Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Oh NOOOOOOOO!
. . . Huh. Normally I don't get this riled up by these sorts of articles. It probably doesn't help that a presentation on Wednesday at my school drew some loathsome opinions from the woodwork; lots of "shit happens"/"DRUNK PEOPLE CAN BE RESPONSIBLE TOO!"/"men are like that!" crap.
Holy mother of god.
Huh, victim-blaming is always horrible but what got me angriest about this particular case is the guy (and the article, what the fuck) complaining about what little punishment he received for his disgusting action.
^ Actions! He also downed eight beers before driving and attempted to threaten bouncers when they kicked him out for what he did. Not that those are similar or comparable to molestation, but it certainly wasn't the careless action of a confused drunk.
Bluh. What a shitty community as a whole, that they're asking for lenience towards someone who broke laws he was charged with upholding. And what sort of fucking broken judicial system gives six-month sentences and probation for molestation? (If it were up to me, firing squads would still be employed by this country, but I might be the only person here who shares that sentiment)
Admittedly, I only approve of the death penalty on paper; it's also stupidly expensive for some reason.
But there isn't often much left that can be undone for someone who spent decades in imprisonment anyway. Sure, you clear things up and get their slate undone, but they've already been subjected to unjust prison life for long enough that they'll probably have changed drastically. Though I'll grant that I don't know how often life sentences are revoked, to compare terms spent.
That reason would be that they're trying to make sure they don't kill the wrong guy. Even then, it's disturbingly common for it to happen anyway.
>But there isn't often much left that can be undone for someone who spent decades in imprisonment anyway. Sure, you clear things up and get their slate undone, but they've already been subjected to unjust prison life for long enough that they'll probably have changed drastically.
Significantly easier than bringing someone back to life.
Which then makes you wonder why they can't apply that same scrutiny to making sure that someone isn't wrongfully imprisoned for life, either. That doesn't seem much better.
Well, yeah, but for what? I dunno. While I haven't "lost faith in humanity" yet, I've lost my ability to believe in the objective sanctity of human life, or how it's worth living through certain experiences. Or, on another side of the die, how we give people who deserve to be on death row a grand last meal, which they can then throw away in spite.
Fair enough. Out of curiosity, do you know where I could find statistics on how often people on death row actually are wrongly killed (or do I just trust Google to turn up legitimate stats)? If it's something absurd like 20% of people on death row not actually being guilty . . . I won't change my hypothetical stance, but I will probably, legitimately lose faith in our judicial system for sucking so badly at getting the facts straight.
The problem isn't our judicial system per se, so much as the fact that it has to be staffed by humans.
As for statistics...it's really hard to determine objectively. I think it's somewhere like 5-10%, though.
I'm with INUH here.
While, on principle, I have no qualms against the death penalty, it is worse to risk the chance of an innocent person losing their life than letting a monstrous criminal getting away with a lighter sentence.
Also, the usual argument against the death penalty (it's a double standard to use execution for punishment, how can you show that killing is wrong by murdering, hurr durr) is silly and absurd, for a good reason. The state, or any governing body with a monopoly of force, cannot be held to the same standard as a random indivdual, for the simple reason that it would lead to a complete breakdown of the penal system. Under that logic, incarceration is equal to slavery, and fines (or even taxation) are equal to theft.
I guess I should add again that I'm only hypothetically in favor of the death penalty. Given that it has to be carried out by humans, who will inevitably fuck up, it's kind of impracticable from a moral standpoint that I'm comfortable with. Which is not to say that I wouldn't rather know that certain people won't be leeching off of community resources anymore; but we can't hold every inmate to the same level of conviction as the others, because of differences in case clarity.
Can't argue there. There are lots of cases where I wish that specific person would get the death penalty, but sadly, law has to be written for the general case.
I consider death penalties to be quite mad. It's understandable that one person might kill another during a desperate struggle, on a battlefield or in a moment of mindlessness, but it's another thing entirely to keep someone in holding for months or years and then make the considered decision to end their life. No matter what a person has done, I can't understand that process -- it's so blatantly a case of retribution over rehabilitation, and we know that retribution justice is ineffective or otherwise actively harmful to criminals and innocents alike.
There's just a particular level of dehumanisation that has to be in play to think over the death of another person and then enact it, rather than killing them because it's immediately necessary or seems to be.
This where I must disagree. I believe that there is a line where some ceases to deserve any of society's compassion or mercy. And sexual assault, of any kind, is far past that line.
I am fully aware that this is dehumanization and I support it, because I find trying to rehabilitate such a person, essentially forgiving them on some level, more immoral than punishing them.
Sometimes retribution is needed.
There must be a time when we say "This cannot be tolerated, in any way, shape, or form."
"To ask forgiveness is too much."
"This far, and no farther."
Of course, the real problem is that nobody can agree on what can and cannot be tolerated.
It's a slippery slope, though. You can begin with good intentions at the beginning, but a couple of hundred years down the line, you might have the U.S judicial system. A system of law that supports dehumanisation also implies that it's okay for a nation's population to dehumanise that which they find unsettling or offensive, and that ties back into retribution morality. And the thing about retribution morality and law is that it doesn't attempt to reconstruct what it breaks down -- a person is punished, and once their punishment is finished, they're free. That doesn't take into account the psychological damage that comes with a prison sentence, though, or re-establishing oneself in the outside world. So many criminals get stuck in a cycle, despite their best intentions, of going through the prison system time and time again because the lack of rehabilitation means they can't cope with the outside world.
What I'm saying here is that the retribution style of judicial punishment is actively harmful, not only to criminals trying to reintegrate, but to their victims. So while it might be very satisfying to know that a serial murderer is getting the chair, it doesn't bring that person's victims back nor does it do anything to deter future murderers. The heroin addict who goes to jail for theft is going to be around other thieves in a culture of hypermasculine violence, which does not at all help them adjust for a regular life on the outside.
Retributional death penalties are basically the most extreme extension of this kind of justice system and can only exist within such a justice system. Ergo, altering the justice system to improve its rates of rehabilitation in order to actually reduce crime means getting rid of the death penalty, because the death penalty is entirely incongruent with a rehabilitation objective. After all, killing a criminal is only ever a Pyrrhic victory, because undoing their crimes is impossible. And, ultimately, it's more important to focus on the practical outcome of policy rather than the emotionally satisfying aspects.
>I am fully aware that this is dehumanization and I support it, because I find trying to rehabilitate such a person, essentially forgiving them on some level, more immoral than punishing them.
I find this line of thought not just problematic but actively horrifying. To say that any action robs a human being of any potential for goodness, any possibility of becoming, any possibility of atoning is factually wrong and even if it weren't none of us has the ability to say when someone has crossed such a line objectively.
Someone doesn't stop being human just because they did something evil. And if you can't see humanity in the abyss that means you have a good deal of the abyss in you. You're willing to cross a line on those that have crossed lines. It's insane logic.
Also what Alex said.
Is it? Could you ever forgive someone for rape? Would you want to? Could you see them as anything but a rapist? The answer is no on every count for me.
>Could you ever forgive someone for rape?
I don't know. I've never known a rapist personally.
>Would you want to?
Yes.
>Could you see them as anything but a rapist?
Yes. I'd see them very differently, but they'd still be a person.
>The answer is no on every count for me.
And that I find incredibly horrifying that you can strip someone of basic humanity like that.
Given that I'm male, the likelihood that I'm going to be raped is miniscule. With that in mind, it's not my place and unlikely to be Malk's place to forgive someone for that specific crime. But rapist or not, the person is still human and should still be treated in accordance with basic human rights. Like I said, it's a slippery slope, because when we are given the authority to define what is and is not human, we're given the power to dehumanise that which we just don't like, or what we think is inconvenient, or what we don't understand.
That's why I believe it's important to ensure that every human being is considered a human being from birth until (hopefully natural) death. If we take pains to ensure that we don't blur the definition of a human being, then we can ensure that no injustice is done on the part of an ill definition of a human being. Quite apart from the moral factors, this is highly practical, because it takes an objective, observable, universal trait (that is, belonging to the genus homo sapiens) and uses it to set a baseline. So rather than umming and ahhing over philosophy and morality, we can look at a human being and go "Yup, that is certainly a human being". Much simpler, safer, more objective and more upstanding on our part.
That's the thing about this. When you murder someone it's about how bad they are. It's not about facilitating a more safe society. It's about revenge, and society should never condone vengeance.
"it's so blatantly a case of retribution over rehabilitation"
I think the idea is (or should be) more that rehabilitating this person is literally impossible.
I can't objectively say anything about that either way. However, I can say that killing them instead of locking them up for life accomplishes nothing but revenge and can't be undone if you find out that they didn't actually rape someone.
^^Except rehabilitations have happened, yes even among serial killers. How can you prove that a rehabilitation is Capital-I Impossible?
And even then that still doesn't change the fact that you're willing to cross a line to prove a point about people already contained, for something that after all the procedures and trials is actually more expensive than a life sentence.
^This is another big thing. To be a nerd and paraphrase LOTR, there are many deserving of life who do not have it. If you cannot give that then be not so quick to offer death.
There's a line between justice and vengeance. That line being that justice is impersonal, carried out by the state and government, whilst vengeance is personal and carried out by individuals.
The bottom line is that if you kill people for heinous crimes, they would do it a lot less. That's the goal; deterrence, preventing something from happening in the first place.
However, rehabilitation - if possible - should always be considered.