Gingerbread Man on 3/7/2008 at 00:42
I understand that position. I just think that, in the actual and real practice of things, it's probably worse -- sociologically speaking, I'm not at all qualified to say anything about legal theory -- to ignore the "heinous" and "egregious" instances that most clearly demonstrate a brutality or viciousness far beyond any average, agreed-upon Line.
Kolya on 3/7/2008 at 00:52
That guy isn't a "monster" and he's not an "animal" either as someone said before. He's a human. And there's no line he or any of us can pass to change that.
And what example of humanity would it be to kill him?
heretic on 3/7/2008 at 00:54
Quote Posted by Kolya
That guy isn't a "monster" and he's not an "animal" either as someone said before. He's a human. And there's no line he or any of us can pass to change that.
Tell that to the victim.
Stitch on 3/7/2008 at 01:02
So the government is in the business of avenging victims now?
heretic on 3/7/2008 at 01:03
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
I understand that position. I just think that, in the actual and real practice of things, it's probably worse -- sociologically speaking, I'm not at all qualified to say anything about legal theory -- to ignore the "heinous" and "egregious" instances that most clearly demonstrate a brutality or viciousness far beyond any average, agreed-upon Line.
That may very well be correct, sociologically speaking.
I'd even go so far as to admit that I see the upper road you hint at for what it is, though I could never bring myself to not give in to the temptation of dropping these abhorrent individuals into the nearest meat grinder.
Nor would I expect or even want others to avoid doing so.
Like I said, if you can walk the higher road, then I love you for that..and I see the wisdom within. All the same, I'm glad there are knuckle draggers much like myself to carry out the dirty work, or at least see that it is done.
I fail to see how this could make the world any worse off, though I can see how it might make it safer, even if at least it only
feels as such for the victim, who really should be central to our discussion after all.
SubJeff on 3/7/2008 at 01:13
Hypothetical question for the anti-capital punishment bleeding hearts oops, ahem, people:
If someone nuked a city would you accept a death penalty as just punishment?
Aerothorn on 3/7/2008 at 01:39
Quote Posted by Starrfall
And if you think people can't disagree on what a law means (and thus condemn decisions they feel reflect a bad interpretation) just because it's a law then you are the stupid one sir.
I think you misunderstood my post. I meant that it is dumb to condemn a ruling WITHOUT examining the legal basis for the ruling - that is, criticizing the decision because you it disagrees with your personal beliefs. Obviously, the entire system is built around disagreeing for things based on ambiguous legal code.
I don't think you've ever jumped at me like that before. Yikes.
Starrfall on 3/7/2008 at 01:54
But the "sir" was supposed to convey good-natured chiding!
I do find your tendency to ascribe Obama's more moderate positions to political expediency pretty goddamn rolleyes, although you probably do that less than I think.
fett on 3/7/2008 at 02:18
Quote Posted by Kolya
That guy isn't a "monster" and he's not an "animal" either as someone said before. He's a human. And there's no line he or any of us can pass to change that.
And what example of humanity would it be to kill him?
You're wrong. Animals operate based on instinct without regard for the consequences of thier actions (socially speaking) and are ruled by sexual drive and enviornmental influences that are rarley curbed or changed by rational cognitive thought. He's both a monster and an animal and it would be a GREAT example of humanity to permanantly fuck his shit up as a message to other animals/monsters that real humans aren't going to tolerate such actions.
Honestly. The guy raped a 5 year old. If you can't understand why he no longer gets to participate in the human race, you're pretty fucked in the head as well.
SD on 3/7/2008 at 15:33
Quote Posted by fett
You're wrong. Animals operate based on instinct without regard for the consequences of thier actions (socially speaking) and are ruled by sexual drive and enviornmental influences that are rarley curbed or changed by rational cognitive thought. He's both a monster and an animal and it would be a GREAT example of humanity to permanantly fuck his shit up as a message to other animals/monsters that real humans aren't going to tolerate such actions.
Irrational behaviour is not the dividing line between animal and human; that would be DNA.
And you know, raping a child might be irrational to us, but that's because our behavioural code is largely rational. If your moral code is irrational to begin with, then can you really be blamed for behaving in an irrational way?
Quote Posted by fett
Honestly. The guy raped a 5 year old. If you can't understand why he no longer gets to participate in the human race, you're pretty fucked in the head as well.
The thing is though, who are you to make that call? Who is
anybody to make that call?
Sure, a killer might not "deserve" to live (although it's quite something when we're talking about a person's right to live not being an inalienable one) but what gives any person the right to arbitrarily take that person's life?
I do wonder if this is one of those bizarre issues when Americans and Europeans just don't see eye-to-eye.
