| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 101647 | 2009-07-22 00:24:00 | Weatherston GUILTY | nofam (9009) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 793970 | 2009-07-25 09:31:00 | Why has this discussion become so personal? If you can't behave like an adult, please butt out :( I don't actually think anything in this thread is personal, but you'll notice if you read these threads long enough that anyone who has a different view to the tough on crime lobby usually cops labels like unintelligent or idiot. As soon as anyone in the tough on crime lobby feels they are getting it back, suddenly it is "personal" and in hops the moderator and calls it to a halt. However, I'd happily catch up off-line with anyone on here, I don't take it personally. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 793971 | 2009-07-25 09:33:00 | ^^CivilM, have a look at the US stats on the costs of executions. It's not cheaper at all (for them atleast). But considering they don't spend nearly as much on prisoners as we do, it might be a different story entirely. I'll try to find some links. I still can't believe all the people here who demand justice, yet would be happy to see the guy murdered in prison. We, atleast I, want to live in a society of law and order. Two wrongs do not make a right. If we had capital punishment and he was sentenced to death, it would be a different story, one which I would whole heartedly support. But this murder, if not assassination, that may happen. It's as bad as his crime, if not worse. For god's sake we are talking about a god damn assassination! What was said in the articles was, another criminal, another piece trash will earn $50,000 to kill a man. It's a pathetic joke. Justice is a one way street, and we can't be hypocrites when it comes to this. After all, are we having this discussion here because we want justice or because we want vengeance and are angry that a girl was killed in such a way? If it is the latter, then I think we must all look deep inside ourselves and ask what justice is. This is certainly not it. Edit: Keep in mind executions do not happen the next day, it takes decades if not longer. |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 793972 | 2009-07-25 09:43:00 | Just execute the guy who kills Weatherston. Kill two birds with one stone. Well, not birds.....ummm....stinking flying crap. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 793973 | 2009-07-25 11:58:00 | I still can't believe all the people here who demand justice, yet would be happy to see the guy murdered in prison. Exactly. The bizarre thing about your own arguments is that you don't address the fact taking them out the back and shooting them or denying them fair trial or brutalising them in some other way is itself the very same type of behaviour that you are saying you find abhorrent in the criminal. A point I addressed to Metla and which he failed to answer. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 793974 | 2009-07-25 12:34:00 | A point I addressed to Metla and which he failed to answer. I'm at peace with it, What do you want me to say? My position has always been to do whats required for the good of the community, criminals killing citizens is evil.Removing the criminal from the gene pool....well thats just good sense. just because you struggle with it doesn't mean I do, Issues should be brought down to black and white, and then a course of action decided upon, rather then clouding the issue with a million shades of grey. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 793975 | 2009-07-25 12:50:00 | Just my opinion but any 'abhorrent' act done unto a callous criminal such as killing or torturing is not abhorrent at all. What they did to their victims is abhorrent, any malicious act done towards them is justified as they have thrown away their innocence and rights to be a normal human being. | qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 793976 | 2009-07-25 12:54:00 | We can't make the original offender come to life again can we. Why is that then? Well we can clone people possibly. Let us have a few more Hitlers. Oh wait. We already have do we not? |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 793977 | 2009-07-25 13:09:00 | Well we can clone people possibly. Let us have a few more Hitlers. Oh wait. We already have do we not? You mean people getting into power and waging war based on race? Yes. if not, then what were you referring to? |
Metla (12) | ||
| 793978 | 2009-07-25 13:35:00 | I'm at peace with it, What do you want me to say? My position has always been to do whats required for the good of the community, criminals killing citizens is evil.Removing the criminal from the gene pool....well thats just good sense. just because you struggle with it doesn't mean I do, Issues should be brought down to black and white, and then a course of action decided upon, rather then clouding the issue with a million shades of grey. Issues should be brought down to black and white? You mean, like with good and evil; christian and heathen; muslim and infidel; jew and gentile; for us or against us; "I was just following orders"? A million shades of grey? I see black and white but also two shades of grey. (en.wikipedia.org) From Kohlberg: In Stage five (social contract driven), individuals are viewed as holding different opinions and values. Similarly, laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid dictums. Those which do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". This is achieved through majority decision, and inevitable compromise. Thus democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning. The emboldened text is the bit which is important to me. In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another's shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 793979 | 2009-07-25 13:36:00 | Yep, That post proves my point quite nicely. | Metla (12) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||