EPTMother murders five children - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 10 2008 13:29 Frits wrote: What bothers me is that whenever we have one of these threads I realize how little people there are who actually maintain a proper sense of moral thought. She should die? You'd kill her yourself if you could? What the fuck is this shit. These threads always remind me that we're no fucking different from the way we were in the middle ages except that a bunch of good people made a system that idiots can function in. well while we're at it... why would we have changed much at all from the middle ages? Theres no reason for any real change to our nature beyond the natural course obv... and it's "except that a bunch of people made a system that most can function in" but meh as for OP, this or "worse" happens all day everyday... If anything we're just suckers for media like everyone else... meh? | ||
|
Makhno
Sweden585 Posts
Seeing no solution to her problems and unable to imagine her children living without her, Ms Lhermitte heard a voice say to her on the day of the murders that "the machine has begun working", she allegedly told investigators. I don't really understand what this means but it creeps me out. | ||
|
SwedishHero
Sweden869 Posts
On December 10 2008 13:29 Frits wrote: are you kidding I think there was actually too much money donated, terrible example. There was plenty of help sent. And obviously there is a lot of attention to this because it's more realistic to us than a tsunami. What bothers me is that whenever we have one of these threads I realize how little people there are who actually maintain a proper sense of moral thought. She should die? You'd kill her yourself if you could? What the fuck is this shit. These threads always remind me that we're no fucking different from the way we were in the middle ages except that a bunch of good people made a system that idiots can function in. Frits, seriously, you need to get real. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On December 10 2008 20:56 SwedishHero wrote: Frits, seriously, you need to get real. I am pretty realistic (I study a behavioral science) it just bothers me to still see people behave like savages. On December 10 2008 19:09 EmeraldSparks wrote: Are you done wallowing in your moral superiority? Are you saying I should be ashamed for trying to inspire proper morals? lol On December 10 2008 18:04 HamerD wrote: That's only because the system is far from streamlined for dealing with people like, for example, this. A hugely expensive trial followed by waiting for ages on death row. Afaik, this fact is as supported as it is disputed; and that's even for the CURRENT costs. If someone lives for 50 years in a LWOP sentence, there is every chance that he will cost much more to sustain than someone who lives for 10 and is executed on death row. Guess to find the real facts one would have to go to a library and find the supporting academic texts. Have you done that? The costs of sentencing and executing someone who is very arguably guilty is, I would imagine, a lot more expensive than that of executing someone like this lady. I think we should have a line drawn around this lady's level. The level of Joseph Fritzl as well. Past that line, you die...no re trials, no special meetings or extra time for jury. If it just cannot be denied that you did it, and you don't try to protest it, you just die by lethal injection quickly and without huge investigations scraping for DNA in every house to find if there were some killer who could fly and pass through walls who made you stand still, slit the throats of your children, then told you if you said it were him he would come back to get you. Great, a hamerd post. There goes my faith in humanity again. Do ethics mean anything to you? Drawing a line? Do you have any idea how easy it is to frame someone like that, no questions asked case over? Your idea goes against everything the justice system stands for. I guess you wouldn't understand because logical thought doesn't mean a lot to you (lol astrology). Stick to reading horoscopes jackass. | ||
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
MyCrow
Korea (South)248 Posts
| ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On December 11 2008 01:52 Jathin wrote: It's funny, every time something tragic happens and it's posted here -- it's always the same stupid comments, just different names compared to a few years ago. that hurts man | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 10 2008 23:12 Frits wrote: Great, a hamerd post. There goes my faith in humanity again. Do ethics mean anything to you? Drawing a line? Do you have any idea how easy it is to frame someone like that, no questions asked case over? Your idea goes against everything the justice system stands for. I guess you wouldn't understand because logical thought doesn't mean a lot to you (lol astrology). Ok well seriously if we can just cut through the ad hominem, are you recinding the economic objection and moving onto a moral defence of the pro-life sentence stance? About framing- I have no idea how easy that is, and probably neither do you. It is probably difficult but not impossible, but that's not what's up for question here. I don't know what your opinion is. Your blindly assuming that you have the philosophical higher ground shows, in my opinion, how little you have thought out your point of view. I think that someone who is very dangerous to society should be made incapable of damaging innocent members of society (which means all the people in society) in the cheapest way possible. I also think that people can prove themselves to be so intrinsically malicious as to devoid themselves of human rights- people can be beasts, with no reproach. In my opinion, whether it's their fault that they are the beast has nothing to do with it. I also think there is a point at which evidence becomes too overwhelming for a defence case to ever be mustered. Probably only in a very small amount of cases though. I think the idea of 'slippery slope' can sometimes paralyze the direct course of action. I think there should be a line set, higher than America's, beyond which, once crossed, the death penalty is swiftly activated. One might say 'if you allow the death sentence now then it will be allowed for more and more in the future', but I doubt that most west European countries would have that flimsy a system of justice. I would say that in America, the death sentence is too freely used. A number of executions in Britain between 1957 and 1964 were for single acts of murder. I don't agree with that, personally. However, if you had a serial killer who openly admitted, with a wry smile, to gutting and raping the corpses of a group of children (not that any case would be as clear cut); I would say this person should be killed. Note that I wouldn't even say they deserve to die. I don't think it's an issue of revenge, or deserving anything. I just think that human society should deal with people like that the same way we deal with an enraged bear rampaging through the streets. ps I mean the woman here tried to kill herself ANYWAY. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
I think that someone who is very dangerous to society should be made incapable of damaging innocent members of society (which means all the people in society) in the cheapest way possible. fuck I also think that people can prove themselves to be so intrinsically malicious as to devoid themselves of human rights- you And you call my point of view not well thought out, lol. How is it me who is assuming things? You have no idea about how well my point of view is thought out. You have no idea about the implications your point of view had on society would it be carried out. You completely miss the point of the judicial system, shut up. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 11 2008 03:24 Frits wrote: You have no idea about how well my point of view is thought out. Well you never explicated your opinion. I don't deny that I was assuming you hadn't thought the subject out much. But that was just me saying that what you had said last post, showed that. Look, I'm sure you do have a well thought out point of view, but your assuming that you are correct makes it difficult to treat your blanket statements along the lines of 'of course I'm right' with respectp. The way you are talking either means that you ARE definitely right, or you are definitely stupid. I'm not saying you are either. Because you haven't really laid out your opinion. On December 11 2008 03:24 Frits wrote: You have no idea about the implications your point of view would have on society if it were to be carried out. That probably means you disagree with my point of view, so can you give some hypothetical predictions as to what this course of action would lead to? On December 11 2008 03:24 Frits wrote: You completely miss the point of the judicial system Actually, I think the point of the judicial system has always been to protect innocent members of society. The rehabilitation side of the judicial system DOES have a separate mandate to the sentencing side, but I just have neglected to talk about it because I believe some people are beyond rehabilitation, from a financial point of view and from a practical point of view. Can you explain to me what YOU think the point of the judicial system is? | ||
|
QuietIdiot
7004 Posts
mmm I don't see a point of having this open, I'm curious as to why it is so, can't imagine any kind of productive discussion being stemmed from this. BTW I think its quite unfair to put all the hate on the mother, people who are sick in the head act beyond their personality and rationality do need serious medical attention. This was not a homicide driven by "rationalized" motives like revenge on a lover or monetary reasons, it was a highly desperate and delusional act of escape. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 11 2008 03:36 QuietIdiot wrote: BTW I think its quite unfair to put all the hate on the mother I agree. I don't think anyone should hate her. They have no personal reason to. But how many people here *actually* hate her? | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 11 2008 03:38 HamerD wrote: I agree. I don't think anyone should hate her. They have no personal reason to. But how many people here *actually* hate her? People aren't feeling "hate", they're experiencing "empathy" with those adversely effected by the mother's actions, which naturally leads to extremely negative judgments about her. I guess it's indirect hate. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 11 2008 03:45 HeadBangaa wrote: People aren't feeling "hate", they're experiencing "empathy" with those adversely effected by the mother's actions, which naturally leads to extremely negative judgments about her. I guess it's indirect hate. A sort of hate by proxy, which is completely understandable. Also, their defensive instincts (on the behalf of the kids who were killed) would lead them to react extremely negatively to the mother. It's all very vague I guess. I think hate can run cold and still be as strong...but hate by proxy probably doesn't. I would say that real hate would occupy one's every waking thought; whereas this is inspired when focusing on the issue. Extreme discomfort with her existence perhaps, or even hate of her actions or even the parts of her psyche which led to it; but actual hate towards her? Not sure. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
ps I mean the woman here tried to kill herself ANYWAY. This is irrelevant to delivering justice, why bring it up. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 11 2008 04:28 Frits wrote: The point of the justice system is to deliver justice. (Seriously, how did you not get that?) What do YOU mean when you say justice. Is justice EITHER: 'people getting what they deserve' 'rightfulness'? Or is it something else? I think personally that the justice system should stay away from revenge. Do you really think it is so absurd to say that the point of the judicial system is to protect society from dangerous people? I think it's perfectly rational. On December 11 2008 04:28 Frits wrote: If money becomes a reason to hurry convictions then it's not really justice is it. I agree, though that is vague. The word 'hurry' is subjective. If a decision takes 10 years to reach when the murderer has dryly admitted, after psychiatric evaluation, that he killed several people in cold bloodl I think that cutting the decision down to 1 year is not hurrying, imo it is making it the right length of decision making time. That it would end up costing less is of course a great benefit, but not the motivating reason. On December 11 2008 04:28 Frits wrote: WhimsyThis is irrelevant to delivering justice, why bring it up. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
I agree, though that is vague. The word 'hurry' is subjective. If a decision takes 10 years to reach when the murderer has dryly admitted, after psychiatric evaluation, that he killed several people in cold bloodl I think that cutting the decision down to 1 year is not hurrying, imo it is making it the right length of decision making time. That it would end up costing less is of course a great benefit, but not the motivating reason. Are you intentionally fucking with me here? The definition of hurrying something is doing something faster than it would normally take. It might be relative, but relative to the event, not relative to the person regarding it in this case. And hurrying it would probably make it way more expensive, not cheapen it. Why do you think it goes so slow in the first place? Because the manpower it would take to do it faster takes even more money, not less. Besides, the person isn't going anywhere while this process is taking place. You have to accept that this is necessary to make the justice system seem fair to everyone. Do you really think it is so absurd to say that the point of the judicial system is to protect society from dangerous people? I think it's perfectly rational. This is one of the points of punishment, not justice. Sure, the justice system gives out punishment but not with the motive of protecting society. You will always be able to say that murder is unfair to one person, and that the person who did it deserves to be punished in order for justice to be served. You can not say however that the person who comitted murder deserves to be killed, this is completely relative to the times we live in. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
Are you saying I should be ashamed for trying to inspire proper morals? There is a difference between making moral arguments and asserting your moral superiority over everyone who disagrees with you. We all do the former; doing the latter makes you a jackass. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
1. I have already explained that I think some people don't have a right to live (serial murderers with no remorse) 2. The word 'hurry' IS subjective. It probably takes a few hours for the death sentence to be passed by an angry mob in a devolved country. It may take 10 years to take so long in America. Neither 10 years or a few hours are the 'norms', and to be 'hurried' you would have to compare it to a norm. 3. A main reason why death sentences are so prolonged is because appeals are free, and is often used to keep people off the electric chair. Death sentences are on average more expensive because the trials use more evidence, the time spent in court will be longer, the amount of special time the jury gets to decide the verdict will be longer, etcetc. The reason people can have so many appeals is that people up for execution in America might have only killed 1 man, and not have confessed to it. There is a lot more scope for being wrong than if you only sentenced confessing serial murderers to death. It also costs about 3 times as much to support someone on death row than it does someone in LWOP. If they live 9 years less that will cut costs. That's just an aside. | ||
| ||
