Fundamental Pacificism

[st0wandgrow]

Man, I hate to portray devils advocate, because 99% of the time, I'm right there with you. But for some reason, this case has me in that 1% group..

I feel like the appropriate course of action to take is to torture this guy, inflict as much physical pain as humanly possible on him, give him blood transfusions, organ transplants, skin grafts, anything to keep him alive as long as possible. I feel like this makes me a terrible human being because I know, deep down, it's completely contrary to the concept of justice.

What the fucking fuck?

I am opposed to the death penalty, but I'm with you on this one.

There are certain people that break the mold, and guys like this certainly do. I think we should take people like this and use them for the betterment of humanity. Fuck letting him rot in a jail cell. What does that give back to society, considering he took so much? I say we use people like him as lab rats. Lets test new cancer drugs, and other experimental stuff that we typically use lab rats for on people like him. Chop an arm off, and then use stem cell technology to see if we can grow one back. If it doesn't work, oh well. We could simultaneously have him do his time, while giving back to humanity as well.

A real win-win if I've ever seen one.

 

[cannabineer]

I am opposed to the death penalty, but I'm with you on this one.

There are certain people that break the mold, and guys like this certainly do. I think we should take people like this and use them for the betterment of humanity. Fuck letting him rot in a jail cell. What does that give back to society, considering he took so much? I say we use people like him as lab rats. Lets test new cancer drugs, and other experimental stuff that we typically use lab rats for on people like him. Chop an arm off, and then use stem cell technology to see if we can grow one back. If it doesn't work, oh well. We could simultaneously have him do his time, while giving back to humanity as well.

A real win-win if I've ever seen one.

For one thing, the cost difference between a life and death case.
For another, a limit on the powers we allow government to borrow from us. cn

 

[Justin00]

I only support the death penalty for the most horrible of crimes like human torture, intentional mutilation, and murder.

and even then only because of the cost to society, and that's only because we give them FAR better lives than i agree with.

my big problem with the "DP", if you will, is that we don't always get the right guy, so to speak. at which point we are all guilty of the crime we are wrongly punishing him for, murder, in cold blood.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I never understood the moral justification behind killing someone who killed someone..

"You murdered that innocent woman, you took her life, that's the worse possible thing you could have done!... so now we're gonna murder you to teach you a lesson!"

Huh?

 

[cannabineer]

I never understood the moral justification behind killing someone who killed someone..

"You murdered that innocent woman, you took her life, that's the worse possible thing you could have done!... so now we're gonna murder you to teach you a lesson!"

Huh?

That's the thing.
I was pro-capital punishment until a friend gently used moral suasion on me. I'll never forget the sentence that gave me the lightbulb moment.

"if we do that to them ... what does it say about us?" cn

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

I think life in prison is torture, much more justice than an easy trip to the gasp chamber. It seems we hear at least a couple times a year how someone was proven innocent after serving many years in prison.

I think the first thing we need to do to be a more civil and just society is to hold the prosecuting attorneys more accountable for wrongfully imprisoning people. They care more about their conviction rates than the truth. Often, er, um, let me repeat that, OFTEN, they withhold evidence that they know exonnerates the accused. The person who decides who will be charged and with what crimes is much more powerful than the judge, and he or she is untouchable.

The system, as good as it is in the US, is still badly broken and favors those with money/connections. Street justice is often the better justice.


My $.02

 

[Wilksey]

What, in your opinion, is the appropriate action to take when dealing with someone like this?

Pacifism is a fucking stupid concept. There are individuals who can not, or will not, be "reasoned" with, and when those individuals decide to use unlawful force to impose their will, there is only one course of action that will stop it. Force.

IMO, those unwilling to use violence to stop unlawful force are just as fucked up as those using unlawful force to impose their will. Society would be better off without both types.

 

[cannabineer]

Pacifism is a fucking stupid concept. There are individuals who can not, or will not, be "reasoned" with, and when those individuals decide to use unlawful force to impose their will, there is only one course of action that will stop it. Force.

IMO, those unwilling to use violence to stop unlawful force are just as fucked up as those using unlawful force to impose their will. Society would be better off without both types.

Interesting concept. The hole in it is that we're discussing what to do with people who are already imprisoned. At that point, once you strip all the flowery moral posturing away, all that's left is naked vengeance. That belongs to someOne else if the book is to be believed, and he can keep it imo. cn

 

[Padawanbater2]

Pacifism is a fucking stupid concept. There are individuals who can not, or will not, be "reasoned" with, and when those individuals decide to use unlawful force to impose their will, there is only one course of action that will stop it. Force.

IMO, those unwilling to use violence to stop unlawful force are just as fucked up as those using unlawful force to impose their will. Society would be better off without both types.

Fair enough, but I feel this is a slippery slope as somebody has to draw the line. Where is the line, and who draws it, and more importantly, what makes it morally justified? The implications of capital punishment are well known, sometimes innocent people are executed, how would you handle that?

 

[eye exaggerate]

Interesting concept. The hole in it is that we're discussing what to do with people who are already imprisoned. At that point, once you strip all the flowery moral posturing away, all that's left is naked vengeance. That belongs to someOne else if the book is to be believed, and he can keep it imo. cn

...well said. And, all that underlining I just did was not to color you a theist in any way.

...here, I'll give you the (hehe...)

 

[kpmarine]

Pacifism is a fucking stupid concept. There are individuals who can not, or will not, be "reasoned" with, and when those individuals decide to use unlawful force to impose their will, there is only one course of action that will stop it. Force.

IMO, those unwilling to use violence to stop unlawful force are just as fucked up as those using unlawful force to impose their will. Society would be better off without both types.

Here's the tough part though. Now that he's jailed, the immediate threat is over. How do you justify killing someone who is no longer a threat? How is it any different than him killing people that were no threat to him? That's where I hit my hangup. I'd have no reservations about shooting you in the course of saving my own life. Once the dust settle though, what's done is done; killing him won't bring the innocent folks back. So really, what is gained by killing the killer?

 

[eye exaggerate]

Once the dust settle though, what's done is done; killing him won't bring the innocent folks back. So really, what is gained by killing the killer?

...OT vs. NT in an all-out battle for 'supremacy' shock

...

 

[Wilksey]

Here's the tough part though. Now that he's jailed, the immediate threat is over. How do you justify killing someone who is no longer a threat?

How can you justify forcing other citizens to provide for his existence at their own expense? Food, shelter, medical care, that all adds up.

How is it any different than him killing people that were no threat to him?

They didn't have a choice.

He did.

He didn't "kill" those kids, he murdered them. There IS a difference between the two, and the law recognizes that fact.

We ALL have a choice we make every time we are fortunate enough to wake up in the morning. We can live in peace, or like rabid animals. The consequences of living like the latter are more severe. That's the choice HE made. Rabid animals are killed, not murdered. This dude should be put down like any other rabid animal.

So really, what is gained by killing the killer?

Death drops the recidivism rate to 0%, and saves the tax payer millions of dollars that could be better spent in the community, or by the tax payer themselves.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Just a couple points of disagreement.

What if instead of having tax payers provide for his food and living arrangements, why not use him as a tool of the state, as a worker, doing hard labor or something like that to provide for themselves? "you eat what you grow" kind of thing..

And, the distinction if I'm understanding correctly is the choice that he had. He chose to murder 77 people, so you feel having the state execute him is justified, right? Is the line at 1 person? If someone kills 1 person, do you feel the state should have the right to execute them?

 

[Shannon Alexander]

I think life in prison is torture, much more justice than an easy trip to the gasp chamber. It seems we hear at least a couple times a year how someone was proven innocent after serving many years in prison.

I think the first thing we need to do to be a more civil and just society is to hold the prosecuting attorneys more accountable for wrongfully imprisoning people. They care more about their conviction rates than the truth. Often, er, um, let me repeat that, OFTEN, they withhold evidence that they know exonnerates the accused. The person who decides who will be charged and with what crimes is much more powerful than the judge, and he or she is untouchable.

The system, as good as it is in the US, is still badly broken and favors those with money/connections. Street justice is often the better justice.


My $.02

And in Australia they also make up shit explaining how a certain action should leave a certain type of mark on a certain part of a persons body, when

A.) They aren't medically qualified to provide such an assessment

B.) Haven't had any experience in self defense situations or martial arts

and

C.) Don't provide any evidence to back up their claims

Which is just an example from one of the cases I sat on the Jury for... Which left me to actually demonstrate to the rest of the jury how in the given situation a more serious injury did not occur to the defendant...

 

[Shannon Alexander]

Just a couple points of disagreement.

What if instead of having tax payers provide for his food and living arrangements, why not use him as a tool of the state, as a worker, doing hard labor or something like that to provide for themselves? "you eat what you grow" kind of thing..

And, the distinction if I'm understanding correctly is the choice that he had. He chose to murder 77 people, so you feel having the state execute him is justified, right? Is the line at 1 person? If someone kills 1 person, do you feel the state should have the right to execute them?

I believe that should be decided on a case by case basis...

 

[kpmarine]

How can you justify forcing other citizens to provide for his existence at their own expense? Food, shelter, medical care, that all adds up.



They didn't have a choice.

He did.

He didn't "kill" those kids, he murdered them. There IS a difference between the two, and the law recognizes that fact.

We ALL have a choice we make every time we are fortunate enough to wake up in the morning. We can live in peace, or like rabid animals. The consequences of living like the latter are more severe. That's the choice HE made. Rabid animals are killed, not murdered. This dude should be put down like any other rabid animal.



Death drops the recidivism rate to 0%, and saves the tax payer millions of dollars that could be better spent in the community, or by the tax payer themselves.

Are you qualified to make the call that any murderer is a "rabid animal"? That seems to be a somewhat charged term. Aside from legality, what differentiates murder from a revenge killing by the state? The only difference I can see, is who is holding the knife. Both of you are slitting the throat of a defenseless, unarmed human being. What really make the blood on your hands better? He did it first?

As far as money goes, life without parole is cheaper than death. At least in CA.

 

[Doer]

I think we should put them to work, hard public work, in chains. But, we have rightly moved away from cruel and unusual just a bit. But, in old Japan, they didn't bother with prision. Just execution or parole. You were guilty before you got there.

In old Japan, for this guy, since he offended so many and was foolish enough to be caught alive. He might be buried to his neck along a public walk way. The guard was there so he would not be killed too quickly with the peice of bamboo offered to the townfolks. Sawing across the back of the neck was encouraged, but not the throat, for example. All manner of pokes, swats, and bashes, were also, quite fine. Everyone gets peice of retribution and moves on.

Except the one, finally dead.