No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?
1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."
2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."
That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?
1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."
2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."
That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.
No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?
1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."
2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."
That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.
Rephrase it any way you want.
You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.
No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?
1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."
2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."
That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.
Rephrase it any way you want.
You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.
??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?
1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."
2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."
That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.
Rephrase it any way you want.
You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.
??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.
Well then we can agree to disagree.
I don't think society is served in some abstract way by not executing mass murderers as you like to suggest.
I've said it's far worse for society to read of these types (Clifford Olson et al) and their prison antics than it is to put them to death in clinical fashion and never hear from them again.
No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?
1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."
2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."
That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.
Rephrase it any way you want.
You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.
??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.
Well then we can agree to disagree.
I don't think society is served in some abstract way by not executing mass murderers as you like to suggest.
I've said it's far worse for society to read of these types (Clifford Olson et al) and their prison antics than it is to put them to death in clinical fashion and never hear from them again.
You've never responded to that.
I don't recall reading it. How do you think it's far worse for society to read about these insanely rare and sensationalized instances than it is to have a system where the government is in the business of revenge killing and leaves cracks for innocent people to be killed, drags out the appeals process for decades and spends more tax dollars to do it? So in response to your theory... well, it's based on nothing but emotion. Now, if you look at all the nations that don't have the DP and all the nations that do, you will find that the former all have a leg up in terms of having a peaceful and well-functioning society, sooo.....
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?
1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."
2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."
That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.
Rephrase it any way you want.
You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.
??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.
Well then we can agree to disagree.
I don't think society is served in some abstract way by not executing mass murderers as you like to suggest.
I've said it's far worse for society to read of these types (Clifford Olson et al) and their prison antics than it is to put them to death in clinical fashion and never hear from them again.
You've never responded to that.
I don't recall reading it. How do you think it's far worse for society to read about these insanely rare and sensationalized instances than it is to have a system where the government is in the business of revenge killing and leaves cracks for innocent people to be killed, drags out the appeals process for decades and spends more tax dollars to do it? So in response to your theory... well, it's based on nothing but emotion. Now, if you look at all the nations that don't have the DP and all the nations that do, you will find that the former all have a leg up in terms of having a peaceful and well-functioning society, sooo.....
sooooo... you're crediting not having capital punishment for socialist countries' success in having a peaceful and well-functioning society? How about successful social programs? How about variables such as gun ownership and poverty rates as well? Not to mention the fact that the same countries you speak of have their share of mutant murderers as well- the last two referenced outside of this Hood thread were from Canada and Norway.
And call the demand for the DP emotional all you want. I don't think it is. Those are your and others' words. Letting the punishment fit the crime is hardly emotional. It's as pragmatic as pragmatic might hope to be (using the term again).
No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?
1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."
2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."
That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.
Rephrase it any way you want.
You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.
??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.
Well then we can agree to disagree.
I don't think society is served in some abstract way by not executing mass murderers as you like to suggest.
I've said it's far worse for society to read of these types (Clifford Olson et al) and their prison antics than it is to put them to death in clinical fashion and never hear from them again.
You've never responded to that.
I don't recall reading it. How do you think it's far worse for society to read about these insanely rare and sensationalized instances than it is to have a system where the government is in the business of revenge killing and leaves cracks for innocent people to be killed, drags out the appeals process for decades and spends more tax dollars to do it? So in response to your theory... well, it's based on nothing but emotion. Now, if you look at all the nations that don't have the DP and all the nations that do, you will find that the former all have a leg up in terms of having a peaceful and well-functioning society, sooo.....
sooooo... you're crediting not having capital punishment for socialist countries' success in having a peaceful and well-functioning society? How about successful social programs? How about variables such as gun ownership and poverty rates as well? Not to mention the fact that the same countries you speak of have their share of mutant murderers as well- the last two referenced outside of this Hood thread were from Canada and Norway.
And call the demand for the DP emotional all you want. I don't think it is. Those are your and others' words. Letting the punishment fit the crime is hardly emotional. It's as pragmatic as pragmatic might hope to be (using the term again).
No, I am saying that it is something that relatively peaceful and well-functioning societies have in common. Basically, I'm saying that a more enlightened society is able to understand what it means to not have the DP, and less enlightened societies don't. In other words, I feel that craving the DP is a very unenlightened viewpoint, both on a personal level and on a societal level. Letting the punishment fit the crime is fine and dandy when you're talking about lesser crimes. When it comes to murder, it just drags the punisher down to the criminal's level. Also, wanting to kill to punish killing is 100% emotional. Just using the phrase "let the punishment fit the crime" doesn't make vengeance any less emotional no matter how "equal" it is.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
the husband of one of the victims stated very clearly that the victim would be the type of person to have forgiven him before she even hit the floor and would not want Roof to get the DP.
several other examples of survivors being against the DP:
and again, to call your view on the DP pragmatic is absolutely laughable. your entire case for the DP has been based on anger towards the perps, empathy towards the victims and their families, your disgust at the justice system, calling the criminals any number of names such as sub-humans, human waste, human garbage, to name but a few of the PG ones, not to mention applauding chadwick and all the sick ways he describes he wishes to do away with these criminals. to call that pragmatic is hilarious.
as I have stated several times, which you agreed with, is that I have taken emotion out of the equation in dealing with the idea of the DP. You stated very clearly that you think it's heartless to do so because I "don't care for the victims".
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
the husband of one of the victims stated very clearly that the victim would be the type of person to have forgiven him before she even hit the floor and would not want Roof to get the DP.
several other examples of survivors being against the DP:
and again, to call your view on the DP pragmatic is absolutely laughable. your entire case for the DP has been based on anger towards the perps, empathy towards the victims and their families, your disgust at the justice system, calling the criminals any number of names such as sub-humans, human waste, human garbage, to name but a few of the PG ones, not to mention applauding chadwick and all the sick ways he describes he wishes to do away with these criminals. to call that pragmatic is hilarious.
as I have stated several times, which you agreed with, is that I have taken emotion out of the equation in dealing with the idea of the DP. You stated very clearly that you think it's heartless to do so because I "don't care for the victims".
Lol
The anti DP website collated all the people that love Jesus and don't wish an execution for the murderer of their child. And you're saying what exactly? I acknowledged that some people were exactly like that, but they are not the majority... hardly in fact- don't fool yourself.
And mutant is my preferred term for someone who kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills little children. I understand that yours is poor poor murderer (I mean... you've even posted links of murderer's mothers to display their feelings)... so obviously we'll never see eye to eye.
I've laughed at Chadwick's- tongue in cheek- descriptions for successful methods of execution. He's definitely making a point, but he's goofing around doing so. One would need a sense of humour to see that.
Both you and Soul have failed miserably trying to position the anti DP argument as pragmatic when you speak of 'heightened levels of society' and other philosophical fluff to make your case. While sitting around by the fire, smoking pipes in your smoking jackets... I think you should do a google search on the term and think about its definition a bit.
And it's pretty easy to remain emotionally detached from a crime that doesn't impact you. Once one touches closer to home... people begin to think a little differently (remember Dr. Petit who changed his tune?). You'd change your tune too.
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
the husband of one of the victims stated very clearly that the victim would be the type of person to have forgiven him before she even hit the floor and would not want Roof to get the DP.
several other examples of survivors being against the DP:
and again, to call your view on the DP pragmatic is absolutely laughable. your entire case for the DP has been based on anger towards the perps, empathy towards the victims and their families, your disgust at the justice system, calling the criminals any number of names such as sub-humans, human waste, human garbage, to name but a few of the PG ones, not to mention applauding chadwick and all the sick ways he describes he wishes to do away with these criminals. to call that pragmatic is hilarious.
as I have stated several times, which you agreed with, is that I have taken emotion out of the equation in dealing with the idea of the DP. You stated very clearly that you think it's heartless to do so because I "don't care for the victims".
Lol
The anti DP website collated all the people that love Jesus and don't wish an execution for the murderer of their child. And you're saying what exactly? I acknowledged that some people were exactly like that, but they are not the majority... hardly in fact- don't fool yourself.
And mutant is my preferred term for someone who kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills little children. I understand that yours is poor poor murderer (I mean... you've even posted links of murderer's mothers to display their feelings)... so obviously we'll never see eye to eye.
I've laughed at Chadwick's- tongue in cheek- descriptions for successful methods of execution. He's definitely making a point, but he's goofing around doing so. One would need a sense of humour to see that.
Both you and Soul have failed miserably trying to position the anti DP argument as pragmatic when you speak of 'heightened levels of society' and other philosophical fluff to make your case. While sitting around by the fire, smoking pipes in your smoking jackets... I think you should do a google search on the term and think about its definition a bit.
And it's pretty easy to remain emotionally detached from a crime that doesn't impact you. Once one touches closer to home... people begin to think a little differently (remember Dr. Petit who changed his tune?). You'd change your tune too.
I have a sense of humour. but when it's coupled with such a serious topic, I take issue. especially when it eggs on the pitchfork witchhunt mob. and I don't get the sense it's tongue in cheek for him. he once told me he'd like to drive a truck through my house.
um, I know what pragmatism is. which is why I know you are incorrect.
and I have stated many times that it is very possible I'd change my tune if I were to become a survivor. which is exactly why this is the approach that needs to be taken. take emotion out of it (you know, pragmatism?). which is why I'm also against victim impact statements. law is not about emotion or anger. it's about what's right.
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
the husband of one of the victims stated very clearly that the victim would be the type of person to have forgiven him before she even hit the floor and would not want Roof to get the DP.
several other examples of survivors being against the DP:
and again, to call your view on the DP pragmatic is absolutely laughable. your entire case for the DP has been based on anger towards the perps, empathy towards the victims and their families, your disgust at the justice system, calling the criminals any number of names such as sub-humans, human waste, human garbage, to name but a few of the PG ones, not to mention applauding chadwick and all the sick ways he describes he wishes to do away with these criminals. to call that pragmatic is hilarious.
as I have stated several times, which you agreed with, is that I have taken emotion out of the equation in dealing with the idea of the DP. You stated very clearly that you think it's heartless to do so because I "don't care for the victims".
Lol
The anti DP website collated all the people that love Jesus and don't wish an execution for the murderer of their child. And you're saying what exactly? I acknowledged that some people were exactly like that, but they are not the majority... hardly in fact- don't fool yourself.
And mutant is my preferred term for someone who kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills little children. I understand that yours is poor poor murderer (I mean... you've even posted links of murderer's mothers to display their feelings)... so obviously we'll never see eye to eye.
I've laughed at Chadwick's- tongue in cheek- descriptions for successful methods of execution. He's definitely making a point, but he's goofing around doing so. One would need a sense of humour to see that.
Both you and Soul have failed miserably trying to position the anti DP argument as pragmatic when you speak of 'heightened levels of society' and other philosophical fluff to make your case. While sitting around by the fire, smoking pipes in your smoking jackets... I think you should do a google search on the term and think about its definition a bit.
And it's pretty easy to remain emotionally detached from a crime that doesn't impact you. Once one touches closer to home... people begin to think a little differently (remember Dr. Petit who changed his tune?). You'd change your tune too.
I have a sense of humour. but when it's coupled with such a serious topic, I take issue. especially when it eggs on the pitchfork witchhunt mob. and I don't get the sense it's tongue in cheek for him. he once told me he'd like to drive a truck through my house.
um, I know what pragmatism is. which is why I know you are incorrect.
and I have stated many times that it is very possible I'd change my tune if I were to become a survivor. which is exactly why this is the approach that needs to be taken. take emotion out of it (you know, pragmatism?). which is why I'm also against victim impact statements. law is not about emotion or anger. it's about what's right.
Exactly... it's about what's right.
What's right for a guy that walks into a church and kills 9 people who were being nice to him? What's right for a guy that shoots 70 kids? What's right for a guy that kills 10 kids after torturing them and raping them?
It's not recreation, internet, the best cancer treatment money can buy, video games, and fan clubs... that's for sure.
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
the husband of one of the victims stated very clearly that the victim would be the type of person to have forgiven him before she even hit the floor and would not want Roof to get the DP.
several other examples of survivors being against the DP:
and again, to call your view on the DP pragmatic is absolutely laughable. your entire case for the DP has been based on anger towards the perps, empathy towards the victims and their families, your disgust at the justice system, calling the criminals any number of names such as sub-humans, human waste, human garbage, to name but a few of the PG ones, not to mention applauding chadwick and all the sick ways he describes he wishes to do away with these criminals. to call that pragmatic is hilarious.
as I have stated several times, which you agreed with, is that I have taken emotion out of the equation in dealing with the idea of the DP. You stated very clearly that you think it's heartless to do so because I "don't care for the victims".
Lol
The anti DP website collated all the people that love Jesus and don't wish an execution for the murderer of their child. And you're saying what exactly? I acknowledged that some people were exactly like that, but they are not the majority... hardly in fact- don't fool yourself.
And mutant is my preferred term for someone who kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills little children. I understand that yours is poor poor murderer (I mean... you've even posted links of murderer's mothers to display their feelings)... so obviously we'll never see eye to eye.
I've laughed at Chadwick's- tongue in cheek- descriptions for successful methods of execution. He's definitely making a point, but he's goofing around doing so. One would need a sense of humour to see that.
Both you and Soul have failed miserably trying to position the anti DP argument as pragmatic when you speak of 'heightened levels of society' and other philosophical fluff to make your case. While sitting around by the fire, smoking pipes in your smoking jackets... I think you should do a google search on the term and think about its definition a bit.
And it's pretty easy to remain emotionally detached from a crime that doesn't impact you. Once one touches closer to home... people begin to think a little differently (remember Dr. Petit who changed his tune?). You'd change your tune too.
I have a sense of humour. but when it's coupled with such a serious topic, I take issue. especially when it eggs on the pitchfork witchhunt mob. and I don't get the sense it's tongue in cheek for him. he once told me he'd like to drive a truck through my house.
um, I know what pragmatism is. which is why I know you are incorrect.
and I have stated many times that it is very possible I'd change my tune if I were to become a survivor. which is exactly why this is the approach that needs to be taken. take emotion out of it (you know, pragmatism?). which is why I'm also against victim impact statements. law is not about emotion or anger. it's about what's right.
Exactly... it's about what's right.
What's right for a guy that walks into a church and kills 9 people who were being nice to him? What's right for a guy that shoots 70 kids? What's right for a guy that kills 10 kids after torturing them and raping them?
It's not recreation, internet, the best cancer treatment money can buy, video games, and fan clubs... that's for sure.
we both know my answer to that question, and we both know yours. I agree with your final statement.
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
the husband of one of the victims stated very clearly that the victim would be the type of person to have forgiven him before she even hit the floor and would not want Roof to get the DP.
several other examples of survivors being against the DP:
and again, to call your view on the DP pragmatic is absolutely laughable. your entire case for the DP has been based on anger towards the perps, empathy towards the victims and their families, your disgust at the justice system, calling the criminals any number of names such as sub-humans, human waste, human garbage, to name but a few of the PG ones, not to mention applauding chadwick and all the sick ways he describes he wishes to do away with these criminals. to call that pragmatic is hilarious.
as I have stated several times, which you agreed with, is that I have taken emotion out of the equation in dealing with the idea of the DP. You stated very clearly that you think it's heartless to do so because I "don't care for the victims".
Lol
The anti DP website collated all the people that love Jesus and don't wish an execution for the murderer of their child. And you're saying what exactly? I acknowledged that some people were exactly like that, but they are not the majority... hardly in fact- don't fool yourself.
And mutant is my preferred term for someone who kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills little children. I understand that yours is poor poor murderer (I mean... you've even posted links of murderer's mothers to display their feelings)... so obviously we'll never see eye to eye.
I've laughed at Chadwick's- tongue in cheek- descriptions for successful methods of execution. He's definitely making a point, but he's goofing around doing so. One would need a sense of humour to see that.
Both you and Soul have failed miserably trying to position the anti DP argument as pragmatic when you speak of 'heightened levels of society' and other philosophical fluff to make your case. While sitting around by the fire, smoking pipes in your smoking jackets... I think you should do a google search on the term and think about its definition a bit.
And it's pretty easy to remain emotionally detached from a crime that doesn't impact you. Once one touches closer to home... people begin to think a little differently (remember Dr. Petit who changed his tune?). You'd change your tune too.
I have a sense of humour. but when it's coupled with such a serious topic, I take issue. especially when it eggs on the pitchfork witchhunt mob. and I don't get the sense it's tongue in cheek for him. he once told me he'd like to drive a truck through my house.
um, I know what pragmatism is. which is why I know you are incorrect.
and I have stated many times that it is very possible I'd change my tune if I were to become a survivor. which is exactly why this is the approach that needs to be taken. take emotion out of it (you know, pragmatism?). which is why I'm also against victim impact statements. law is not about emotion or anger. it's about what's right.
Exactly... it's about what's right.
What's right for a guy that walks into a church and kills 9 people who were being nice to him? What's right for a guy that shoots 70 kids? What's right for a guy that kills 10 kids after torturing them and raping them?
It's not recreation, internet, the best cancer treatment money can buy, video games, and fan clubs... that's for sure.
we both know my answer to that question, and we both know yours. I agree with your final statement.
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
You're speaking for all the victims of Clifford Olson without posting a source? (Interesting your go-to example is Clifford Olson. i was a child in the exact area where he was killing kids. The people he killed lived in my community. My life was directly affected by him, but I never spent a second wasting time on vengeful feelings when it comes to that creep. Society was kept safe from him, that is what the job of the justice system is).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
You're speaking for all the victims of Clifford Olson without posting a source? (Interesting your go-to example is Clifford Olson. i was a child in the exact area where he was killing kids. The people he killed lived in my community. My life was directly affected by him, but I never spent a second wasting time on vengeful feelings when it comes to that creep. Society was kept safe from him, that is what the job of the justice system is).
That's not the job of the justice system. The justice system is to deliver justice, otherwise we would be calling to the safeguard system.
We'll never see eye to eye on this, Soul. Regardless, thanks for testing my belief system and challenging me on my views. I'm in the same place I was, but it's a useful exercise regardless.
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
You're speaking for all the victims of Clifford Olson without posting a source? (Interesting your go-to example is Clifford Olson. i was a child in the exact area where he was killing kids. The people he killed lived in my community. My life was directly affected by him, but I never spent a second wasting time on vengeful feelings when it comes to that creep. Society was kept safe from him, that is what the job of the justice system is).
That's not the job of the justice system. The justice system is to deliver justice, otherwise we would be calling to the safeguard system.
We'll never see eye to eye on this, Soul. Regardless, thanks for testing my belief system and challenging me on my views. I'm in the same place I was, but it's a useful exercise regardless.
Congrats on scoring U2 tickets.
Thanks - you got Vancouver U2 tix too, right? Floor? Maybe we should meet up and debate face-to-face.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
You're speaking for all the victims of Clifford Olson without posting a source? (Interesting your go-to example is Clifford Olson. i was a child in the exact area where he was killing kids. The people he killed lived in my community. My life was directly affected by him, but I never spent a second wasting time on vengeful feelings when it comes to that creep. Society was kept safe from him, that is what the job of the justice system is).
That's not the job of the justice system. The justice system is to deliver justice, otherwise we would be calling to the safeguard system.
We'll never see eye to eye on this, Soul. Regardless, thanks for testing my belief system and challenging me on my views. I'm in the same place I was, but it's a useful exercise regardless.
Congrats on scoring U2 tickets.
Thanks - you got Vancouver U2 tix too, right? Floor? Maybe we should meet up and debate face-to-face.
Topics limited to: which beer tastes better... which song is better... etc.!
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
You're speaking for all the victims of Clifford Olson without posting a source? (Interesting your go-to example is Clifford Olson. i was a child in the exact area where he was killing kids. The people he killed lived in my community. My life was directly affected by him, but I never spent a second wasting time on vengeful feelings when it comes to that creep. Society was kept safe from him, that is what the job of the justice system is).
That's not the job of the justice system. The justice system is to deliver justice, otherwise we would be calling to the safeguard system.
We'll never see eye to eye on this, Soul. Regardless, thanks for testing my belief system and challenging me on my views. I'm in the same place I was, but it's a useful exercise regardless.
Congrats on scoring U2 tickets.
Thanks - you got Vancouver U2 tix too, right? Floor? Maybe we should meet up and debate face-to-face.
Topics limited to: which beer tastes better... which song is better... etc.!
Pliney the Elder is a really good beer, but overrated because of the power of psychological suggestion that happens as a result of the demand for the beer. The brewery plays on this by tightly controlling the release (say one or two kegs st a time) to a single pub in a certain geographic area. The higher price they put on a keg (about double) also factors into this ("it must be good since I'm paying $8.50 a pint for this").
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
You're speaking for all the victims of Clifford Olson without posting a source? (Interesting your go-to example is Clifford Olson. i was a child in the exact area where he was killing kids. The people he killed lived in my community. My life was directly affected by him, but I never spent a second wasting time on vengeful feelings when it comes to that creep. Society was kept safe from him, that is what the job of the justice system is).
That's not the job of the justice system. The justice system is to deliver justice, otherwise we would be calling to the safeguard system.
We'll never see eye to eye on this, Soul. Regardless, thanks for testing my belief system and challenging me on my views. I'm in the same place I was, but it's a useful exercise regardless.
Congrats on scoring U2 tickets.
Thanks - you got Vancouver U2 tix too, right? Floor? Maybe we should meet up and debate face-to-face.
Topics limited to: which beer tastes better... which song is better... etc.!
Pliney the Elder is a really good beer, but overrated because of the power of psychological suggestion that happens as a result of the demand for the beer. The brewery plays on this by tightly controlling the release (say one or two kegs st a time) to a single pub in a certain geographic area. The higher price they put on a keg (about double) also factors into this ("it must be good since I'm paying $8.50 a pint for this").
Discuss.
Beer hasn't sat well with me since I was about 23. I don't drink it. Plus, I'm in GA, which means no fluids after 3pm in any case. However, I think that creating a superficial supply shortage in order to try and elevate a product in the minds of the consumers is utter bullshit.... I also think that consumers on whom this tactic works are pretty damn gullible and the biggest part of the problem. (insert link to any ltd edition PJ merch drop thread, lol)
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I don't think that sentences for petty crimes should be damning to the offender if the punishment fits the crime. Petty crime = petty sentence. It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
I see where you're going with that, but you' haven't spoke on behalf of the victims- you've spoken to the component of society removed from the crime.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Well I don't think that basing sentences administered by the justice system on the individual emotions of victims is practical at all. Remember that many victim families don't support the DP either, and that the DP process sometimes even causes them harm and additional trauma. But even if the family did want the DP... I don't think it's practical to consider it. I mean, what? Kill the person if the victim family is into that, and don't if the victim family isn't? The criminal justice system can't properly function like that.
Firstly... most survivors want justice for their loss. I'm pretty sure, if the dead had a voice... they'd want some form of justice that looked a little differently than a cozy cell, hot meals cooked, exercise programs and internet privileges; but yes... there are some that want to even forgive the killer of their child. This isn't saying much from my perspective: there are people that think a lot of things that are not necessarily fantastic.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
You're speaking for all the victims of Clifford Olson without posting a source? (Interesting your go-to example is Clifford Olson. i was a child in the exact area where he was killing kids. The people he killed lived in my community. My life was directly affected by him, but I never spent a second wasting time on vengeful feelings when it comes to that creep. Society was kept safe from him, that is what the job of the justice system is).
That's not the job of the justice system. The justice system is to deliver justice, otherwise we would be calling to the safeguard system.
We'll never see eye to eye on this, Soul. Regardless, thanks for testing my belief system and challenging me on my views. I'm in the same place I was, but it's a useful exercise regardless.
Congrats on scoring U2 tickets.
Thanks - you got Vancouver U2 tix too, right? Floor? Maybe we should meet up and debate face-to-face.
Topics limited to: which beer tastes better... which song is better... etc.!
Pliney the Elder is a really good beer, but overrated because of the power of psychological suggestion that happens as a result of the demand for the beer. The brewery plays on this by tightly controlling the release (say one or two kegs st a time) to a single pub in a certain geographic area. The higher price they put on a keg (about double) also factors into this ("it must be good since I'm paying $8.50 a pint for this").
Discuss.
Good one! I've had Pliney numerous times. I like Pliney. But I don't think Pliney is so amazing that I go out of my way to track it down and pay a premium for it. So I guess I can't argue with you about it being overrated.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.
I don't think society is served in some abstract way by not executing mass murderers as you like to suggest.
I've said it's far worse for society to read of these types (Clifford Olson et al) and their prison antics than it is to put them to death in clinical fashion and never hear from them again.
You've never responded to that.
So in response to your theory... well, it's based on nothing but emotion. Now, if you look at all the nations that don't have the DP and all the nations that do, you will find that the former all have a leg up in terms of having a peaceful and well-functioning society, sooo.....
And call the demand for the DP emotional all you want. I don't think it is. Those are your and others' words. Letting the punishment fit the crime is hardly emotional. It's as pragmatic as pragmatic might hope to be (using the term again).
Letting the punishment fit the crime is fine and dandy when you're talking about lesser crimes. When it comes to murder, it just drags the punisher down to the criminal's level. Also, wanting to kill to punish killing is 100% emotional. Just using the phrase "let the punishment fit the crime" doesn't make vengeance any less emotional no matter how "equal" it is.
I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.
I'm a little pissy.
It's just that heinous murder changes things. A lot. Making the punishment fit the crime in cases of the most extreme and horrendous crimes puts an undue burden on the punisher (i.e. society). Most people are not evil, so I don't think it's right or moral in any way to expect them to commit evil. And that is what that is. If you're punishing an evil act with an evil punishment... well, on a pragmatic level, that just makes everyone evil.
Society has a responsibility to administer justice on behalf of the victims. Not all necessary tasks are pleasant.
Secondly... remember that I advocate for the DP with certain criteria. Mass, serial, or involving children are some of the criteria I speak of.
There isn't one Clifford Olson survivor that didn't lament the treatment Olson received- they all wanted him executed and so did the majority of the Canadian public. Sex dolls (which he complained about), best cancer treatment money could buy, isolation, and... best yet... cash for bodies was a little too much.
He needed to go.
several other examples of survivors being against the DP:
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-voices-victims-families
and again, to call your view on the DP pragmatic is absolutely laughable. your entire case for the DP has been based on anger towards the perps, empathy towards the victims and their families, your disgust at the justice system, calling the criminals any number of names such as sub-humans, human waste, human garbage, to name but a few of the PG ones, not to mention applauding chadwick and all the sick ways he describes he wishes to do away with these criminals. to call that pragmatic is hilarious.
as I have stated several times, which you agreed with, is that I have taken emotion out of the equation in dealing with the idea of the DP. You stated very clearly that you think it's heartless to do so because I "don't care for the victims".
www.headstonesband.com
The anti DP website collated all the people that love Jesus and don't wish an execution for the murderer of their child. And you're saying what exactly? I acknowledged that some people were exactly like that, but they are not the majority... hardly in fact- don't fool yourself.
And mutant is my preferred term for someone who kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills little children. I understand that yours is poor poor murderer (I mean... you've even posted links of murderer's mothers to display their feelings)... so obviously we'll never see eye to eye.
I've laughed at Chadwick's- tongue in cheek- descriptions for successful methods of execution. He's definitely making a point, but he's goofing around doing so. One would need a sense of humour to see that.
Both you and Soul have failed miserably trying to position the anti DP argument as pragmatic when you speak of 'heightened levels of society' and other philosophical fluff to make your case. While sitting around by the fire, smoking pipes in your smoking jackets... I think you should do a google search on the term and think about its definition a bit.
And it's pretty easy to remain emotionally detached from a crime that doesn't impact you. Once one touches closer to home... people begin to think a little differently (remember Dr. Petit who changed his tune?). You'd change your tune too.
um, I know what pragmatism is. which is why I know you are incorrect.
and I have stated many times that it is very possible I'd change my tune if I were to become a survivor. which is exactly why this is the approach that needs to be taken. take emotion out of it (you know, pragmatism?). which is why I'm also against victim impact statements. law is not about emotion or anger. it's about what's right.
www.headstonesband.com
What's right for a guy that walks into a church and kills 9 people who were being nice to him? What's right for a guy that shoots 70 kids? What's right for a guy that kills 10 kids after torturing them and raping them?
It's not recreation, internet, the best cancer treatment money can buy, video games, and fan clubs... that's for sure.
www.headstonesband.com
(Interesting your go-to example is Clifford Olson. i was a child in the exact area where he was killing kids. The people he killed lived in my community. My life was directly affected by him, but I never spent a second wasting time on vengeful feelings when it comes to that creep. Society was kept safe from him, that is what the job of the justice system is).
We'll never see eye to eye on this, Soul. Regardless, thanks for testing my belief system and challenging me on my views. I'm in the same place I was, but it's a useful exercise regardless.
Congrats on scoring U2 tickets.
Discuss.