ChatterBank1 min ago
A Sentance So Richly Deserved.
218 Answers
http://
At last a sentence to fit the crime, he will be 75 years old before he is released.
Yesterday Tia's father said that, whatever jail sentence this monster received, he should be hanged at the end of it.
Does anyone agree?
At last a sentence to fit the crime, he will be 75 years old before he is released.
Yesterday Tia's father said that, whatever jail sentence this monster received, he should be hanged at the end of it.
Does anyone agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ludwig - we accept one and not the other because these are the stuations and circumstances we have to deal with.
In the proverbial ideal world, we would not be having this exchange, because no-one would murder anyone, ever.
However, we are a collection of humans with attendent foibles, opinions, tolerances, dark sides, and so on and so forth, and this is what gives rise to the issues we are debating.
No killing is ever desireable, or even has degrees of desireability in my view, but we have to deal with what we have, and in the case of the officers dealing with gun incidents, they have to deal with things first, and have chance to think and reason about them afterwards.
So although i would love our debate to be a matter of ethics set in utopia, it is not, it is based on our individual viewpoints, which we know differ substantially from others even on here, never mind the wider world.
We all reach accomodations we can live with - some believe (falsely in my view) that they could cheefully dismember the next child rapist with a chainsaw, and sleep soundly every night afterwards.
Others - and I am one - believe that the taking of a life as a punishment holds no merit.
But we all rub along with the systems in place - and at the moment, and for the forseeable future, society agrees with me.
In the proverbial ideal world, we would not be having this exchange, because no-one would murder anyone, ever.
However, we are a collection of humans with attendent foibles, opinions, tolerances, dark sides, and so on and so forth, and this is what gives rise to the issues we are debating.
No killing is ever desireable, or even has degrees of desireability in my view, but we have to deal with what we have, and in the case of the officers dealing with gun incidents, they have to deal with things first, and have chance to think and reason about them afterwards.
So although i would love our debate to be a matter of ethics set in utopia, it is not, it is based on our individual viewpoints, which we know differ substantially from others even on here, never mind the wider world.
We all reach accomodations we can live with - some believe (falsely in my view) that they could cheefully dismember the next child rapist with a chainsaw, and sleep soundly every night afterwards.
Others - and I am one - believe that the taking of a life as a punishment holds no merit.
But we all rub along with the systems in place - and at the moment, and for the forseeable future, society agrees with me.
It seems to boil down to your instinct that the death penalty isn't morally justifiable, which is fair enough.
I find terms like vengeance and 'state sponsored murder', just deliberately emotive expressions which only serve to make it clear what your instinct is.
When you try and pin down what people actually mean by these, and why they'd apply them in some cases and not others, it becomes less clear.
If there was a vote for capital punishment tomorrow, I'd vote against it by the way, for practical reasons more than ethical ones.
I find terms like vengeance and 'state sponsored murder', just deliberately emotive expressions which only serve to make it clear what your instinct is.
When you try and pin down what people actually mean by these, and why they'd apply them in some cases and not others, it becomes less clear.
If there was a vote for capital punishment tomorrow, I'd vote against it by the way, for practical reasons more than ethical ones.
vengeance I think just implies retribution, usually personal - a person seeks vengeance, states generally don't. Justice is more than that: it includes deterrence as well, and should usually offer an opportunity for rehabilitation (because a taxpaying ex-con is of more use to society than one who is still locked up costing the state money).
jno's description of vengeance is a reasonable one, and it relates back to the point I made on the previous page..
// I'm not clear why the death penalty is often classified as vengeance whereas incarcerating someone for life is seen as justice. //
Neither punishment offers an opportunity for rehabilitation, both seek to deter, both seek to offer public protection from re-offending, and both are administered by the state, so why is one termed vengeance and the other justice?
// I'm not clear why the death penalty is often classified as vengeance whereas incarcerating someone for life is seen as justice. //
Neither punishment offers an opportunity for rehabilitation, both seek to deter, both seek to offer public protection from re-offending, and both are administered by the state, so why is one termed vengeance and the other justice?
well, if my analysis is right (it may not be) and vengeance is private and justice is state-sponsored, then the state should be seeking what is best for everyone, not just the victim.
Historically that's pretty much how justice systems do spring up. Kings and rulers find that private vengeance descends into ever-widening blood feuds, the setting up of armed groups of avengers, and deaths of innocent people. So they try to set up an impartial "king's justice" in the pursuit of a peaceful realm.
If the state system simply dealt out executions (along with the various deprivations, tortures and mutilations proposed by ABers) it might be seen as simply endorsing the private hunger for retribution that it was set up to replace.
Historically that's pretty much how justice systems do spring up. Kings and rulers find that private vengeance descends into ever-widening blood feuds, the setting up of armed groups of avengers, and deaths of innocent people. So they try to set up an impartial "king's justice" in the pursuit of a peaceful realm.
If the state system simply dealt out executions (along with the various deprivations, tortures and mutilations proposed by ABers) it might be seen as simply endorsing the private hunger for retribution that it was set up to replace.
A very interesting debate, spoilt once again by Answerprancer, with his uncalled for objectionable insults at fellow ABers.
/// LM*O I knew this post would attract the drooling rabid fascists.
Thank god they're a) mostly brainless simpletons and b) therefore
harmless. ///
/// I think they're a comedic minority of baboons Ummmm, still a few rungs below most on the evolutionary ladder.
I should have used "other" instead of "the" in my previous post ;-) ///
How much more abusive does he have to get before he attracts the attention of the AB Editor, and hopefully banned from this site?
/// LM*O I knew this post would attract the drooling rabid fascists.
Thank god they're a) mostly brainless simpletons and b) therefore
harmless. ///
/// I think they're a comedic minority of baboons Ummmm, still a few rungs below most on the evolutionary ladder.
I should have used "other" instead of "the" in my previous post ;-) ///
How much more abusive does he have to get before he attracts the attention of the AB Editor, and hopefully banned from this site?
Again though, you make the assumption that the death penalty would be designed to satisfy a sort of crazed hunger for vengeance rather than a desire to see justice done.
I've seen sentiments expressed such as 'Death would be an easy way out - they should rot in jail for as long as possible'. That seems pretty vengeful, wanting to impose the maximum suffering.
I've seen sentiments expressed such as 'Death would be an easy way out - they should rot in jail for as long as possible'. That seems pretty vengeful, wanting to impose the maximum suffering.
@Andy Hughes - Was this post of yours
"LG - I keep hammering home my point in the hope that you will at least understand - if not agree - with what i am saying.
Not executing people - in spite of the terrible things they have done - is not about allowing them to live which they don't deserve, it's about us, as a society, and how we operate our laws. "
Directed at me? If so -why is it directed at me?
"LG - I keep hammering home my point in the hope that you will at least understand - if not agree - with what i am saying.
Not executing people - in spite of the terrible things they have done - is not about allowing them to live which they don't deserve, it's about us, as a society, and how we operate our laws. "
Directed at me? If so -why is it directed at me?
"A very interesting debate, spoilt once again by Answerprancer".
Oh don't be such a big baby, you can handle it.
Most people who are confident in their beliefs would merely tut and ignore anyone who posted anything like what I posted.
Anyway, you yourself are no stranger to hurling insults when you feel the need.
Oh don't be such a big baby, you can handle it.
Most people who are confident in their beliefs would merely tut and ignore anyone who posted anything like what I posted.
Anyway, you yourself are no stranger to hurling insults when you feel the need.
I've not mentioned this before, but I live just a 2 minute walk from the very house in which Tia was murdered. The whole community atmosphere when she went missing was just unbearable, and the day they found her - well people were openly weeping in the street. In the local shop, on the bus, Ive never sensed a feeling like it before or since.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.