It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?
Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.
hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.
We definitely have a couple of insurmountable disagreements about this. First, your "lack of compassion" premise. My compassion and concern is not for the convict, but rather for innocents, and for society. So my compassion is there, it is just pointed a different direction from yours. Second point of contention - justice vs. revenge. You can make this claim, I can make the counter claim. Revenge presupposes a vindictive motive. The revenge claim could be used against any and all forms of punishment if you wanted to. So we're at an impasse. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that the DP makes me queasy, and should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no uncertainty. If one has committed a crime as horrific as Roof with the same evidence against him and is convicted, then we are left with a person with no redeeming value, and a continued risk for the rest of his life. The logical solution for the benefit of society is to make sure the rest of his life is as short as possible. Not vindictive, not vengeful, not emotional, just logical.
But you haven't made a good case that it's logical. Just because you said he has no value and won't pose a risk doesn't make it logical. That sounds like an emotionally based decision dressed up to look like intellectualism.
It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?
Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.
hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.
We definitely have a couple of insurmountable disagreements about this. First, your "lack of compassion" premise. My compassion and concern is not for the convict, but rather for innocents, and for society. So my compassion is there, it is just pointed a different direction from yours. Second point of contention - justice vs. revenge. You can make this claim, I can make the counter claim. Revenge presupposes a vindictive motive. The revenge claim could be used against any and all forms of punishment if you wanted to. So we're at an impasse. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that the DP makes me queasy, and should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no uncertainty. If one has committed a crime as horrific as Roof with the same evidence against him and is convicted, then we are left with a person with no redeeming value, and a continued risk for the rest of his life. The logical solution for the benefit of society is to make sure the rest of his life is as short as possible. Not vindictive, not vengeful, not emotional, just logical.
But you haven't made a good case that it's logical. Just because you said he has no value and won't pose a risk doesn't make it logical. That sounds like an emotionally based decision dressed up to look like intellectualism.
Ok, your opinion is noted. You don't think I've made a valid, logical argument. I do. You think it is emotional. I don't. I apparently didn't persuade you with my position. You certainly haven't persuaded me with yours. Now what?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?
Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.
hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.
We definitely have a couple of insurmountable disagreements about this. First, your "lack of compassion" premise. My compassion and concern is not for the convict, but rather for innocents, and for society. So my compassion is there, it is just pointed a different direction from yours. Second point of contention - justice vs. revenge. You can make this claim, I can make the counter claim. Revenge presupposes a vindictive motive. The revenge claim could be used against any and all forms of punishment if you wanted to. So we're at an impasse. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that the DP makes me queasy, and should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no uncertainty. If one has committed a crime as horrific as Roof with the same evidence against him and is convicted, then we are left with a person with no redeeming value, and a continued risk for the rest of his life. The logical solution for the benefit of society is to make sure the rest of his life is as short as possible. Not vindictive, not vengeful, not emotional, just logical.
But you haven't made a good case that it's logical. Just because you said he has no value and won't pose a risk doesn't make it logical. That sounds like an emotionally based decision dressed up to look like intellectualism.
Ok, your opinion is noted. You don't think I've made a valid, logical argument. I do. You think it is emotional. I don't. I apparently didn't persuade you with my position. You certainly haven't persuaded me with yours. Now what?
You're decision making process is the same as the emotionally driven, vengful person. You've just raised the requirement threshold. They have to be guilty and done something incredibly reprehensible. The person who wants every violent criminal put to death thinks the same thing.
This was a woman scorned... so we should sit down with her... have some deep conversations... try to get at the root of her anger towards her ex husband... and then counsel her so that she can get back at it. She's a human. She has value. And there's nothing we can do now for her brutally murdered 5 year old son.
To imprison her is simply an emotional response that is rooted in bloodlust and a need for revenge.
This was a woman scorned... so we should sit down with her... have some deep conversations... try to get at the root of her anger towards her ex husband... and then counsel her so that she can get back at it. She's a human. She has value. And there's nothing we can do now for her brutally murdered 5 year old son.
To imprison her is simply an emotional response that is rooted in bloodlust and a need for revenge.
TB, I think you know my position on the DP. I would praise the justice system for giving her the death penalty. Just in some circumstances I think life in prison is better for some if they truly will realize everyday that they will die in a cage.
Which in Canada hardly ever happens. People don't die in their cages- after a little while... they are released with Starbucks cards (if their crime was of the horrible variety they only get Tims cards). Plus social assistance and all that extra support to ease their transition into society.
The execution of George Stinney was carried out at the South Carolina State Penitentiary in Columbia, on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. [5] Standing 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg),[4] he was small for his age, which presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth”...After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."[8][9] Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution, eighty-one days had passed.[5]
The execution of George Stinney was carried out at the South Carolina State Penitentiary in Columbia, on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. [5] Standing 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg),[4] he was small for his age, which presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth”...After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."[8][9] Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution, eighty-one days had passed.[5]
(still yawning)
jesus.
land of the free, home of the brave!!! american pride!!!!!!
Following his arrest, Stinney's father was fired from his job and his parents and siblings were given the choice of leaving town or being lynched. The family was forced to flee, leaving the 14-year-old child with no support during his 81-day confinement and trial. His trial, including jury selection, lasted just one day. Stinney's court-appointed attorney was a tax commissioner preparing to run for office. There was no court challenge to the testimony of the three police officers who claimed that Stinney had confessed, although that was the only evidence presented. There were no written records of a confession. Three witnesses were called for the prosecution: the man who discovered the bodies of the two girls and the two doctors who performed the post mortem. No witnesses were called for the defense. The trial lasted two and a half hours. The jury took ten minutes to deliberate before it returned with a 'guilty' verdict.
Seemed like a pretty peaceful way to go for the guy. Infinitely more peaceful than his victims who he bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.
I'm not feeling sorry for him.
no one said to feel sorry for him. that wasn't the point of the article. the point was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this type of responsibility.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Seemed like a pretty peaceful way to go for the guy. Infinitely more peaceful than his victims who he bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.
I'm not feeling sorry for him.
no one said to feel sorry for him. that wasn't the point of the article. the point was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this type of responsibility.
His 'opinion' was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this responsibility. I would disagree.
His questioning, ironically, stems from a surge of emotion after experiencing the event. Initially, he was excited (just like the other reporter who won the 'lottery'). He never fist pumped as the first guy who won admittance did, but he 'played it cool' while still being very thrilled. He kept telling himself that he was going to do some good as a result of being there (but essentially admitted this was self talk and there was a deeper inkling to attend based in morbid curiousity).
Then, once it was over, it seemed as if he felt some form of shame or guilt for his part in the event and wrote his opinion piece. I can understand how he got to there, but I can also understand how the parents and families of the two victims who were savagely killed by that dickhead are in a different place. Their perspectives aren't the same as a death voyeur.
Seemed like a pretty peaceful way to go for the guy. Infinitely more peaceful than his victims who he bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.
I'm not feeling sorry for him.
no one said to feel sorry for him. that wasn't the point of the article. the point was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this type of responsibility.
His 'opinion' was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this responsibility. I would disagree.
His questioning, ironically, stems from a surge of emotion after experiencing the event. Initially, he was excited (just like the other reporter who won the 'lottery'). He never fist pumped as the first guy who won admittance did, but he 'played it cool' while still being very thrilled. He kept telling himself that he was going to do some good as a result of being there (but essentially admitted this was self talk and there was a deeper inkling to attend based in morbid curiousity).
Then, once it was over, it seemed as if he felt some form of shame or guilt for his part in the event and wrote his opinion piece. I can understand how he got to there, but I can also understand how the parents and families of the two victims who were savagely killed by that dickhead are in a different place. Their perspectives aren't the same as a death voyeur.
actually, what I got from it, was his LACK of emotion after the event that he found troubling. that humans don't hold life sacred.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Seemed like a pretty peaceful way to go for the guy. Infinitely more peaceful than his victims who he bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.
I'm not feeling sorry for him.
no one said to feel sorry for him. that wasn't the point of the article. the point was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this type of responsibility.
His 'opinion' was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this responsibility. I would disagree.
His questioning, ironically, stems from a surge of emotion after experiencing the event. Initially, he was excited (just like the other reporter who won the 'lottery'). He never fist pumped as the first guy who won admittance did, but he 'played it cool' while still being very thrilled. He kept telling himself that he was going to do some good as a result of being there (but essentially admitted this was self talk and there was a deeper inkling to attend based in morbid curiousity).
Then, once it was over, it seemed as if he felt some form of shame or guilt for his part in the event and wrote his opinion piece. I can understand how he got to there, but I can also understand how the parents and families of the two victims who were savagely killed by that dickhead are in a different place. Their perspectives aren't the same as a death voyeur.
actually, what I got from it, was his LACK of emotion after the event that he found troubling. that humans don't hold life sacred.
He did speak as if he was numbed by the event, but as I mentioned... my feel is that he was ultimately overwhelmed by it and was trying to introspectively make sense of his participation in the event.
But many humans do not hold life sacred. This really can't be debated. Executing mass murderers aside... look at the human activities that show little respect for life (and in no level of significance): war, murder, crime, homelessness, the wholesale slaughter of whales, poaching endangered species for profit, subjugation of women, intolerance of homosexuality, and a litany of other significant things that would take me an hour to list.
Seemed like a pretty peaceful way to go for the guy. Infinitely more peaceful than his victims who he bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.
I'm not feeling sorry for him.
no one said to feel sorry for him. that wasn't the point of the article. the point was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this type of responsibility.
His 'opinion' was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this responsibility. I would disagree.
His questioning, ironically, stems from a surge of emotion after experiencing the event. Initially, he was excited (just like the other reporter who won the 'lottery'). He never fist pumped as the first guy who won admittance did, but he 'played it cool' while still being very thrilled. He kept telling himself that he was going to do some good as a result of being there (but essentially admitted this was self talk and there was a deeper inkling to attend based in morbid curiousity).
Then, once it was over, it seemed as if he felt some form of shame or guilt for his part in the event and wrote his opinion piece. I can understand how he got to there, but I can also understand how the parents and families of the two victims who were savagely killed by that dickhead are in a different place. Their perspectives aren't the same as a death voyeur.
actually, what I got from it, was his LACK of emotion after the event that he found troubling. that humans don't hold life sacred.
He did speak as if he was numbed by the event, but as I mentioned... my feel is that he was ultimately overwhelmed by it and was trying to introspectively make sense of his participation in the event.
But many humans do not hold life sacred. This really can't be debated. Executing mass murderers aside... look at the human activities that show little respect for life (and in no level of significance): war, murder, crime, homelessness, the wholesale slaughter of whales, poaching endangered species for profit, subjugation of women, intolerance of homosexuality, and a litany of other significant things that would take me an hour to list.
I know it can't. we agree. which is part of the point, is that if we don't hold life sacred, how can we think we can be tasked with taking something away from someone when we don't appreciate its value?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Seemed like a pretty peaceful way to go for the guy. Infinitely more peaceful than his victims who he bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.
I'm not feeling sorry for him.
no one said to feel sorry for him. that wasn't the point of the article. the point was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this type of responsibility.
His 'opinion' was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this responsibility. I would disagree.
His questioning, ironically, stems from a surge of emotion after experiencing the event. Initially, he was excited (just like the other reporter who won the 'lottery'). He never fist pumped as the first guy who won admittance did, but he 'played it cool' while still being very thrilled. He kept telling himself that he was going to do some good as a result of being there (but essentially admitted this was self talk and there was a deeper inkling to attend based in morbid curiousity).
Then, once it was over, it seemed as if he felt some form of shame or guilt for his part in the event and wrote his opinion piece. I can understand how he got to there, but I can also understand how the parents and families of the two victims who were savagely killed by that dickhead are in a different place. Their perspectives aren't the same as a death voyeur.
actually, what I got from it, was his LACK of emotion after the event that he found troubling. that humans don't hold life sacred.
He did speak as if he was numbed by the event, but as I mentioned... my feel is that he was ultimately overwhelmed by it and was trying to introspectively make sense of his participation in the event.
But many humans do not hold life sacred. This really can't be debated. Executing mass murderers aside... look at the human activities that show little respect for life (and in no level of significance): war, murder, crime, homelessness, the wholesale slaughter of whales, poaching endangered species for profit, subjugation of women, intolerance of homosexuality, and a litany of other significant things that would take me an hour to list.
I know it can't. we agree. which is part of the point, is that if we don't hold life sacred, how can we think we can be tasked with taking something away from someone when we don't appreciate its value?
A mass murderer has lost his value. They've crossed a line that, to my way of thinking, there is no coming back from. Mass murderers had control at some point. They never exercised it and murdered people. We all would have preferred a non-event; however, they have pushed the envelope and forced our hands. Jail? Death? No Tim Hortons (lol)? We are forced to do something. I feel the nature of the crime should determine the nature of the punishment. If two equal players are shooting at one another in a drug deal and one dies... send the murderer to prison. If some deviant plucks some little girl off the streets and murders her... well... sorry... prison is too good for such a person in my mind.
If anything, the process associated with executing a mass murderer is an opportunity to display the value we place on life: the fact we don't march these undesirables down below the courthouse upon their convictions, place them in showers, and shoot them in the head speaks to how much we concern ourselves with life.
And, the fact that after thoroughly exhausting the process prior to executing these people... we execute them as justice for their victims shows we care as well (by demonstrating an absolute intolerance for taking lives and how much we valued the victims).
all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter.
I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).
I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.
* I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter.
I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).
I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.
* I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter.
I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).
I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.
* I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
Okay, this isn't specifically death penalty, but it is highly relevant to criminality, recidivism, and the philosophy of the Corrections system.
What happens when an American state experiments with "the Norwegian model" of prisons? A lot of good things; well, unless you happen to really like punitive measures and the death penalty.
all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter.
I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).
I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.
* I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right? And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die? So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?
all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter.
I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).
I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.
* I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right? And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die? So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?
People can be against the death penalty for a variety of reasons
It's unarguable that "the system" is flawed, given the number of false convictions. However, that's unrelated to the idea of whether or not lives have value, unless you want to argue that no one's life has value and thus it doesn't matter if we have false convictions and execution of those who are innocent.
And believing all lives have value is a very different thing than feeling sorry for someone.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter.
I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).
I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.
* I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right? And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die? So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?
nope. simply stating that it is not up to humans to decide which humans live or die is not the same as feeling sorry for the criminals. if anything, I think that prison is a worse punishment than death. so feeling sorry for the criminal? that would be a no.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I'm not with you on that. Cause if I thought someone was unjustly sentenced to anything, then I would feel bad for the person who has to deal with that sentence. How do you not feel bad for someone who has a punishment pushed on them that you don't think should have been a consideration?
I'm not with you on that. Cause if I thought someone was unjustly sentenced to anything, then I would feel bad for the person who has to deal with that sentence. How do you not feel bad for someone who has a punishment pushed on them that you don't think should have been a consideration?
well that's a different animal entirely. of course I feel bad for someone that is unjustly sentenced. but that's not what we're talking about here.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I'm not with you on that. Cause if I thought someone was unjustly sentenced to anything, then I would feel bad for the person who has to deal with that sentence. How do you not feel bad for someone who has a punishment pushed on them that you don't think should have been a consideration?
well that's a different animal entirely. of course I feel bad for someone that is unjustly sentenced. but that's not what we're talking about here.
Alrighty then. I'm not communicating very well on this. but I'll just stop because it's friday I'm tired and I have no idea how to say what I'm trying to say apparently!
Comments
This was a woman scorned... so we should sit down with her... have some deep conversations... try to get at the root of her anger towards her ex husband... and then counsel her so that she can get back at it. She's a human. She has value. And there's nothing we can do now for her brutally murdered 5 year old son.
To imprison her is simply an emotional response that is rooted in bloodlust and a need for revenge.
I would praise the justice system for giving her the death penalty. Just in some circumstances I think life in prison is better for some if they truly will realize everyday that they will die in a cage.
Which in Canada hardly ever happens. People don't die in their cages- after a little while... they are released with Starbucks cards (if their crime was of the horrible variety they only get Tims cards). Plus social assistance and all that extra support to ease their transition into society.
What would be even cruller is if the Tims card was only good for black coffee.
Both threads originated by Byrnzie?
Eloquent.
Seemed like a pretty peaceful way to go for the guy. Infinitely more peaceful than his victims who he bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.
I'm not feeling sorry for him.
no one said to feel sorry for him. that wasn't the point of the article. the point was that humans don't have the capacity to properly enact this type of responsibility.
-EV 8/14/93
His questioning, ironically, stems from a surge of emotion after experiencing the event. Initially, he was excited (just like the other reporter who won the 'lottery'). He never fist pumped as the first guy who won admittance did, but he 'played it cool' while still being very thrilled. He kept telling himself that he was going to do some good as a result of being there (but essentially admitted this was self talk and there was a deeper inkling to attend based in morbid curiousity).
Then, once it was over, it seemed as if he felt some form of shame or guilt for his part in the event and wrote his opinion piece. I can understand how he got to there, but I can also understand how the parents and families of the two victims who were savagely killed by that dickhead are in a different place. Their perspectives aren't the same as a death voyeur.
-EV 8/14/93
But many humans do not hold life sacred. This really can't be debated. Executing mass murderers aside... look at the human activities that show little respect for life (and in no level of significance): war, murder, crime, homelessness, the wholesale slaughter of whales, poaching endangered species for profit, subjugation of women, intolerance of homosexuality, and a litany of other significant things that would take me an hour to list.
-EV 8/14/93
If anything, the process associated with executing a mass murderer is an opportunity to display the value we place on life: the fact we don't march these undesirables down below the courthouse upon their convictions, place them in showers, and shoot them in the head speaks to how much we concern ourselves with life.
And, the fact that after thoroughly exhausting the process prior to executing these people... we execute them as justice for their victims shows we care as well (by demonstrating an absolute intolerance for taking lives and how much we valued the victims).
-EV 8/14/93
I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.
* I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
What happens when an American state experiments with "the Norwegian model" of prisons? A lot of good things; well, unless you happen to really like punitive measures and the death penalty.
http://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2017/07/north-dakota-norway-prisons-experiment/
People can be against the death penalty for a variety of reasons
It's unarguable that "the system" is flawed, given the number of false convictions. However, that's unrelated to the idea of whether or not lives have value, unless you want to argue that no one's life has value and thus it doesn't matter if we have false convictions and execution of those who are innocent.
And believing all lives have value is a very different thing than feeling sorry for someone.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4270225