so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
The government is not killing people by exercising the death penalty. That is the same thing as saying the government is kidnapping people when they are imprisoning them.
Every time I sit and think about some guy being executed... I do think of the overwhelming rush of human emotion each murderer must feel. It has to be an utterly terrifying experience.
But just as I feel a pang of sympathy for characters like serial murderers or people who have killed children... I remind myself of the terror their victims felt- which would be infinitely greater in my mind. I also remind myself of the sadistic pleasure they derived from their heinous acts- and what I feel is the natural or obvious consequences for indulging themselves as they did.
so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
I had hoped we had moved beyond the "eye for an eye" concept to something that fits a bit better with the society we aspire to have.
And as for point #2, those grieving parents know that an execution of one individual does not in any way assuage their loss. The concept of "closure", especially in these circumstances, is a load of bollocks. Victims of crime do want to see justice done, and justice can be done with good investigative police work, appropriate prosecution, a fair trial, and imprisonment for those found guilty. Execution doesn't add to justice, it takes away from it.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
I had hoped we had moved beyond the "eye for an eye" concept to something that fits a bit better with the society we aspire to have.
And as for point #2, those grieving parents know that an execution of one individual does not in any way assuage their loss. The concept of "closure", especially in these circumstances, is a load of bollocks. Victims of crime do want to see justice done, and justice can be done with good investigative police work, appropriate prosecution, a fair trial, and imprisonment for those found guilty. Execution doesn't add to justice, it takes away from it.
Bollocks to you, but not to all.
Way back in this thread is the case of William Petit who once spoke the same as you, however after losing his daughters and wife to two ghouls... he began to see things differently.
And an eye for an eye would mean, among various awful fates such as rape, torture and dismemberment. Nbody wants that. So... we can still administer justice showing our level of disdain for the crime we are forced to deal with and still feel good about the society we aspire to be- one free of depraved murderers getting college degrees on the public dime.
Thirty perhaps you should learn more about the reality of prison life, you continually paint it in a positive light by cherry-picking the most extreme examples of the allowances given to some inmates and extending them as if all receive those benefits. It is a hard and cruel life that fits the punishment of crime better than the release of clinical death.
Thirty perhaps you should learn more about the reality of prison life, you continually paint it in a positive light by cherry-picking the most extreme examples of the allowances given to some inmates and extending them as if all receive those benefits. It is a hard and cruel life that fits the punishment of crime better than the release of clinical death.
I can acknowledge prison life is difficult (not as much in Canada or in Norway among various 'progressive' countries).
No matter how difficult prison life might be, its far better than the fates every innocent faced at the hands of the people you seem to be advocating for.
so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
I had hoped we had moved beyond the "eye for an eye" concept to something that fits a bit better with the society we aspire to have.
And as for point #2, those grieving parents know that an execution of one individual does not in any way assuage their loss. The concept of "closure", especially in these circumstances, is a load of bollocks. Victims of crime do want to see justice done, and justice can be done with good investigative police work, appropriate prosecution, a fair trial, and imprisonment for those found guilty. Execution doesn't add to justice, it takes away from it.
Bollocks to you, but not to all.
Way back in this thread is the case of William Petit who once spoke the same as you, however after losing his daughters and wife to two ghouls... he began to see things differently.
And an eye for an eye would mean, among various awful fates such as rape, torture and dismemberment. Nbody wants that. So... we can still administer justice showing our level of disdain for the crime we are forced to deal with and still feel good about the society we aspire to be- one free of depraved murderers getting college degrees on the public dime.
And on the other side of the argument is the example of Suman and Manjit Virk, whose daughter was murdered at the age of 14. Despite what they went through, they came out of it willing to meet with one of the murderers and later entered into a process of restorative justice that eventually found them in support of his release from prison on parole. Their ethos is one of understanding and compassion; as Reena's father has said, "when you hold on to anger it can consume you".
Here is a link to an article that gives a bit of a flavour of what the Virks are all about. A movie has been made about the Virks that is used to help teach principles of restorative justice and encourage earlier intervention with youth who engage in bullying and other violence. There is much else that has been written, if anyone is interested.
I am advocating for society and morality in general, not the perpetrators of crime.
Saying that prison life is better than the fate of every victim is highly speculative. A lifetime of beatings, rape, and degradation is no trivial thing. Considering we know nothing of what happens after death, a bullet to the brain may well be better than a lifetime of pain, deserved pain though it may be. Not for us to say so definitively.
I am advocating for society and morality in general, not the perpetrators of crime.
Saying that prison life is better than the fate of every victim is highly speculative. A lifetime of beatings, rape, and degradation is no trivial thing. Considering we know nothing of what happens after death, a bullet to the brain may well be better than a lifetime of pain, deserved pain though it may be. Not for us to say so definitively.
Maybe with all things being equal, however one's fortunes were brought upon themselves through their own brutal actions. The other's fortunes were out of their control as they played victim.
I am very aware of the Reena Virk case. I'm not from the area as you are, but in BC and remember vividly.
This was a case well ahead of its time- unparalleled at the time of the event. Shocking really.
Understand that this does not fit the parameters of what I feel demands a death sentence.
I wasn't proposing it as an example of a case that you might think would warrant a death sentence. I was putting it forward to refute what seemed to be your point about what the "parents of murdered children" want - the death penalty for the offenders. Some are able to see beyond, and remain true to their principles even in the face of tragedy. Of course, the Virks are obviously remarkable human beings and we won't all reach that level.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I am very aware of the Reena Virk case. I'm not from the area as you are, but in BC and remember vividly.
This was a case well ahead of its time- unparalleled at the time of the event. Shocking really.
Understand that this does not fit the parameters of what I feel demands a death sentence.
I wasn't proposing it as an example of a case that you might think would warrant a death sentence. I was putting it forward to refute what seemed to be your point about what the "parents of murdered children" want - the death penalty for the offenders. Some are able to see beyond, and remain true to their principles even in the face of tragedy. Of course, the Virks are obviously remarkable human beings and we won't all reach that level.
I know what you intended.
I was just reminding you that I only see the death penalty appropriate for certain cases and circumstances.
If Tori Stafford was your daughter, do you think you'd have it in you to reach out to Michael Rafferty and eventually support his parole application?
so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
The point of justice is not to satisfy the emotions of the victims, it is to maintain public order and safety.
so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
and why is it the only point you are commenting on, and in most of this thread, the only point you are focusing on as a whole, is the victims? appeasing the victims alone does not equate to justice. not in the civilized world.
are you in favour of a rapist being taken out to the shed and getting raped as part of his punishment? or maybe a home invader, sometime, anytime, after he is released from prison, he won't know when or how, but he will also be the victim of a home invasion as part of his sentence.
if you have a child, and he gets bullied, or beat up, or both, what will you teach him? to bully back, or teach him to fight and lie in wait and beat up the bully right back? because that is exactly how you are saying society should react to criminals.
so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
The point of justice is not to satisfy the emotions of the victims, it is to maintain public order and safety.
Life in prison does fit the crime.
Not according to the actual definition of the term 'justice' which says to use laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals (Merriam-Webster).
We obviously disagree about life in prison being adequate for a serial murderer such as Clifford Olson.
so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
and why is it the only point you are commenting on, and in most of this thread, the only point you are focusing on as a whole, is the victims? appeasing the victims alone does not equate to justice. not in the civilized world.
are you in favour of a rapist being taken out to the shed and getting raped as part of his punishment? or maybe a home invader, sometime, anytime, after he is released from prison, he won't know when or how, but he will also be the victim of a home invasion as part of his sentence.
if you have a child, and he gets bullied, or beat up, or both, what will you teach him? to bully back, or teach him to fight and lie in wait and beat up the bully right back? because that is exactly how you are saying society should react to criminals.
In elementary school, the 'tell the teacher' thing works really well. In high school things change. Telling the teacher was a tactic of old. If my kid is being bullied in high school, he is to use words to try and settle the dispute. If the unwelcome behavior persists or escalates, then as scary as it might be... he may need to punch his tormentor right in the nose- hard. The problem will be solved because bullies like victims, not people who are empowered and stand up for themselves.
However, there are many kids out there who have not been taught to stand up for themselves and sadly, the bullying behaviour will continue when the bully settles on a less combative victim to prey upon.
So, similarly (this is your comparison), ultimately society must address criminals and not stick our head up our ass thinking our fireside chats and pathetic little sentences (see pedophile thread) are adequate. It would be nice if bullies didn't need to get popped because there were no bullies, just like it would be nice if we didn't need to discuss crime and punishment because there were no criminals; however, it is what it is.
* You seemed to have poked fun at such a tactic for a victim of bullying, but I'm not alone with this school of thought. If you think a 16 year old male should run and tell thew teachers every time his bully shoves him or pulls his pants down... you haven't thought this all the way through- it's social suicide. If a victim should not defend themselves physically when words have not worked, exactly how should a victim of bullying deal with his tormentor? Simply wait until they are overcome by the abuse and hang themselves... or get dad's gun and take it to school with them?
"The point of justice is not to satisfy the emotions of the victims, it is to maintain public order and safety"......debate over, this one comment nailed it.
so tell me what is the purpose of the DP:
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
and why is it the only point you are commenting on, and in most of this thread, the only point you are focusing on as a whole, is the victims? appeasing the victims alone does not equate to justice. not in the civilized world.
are you in favour of a rapist being taken out to the shed and getting raped as part of his punishment? or maybe a home invader, sometime, anytime, after he is released from prison, he won't know when or how, but he will also be the victim of a home invasion as part of his sentence.
if you have a child, and he gets bullied, or beat up, or both, what will you teach him? to bully back, or teach him to fight and lie in wait and beat up the bully right back? because that is exactly how you are saying society should react to criminals.
In elementary school, the 'tell the teacher' thing works really well. In high school things change. Telling the teacher was a tactic of old. If my kid is being bullied in high school, he is to use words to try and settle the dispute. If the unwelcome behavior persists or escalates, then as scary as it might be... he may need to punch his tormentor right in the nose- hard. The problem will be solved because bullies like victims, not people who are empowered and stand up for themselves.
However, there are many kids out there who have not been taught to stand up for themselves and sadly, the bullying behaviour will continue when the bully settles on a less combative victim to prey upon.
So, similarly (this is your comparison), ultimately society must address criminals and not stick our head up our ass thinking our fireside chats and pathetic little sentences (see pedophile thread) are adequate. It would be nice if bullies didn't need to get popped because there were no bullies, just like it would be nice if we didn't need to discuss crime and punishment because there were no criminals; however, it is what it is.
* You seemed to have poked fun at such a tactic for a victim of bullying, but I'm not alone with this school of thought. If you think a 16 year old male should run and tell thew teachers every time his bully shoves him or pulls his pants down... you haven't thought this all the way through- it's social suicide. If a victim should not defend themselves physically when words have not worked, exactly how should a victim of bullying deal with his tormentor? Simply wait until they are overcome by the abuse and hang themselves... or get dad's gun and take it to school with them?
not exactly sure how I poked fun at a victim of bullying. I was a victim all throughout elementary and high school, and even beyond. I had plenty of friends, but I was "the nice kid" who never made fun of people, stood up for the mentally/physicall challenged, etc, so I was a target for bullies. Did I ever fight one? Nope. Could I have? I know I could have. And I was scared at what I would do to one if caught up in the moment, so I didn't succumb to that urge.
was I a victim of the worst kind? absolutely not. like I said, I had lots of friends (unfortunately, cowardly ones who would not defend me in the face of schoolyard evil). so I can't speak to the circumstances of people who get it every minute of every day. I have lived in fear for my safety, though, and that's not pleasant.
violence begets violence. FACT. Defend yourself, yes, if in physical danger. of course. but not revenge after the fact. if you take revenge on a bully, will he leave you alone? probably. but you just made it 100 times worse for the next person he preys on. let's be clear: it won't stop his behaviour, it will only make him move on to the next prey.
not sure why the constant melodrama. no one is suggesting fireside chats. but don't you think that people who do these things could use some therapy? or are you against that? you don't believe in the benefits of therapy for those it can work for?
* You seemed to have poked fun at such a tactic for a victim of bullying, but I'm not alone with this school of thought. If you think a 16 year old male should run and tell thew teachers every time his bully shoves him or pulls his pants down... you haven't thought this all the way through- it's social suicide. If a victim should not defend themselves physically when words have not worked, exactly how should a victim of bullying deal with his tormentor? Simply wait until they are overcome by the abuse and hang themselves... or get dad's gun and take it to school with them?
actually, as bullying and the after-effects of it have become more prevalent, society has been more aware of it instead of turning a blind eye. more schools are encouraging students, at ALL ages, to tell a teacher. this is no different than doing the same thing in the workplace. is workplace bullying always physical? not usually. but bullying is bullying, and people tell their boss and/or HR to deal with it. they don't reciprocate the bully's behaviour. that does nothing.
if you get assaulted, you don't find that person and assault them back. you defend yourself during the assault, but barring that, you call the cops (telling the teacher in adult terms).
You essentially mocked physically confronting a bully as if this was horrendous. Its the right tactic when all else fails. Its not a kid's responsibilty to endure bullying behaviors and not exhaust every option to thwart the unwanted behabiour- even if that 'might' mean the 'next' victim will get it worse. This assertion of yours can be countered with the thought that 'perhaps' the punch to the nose will have the bully back off the next person for fear of the same response.
I'm sorry to hear of your past. Another thing I teach my children is to stand up for others when others are unable to do so for themselves. Your friends sucked. If I had been your friend, I would have been there for you- I have been there for others many times including strangers which I detailed at length in a post a few months back (coming to the defence of the First Nation woman who had the beer thrown in her face).
Physical harm is the least concerning aspect of a bullying situation. The mental damage is forever. You have expressed your intense anxiety levels and the irrational impulses you feel which you needed help for. Have you considered that some of this is related to the trauma you endured as a bullied child?
As for your last question, Hugh, I do think the people we speak of need help, but some of these people have crossed a line that is simply inexcusable or worth retrieving them from. If you murder a family, kill 10 children, or rape and murder an 8 year old... I'm not interested in saving you.
* You seemed to have poked fun at such a tactic for a victim of bullying, but I'm not alone with this school of thought. If you think a 16 year old male should run and tell thew teachers every time his bully shoves him or pulls his pants down... you haven't thought this all the way through- it's social suicide. If a victim should not defend themselves physically when words have not worked, exactly how should a victim of bullying deal with his tormentor? Simply wait until they are overcome by the abuse and hang themselves... or get dad's gun and take it to school with them?
actually, as bullying and the after-effects of it have become more prevalent, society has been more aware of it instead of turning a blind eye. more schools are encouraging students, at ALL ages, to tell a teacher. this is no different than doing the same thing in the workplace. is workplace bullying always physical? not usually. but bullying is bullying, and people tell their boss and/or HR to deal with it. they don't reciprocate the bully's behaviour. that does nothing.
if you get assaulted, you don't find that person and assault them back. you defend yourself during the assault, but barring that, you call the cops (telling the teacher in adult terms).
The difference is that a kid standing up for themselves gets suspended from school for a week after punching his assailant. An adult gets criminal charges laid upon him. The tactic would work for adults as well, except the consequences do not provide for it. I have come across countless adults who, protected by law, act like assholes knowing they are safe from any undesirable response.
Telling the teacher doesn't make the problem go away. If you don't wish to acknowledge this then fine, however I can tell you from experience that if left to their own devices (no peer support), a kid might be forced to defend themselves with more than threatening to tell the teacher.
And I've never said go seek out your tormentor and punch him. I've said at the moment of conflict to stand up for yourself.
which I agreed with. obviously, defend yourself if in imminent physical danger. but I'm not going to knock someone out because they taunted me. that's ridiculous.
You essentially mocked physically confronting a bully as if this was horrendous. Its the right tactic when all else fails. Its not a kid's responsibilty to endure bullying behaviors and not exhaust every option to thwart the unwanted behabiour- even if that 'might' mean the 'next' victim will get it worse. This assertion of yours can be countered with the thought that 'perhaps' the punch to the nose will have the bully back off the next person for fear of the same response.
I'm sorry to hear of your past. Another thing I teach my children is to stand up for others when others are unable to do so for themselves. Your friends sucked. If I had been your friend, I would have been there for you- I have been there for others many times including strangers which I detailed at length in a post a few months back (coming to the defence of the First Nation woman who had the beer thrown in her face).
Physical harm is the least concerning aspect of a bullying situation. The mental damage is forever. You have expressed your intense anxiety levels and the irrational impulses you feel which you needed help for. Have you considered that some of this is related to the trauma you endured as a bullied child?
As for your last question, Hugh, I do think the people we speak of need help, but some of these people have crossed a line that is simply inexcusable or worth retrieving them from. If you murder a family, kill 10 children, or rape and murder an 8 year old... I'm not interested in saving you.
then you misunderstood. I did not mock physically confronting a bully. not sure where you got that from.
All I'm advocating is physical means as a LAST resort, not an immediate reaction, which is what I get from you.
And you brush off the effects of "the next kid getting it worse". I was that fucking kid. This bully picked a fight with a friend of mine, and got his ass whooped. Guess who he then set his sights on, worse than he had previously? ME. He terrorized me after that.
And no, my friends weren't terrible. Someone standing up to a bully for their friend is the minority, not the norm. They didn't want their nose broken any more than I did. It's called the bystander effect. it's real. they weren't bad people. Nor did I really expect it from them, except maybe a bit when we were older.
There was this bully in high school who thought he was the toughest kid on the planet. One day, in history class, I sat in "his" seat. He ordered me to move. I didn't budge (I thought at the time that the social ramifications of bowing to him would be worse than anything). He broke my pencil (seriously, that was his way of threatening me in grade ELEVEN), and said I'd be sorry. After class, in the hallway, he came up to me, forehead to forehead. he reared back and headbutted me, and basically said if I did it again he'd kick my ass. And I believed him. Because I had seen it countless times before. What did I do? Nothing. I let it go. And a friend of mine who was tougher than he was offered to take him down for me. I told him not to.
years later he saw me at the bar and apologized for being such an asshole in school and he was so embarassed to see people from that era etc etc.
from that experience, I know that by letting it go, I was right. Had he started punching me, I probably would have fought back. But in all my years of seeing schoolyard and bar fights, I have never seen one instance of one guy beating someone up who refuses to fight back. they look foolish. and they stop. I have done it myself when challenged. kept my hands to my side. they walk away.
Telling the teacher doesn't make the problem go away. If you don't wish to acknowledge this then fine, however I can tell you from experience that if left to their own devices (no peer support), a kid might be forced to defend themselves with more than threatening to tell the teacher.
sure it can. depending on the teacher and their level of understanding of the situation. one teacher saved me from a certain beating when he caught wind of a threat in the hallway, he called the kid over and held him there while motioning for me to scram. and he didn't physically threaten me again, cause he knew he would be in deep shit if he did.
Physical harm is the least concerning aspect of a bullying situation. The mental damage is forever. You have expressed your intense anxiety levels and the irrational impulses you feel which you needed help for. Have you considered that some of this is related to the trauma you endured as a bullied child?
no, it is a result of an underlying condition of depression and anxiety and my inability at the time to get help, and so I self medicated for a decade (or 2), which obviously made it much worse. I don't feel as I was traumatized by it, honestly. it doesn't bother me at all. if it did, maybe I'd feel the need to lash out at others in anger, which I do not. those irrational impulses you speak of are a by-product of anxiety, not trauma or anger.
I honestly think it made me a better person in the way that I'm hyper sensitive to others needs and the interest in always helping out the little guy.
Telling the teacher doesn't make the problem go away. If you don't wish to acknowledge this then fine, however I can tell you from experience that if left to their own devices (no peer support), a kid might be forced to defend themselves with more than threatening to tell the teacher.
sure it can. depending on the teacher and their level of understanding of the situation. one teacher saved me from a certain beating when he caught wind of a threat in the hallway, he called the kid over and held him there while motioning for me to scram. and he didn't physically threaten me again, cause he knew he would be in deep shit if he did.
Don't get me wrong... a skilled teacher can be an effective deterrent for the moment, but they are only that- a deterrent. The problem still exists though in that one kid is a bully and another kid has become a target. Both kids need help overcoming their situation.
Your experience is your experience and I'm glad you were strong enough to maintain a frame of mind where you didn't allow the abuse to consume you. Let me tell you though that many others do not have the same inner strength to maintain their sense of self worth and I have seen them beaten down because of it.
I can tell you that I have seen many kids stand up to their tormentor and not only stop the problem, but regain their dignity in the process. While more gentle methods should be employed to thwart a bully's efforts... at some point in time, kids may be forced to summon their courage and defend themselves instead of dusting themselves off one more time when the abuse becomes physical.
* I know what the bystander effect is, but I most often associate such with being reluctant to step in when it's a stranger in a struggle- not someone you care about. I'm sorry to say that if your friends stood around and watched you get assaulted every now and then- especially after sticking your neck out for one of them as you stated you did (inviting the abuse towards yourself)- then they don't fit my description of what a friend is.
Comments
1) protecting society
2) giving closure to those affected
3) protecting other inmates
4) the FALSE notion that it saves money
5) punishment
6) all of the above
and I'll tell you why not:
1) easy: jail. escape? an extreme anomaly. you watch too many movies. it's more likely that an innocent man will be put to death than a murderer will escape and kill again.
2) how could anyone, anywhere, EVER, feel that it is in society's best interests to kill a human being for the comfort of another? seriously, think about that for a second.
3) then you'd have to put to death about every non-white-collar criminal behind bars
4) giving people due process for the assurances the DP requires costs MORE than just keeping someone in jail for their entire life. FACT.
5) I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: how could ending someone's suffering in jail be a bigger punishment than letting them rot in there for the rest of their life? (and if you really believe that inmates in max security have it easy-you have never been there-it's a living hell)
6) all of the above
www.headstonesband.com
Every time I sit and think about some guy being executed... I do think of the overwhelming rush of human emotion each murderer must feel. It has to be an utterly terrifying experience.
But just as I feel a pang of sympathy for characters like serial murderers or people who have killed children... I remind myself of the terror their victims felt- which would be infinitely greater in my mind. I also remind myself of the sadistic pleasure they derived from their heinous acts- and what I feel is the natural or obvious consequences for indulging themselves as they did.
Tell point number 2 to the grieving parents of murdered children.
And how about the painfully simple concept of letting the punishment fit the crime?
And as for point #2, those grieving parents know that an execution of one individual does not in any way assuage their loss. The concept of "closure", especially in these circumstances, is a load of bollocks. Victims of crime do want to see justice done, and justice can be done with good investigative police work, appropriate prosecution, a fair trial, and imprisonment for those found guilty. Execution doesn't add to justice, it takes away from it.
Bollocks to you, but not to all.
Way back in this thread is the case of William Petit who once spoke the same as you, however after losing his daughters and wife to two ghouls... he began to see things differently.
And an eye for an eye would mean, among various awful fates such as rape, torture and dismemberment. Nbody wants that. So... we can still administer justice showing our level of disdain for the crime we are forced to deal with and still feel good about the society we aspire to be- one free of depraved murderers getting college degrees on the public dime.
I can acknowledge prison life is difficult (not as much in Canada or in Norway among various 'progressive' countries).
No matter how difficult prison life might be, its far better than the fates every innocent faced at the hands of the people you seem to be advocating for.
And on the other side of the argument is the example of Suman and Manjit Virk, whose daughter was murdered at the age of 14. Despite what they went through, they came out of it willing to meet with one of the murderers and later entered into a process of restorative justice that eventually found them in support of his release from prison on parole. Their ethos is one of understanding and compassion; as Reena's father has said, "when you hold on to anger it can consume you".
Here is a link to an article that gives a bit of a flavour of what the Virks are all about. A movie has been made about the Virks that is used to help teach principles of restorative justice and encourage earlier intervention with youth who engage in bullying and other violence. There is much else that has been written, if anyone is interested.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/community/119947854.html
Saying that prison life is better than the fate of every victim is highly speculative. A lifetime of beatings, rape, and degradation is no trivial thing. Considering we know nothing of what happens after death, a bullet to the brain may well be better than a lifetime of pain, deserved pain though it may be. Not for us to say so definitively.
This was a case well ahead of its time- unparalleled at the time of the event. Shocking really.
Understand that this does not fit the parameters of what I feel demands a death sentence.
Maybe with all things being equal, however one's fortunes were brought upon themselves through their own brutal actions. The other's fortunes were out of their control as they played victim.
I wasn't proposing it as an example of a case that you might think would warrant a death sentence. I was putting it forward to refute what seemed to be your point about what the "parents of murdered children" want - the death penalty for the offenders. Some are able to see beyond, and remain true to their principles even in the face of tragedy. Of course, the Virks are obviously remarkable human beings and we won't all reach that level.
I know what you intended.
I was just reminding you that I only see the death penalty appropriate for certain cases and circumstances.
If Tori Stafford was your daughter, do you think you'd have it in you to reach out to Michael Rafferty and eventually support his parole application?
yeahhhhhhhh I know. hahhahhahha
Godfather.
The point of justice is not to satisfy the emotions of the victims, it is to maintain public order and safety.
Life in prison does fit the crime.
www.headstonesband.com
and why is it the only point you are commenting on, and in most of this thread, the only point you are focusing on as a whole, is the victims? appeasing the victims alone does not equate to justice. not in the civilized world.
are you in favour of a rapist being taken out to the shed and getting raped as part of his punishment? or maybe a home invader, sometime, anytime, after he is released from prison, he won't know when or how, but he will also be the victim of a home invasion as part of his sentence.
if you have a child, and he gets bullied, or beat up, or both, what will you teach him? to bully back, or teach him to fight and lie in wait and beat up the bully right back? because that is exactly how you are saying society should react to criminals.
www.headstonesband.com
Not according to the actual definition of the term 'justice' which says to use laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals (Merriam-Webster).
We obviously disagree about life in prison being adequate for a serial murderer such as Clifford Olson.
In elementary school, the 'tell the teacher' thing works really well. In high school things change. Telling the teacher was a tactic of old. If my kid is being bullied in high school, he is to use words to try and settle the dispute. If the unwelcome behavior persists or escalates, then as scary as it might be... he may need to punch his tormentor right in the nose- hard. The problem will be solved because bullies like victims, not people who are empowered and stand up for themselves.
However, there are many kids out there who have not been taught to stand up for themselves and sadly, the bullying behaviour will continue when the bully settles on a less combative victim to prey upon.
So, similarly (this is your comparison), ultimately society must address criminals and not stick our head up our ass thinking our fireside chats and pathetic little sentences (see pedophile thread) are adequate. It would be nice if bullies didn't need to get popped because there were no bullies, just like it would be nice if we didn't need to discuss crime and punishment because there were no criminals; however, it is what it is.
* You seemed to have poked fun at such a tactic for a victim of bullying, but I'm not alone with this school of thought. If you think a 16 year old male should run and tell thew teachers every time his bully shoves him or pulls his pants down... you haven't thought this all the way through- it's social suicide. If a victim should not defend themselves physically when words have not worked, exactly how should a victim of bullying deal with his tormentor? Simply wait until they are overcome by the abuse and hang themselves... or get dad's gun and take it to school with them?
Godfather.
not exactly sure how I poked fun at a victim of bullying. I was a victim all throughout elementary and high school, and even beyond. I had plenty of friends, but I was "the nice kid" who never made fun of people, stood up for the mentally/physicall challenged, etc, so I was a target for bullies. Did I ever fight one? Nope. Could I have? I know I could have. And I was scared at what I would do to one if caught up in the moment, so I didn't succumb to that urge.
was I a victim of the worst kind? absolutely not. like I said, I had lots of friends (unfortunately, cowardly ones who would not defend me in the face of schoolyard evil). so I can't speak to the circumstances of people who get it every minute of every day. I have lived in fear for my safety, though, and that's not pleasant.
violence begets violence. FACT. Defend yourself, yes, if in physical danger. of course. but not revenge after the fact. if you take revenge on a bully, will he leave you alone? probably. but you just made it 100 times worse for the next person he preys on. let's be clear: it won't stop his behaviour, it will only make him move on to the next prey.
not sure why the constant melodrama. no one is suggesting fireside chats. but don't you think that people who do these things could use some therapy? or are you against that? you don't believe in the benefits of therapy for those it can work for?
www.headstonesband.com
actually, as bullying and the after-effects of it have become more prevalent, society has been more aware of it instead of turning a blind eye. more schools are encouraging students, at ALL ages, to tell a teacher. this is no different than doing the same thing in the workplace. is workplace bullying always physical? not usually. but bullying is bullying, and people tell their boss and/or HR to deal with it. they don't reciprocate the bully's behaviour. that does nothing.
if you get assaulted, you don't find that person and assault them back. you defend yourself during the assault, but barring that, you call the cops (telling the teacher in adult terms).
www.headstonesband.com
I'm sorry to hear of your past. Another thing I teach my children is to stand up for others when others are unable to do so for themselves. Your friends sucked. If I had been your friend, I would have been there for you- I have been there for others many times including strangers which I detailed at length in a post a few months back (coming to the defence of the First Nation woman who had the beer thrown in her face).
Physical harm is the least concerning aspect of a bullying situation. The mental damage is forever. You have expressed your intense anxiety levels and the irrational impulses you feel which you needed help for. Have you considered that some of this is related to the trauma you endured as a bullied child?
As for your last question, Hugh, I do think the people we speak of need help, but some of these people have crossed a line that is simply inexcusable or worth retrieving them from. If you murder a family, kill 10 children, or rape and murder an 8 year old... I'm not interested in saving you.
The difference is that a kid standing up for themselves gets suspended from school for a week after punching his assailant. An adult gets criminal charges laid upon him. The tactic would work for adults as well, except the consequences do not provide for it. I have come across countless adults who, protected by law, act like assholes knowing they are safe from any undesirable response.
Telling the teacher doesn't make the problem go away. If you don't wish to acknowledge this then fine, however I can tell you from experience that if left to their own devices (no peer support), a kid might be forced to defend themselves with more than threatening to tell the teacher.
which I agreed with. obviously, defend yourself if in imminent physical danger. but I'm not going to knock someone out because they taunted me. that's ridiculous.
www.headstonesband.com
then you misunderstood. I did not mock physically confronting a bully. not sure where you got that from.
All I'm advocating is physical means as a LAST resort, not an immediate reaction, which is what I get from you.
And you brush off the effects of "the next kid getting it worse". I was that fucking kid. This bully picked a fight with a friend of mine, and got his ass whooped. Guess who he then set his sights on, worse than he had previously? ME. He terrorized me after that.
And no, my friends weren't terrible. Someone standing up to a bully for their friend is the minority, not the norm. They didn't want their nose broken any more than I did. It's called the bystander effect. it's real. they weren't bad people. Nor did I really expect it from them, except maybe a bit when we were older.
There was this bully in high school who thought he was the toughest kid on the planet. One day, in history class, I sat in "his" seat. He ordered me to move. I didn't budge (I thought at the time that the social ramifications of bowing to him would be worse than anything). He broke my pencil (seriously, that was his way of threatening me in grade ELEVEN), and said I'd be sorry. After class, in the hallway, he came up to me, forehead to forehead. he reared back and headbutted me, and basically said if I did it again he'd kick my ass. And I believed him. Because I had seen it countless times before. What did I do? Nothing. I let it go. And a friend of mine who was tougher than he was offered to take him down for me. I told him not to.
years later he saw me at the bar and apologized for being such an asshole in school and he was so embarassed to see people from that era etc etc.
from that experience, I know that by letting it go, I was right. Had he started punching me, I probably would have fought back. But in all my years of seeing schoolyard and bar fights, I have never seen one instance of one guy beating someone up who refuses to fight back. they look foolish. and they stop. I have done it myself when challenged. kept my hands to my side. they walk away.
www.headstonesband.com
sure it can. depending on the teacher and their level of understanding of the situation. one teacher saved me from a certain beating when he caught wind of a threat in the hallway, he called the kid over and held him there while motioning for me to scram. and he didn't physically threaten me again, cause he knew he would be in deep shit if he did.
www.headstonesband.com
no, it is a result of an underlying condition of depression and anxiety and my inability at the time to get help, and so I self medicated for a decade (or 2), which obviously made it much worse. I don't feel as I was traumatized by it, honestly. it doesn't bother me at all. if it did, maybe I'd feel the need to lash out at others in anger, which I do not. those irrational impulses you speak of are a by-product of anxiety, not trauma or anger.
I honestly think it made me a better person in the way that I'm hyper sensitive to others needs and the interest in always helping out the little guy.
www.headstonesband.com
Don't get me wrong... a skilled teacher can be an effective deterrent for the moment, but they are only that- a deterrent. The problem still exists though in that one kid is a bully and another kid has become a target. Both kids need help overcoming their situation.
Your experience is your experience and I'm glad you were strong enough to maintain a frame of mind where you didn't allow the abuse to consume you. Let me tell you though that many others do not have the same inner strength to maintain their sense of self worth and I have seen them beaten down because of it.
I can tell you that I have seen many kids stand up to their tormentor and not only stop the problem, but regain their dignity in the process. While more gentle methods should be employed to thwart a bully's efforts... at some point in time, kids may be forced to summon their courage and defend themselves instead of dusting themselves off one more time when the abuse becomes physical.
* I know what the bystander effect is, but I most often associate such with being reluctant to step in when it's a stranger in a struggle- not someone you care about. I'm sorry to say that if your friends stood around and watched you get assaulted every now and then- especially after sticking your neck out for one of them as you stated you did (inviting the abuse towards yourself)- then they don't fit my description of what a friend is.