Man planned to eat murder victim

[PureX]

I don't think this is the type of argument that should be considered solely by examining it logically.

I think this is a very interesting thing to say. The problem I have with it as an idea is that it's rash emotionalism that cases most murders to happen. And it's more rash emotionalism that causes people to cry for more blood in response to it having happened. But in the end, the only way to stop violence is to stop violence. We aren't going to stop violence by doing more violence, regardless of the emotional justifications and rationalizations to the contrary. And I just don't see any good reason to view this issue through the same character traits that have made it a problematic issue in the first place. We need to be logical about this because it's the lack of logic that has created the problem in the first place. Very few calm, logical, rational people kill other people. Lots of emotionally charged, angry, resentful, disatisfied, and vengeful people do kill other people. So if we want to diminish the instances of murder among us, then I think the only reasonable way to do it is to view the problem calmly, rationally, and logically.

I don't think we would ever have the capacity to prosecute 'future crimes' either (we all saw how Minority Report ended up), but that's hardly what I was getting at. You said that murderers shouldn't be put to death, one of your reasons was that some of these murderers are not repeat offenders...but how do we know that they aren't? How many unsolved murders/rapes are on the books out there? How many missing persons are there!?

My point is that we don't know any more about the likelihood of a murderer murdering again then we do about the likelihood of anyone else committing a murder. So such speculations are moot. And they lend no credibility at all to the idea that by killing all convicted murderers we can lessen the murder rate and make society safer. It' simply doesn't happen this way, and the assumptions themselves are illogical. The only murderers that we can reasonably assume will murder again are serial killers, but they are very rare, and thus not a reasonable standard for setting a blanket policy. Especially when that policy is detrimental to society overall.

And also, a life sentence is not hardly ever a life sentence. Recently in our area a man was released from prison after serving 30 years of his 'life sentence'. He had originally raped a little girl and her mother, and killed the husband/father. Nice. He (as far as any of us know) has not re-offended. But how FRIGGIN fair is that!? Clarify it for me, PureX...do you see it as fair?

"Fairness" has nothing to do with anything. "Fairness" is an illusion of our own invention. Because you have fallen for this self-induced illusion of "fairness", you think "punishing" other people for not doing what you think is "fair" is reasonable and rational. But it's not. It's pure self-centered emotionalism trying to justify it's desire to force itself on the rest of the world. And it's exactly this kind of rash, aggressive emotionalism that causes people to commit murder in the first place, just as it causes people to want to kill in response. It's this irrational emotionalism that causes violence to inspire more violence in we human beings.

No no and no. You're still not hitting the nail on the head. I didn't say that I should, or that you should, or that Knight should, or President Bush should decide the fates of the guilty. That's already laid out, murderers should be put to death.

But it's YOU who just wrote that "murderers should be put to death". How is this not YOU who is deciding who should live and who shouldn't? And what gives you the right to make such a decision? ... A decision that effects and even ends the lives of others?

The guilty should be punished accordingly. It's just so simple.

Sure, it so simple when you ignore all the complexity. But the complexity is still there. Reality is still reality. Most murderers will not kill again. Many of them can and will become valuable members of society, both in prison and out. No one has the right or ability to decide who should live and who shouldn't, - all these complexities still exist, whether you choose to ignore them or not. I'm here to try and get you to stop ignoring the complex reality of the issue so you can stop promoting and supporting overly-simplistic solutions that don't work.

I think you think about things too much.

I think you're thinking about this life and death issue way too little. And that's a shame considering that you're one of the more intelligent folks using this web site.

Maybe you should just try and feel things out rather than sitting there and pondering the grander aspects of the sun and sky.

I feel things just fine. But I also appreciate that there is a time and place for emotionalism, and a time and place for setting our emotions asside so that we can deal with complex and difficult social problems more clrearly and effectively.

Oh, and the serial killer comment I had made was in response to what you said about how serial killers should be put to death, the rare extreme cases. You come up with this from an emotional standpoint, based on the fact that these people are dangerous, that they don't deserve to live, that they're a danger to society?

Not at all. Anyone who kills for the sake of killing, and will do so in or out of confinement, as opportunity presents, poses a real threat to everyone around him, now and in the future. Under such an extreme threat, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that this person be destroyed. Not as "punishment", and not for "fairness", not because he "deserved it", but simply for practical security reasons.

Right, but what I meant was someone that every killer starts somewhere, just because we catch him 'early' doesn't mean that he's not as guilty, or sick as the offender the authorities didn't catch till he ripped up five more victims...

It also doesn't mean that he can't be rehabilitated, and not only never kill again, but also become a valued and positive member of his society, in prison or out. In fact, in real life, the positive scenario is more likely than the negative.

 

[PureX]

There's a difference between going with superstition and your gut to determine innocence or guilt and recognizing that balance must be restored. That's all I'm after: a balancing of the scales. If life is taken, the appropriate response is not to mollycoddle a perpetrator or let him back into the society he has betrayed and violated.

I see a very big difference between wanton brutality and rendering an appropriate response to a crime. Burning someone at the stake is grotesque and unnecessary; but abuse of a penalty doesn't mean the penalty itself has no value to it.

What is this "balance" that is restored? One person was dead, and now another person is dead. What balance is there in this?

I understand that you're saying that what I wrongly take from another, you want to wrongly take from me, I guess so that I will feel what I have caused someone else to feel, and that you consider this "fair" or "balanced", but I honestly don't see how. All I see is that it multiplies and magnifies the violence.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

I don't know what's "right" or "wrong", and I don't really care.

That's all you had to say.

 

[Granite]

What is this "balance" that is restored? One person was dead, and now another person is dead. What balance is there in this?

I understand that you're saying that what I wrongly take from another, you want to wrongly take from me, I guess so that I will feel what I have caused someone else to feel, and that you consider this "fair" or "balanced", but I honestly don't see how. All I see is that it multiplies and magnifies the violence.

The "balance" is restored by the victimizer suffering the same penalty he inflicted on his victim. Keeping a murderer sustained for the rest of his natural life when his victim does not have that right or luxury strikes me as a complete outrage.

 

[PureX]

The "balance" is restored by the victimizer suffering the same penalty he inflicted on his victim. Keeping a murderer sustained for the rest of his natural life when his victim does not have that right or luxury strikes me as a complete outrage.

Yes, you said that. But what you're proposing is more an emotional reaction than a logical solution. That's all I'm trying to say. It's no different than the emotional reaction that causes the murder in the first place.

"Bob's" girlfriend doesn't want to be with Bob anymore. So she goes out with someone else. Bob, however, believes that only this girl can ever make him happy, and that they were meant to be together by "fate" (Bob's version of God). So he sees her going out with someone else as the most horrible betrayal of both him and fate, and he believes that she has destroyed his only chance at happiness. And because he feels that she has destroyed his life, he must do the same in turn to her, to "make it fair, and to restore the balance". So he stalks her and murders her.

This kind of thing happens every single day somewhere in America because the "Bobs" of the world grew up believing that violence is the proper way to deal with people who "break the balance", and who are trying to hurt us and ruin our lives.

Responding to emotionalism with violence is a bad idea that brings bad results.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

I don't know what's "right" or "wrong", and I don't really care.

How can you propose to know any logic when you say you don't know what's right or wrong and don't really even care?

 

[PureX]

Is gravity "right" or "wrong"? Is the weather "right" or "wrong"? The answer is that these things just are. Their "rightness" or "wrongness" depend on who's qualifying them and by what criteria, and in the end it really doesn't matter, because they still just are.

It's the same with the phenomena of people killing other people. It happens. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of it happening depends on who's qualifying it and what criteria they are using. And different societies of people have different criteria for establishing the rightness or wrongness of people killing other people.

I'm not really interested in debating the rightness or wrongness of killing people, because that's a matter of subjective opinion, and tends to be an endless and pointless debate. I'm more interested in how we can minimize the occurrence of murder in our particular society as we already define murder. And I don't believe, nor does the evidence support, the idea that killing all convicted murderers will decrease the instance of murder in our society. And the reason that it does not, is that even though we would be eliminating the possibility of a convicted murderer killing again, in reality this is very rare, anyway. And in reality, when we sanction the killing of other human beings for the sake of retribution, we end up promoting murder rather than discouraging it in society in general. The result is that our murder rate actually rises, rather than falls, and violence at all levels increase.

People who are viewing the problem through the emotional and ideological lens of "right" and "wrong" and/or the natural human inclination to respond to violence with violence can't, and often flat out refuse to recognize the reality of the situation: that violence inspires more violence regardless of our rationalizations.

The bottom line is that the only way to stop or diminish violence in our society is to stop practicing and condoning violence across the board. It's not about "right" or "wrong", it's simply an issue of cause and effect.

The "logic" of "right and wrong" is subjective. The logic of cause and effect is more objective. In this case, I think we'll be far more effective dealing with the issue by viewing and responding to it objectively, rather than subjectively.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

How can you stop condoning violence when you let the murderers live?

 

[koban]

How can you stop condoning violence when you let the murderers live?

You may already be aware of this, FAS, but PureX is a moron.

 

[PureX]

How can you stop condoning violence when you let the murderers live?

Life in prison is not condoning violence.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Life in prison is not condoning violence.

Life in prison... You, in general, give them a place to stay for free. You, in general, give them three meals a day for free. You take away most of their responsibilities. It sounds like you are condoning a method free-loading.

So how can you be so sure that life in prison isn't condoning the violence they have let loose on society?

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

You may already be aware of this, FAS, but PureX is a moron.

Yes, he is quite special in his own way. :think:

 

[koban]

Yes, he is quite special in his own way. :think:

He's got me on ignore, but if you want to twist his buttons, get him going on the whole "whitey's to blame for the plight of the poor black man" theme. :chuckle:

 

[PureX]

Life in prison... You, in general, give them a place to stay for free. You, in general, give them three meals a day for free. You take away most of their responsibilities. It sounds like you are condoning a method free-loading.

So how can you be so sure that life in prison isn't condoning the violence they have let loose on society?

Do you want to live in a prison? I'm pretty sure you don't. You're trying to make it sound like a reward, but we both know it's a horrible way to live.

Also, I think prisoners should be made to pay their own way, by working.

 

[koban]

Do you want to live in a prison? I'm pretty sure you don't. You're trying to make it sound like a reward, but we both know it's a horrible way to live.

Also, I think prisoners should be made to pay their own way, by working.

How about harvesting their organs, while they're working, too?

If you're OK with that, don't respond. :chuckle:

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Do you want to live in a prison? I'm pretty sure you don't. You're trying to make it sound like a reward, but we both know it's a horrible way to live.

Maybe you don't hear the testimonials of many convicts. Gang members do consider prison to be some kind of reward.

Also, I think prisoners should be made to pay their own way, by working.

I would agree to that in some cases like when something has been stolen or destroyed but not for rape or murder. But the money should go to the victims. I don't like the idea of incarceration. But if we have to have them, I do support the idea of prison's being privatized.

 

[PureX]

Maybe you don't hear the testimonials of many convicts. Gang members do consider prison to be some kind of reward.

I don't believe that for a minute, and anyway, I don't care what convicted criminals think. We can't change the way people think, and trying is a waste of time. We put them in prison because they can't live amongst the rest of us. And we should keep them there until they can. What they think is irrelevant. It's what they do that matters.

I would agree to that in some cases like when something has been stolen or destroyed but not for rape or murder. But the money should go to the victims. I don't like the idea of incarceration. But if we have to have them, I do support the idea of prison's being privatized.

I don't want privatized prisons. No one should be making a profit off the imprisonment of another human being. That's called slavery. Also, I don't want money going to victims. Money is not going to make up for a rape or murder, and it's an insult to pretend that it could. We already have civil courts for suing for economic losses due to criminal behavior.

Money corrupts people far too easily. Mixing crime and imprisonment with profits and cash awards is a sure way to foster all sorts of horrible corruption and abuse. No. Lock them in a cell with a machine that makes license plates or whatever, and when they make enough plates they get a decent meal, more plates they get a snack, or few smokes, or whatever. The idea is that they produce something that can be used to cover the cost of their incarceration. No cash prizes for victims, no profits for private prison opperators. If a man can't live with other human beings and behave like a man, he gets a cell and a machine. When he decides he's willing to behave, and proves it, then he gets another chance. (Part of proving it may involve some attempt at making amends to the victim, that I would agree to.) Second time losers will have to work that much harder and longer to show their sincerity before being given another chance. Three time losers are in for good.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

I don't believe that for a minute, and anyway, I don't care what convicted criminals think. We can't change the way people think, and trying is a waste of time. We put them in prison because they can't live amongst the rest of us. And we should keep them there until they can. What they think is irrelevant. It's what they do that matters.

I know you don't care because if you did you might realise that what they, criminals/convicts or felons, do and say are usually pretty much the same.

I don't want privatized prisons.

And not many people really care what you want either, especially criminals

Also, I don't want money going to victims. Money is not going to make up for a rape or murder, and it's an insult to pretend that it could. We already have civil courts for suing for economic losses due to criminal behavior.

I was talking about restitution in cases of theft. Maybe you didn't realise that or maybe your apathetic attitude got in the way.

When he decides he's willing to behave, and proves it, then he gets another chance. (Part of proving it may involve some attempt at making amends to the victim, that I would agree to.) Second time losers will have to work that much harder and longer to show their sincerity before being given another chance. Three time losers are in for good.

It didn't work for John Wayne Gacy. Why would you assume it would work for anyone else? So you opt to make economic slaves of them till are willing to behave.

Now do you really have a sincere point to make or do you just want to post your angry ramblings?

 

[koban]

I know you don't care because if you did you might realise that what they, criminals/convicts or felons, do and say are usually pretty much the same.

And not many people really care what you want either, especially criminals


I was talking about restitution in cases of theft. Maybe you didn't realise that or maybe your apathetic attitude got in the way.

It didn't work for John Wayne Gacy. Why would you assume it would work for anyone else? So you opt to make economic slaves of them till are willing to behave.

Now do you really have a sincere point to make or do you just want to post your angry ramblings?

Take note FAS, that Purexcrement is willing to let murderers kill three victims before locking them up for good. :freak:

 

[PureX]

I know you don't care because if you did you might realise that what they, criminals/convicts or felons, do and say are usually pretty much the same.

Except that it's not a crime to say anti-social things. And there are very good reasons for that. Are you proposing that we lock people up for what they think and say, now?

And not many people really care what you want either, especially criminals

Whatever. It's a free country - at least in thought. It's not a free country in action. And that's the way we should run the criminal justice system.

I was talking about restitution in cases of theft. Maybe you didn't realise that or maybe your apathetic attitude got in the way.

That's what insurance is for. Nope, sorry. Money has to be left out of it. Like I said, there is already a civil system of laws for dealing with that stuff.

It didn't work for John Wayne Gacy. Why would you assume it would work for anyone else? So you opt to make economic slaves of them till are willing to behave.

Gacey was a serial killer. They are very rare, and very extreme cases. It's irrational and irresponsible to use the most extreme case to set a blanket policy.

Now do you really have a sincere point to make or do you just want to post your angry ramblings?

I have already answered all these comments and questions at least once. Either READ my posts, and give me a logical rebuttal, or go play "I'll just keep repeating myself because I can't come up with an actual rebuttal" somewhere else.

I have explained my position, now please explain to me, using logic instead of repeating your emotional opinions, why you think my position is wrong.