9 Dead in Shooting at Black Church in SC

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, del, Are you guys snowed in or something?! I know the Canadian winters can be rough......

Just finished 10 days of antibiotics. Cold as hell up here (-15 to -25 the last month with no relief).

I'm a little pissy.

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, del, Are you guys snowed in or something?! I know the Canadian winters can be rough......

Just finished 10 days of antibiotics. Cold as hell up here (-15 to -25 the last month with no relief).

I'm a little pissy.

christ it was 70F in new jersey last week... today was a balmy 48F. sorry bud.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, del, Are you guys snowed in or something?! I know the Canadian winters can be rough......

Lol, I'm okay. I think. Busy as hell at work though - I don't have time to be my usual gentle self.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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:

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".

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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:

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".

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.

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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:

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".

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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:

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".

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.

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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:

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".

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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:

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".

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.

1 of 7 things I say you agree with!

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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).

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.!

Go Beavers

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

PJ_Soul

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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)

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.