A state that kills children

you want to know my real answer

i HOPE im strong enough to stand on the steps and praise the judge for NOT lissioning to an emotional person (ie ME)

because THAT is what the justice system is about

IMPARTIALITY

and the victom and there familly are NOT impartial
 
Nasor:
Ok, I don't have a problem with trying 17 year olds who kill people as adults, but I hate arguments like this. You're deliberately attempting to set up a situation in which he might allow emotions to overwhelm his logic, then claiming that this makes his logic in some why faulty. It's sort of an inverted appeal to pity fallacy. People use it all the time, and it annoys me because it doesn't make any sense
Click to expand...

Good point well made. But it wasn't an argument, more a question. I was trying to show why flexibility in the law is a good thing. I think I failed.

Anthony:

Actually, I asked Adam.
 
Originally posted by Xev
I was trying to show why flexibility in the law is a good thing. I think I failed.
Click to expand...
I agree that flexibility is important. If we only wanted impartiality and strict adherence to exact rules, we would use computers as judges. Just look at some of the absurdity that US school's 'zero tolerance' pollicies have lead to if you want to see how important flexibility is.

If you're from another country and don't know what I'm talking about, I hope you never find out.
 
impartiality doesnt mean stict adherance

it means that your not so blinded by the need for revenge that you never see the other side
 
It is a failure for a society to kill its citizens.

It is inconsistent and hypocritical for a society to kill its citizens in order to punish and/or deter its citizens from killing.

No matter what the age or the country.

oz
 
In Belgium there recently was a violent homejacking and one of the victims was under 18. He was brought before the same judge as the other gangsters and received an equaly high time in jail, because of the seriousness of the facts.

This seems a logical way to look at it. When you're under 18, you get the chance to be reeducated instead of going to jail. The difference is only in the focus of the guards. They have to try and make the delinquent a better person.

If your acts are too serious, you can argue that the reeducation has no effect and that the only way to pay society and to let you think about what you did is going to jail.

When the premise for reeducation falls away, it's not illogical to change the conclusion. Clinging to a strict age barrier is to rigid.

This does not mean that a judge will put a 14 year old in jail for sniping people. The accused must have the knowledge of the concepts 'right" and 'wrong'. A 14 year old would have to be reeducated.

I am against the death penalty, but only if accompanied by stricter politics about serving the full sentence. Since this thread is not about the death penalty, I will leave it at that remark.
 
"It is inconsistent and hypocritical for a society to kill its citizens in order to punish and/or deter its citizens from killing."

This is illogical. To claim this is to claim that there is no difference between David Berkowitz and David Hume.

For the record, I am against the death penalty.
 
you ARE?????

i didnt know that xev

how come you surported star in the DP thread then?

and out of intrest WHY are you against it?
 
Originally posted by Xev
"It is inconsistent and hypocritical for a society to kill its citizens in order to punish and/or deter its citizens from killing."

This is illogical.
Click to expand...

What is illogical about this statement, Xev. Please be specific.

To claim this is to claim that there is no difference between David Berkowitz and David Hume.
Click to expand...

Maybe in some warped logical system. The above statement certainly does not follow from my assertion. Perhaps you can explain your thought process so the rest of us can follow along.

oz
 
ozmonster:

What is illogical about this statement, Xev. Please be specific.
Click to expand...

You assume that there is no difference between a man who kills ten people and a man who kills none - i.e that they have equal worth.

Most systems of morality would differ, but moral systems are based on assumptions. Yours is too. Thus it is fairly illogical.

Isn't that illogical, Xev?
Click to expand...

You have read this thread?
You are making assumptions again. See below for my stance.

Asguard:

I've made no secret of the fact that I am an abolitionist on a purely utilitarian level. I have no moral problem with the death penalty, I simply feel that it leaves too much up to chance (i.e that an innocent person might be executed) and is not worth the risk of executing an innocent person, nor the money spent on it.
 
The idiot killed what... like 15 people? WTF are we arguing about here?
Click to expand...

Human rights, due process,...

you know, all the unconditional stuff you wish that wasn't there when something horrible happens.

Bring on the mob.
 
A4Ever:

What human right gives him the privlege to kill people and get away with it?

Can you even prove the existance of "human rights"?

Where does due process enter into this? Nobody's denying him a trial.
 
What human right gives him the privlege to kill people and get away with it?
Click to expand...

None. That's not what I meant. He has certain rights like the right to a fair trial. When some animal comes around and slaughters people who can later show a passport or a birth certificate, is to be treated humanely.

The horror :)

Can you even prove the existance of "human rights"?
Click to expand...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, december 10, 1948.

If you talk about the philosophy behind it: I would still say yes. Especially if you take the holocaust into consideration. This clearly showed the need for undeniable human rights.

Where does due process enter into this?
Click to expand...

When newspapers print opinions about a case that is yet to be judged, this can be considered a breach of the due process, according to an English ruling. The court has to be fully independent when judging, and the independence can get compromised by public opinion.

Also, many people have the tendency to forget the right to a fair trial in times of attrocities.
 
Nobody's denying him a trial.
Click to expand...

Right, they're just trying him as an adult making it possible for him to receive the death penalty. Again, WTF are we arguing about here? He meticously killed like 15 or so people. He plotted, planned and executed his desire to shoot AND kill people from a distance. Not only does he deserve to die, but he deserves to be shot in the same pussystyle manner that he used with his victims:mad:
 
The american justice system is based on a subjective opinon of the ruling minority. It lacks any sense of wisdom and understanding. (To my perception:I though the same of my government but they have started to incorparte restorative justice.)

As a Canadian I tend to view the American governement as selfish, egotistical, foolish and in-humain. Not to say ours is any better. I ussualy think the same about my own, but honestly who has the right to deal out death and punishment. Too kill again will resolve nothing. That better are they then those that they punish?
No body can prove the existance of human rights.
Click to expand...

Xev honestly you of all people should realize this. In the big scheme of things they do not exist. The only reason for human rights is the love we have for other humans. Yes love may not exist as we we have had this debate a thousand times. But whether it simply be chemicals in the brain it takes nothing away form it. It is still love in all its pure essence. With all that it is.
 
Originally posted by Xev
ozmonster:

You assume that there is no difference between a man who kills ten people and a man who kills none - i.e that they have equal worth.

Click to expand...

Actually this is your assumption based on my assertion. You assume that I assume there is no difference? I'n not that thick headed (althought intellegent minds can disagree). I can see the difference but the recognition of this difference does not necessitate state sponsored killing. LWOP is sufficient IMO.

I've made no secret of the fact that I am an abolitionist on a purely utilitarian level. I have no moral problem with the death penalty, I simply feel that it leaves too much up to chance (i.e that an innocent person might be executed) and is not worth the risk of executing an innocent person, nor the money spent on it.
Click to expand...

Do you listen to yourself? Talk about illogical. You think not supporting the DP because of the danger of killing an innocent person is purely utilitarian. The greater good would actually allow for a few good ones to slip through the cracks in furtherance of order. You are making a moral judgement that it is better to let 10 men who should have been executed stay alive so that one innocent man won't be killed.

Your position also leaves open the possibility that the death penalty should not be abolished as long as we can insure that it is justly applied and cheap. Is this true? Well don't hold your breath. The finality of death does not leave room for any error and IMHO, it is impossible for it to be applied w/o error. This is where our positions are linked (no matter how you label your reasons).

oz
 
Originally posted by static76
What kind of retarded logic is this? This sniper kills innocent people going about their daily lives(including a child), and you expect anyone to value his life. Cry me a fucking river...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I am just a wet blanket unable to cope with the harsh realities of the world, but I happen to value all human life, including the lives of antisocial serial killers.

*puzzled as ever by the sheer stupidity of retributive justice*
 
Not only does he deserve to die, but he deserves to be shot in the same pussystyle manner that he used with his victims
Click to expand...

I understand that.

But it also shows how far many people think human rights should go: not that far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top