23:51 Liquid`NonY wrote: HeadBangaa, I think the main problem is that there isn't 100% certainty. If the court could determine someone's guilt with 100% certainty, then your discussion could be on the table. That's a good point.
|
On November 19 2008 00:14 IntoTheWow wrote: lol baal always against the current
the day i "flow" i know i became a failure.
|
On November 19 2008 00:18 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 00:09 baal wrote:On November 18 2008 22:58 Guss wrote:On November 18 2008 22:52 baal wrote: why is a child more valuable than a grown person??? because a child has done nothing wrong in their entire life, they are pure. And they cannot defend themselves And when somebody puts a gun at you, can you defend yourself? A child hasnt done anything, nor wrong nor good, so if being good or bad declares the value of your life, then a philantropist is worth MUCH more than any child in the world. Well that's very vague, what do you mean by 'worth'?!
We have a thread about the death of a child, we dont have a thread for every violent murder do we?
|
On November 17 2008 13:55 HumbleZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 13:08 HeadBangaa wrote:On November 17 2008 07:38 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 06:54 Physician wrote:On November 17 2008 05:16 Clutch3 wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? Nothing justifies the death penalty. The state shouldn't kill its citizens. If God wants to strike these people down, I will feel fine about it. Short of that, they should spend the rest of their days in a cell. hopefully working 16 hours/day productively and repay society a small part of what they took; prisons wouldn't be that full if u knew it meant 16 hours work/daily while u were in them... Good point.  However, the way the economy's going, maybe we'll need all the jobs we can get. Don't let those inmates take em.  They can "do the jobs Americans won't" then we can finally kick out all the mexicans. Seriously though, I don't see anything wrong with the death penalty. Society is a sum of its parts: its citizens. The highest transgression an individual can perform against the collective, is to murder its components. I see death penalty as reciprocation; it is a rejection of that person: "return to sender" if you will. Is there some metaphysical reason that society shouldn't implement reciprocation? Yes, because there is a cheaper, more humane and just as effective a method of punishment or "reciprocation": Life in prison. Agreed.
I'd also like to mention that life in prison with no parole is just as effective a "rejection" -- from the point of view of society -- as the death penalty is.
I'd also like to mention that proponents of the death penalty shouldn't be able to argue for it just because they don't see any big issues wrong with it. The burden of proof always has to be on the person seeking to kill in the name of society.
The point of our justice system has always been to maximize public safety, act as a deterrent, and/or rehabilitation criminals. From the point of view of these criteria, there's no good argument for the death penalty.
Doing it because it makes someone feel better is a stupid reason, which is why the families of victims don't have these kinds of rights in these cases.
|
On November 19 2008 00:37 Clutch3 wrote: The point of our justice system has always been to maximize public safety, act as a deterrent, and/or rehabilitation criminals. From the point of view of these criteria, there's no good argument for the death penalty.
"The point of our justice system is not deliverance of justice, but social welfare."
Merit. Talk about merit.
You don't think someone can deserve death?
And it's been shown that punishment severity is not linked with deterrent, so no.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 19 2008 00:31 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 00:14 IntoTheWow wrote: lol baal always against the current the day i "flow" i know i became a failure.
what u got against women
|
Hello guys. Lot of shit going on here. Being so important and all, I'm going to hit a few points. Sorry if I missed yours, I probably am going to miss at least 20%. Forgive me Jesus.
On November 17 2008 03:30 Frits wrote: The severity of a crime shouldn't make the death penalty justifiable, getting emotional in these cases is only going to lead to stupid decisions.
Yes, beating up a baby is not cool, we all know this but what really pisses me off is when a bunch of vigilantes go out on a witch hunt to persecute a criminal. I wish people wouldn't be such sheep. No they don't deserve the death penalty get a grip. This gets Frits into some arguments; he's right there and he's right here too. Let me just say, not only is beating up a baby not cool, it's beyond disgusting. It's enraging. We should all feel the urge to tear these people who did this up. But then what? Does obedience to such feelings make a good society? Can we really split hairs between vengeful feelings in some situations being great for society, bad for others, etc.? Or are we better off with a cool, rational, process to sort out criminals etc.? I mean come on guys, whenever your emotions get involved you want to throw out the whole idea of rule of law. If that's the case then you never understood it enough to agree or disagree w it in the first place.
On November 17 2008 07:25 micronesia wrote: In my opinion this shouldn't be about punishing people for being evil. People who do terrible things like this (the beating etc) are very sick. Very very sick. They aren't 'evil' per say... and what we need to do isn't 'make them pay' for what they did but rather deal with the fact that they are capable of and have done it (meaning make sure this never happens again). Whether they are alive, or kept in holding is a separate matter, and can be discussed independently of what actually occurred here. Exactly. What is evil? Who knows? Who cares? Do we need to talk about evil, or sick, to decide what to do with criminals? Absolutely not. We need two pieces of information: how will what we do effect other people, and what is the best thing we can do with them? They are easy questions under which all claims--revenge, prevention, reform, reparation, etc. all fall under. All practical issues are as clear as these two questions and so there's no need to get so emo (as some people are being) if you are actually concerned about what the government needs to do with criminals like this.
On November 17 2008 05:07 Maenander wrote:Nothing, revenge should not be part of any legal system. Prevention of further crimes is an issue, but killing should only only necessary, if no other methods are available, like for example in an act of self-defense. Exactly. Revenge is stupid, and we all should be a lot more tired (in the U.S.) of people using (abusing; pissing on) words like "justice" (which is supposed to mean something much more important!) as a euphemism (deludedly so; they don't know they're being euphemistic, they honestly have blurred the line in their mind to the point where they can lust after revenge in their speech and feel themselves blessed with the goddess of justice at their back). It's not about "what they deserve", it's about, what should the law do? Who cares what you feel they deserve? That's just talking about your feelings--you want to do that, you write a poem, not laws.
On November 17 2008 04:58 Rygasm wrote:When you think about it death penalty is more humane than life in prison. Death penalty costs more than life in prison. Don't care. Death is better than life in prison. Maybe/maybe not, don't care. Why should the law kill people? You are saying, the law shouldn't, because we can do worse stuff than kill them. So you're saying, kill them or worse--w/o even getting to the point where you justified killing them or anywhere near it.
On November 17 2008 10:09 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2008 09:33 Frits wrote:On November 17 2008 03:42 HeadBangaa wrote: what justifies death penalty? In my opinion nothing does. Yeah, well, you're wrong and you are exactly whats wrong with this world, letting criminals get away with murder. Ridiculous. In situations like this it is justified. See my comments above. It's not a question of "justified" or "ridiculous." Your demand for killing these criminals, however, is both of these things. The world does not revolve around you every time your emotions get the better of you, and you obviously wouldn't want the government to obey everyone else's angry demands all the time. If the government refused to kill people like this would you do it yourself?
|
On November 19 2008 00:47 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 00:37 Clutch3 wrote: The point of our justice system has always been to maximize public safety, act as a deterrent, and/or rehabilitation criminals. From the point of view of these criteria, there's no good argument for the death penalty.
"The point of our justice system is not deliverance of justice, but social welfare." Merit. Talk about merit. You don't think someone can deserve death? And it's been shown that punishment severity is not linked with deterrent, so no.
Thanks for conceding the point about the death penalty not being a deterrent. That's most people's number one argument for it.
The point of my entire post was to lay out the criteria for merit in the justice system. If you disagree with the criteria, that's your right. But if you go and ask 100 people randomly what the purpose of the justice system is, you'd be surprised how many would agree with my criteria.
Sure, someone can deserve death. But it's not the government's job to enforce morality, religious or otherwise. Government is not the "Hand of God". Your argument has been used in various forms throughout history to perpetrate all kinds of heinous acts, from mass genocide on down to the House Unamerican Activities Committee. This is the same reason I don't think the government should be anywhere near marriage, gay or otherwise.
And all of this completely ignores the staggering rates of inequality and long track record of getting it wrong in death penalty cases, which has led to increasing pressure from many sources for a moratorium on capital punishment.
So, to end with a question, what's an acceptable rate of "false positives" for you: for every 1000 murderers killed by the state, how many of those would have to be wrongful killings before it was no longer worth it? 1? 10? 100? How many innocent lives would you permit to be taken in the name of vengeance?
|
On November 19 2008 01:23 Clutch3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 00:47 HeadBangaa wrote:On November 19 2008 00:37 Clutch3 wrote: The point of our justice system has always been to maximize public safety, act as a deterrent, and/or rehabilitation criminals. From the point of view of these criteria, there's no good argument for the death penalty.
"The point of our justice system is not deliverance of justice, but social welfare." Merit. Talk about merit. You don't think someone can deserve death? And it's been shown that punishment severity is not linked with deterrent, so no. Thanks for conceding the point about the death penalty not being a deterrent. That's most people's number one argument for it. The point of my entire post was to lay out the criteria for merit in the justice system. If you disagree with the criteria, that's your right. But if you go and ask 100 people randomly what the purpose of the justice system is, you'd be surprised how many would agree with my criteria. Desert and justice are distinct from "public safety and rehab". And I seem to recall reducing several of our past discussions to a disagreement about "ends vs means" so I won't revisit that. I do strongly disagree with you.
Sure, someone can deserve death. But it's not the government's job to enforce morality.
Laws are just codified mores. There is nothing to enforce without a system of morality. The golden rule is our morality, and it is quite practical.
Government is not the "Hand of God". Your argument has been used in various forms throughout history to perpetrate all kinds of heinous acts, from mass genocide on down to the House Unamerican Activities Committee.
And your argument could be used to excuse all forms of punishment, not just capital punishment, on the premise that no utility is gained for imprisoning a person. You don't believe in punishment, and accuse those who do of emotional digression.
And all of this completely ignores the staggering rates of inequality and long track record of getting it wrong in death penalty cases, which has led to increasing pressure from many sources for a moratorium on capital punishment.
So, to end with a question, what's an acceptable rate of "false positives" for you: for every 1000 murderers killed by the state, how many of those would have to be wrongful killings before it was no longer worth it? 1? 10? 100? How many innocent lives would you permit to be taken in the name of vengeance?
Here is where I agree with you.
The acceptable rate for false positive is 0%. Absolutely.
There is no justice system worthy of implementing the death penalty, but that is unrelated to my point. If we had an "oracle" that could determine fault (zero false positives) then I would be all for it. But you wouldn't because you don't believe in punishment, I see. The concept seems to completely evade you; you see only emotion and vengeance.
|
Hey Clutch3, thanks for having this discussion with me.
|
HeadBangaa. First of all, I thank you for your excellent participation in this thread. Second, I accuse you (playfully) of wishful thinking on two points:
(1) You say laws are just codified mores; you say that the laws reflect moral beliefs or they're worthless. While this may ideally be the case it seldom is. There's no moral belief that crime A is 10-15 years whereas crime B is 12-15 years in prison, etc. Laws contain a lot of stuff that there is no moral agenda about. Furthermore there is significant moral diversity these days, and there are significant obstacles to having any political influence whatsoever. It seems that at best the laws are some rules we hope won't fuck us over too much of the time. No one would feel like their morals are adequately represented in the law books. The laws seem to record, more, what society has found it necessary to explain and fear--to have a reaction to, so we can feel better about it. A kind of laundry list of insecurities, parts of society we haven't handled very well yet, plus a spell book of recipes such as "make the black man do pull ups and have a gay lover for 10 years then let him out and see how long he'll work at wal-mart for $5/hour before he goes back to crime." They bring us comfort, but are they really solutions?
(2) You seem to think that when someone "deserves" "punishment", then that's what's best to do. I don't doubt that people sometimes evoke the response "hey he deserves punishment", but what exactly is that response? Perhaps it's not always of questionable emotional origin, but still, what is it exactly, even when it is 100% in the right? I believe it's some practical desire, at best, and if so, we should look at what the practical aim really is and maximize our advance towards that; punishment is not always the best way to achieve the goals that it wishes for, I'm afraid. So what is punishment supposed to do--deter, reform, or what? Without a practical aim it just seems to be a form of revenge, so I think I'm still not convinced by you about punishment being a legitimate thing per se.
|
I think this is horrible, but I dont like death penalty. Those people are sick and need rehab and education, imo =(
|
Hiya Suggestion Box,
Let me try to address what you've written.
(1) While true that morality is vast and diverse, most paradigms intersect at the golden rule, ie, the ethic of reciprocity. Even cultures which developed completely in parallel, and similarly parallel religions, have evolved adherence to the golden rule and a bias towards altruism. We are so ingrained to think that way as the right way, that it is often taken for granted. It is a part of common sense, but still a moral paradigm.
If crime A is considered more heinous than crime B, it is because an authority/arbiter considered the impact on the victim greater, which is an act of empathy, which extrapolates from the golden rule. There are also fringe moralities that provoke controversy, which aren't universally held like reciprocity is. When moralities/opinions conflict, people compete for representation of their ideals in the law books. This is the fodder of politics. I have only appealed to the morality which is universally common, but even so, it is a bias. Its ubiquity lends credence, not its absolute ethical value (for the sake of argument, I assume there is no absolute ethic). I'm fairly certain that any law you list, can be traced back to a philosophical bias.
(2) So you are saying that, even if punishment is deserved, how do we determine the severity of punishment? That seems like a question to ask someone studying law, I really don't know. I asked my ethics professor this question when we studied Kant's categorical imperative; it seems like right and wrong are binary, rather than how much right or wrong something is.
It seems to me that merit is plainly acknowledged in the positive case, that is, I work hard thus I deserve a good wage. The consequence of good hard work is reward, and is considered merited. The concept of "earning" or "meriting reward" in this case clearly has nothing to do with "encouragement". It seems logical then that if one's actions were objectively negative, that "deserving" or "meriting punishment" would have nothing to do with "deterrence" (just as the positive has nothing to do with "encouragement"). I'm arguing for merit as an independent metaphysical concept. Unless you can show that positive merit is centered on "encouragement", therefore, I can't understand why you would appeal to "deterrence/reform" when speaking on negative merit.
I hope that makes sense, I put whiskey in my coffee this morning.
|
I'm sorry I don't think you've studied Kant's anything. I will rewrite my post later to try to get a different response.
|
On November 19 2008 03:06 Suggestion Box wrote: I'm sorry I don't think you've studied Kant's anything. I will rewrite my post later to try to get a different response. Haha. You went from polite to rude instantly! Yes, I've studied Kant, he's one of my favorite philosophers.
This is also the second time you've dodged my extensive reply to your inquiries (gay marriage thread, I gave you an excellent summary of my position, and you never replied). See if I ever give you an ounce of effort again.
|
Yeah lol. It was a good move.
Honestly though, give me some time. You know how sometimes when you are playing a video game, and you die, and realize your save point was really really long ago, you kind of don't feel like playing for the rest of the night? That's how I feel about re-reading my post, figuring out how I ended up getting a (very nice) response that didn't seem to answer what I thought I asked (even though you seem like a smart, educated, guy who is putting forth the effort too), then clarifying/re-asking or w/e. I obviously fucked up somewhere so... just give me some time. I'm not going to be rude and say stuff like, how I hate people who always bring up Kant but only in the context of Ethics 101 or Business ethics or w/e, categorical imperative this and that, or rant on and on about how no one ever understands my posts and they need to read it again. God I am such a douche. But I want to be your friend. I really like the friendly tone, and the honest sense of inquiry here, between you and Clutch and perhaps others. So just give me some time and I'll regroup. You've defeated me and my impression right now is that I've been beaten up by a parked car, but obviously that's a hasty reaction. Just give me some time man, I'm sure it's me.
edit: I see what you did there. Where's this Gay Marriage thing I dodged? I'm pretty sure I defeated all comers on that issue.
|
these assholes should be burnt at the stake
|
If you didn't see the relevance to Kantian philosophy in my reference to reciprocity and universality, and simply knee-jerk criticize people for mentioning him and his widely influential methods, then you're a complete poser and a bit of a douche.
You and oneofthem should hang out at coffee houses together, and discuss your contempt for laymen together, and share berets.
|
Actually the more you talk about it, the more I think I am right. But again, give me a day, and please show me this Gay shit I dodged because I'm ready to pwn anyone right now when it comes to the gays. Just name the map.
|
Abuse suffered by Rotorua three-year-old Nia Glassie during her short but tortured life included:
* Kicked in the face, causing her nose to bleed;
* Hit, slapped, punched and jumped on;
* Objects such as shoes thrown at her;
* Verbal insults, for example continually being told she was ugly;
* Forced into a television cabinet drawer;
* Dragged through the sandpit half-naked;
* Shoved into piles of rubbish;
* Made to bathe in cold water in mid-winter;
* Folded into a sofa and sat on;
* Flung against the wall;
* Held high in the air and dropped to the floor;
* Used for adult wrestling moves copied from a Playstation game;
* Whirled rapidly on a rotary clothesline until flung off;
* Put into a tumble dryer and spun on high temperature;
* Had her head and feet dangled into the fireplace when the fire was lit;
* Kicked repeatedly in the head because she was crying;
* Left lying in a coma for 36 hours without medical attention.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4765081a23955.html
|
If you want to talk about prop 8 some more, use the search function, find your post addressed to me, look about 4 posts down to find my reply, and bump that thread.
Until then, you're simply digressing and you know it. So much for your pedestal.
edit: LOL LOCKED DOWN
|
Some people I just wonder about.
How the hell could anyone do this? This is just freaking insane!
|
On November 19 2008 00:33 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 00:18 HamerD wrote:On November 19 2008 00:09 baal wrote:On November 18 2008 22:58 Guss wrote:On November 18 2008 22:52 baal wrote: why is a child more valuable than a grown person??? because a child has done nothing wrong in their entire life, they are pure. And they cannot defend themselves And when somebody puts a gun at you, can you defend yourself? A child hasnt done anything, nor wrong nor good, so if being good or bad declares the value of your life, then a philantropist is worth MUCH more than any child in the world. Well that's very vague, what do you mean by 'worth'?! We have a thread about the death of a child, we dont have a thread for every violent murder do we?
that's just an arbitrary distinction in how affected people are, naturally, by issues of cruelty towards adults and issues of cruelty towards children. It's probably to do with the fact that the child has not walked into any situations, they were just born in it; but that's just speculation. I still don't see much point in what you're saying. Again, can you continue your point and elaborate it?
|
Josef Fritzel
Needs to join theese guys togheter with saddam and satan in Southpark hell.
|
ps who the fuck would use Kant in an argument. In a history lesson, yes. The guy never left his home town. He wouldn't know morality if it hit him in the face. Laws are there to protect members of society. If a member in a society cannot co-exist with it, and is damaging it, it is put away from society until it learns its lesson, or at least until it is less dangerous. I think for people like this, who are so far gone and so completely broken and twisted, there is no turning back from their extent of evil; and society should be permanently protected.
I think they should be executed to appease the nation, personally. By the way, websites and information distribution rings for criminals and ex-cons are already circulating with pictures of the people, with advice to kill them.
Another shocking statistic that they said, almost flippantly, at the end of panorama; is that one child a week dies due to neglect or abuse in england. Terrible and galling.
|
On November 19 2008 04:42 HamerD wrote: ps who the fuck would use Kant in an argument. Could you be anymore vague? If you see a problematic premise in an argument, point it out or just shut up.
|
On November 19 2008 04:36 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 00:33 baal wrote:On November 19 2008 00:18 HamerD wrote:On November 19 2008 00:09 baal wrote:On November 18 2008 22:58 Guss wrote:On November 18 2008 22:52 baal wrote: why is a child more valuable than a grown person??? because a child has done nothing wrong in their entire life, they are pure. And they cannot defend themselves And when somebody puts a gun at you, can you defend yourself? A child hasnt done anything, nor wrong nor good, so if being good or bad declares the value of your life, then a philantropist is worth MUCH more than any child in the world. Well that's very vague, what do you mean by 'worth'?! We have a thread about the death of a child, we dont have a thread for every violent murder do we? that's just an arbitrary distinction in how affected people are, naturally, by issues of cruelty towards adults and issues of cruelty towards children. It's probably to do with the fact that the child has not walked into any situations, they were just born in it; but that's just speculation. I still don't see much point in what you're saying. Again, can you continue your point and elaborate it?
you just explained my point, why in the fuck are people more affected by this than if somebody abused an adult?
If somebody did that to an adult we wouldnt be discussing it in a thread.
|
On November 19 2008 05:51 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 04:36 HamerD wrote:On November 19 2008 00:33 baal wrote:On November 19 2008 00:18 HamerD wrote:On November 19 2008 00:09 baal wrote:On November 18 2008 22:58 Guss wrote:On November 18 2008 22:52 baal wrote: why is a child more valuable than a grown person??? because a child has done nothing wrong in their entire life, they are pure. And they cannot defend themselves And when somebody puts a gun at you, can you defend yourself? A child hasnt done anything, nor wrong nor good, so if being good or bad declares the value of your life, then a philantropist is worth MUCH more than any child in the world. Well that's very vague, what do you mean by 'worth'?! We have a thread about the death of a child, we dont have a thread for every violent murder do we? that's just an arbitrary distinction in how affected people are, naturally, by issues of cruelty towards adults and issues of cruelty towards children. It's probably to do with the fact that the child has not walked into any situations, they were just born in it; but that's just speculation. I still don't see much point in what you're saying. Again, can you continue your point and elaborate it? you just explained my point, why in the fuck are people more affected by this than if somebody abused an adult? If somebody did that to an adult we wouldnt be discussing it in a thread.
Lol, how can and why should anyone answer that question? What is your point?! Are you saying that all discussions about this are invalid, and all feelings expressed are footling, because we don't do it every time there is a reason in the whole world for us to?
It's just in the public attention atm...I'm sure everyone could write pages and pages on any number of shocking topics, political topics or philosophical topics.
|
On November 19 2008 05:02 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 04:42 HamerD wrote: ps who the fuck would use Kant in an argument. Could you be anymore vague? If you see a problematic premise in an argument, point it out or just shut up.
Think I'll argue Kant in another thread and no I couldn't be any more vague.
|
|
|
|