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
I cannot say I know enough to really judge what sentence was appropriate here, but this statement from the judge did bug me.
"When you blame others, you give up your power to change," Hatch said that her mother used to say.
I mean, I think this sort of thinking might make sense sometimes, but I was under the impression that giving penalties to people who are guilty of crimes was kind of the point of having criminal laws and stuff. I am not really sure how you can do that without blaming people in some way.
Seems to me that even if you should be more careful in the future that does not make what the other person did any more acceptable. I feel like this is just another variant of the whole "it's your fault for being so sensitive" thing that people used to justify bullying, harassment, and other junk like that.
Actually the opposite happens. But that's not my point. I'm saying that trying to rehabilitate rapists (specifically though not exclusively) is, on some level, apologizing for them.
I think rehabilitation is noble, but in this case, a greater evil than punishment.
>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.
Except deterrents don't really work. Hence crime still happens just as if not more often in places with severe death penalties.
If people thought they were going to get caught they wouldn't do it. They don't.
^No it's not. We're not responsible for what he did. We are responsible for how we react. And it's bizarro land thinking to prefer murder to making someone a better human being.
Are we talking about the US specifically or some arbitrary set of laws? Because the US doesn't really try to rehabilitate most criminals.
I'm almost entirely sure this has been proven to be false. Most killings are either crimes of passion or considered in such a way as to avoid detection. The former killer isn't in a state of mind to care about a death penalty, and anyway, only about 30% of murder investigations recover enough evidence to enact an accurate conviction. On top of that, not all murders get the death penalty, and none of them get the death penalty where said penalty doesn't exist. Via simple statistics and consideration of motive, we can tell that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.
Except it's not. Look at the link in the OP of this thread; the case was biased against a victim of sexual assault. By technical letter of the law, this should not be the situation, but the handling of the case has ensured that the victim is the one being demonised here. The idea that governmental justice is impersonal is a great ideal, but currently naive given how political, sexual, racial and other biases are very common amongst most people. Judges and juries are made of human beings, and what's more, many human beings often forget the gravity of their responsibilities in all walks of life. Very troublingly, this appears to be exceedingly common in governmental positions.
A libertarian comedian once wisely said 'I don't trust those fucks in the government with my mail. Why are you trusting them with human lives?'
And you know what, I don't care if every other argument in this thread is right (which they're not) 'killing is wrong' is still a truth that trumps each of them.
For me, it would be enough--in a very hypothetical scenario, granted--to see that this person has gone through an extensive rehabilitation program, protected from the hypermasculine violence of the modern prison experience, and by all rights has been given a perfectly good chance to reintegrate, and then goes on to kill/rape someone else. At best, you damage the peace of mind of the general community by allowing a convicted murderer/rapist back into the streets, and at worst, resources have been wasted, and lives ruined or taken. I would be mortified if the federal system attempted to rehabilitate this person again, so that they can leech the resources of better people. tl;dr: I absolutely think that everyone should be given at least one chance at rehabilitation, given that crime is mostly the result of an unfortunate upbringing and can probably be corrected, but I think that, when that fails, the system is within its rights to apply a more final solution and be done with the matter, for the sake of the community as a whole. Ideally with a proper lamentation that this action was the better course of action.
Can't speak for everyone else, but I'm still speaking from the hypothetical; I don't approve of the death penalty where humans are the adjudicators, and until such a time as we can create, I dunno, robots that can somehow collect objective data and prove beyond any doubt that a person has committed a string of crimes carried out over decades and in spite of calculated, efficient rehabilitation, within a much more efficient budget than we would use by keeping this forsaken person alive, I don't think it's worth taking the risk of killing someone who was just in such a wrong place at a terrible time. And no matter what happens, it shouldn't be carried out for the sake of revenge. And, really, it shouldn't even have to be a thing to consider until (if ever) we drain our resources so thoroughly that the common man is struggling against everyone else, to the point where the government has to decide who deserves things more. I just think it's wrong to absolutely leave this off the table, under any circumstance, but I'm biased heavily against most absolution anyway.
I find this entirely agreeable.
This, I cannot accept as an absolute truth.
>This, I cannot accept as an absolute truth.
There are times I can find killing justifiable or defendable but it is never a moral action, and especially not in a position where you have a man completely at your mercy.
Doesn't that statement contradict itself? The way I would put it, some circumstances justify it, but it's unfortunate that someone had to die in the first place.
I feel more that that's when the decision requires the most gravity, and the most dire societal circumstances.
>Doesn't that statement contradict itself?
Not at all. Someone can have reasons for something, but that doesn't make it a good thing. I can understand stealing food to survive but stealing is still bad, and it's a bad thing done as a result of an even worse system.
In the case you provide, I would call it unfortunate, that it came to pass, but not bad by definition, since it depends on who you steal from; stealing from a fellow destitute would be both wrong and stupid, but if one man's excess should be redistributed a la Robin Hood, I would only go as far as to say that it's unfortunate that one person was allowed to stockpile resources like that. tl;dr: What's bad is the system, and for that, I can't necessarily condemn the illegal action as wrong, in reference to the higher human law that speaks for justice, even when man does not speak it through text.
Feel free to ignore this; I'm kind of being semantic.
Wouldn't someone stealing food be more likely to steal it from a store, though?
No, we are responsible for both. Rapists are not born, they are created. They are the result of an upbringing and circumstances that led to this person thinking that it was okay to sexually assault a person. We as a society are responsible. And if we can't create a society where rape is impossible, we must at least condemn rapists when they act (which is clearly not happening here, which is the disgusting part). And I can think of no greater condemnation than a death sentence.
Even then, I think life imprisonment is the better choice here anyway. Mainly because I think life imprisonment is worse than a death sentence.
^^ Okay, fair enough, stealing from an actual rich person would probably be kind of tough for a poor person at this point in time. >_>
But, hey, maybe it is one person who, for whatever reason, has been allowed to stockpile things at the expense of others, by cheating stores. And if this hypothetical store has enough to feed everyone, but doesn't, then, well, fuck 'em.
>No, we are responsible for both. Rapists are not born, they are created. They are the result of an upbringing and circumstances that led to this person thinking that it was okay to sexually assault a person. We as a society are responsible.
Which is why we should take responsibility and heal the sick.
If you're seriously going to say that we created them, that someone is a rapist because of us that makes your statements even more evil. That's not taking responsibility, that's sweeping your mess under the rug.
So, wait, you think it's fundamentally society's fault that rape happens...but you support killing the people who do it?Isn't that completely contradictory?
False dichotomy, IMO.
See, the problem here is that you're saying that a death sentence is the greatest possible condemnation (true) to portray it as the only valid reaction. I mean, life in prison is also a pretty serious condemnation.
^^It is. It's 'moral' indignation that makes you feel better but doesn't actually solve any problems.
>But, hey, maybe it is one person who, for whatever reason, has been allowed to stockpile things at the expense of others, by cheating stores. And if this hypothetical store has enough to feed everyone, but doesn't, then, well, fuck 'em.
Admittedly, as someone who grew up on Zorro and Batman I find a lot of appeal here, but the problem is that stuff is really only treating a symptom rather than solving a true problem.
Well, uh, this doesn't seem very far from victim-blaming, honestly. Hell, I suppose society-blaming is a thing, but blaming a community that laments that this happened, and a community made up of many who had nothing to do with it? What happened to "blame the rapist"? I mean, that the rape happened speaks of deeper psychological issues, but that person still committed the action. Most people are pretty clear on rape being wrong, at least in my experience, so why blame the collective for this person's actions and then kill him because "we" raised him wrong?
True enough. But in the case of starvation, it's a symptom that needs immediate treatment, even at such a time as the root problem can't be treated. That's basically what I mean with all my hypothetical babble.
Which isn't to say there aren't a lot of problems with rape culture in our world, but it is pretty fucked up to say that people who just exist in such a society are guilty of it, or that it's in any was a reason or excuse for what the rapist did.
^Right, which is why I would accept and understand an action even if I saw it as a man driven to wrong by extreme circumstances. Generally speaking said person would also probably prefer not to steal to eat.
Fair enough. I was just being semantic with the "wrong vs. unfortunate" thing, really. :P
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse this person by shifting the blame. I am still saying that both society and the rapist are responsible.
I disagree, or at least they don't think it's wrong enough. Which is the entire problem with this case.
I do think that most people are clear on it being wrong, but I think the problem is that "most" isn't enough. Thus, stuff like this happens.
Also, a lot of rapists would argue what they did wasn't rape.
I got into the conversation late
Difference between here and CAD:
CAD: DEATH TO THE JUDGE -FiH BLARGH!
Here: A reasonable discusssion
Control Alt Delete
forum about shitty webcomic
"I do think that most people are clear on it being wrong, but I think the problem is that "most" isn't enough. Thus, stuff like this happens."
Stuff like this will always happen, unfortunately. Best we can do is minimize the damage and make sure it doesn't happen again. I've got a feeling this judge will have to "voluntarily" step-down soon.
>implying executing rapists isn't giving in by saying you can't combat the underlying ideas through rehabilitation
>implying a swift death is always worse punishment than letting someone rot in a cell/making him see the gravitas of his deed
>implying rape as the worst. possible. thing. doesn't have its own share of problems such as talking relatively unaffected victims into trauma, the invention of prefix-rapes to distance ourselves from the Black Deed(tm) and high-profile media dramas that shift the focus from all those cases which never make it to court
All I want to say on the matter is this:
GOD DAMMIT, ARIZONA