DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => New Political and Religious Forum => Topic started by: gmillerdrake on August 26, 2016, 10:07:44 AM

Title: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 26, 2016, 10:07:44 AM
I think there needs to be new implementation on the Justice system, where...in extremely violent and outright evil cases (examples linked below) these people are guilty until proven innocent and when they can't prove their innocence all rights to appeals are revoked and they are executed within a week. None of this 25-30 years of living and waiting for your death sentence.

Cases like below cannot be defended and people who do things like rape kids, punch babies to death, cold blood murder where there is absolute 'no doubt' of their guilt...In my opinion they don't deserve to live.

Too Extreme? Certainly doesn't coincide with what my Faith tells me but then again, we've been asked to remove Faith from any decisions regarding the running of our country so I'm not trying to start a Faith debate.

My simple opinion and belief is that if we start executing these types of people instantly when they can't prove their innocence then this type of crap would begin to stop. The largest problem in my eyes with the death penalty not being a good deterrent is that it takes entirely too long to execute the sentence. And, in cases like below there is absolutely no doubt of their guilt....the people that do this type of thing should be punished by death immediately.




Utterly no defense for this...none. They should be executed tomorrow.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3757737/Albuquerque-police-3-face-charges-childs-death.html 



Same...this dude no longer deserves to breathe...

http://ktla.com/2016/08/25/man-told-toddler-to-put-up-his-fists-before-beating-boy-to-death-prosecutor/


Life without Parole for this piece of dirt....really? He deserves to continue to breathe?

http://www.wave3.com/story/14874546/life-without-parole-for-man-who-killed-children-raped-wife


Really...child support sends you over the edge?

http://www.celebtricity.com/man-kills-girlfriend-child-support-was-taking-mcdonalds-check/


another oxygen thief...

http://abc7ny.com/news/houston-pd-man-kills-mother-of-his-children-tells-witness-to-raise-kids/1375029/


Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: antigoon on August 26, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
The criminal justice system is certainly flawed in many ways but it's not because we somehow give too many privileges to the accused. The presumption of innocence is a foundational principle in American society, and it rightly applies (in theory) to everyone. If the state really comes across a 'no doubt' case, it's their responsibility to prove it to the public. You really can't just go making exceptions to this. It's too important.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on August 26, 2016, 10:47:15 AM
I'm going to go ahead a disagree. I don't believe passion should play any role in the justice system and it feels like that is the driving force behind your arguments.

Removal of harm should be top priority, not seeking vengeance or harming those we deem evil.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 26, 2016, 10:53:37 AM
I'm going to go ahead a disagree. I don't believe passion should play any role in the justice system and it feels like that is the driving force behind your arguments.

I think you're correct in this diagnosis. Stories like the ones i linked, especially the child centered ones....make my blood boil. I just dont see how people who can do those things deserve to continue to live after actions like that.

I know I'm in small company on this.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on August 26, 2016, 11:05:29 AM
I mean, you're not in small company. That's why we used to have horrible public executions and lynch mobs (not the racist ones). Because people could not tolerate letting those they deemed evil to live. It also shows why it's a bad idea, how far it can go and what doors it opens.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 26, 2016, 11:30:41 AM
The criminal justice system is certainly flawed in many ways but it's not because we somehow give too many privileges to the accused. The presumption of innocence is a foundational principle in American society, and it rightly applies (in theory) to everyone. If the state really comes across a 'no doubt' case, it's their responsibility to prove it to the public. You really can't just go making exceptions to this. It's too important.
This exactly.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: kaos2900 on August 26, 2016, 11:56:07 AM
I'm going to go ahead a disagree. I don't believe passion should play any role in the justice system and it feels like that is the driving force behind your arguments.

I think you're correct in this diagnosis. Stories like the ones i linked, especially the child centered ones....make my blood boil. I just dont see how people who can do those things deserve to continue to live after actions like that.

I know I'm in small company on this.

I'm with you. You must have missed the story about the family friend who kidnapped, rapped, and murdered their 5 year old daughter in Minnesota. That guy tried to kill him self and unfortunately he failed.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 26, 2016, 12:33:02 PM
I'm going to go ahead a disagree. I don't believe passion should play any role in the justice system and it feels like that is the driving force behind your arguments.

I think you're correct in this diagnosis. Stories like the ones i linked, especially the child centered ones....make my blood boil. I just dont see how people who can do those things deserve to continue to live after actions like that.

I know I'm in small company on this.

I'm with you. You must have missed the story about the family friend who kidnapped, rapped, and murdered their 5 year old daughter in Minnesota. That guy tried to kill him self and unfortunately he failed.

No, I saw that one as well. Still think he should be hung tomorrow no questions asked.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: kaos2900 on August 26, 2016, 12:57:21 PM
I'm going to go ahead a disagree. I don't believe passion should play any role in the justice system and it feels like that is the driving force behind your arguments.

I think you're correct in this diagnosis. Stories like the ones i linked, especially the child centered ones....make my blood boil. I just dont see how people who can do those things deserve to continue to live after actions like that.

I know I'm in small company on this.

I'm with you. You must have missed the story about the family friend who kidnapped, rapped, and murdered their 5 year old daughter in Minnesota. That guy tried to kill him self and unfortunately he failed.

No, I saw that one as well. Still think he should be hung tomorrow no questions asked.
I'd prefer rapidly anally penetrated with a hot poker until dead, but I'd take hanging as well.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on August 26, 2016, 01:02:16 PM
I'm not going to bother explaining all of the many reasons why this is wrong. Everybody knows it anyway. I'm just posting to comment how fucking disgusted I am over the very notion.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on August 26, 2016, 01:32:28 PM
The whole concept of bail is supposed to help with this, I believe, although the bail system is far from perfect.  However, innocent until proven guilty is pretty important IMO.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 26, 2016, 02:41:34 PM
I'm just posting to comment how fucking disgusted I am over the very notion.

I don't see the absurdity in thinking someone who beats a defenseless child to death needing to prove to us why he/she is innocent? And, when they can't (because they aren't) they are permanently removed from the populous.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on August 26, 2016, 02:43:32 PM
The whole concept of bail is supposed to help with this, I believe, although the bail system is far from perfect.  However, innocent until proven guilty is pretty important IMO.

Bail only serves to further fuck the poor. Whether or not that's by design depends on who you ask, I suppose, but it is the reality. Frankly, I consider it one of the very biggest flaws in our sham CJ system. Bail should only be required if there's a legitimate risk of flight, or the commission of further crimes, and if either of those are true, then there probably shouldn't be bail in the first place. Instead, you're held on bail by default, unless you can afford a hotshot attorney (and then you could probably afford the bail anyway). If you're broke, then not only do you not get to make bail, you most likely lose your job, your car, and plenty more while you tick away in jail for 6 months waiting for your speedy trial. If the bail is reasonable enough that you can scrape together 10%, then you can bond out. You lose that money even if you're innocent, and you forfeit due process by doing so. If you ever want an argument for ways in which the system keep the poor down, here you go.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on August 26, 2016, 02:45:36 PM
I'm just posting to comment how fucking disgusted I am over the very notion.

I don't see the absurdity in thinking someone who beats a defenseless child to death needing to prove to us why he/she is innocent? And, when they can't (because they aren't) they are permanently removed from the populous.
As much as you and I despise these people, and I am right there with you, you must treat the worst of the worst fairly if you wish to treat the innocent fairly. It's just the nature of the beast. Furthermore, you must never combine justice with passion. The latter negates the former by its very nature.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on August 26, 2016, 02:53:17 PM
The whole concept of bail is supposed to help with this, I believe, although the bail system is far from perfect.  However, innocent until proven guilty is pretty important IMO.

Bail only serves to further fuck the poor. Whether or not that's by design depends on who you ask, I suppose, but it is the reality. Frankly, I consider it one of the very biggest flaws in our sham CJ system. Bail should only be required if there's a legitimate risk of flight, or the commission of further crimes, and if either of those are true, then there probably shouldn't be bail in the first place. Instead, you're held on bail by default, unless you can afford a hotshot attorney (and then you could probably afford the bail anyway). If you're broke, then not only do you not get to make bail, you most likely lose your job, your car, and plenty more while you tick away in jail for 6 months waiting for your speedy trial. If the bail is reasonable enough that you can scrape together 10%, then you can bond out. You lose that money even if you're innocent, and you forfeit due process by doing so. If you ever want an argument for ways in which the system keep the poor down, here you go.

Yea, I didn't realize how bad the bail system was until I caught the Last Week Tonight segment on it.  That's why I was saying it's far from perfect without going into the details.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: RuRoRul on August 26, 2016, 02:55:08 PM
I'm just posting to comment how fucking disgusted I am over the very notion.

I don't see the absurdity in thinking someone who beats a defenseless child to death needing to prove to us why he/she is innocent? And, when they can't (because they aren't) they are permanently removed from the populous.
But how do you know that a person is "someone who beats a defenseless child"? I'm fairly sure that if we lived in some magical world where people already just "knew" exactly what happened, then we wouldn't need any trials to determine guilt or innocence, because we would already know. The whole point of a trial is to determine if there is enough evidence to consider a person to be "someone who did this". If it was guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way around, then if someone says "gmillerdrake beat a defenceless child to death" then we may as well just execute you sharpish to be safe, since the crime you are presumed to be guilty of (without proof) is so heinous.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on August 26, 2016, 03:01:10 PM
I'm just posting to comment how fucking disgusted I am over the very notion.

I don't see the absurdity in thinking someone who beats a defenseless child to death needing to prove to us why he/she is innocent? And, when they can't (because they aren't) they are permanently removed from the populous.
But how do you know that a person is "someone who beats a defenseless child"? I'm fairly sure that if we lived in some magical world where people already just "knew" exactly what happened, then we wouldn't need any trials to determine guilt or innocence, because we would already know. The whole point of a trial is to determine if there is enough evidence to consider a person to be "someone who did this". If it was guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way around, then if someone says "gmillerdrake beat a defenceless child to death" then we may as well just execute you sharpish to be safe, since the crime you are presumed to be guilty of (without proof) is so heinous.

If there ever was a case of this though, I feel like people such as the Colorado movie theater shooter would fall into this category. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on August 26, 2016, 03:32:19 PM
I'm just posting to comment how fucking disgusted I am over the very notion.

I don't see the absurdity in thinking someone who beats a defenseless child to death needing to prove to us why he/she is innocent? And, when they can't (because they aren't) they are permanently removed from the populous.
But how do you know that a person is "someone who beats a defenseless child"? I'm fairly sure that if we lived in some magical world where people already just "knew" exactly what happened, then we wouldn't need any trials to determine guilt or innocence, because we would already know. The whole point of a trial is to determine if there is enough evidence to consider a person to be "someone who did this". If it was guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way around, then if someone says "gmillerdrake beat a defenceless child to death" then we may as well just execute you sharpish to be safe, since the crime you are presumed to be guilty of (without proof) is so heinous.

If there ever was a case of this though, I feel like people such as the Colorado movie theater shooter would fall into this category.
Doesn't he get the chance to prove that he's looney-tunes, though? Guilt isn't he only consideration, that is if we're wanting to appear civilized.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on August 26, 2016, 03:37:31 PM
And I want to revisit the passion aspect of this. The lead scumbag story the other day was the 9 year old girl who thought her name was Idiot due to years of physical abuse. I despise these two parents every single bit as much as Gary does. The irrational subconscious Barto wants to see them strung up. The rational side understands that it's in everybody's best interest not to do so. GMD didn't start this thread because he has concerns that their might be things to work out within the CJ system. He started it because he's genuinely pissed off that these people aren't getting what they deserve. I very definitely appreciate his frustration. I just also understand the myriad dangers of allowing passions to dictate actions.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Dave_Manchester on August 26, 2016, 03:42:52 PM
I'm just posting to comment how fucking disgusted I am over the very notion.

I don't see the absurdity in thinking someone who beats a defenseless child to death needing to prove to us why he/she is innocent? And, when they can't (because they aren't) they are permanently removed from the populous.


Because what separates a civil society from a savage one is affording the same basic standard of human rights and protection of the rule of law to even its worst and most undeserving citizens. It is understandable to be disgusted by the stories you've linked, but to call for the suspension of our values so as to kill them faster serves only to satisfy your own desire for revenge.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on August 26, 2016, 03:53:31 PM
I'm just posting to comment how fucking disgusted I am over the very notion.

I don't see the absurdity in thinking someone who beats a defenseless child to death needing to prove to us why he/she is innocent? And, when they can't (because they aren't) they are permanently removed from the populous.
But how do you know that a person is "someone who beats a defenseless child"? I'm fairly sure that if we lived in some magical world where people already just "knew" exactly what happened, then we wouldn't need any trials to determine guilt or innocence, because we would already know. The whole point of a trial is to determine if there is enough evidence to consider a person to be "someone who did this". If it was guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way around, then if someone says "gmillerdrake beat a defenceless child to death" then we may as well just execute you sharpish to be safe, since the crime you are presumed to be guilty of (without proof) is so heinous.

If there ever was a case of this though, I feel like people such as the Colorado movie theater shooter would fall into this category.
Doesn't he get the chance to prove that he's looney-tunes, though? Guilt isn't he only consideration, that is if we're wanting to appear civilized.

Sure, I wasn't trying to say that he didn't deserve a fair trial, more so that his case is an example of where the guilt is proven without needing a court to prove it.  Sort of "caught red handed".  But I agree with your point there.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 26, 2016, 04:16:10 PM
GMD didn't start this thread because he has concerns that their might be things to work out within the CJ system. He started it because he's genuinely pissed off that these people aren't getting what they deserve.

I probably should have just said that....because you hit the nail squarely on the head with that statement. Certainly it may be the 'wrong' way to think...and I know it conflicts with my Faith big time...but I simply don't think that anyone who beats a defenseless child to death....or any other cold blood murder to where there is absolute evidence (every story I linked was absolute and there are countless more like that) should be allowed to live at all. and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to live for 25-30 years after they've been convicted to die. It should be immediate...within hours of the sentence. There is no rehabbing people like that...at all.

I'd go as far as to say as well any man (or woman) whose convicted of rape or molesting a kid...the man not only should spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement but he should also be made a eunuch..to the point of no balls OR shaft....just a little tiny hole for pi$$ to fall out of. And, whatever the equivalent of that is for a woman...same deal. Rapists and molesters are just as bad in my eyes as murderers due to the mental anguish the victims will suffer the remainder of their lives.


But how do you know that a person is "someone who beats a defenseless child"?

No doubts...at all.

http://www.kmov.com/story/28500194/police-stepfather-beats-1-year-old-st-louis-girl-to-death-for-stealing-piece-of-cake


Same...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/21/you-are-a-vicious-monster-man-sentenced-for-killing-girlfriends-2-year-old-son/


twenty minutes on Google will pull up countless pieces of crap who've done that and don't even deny it.


I'm not talking about cases where there 'could or coudn't' be this or that....where there is any chance of doubt. But, there are many 'slam dunk'...no questions about it cases where the evil people who do this crap then choose not to be part of the human race and should be obliged.

Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 27, 2016, 07:23:18 AM
You aren't talking about justice.  You are talking about vengeance.  And while I understand the desire for vengeance on a personal level (if it was your kid, for example), vengeance has no place in the law.

If we don't follow the law for the worst of us, then the best of us don't deserve the law.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 27, 2016, 08:29:20 AM
You aren't talking about justice.  You are talking about vengeance.  And while I understand the desire for vengeance on a personal level (if it was your kid, for example), vengeance has no place in the law.

If we don't follow the law for the worst of us, then the best of us don't deserve the law.

Yeah...you're spot on on this and I do know that...I get why our justice system is set up the way it is.  But I have a REAL hard time convincing myself the people who perform these horrific crimes on children deserve any defense at all and in a lot of instances I feel like our justice system works to the advantage of these monsters rather than truly punishing them. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: KevShmev on August 27, 2016, 08:39:29 AM
When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about social justice and how social media vilifies people nowadays immediately before we know all of the facts, ala the Michael Brown death.

That aside, Gary, I get where you are coming from, and I am sure many others share your frustration when violent criminals get off on technicalities, but innocent until proven guilty in court is a very important thing, and must be protected and kept that way.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Super Dude on September 10, 2016, 08:14:32 AM
The criminal justice system is certainly flawed in many ways but it's not because we somehow give too many privileges to the accused. The presumption of innocence is a foundational principle in American society, and it rightly applies (in theory) to everyone. If the state really comes across a 'no doubt' case, it's their responsibility to prove it to the public. You really can't just go making exceptions to this. It's too important.

I'm in full agreement. Everyone is entitled to at least an adequate defense and other protections offered by the Constitution and its amendments. End of story.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on September 10, 2016, 09:38:19 AM
You aren't talking about justice.  You are talking about vengeance.  And while I understand the desire for vengeance on a personal level (if it was your kid, for example), vengeance has no place in the law.

If we don't follow the law for the worst of us, then the best of us don't deserve the law.

Yeah...you're spot on on this and I do know that...I get why our justice system is set up the way it is.  But I have a REAL hard time convincing myself the people who perform these horrific crimes on children deserve any defense at all and in a lot of instances I feel like our justice system works to the advantage of these monsters rather than truly punishing them. 

It's because people have become soft. They erroneously believe the justice system lives up to its name, so they treat it like the system is filled with altruism and continue to go about like it's alright as they hold on to some antiquated notions. Things need to change. If I have to read about one more pedophile getting a slap on the wrist, I'm going to lose it.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on September 12, 2016, 07:40:15 AM
You aren't talking about justice.  You are talking about vengeance.  And while I understand the desire for vengeance on a personal level (if it was your kid, for example), vengeance has no place in the law.

If we don't follow the law for the worst of us, then the best of us don't deserve the law.

Yeah...you're spot on on this and I do know that...I get why our justice system is set up the way it is.  But I have a REAL hard time convincing myself the people who perform these horrific crimes on children deserve any defense at all and in a lot of instances I feel like our justice system works to the advantage of these monsters rather than truly punishing them. 

It's because people have become soft. They erroneously believe the justice system lives up to its name, so they treat it like the system is filled with altruism and continue to go about like it's alright as they hold on to some antiquated notions. Things need to change. If I have to read about one more pedophile getting a slap on the wrist, I'm going to lose it.

I don't think that's the dynamic exactly.  People are soft, but it's not soft about "justice" and the "system", it's soft about personal accountability.   If I kill someone, I have to be held accountable.  No excuses, no "but..."'s, no "it wasn't his fault".    We have this need lately to make excuses for others and ourselves and it undermines the fact that we have an obligation, a duty, to the rest of society to operate in a certain manner.    Even in the most egregious cases we should start with the premise that everyone is responsible for their own actions, and every actor has the opportunity to break the causal chain.  We have to take more care and more discipline in excusing people for not breaking that chain.    Argue "race" all you want, argue the psychology all you want, but in almost any situation there are countless people that have found themselves in that situation and HAVE broken the chain.  Not every person that has been abused by an elder turns into a child molester.   Not every person that has found themselves in the position f Michael Brown has opted to attack the police officer in front of them (not excusing the police, and not trying to open that can of worms). 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 12, 2016, 12:12:56 PM
You aren't talking about justice.  You are talking about vengeance.  And while I understand the desire for vengeance on a personal level (if it was your kid, for example), vengeance has no place in the law.

If we don't follow the law for the worst of us, then the best of us don't deserve the law.

Yeah...you're spot on on this and I do know that...I get why our justice system is set up the way it is.  But I have a REAL hard time convincing myself the people who perform these horrific crimes on children deserve any defense at all and in a lot of instances I feel like our justice system works to the advantage of these monsters rather than truly punishing them. 

It's because people have become soft. They erroneously believe the justice system lives up to its name, so they treat it like the system is filled with altruism and continue to go about like it's alright as they hold on to some antiquated notions. Things need to change. If I have to read about one more pedophile getting a slap on the wrist, I'm going to lose it.

I don't think that's the dynamic exactly.  People are soft, but it's not soft about "justice" and the "system", it's soft about personal accountability.   If I kill someone, I have to be held accountable.  No excuses, no "but..."'s, no "it wasn't his fault".    We have this need lately to make excuses for others and ourselves and it undermines the fact that we have an obligation, a duty, to the rest of society to operate in a certain manner.    Even in the most egregious cases we should start with the premise that everyone is responsible for their own actions, and every actor has the opportunity to break the causal chain.  We have to take more care and more discipline in excusing people for not breaking that chain.    Argue "race" all you want, argue the psychology all you want, but in almost any situation there are countless people that have found themselves in that situation and HAVE broken the chain.  Not every person that has been abused by an elder turns into a child molester.   Not every person that has found themselves in the position f Michael Brown has opted to attack the police officer in front of them (not excusing the police, and not trying to open that can of worms).
There are several reasons why I generally disagree with this, but for the time being I'll go with the role of the penal system. You imply punishment, and that's at best a lesser role, IMO. Granted, it seems to be the only role people care about nowadays, as demonstrated by this thread, but by focusing solely on the punitive aspect you're actually creating the timidness people have about holding people accountable. Of course people are going to be trying to get at whether or not somebody was mentally competent when the result determines whether or not he's eventually destroyed as a human being.

Quote
Even in the most egregious cases we should start with the premise that everyone is responsible for their own actions, and every actor has the opportunity to break the causal chain.  We have to take more care and more discipline in excusing people for not breaking that chain.
In a causal chain you can find any number of links. In a perfect world you can address all of them. In this situation it seems you want to hold one person accountable for the entire effect because one link was his. The other links don't exist?
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on September 12, 2016, 12:32:37 PM
I'm going to agree with The Bart. Punishment is such a minor part of justice, and only a means to an end, it shouldn't be the end goal itself. But, sadly it is. People get off on seeing others get punished. To be fair, it's the one morally acceptable way we can express pleasure at another human being harmed.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on September 12, 2016, 12:36:20 PM
There are several reasons why I generally disagree with this, but for the time being I'll go with the role of the penal system. You imply punishment, and that's at best a lesser role, IMO. Granted, it seems to be the only role people care about nowadays, as demonstrated by this thread, but by focusing solely on the punitive aspect you're actually creating the timidness people have about holding people accountable. Of course people are going to be trying to get at whether or not somebody was mentally competent when the result determines whether or not he's eventually destroyed as a human being.

I don't know that my response only involves "punishment".  I'm okay with the other roles as well (rehabilitation, vengeance, and incentive, to name three), but the point is that personal accountability is inherent in ALL of them.   You can't rehab someone that doesn't take responsibility for their actions.   Incentive is lost if you push the idea that "we all have our excuses".  Honestly, I don't care about the methodology; the idea for me is that whatever system you have, when you measure the start and the finish that you have less people committing the crimes at hand, less people being victimized by the crimes at hand, and less people interrupted from their daily lives by the crimes at hand.

Quote
In a causal chain you can find any number of links. In a perfect world you can address all of them. In this situation it seems you want to hold one person accountable for the entire effect because one link was his. The other links don't exist?

No, just the opposite; I want to hold ALL persons accountable.  The guy with the badge doesn't get a pass because he has a badge, and the guy in the street doesn't get a pass because he's of color.   "Tend Your Own Garden".   I can't control you, I can only control myself.  So if I account for all our interactions as if I am responsible, and you do the same (for the same reasons) we've greatly reduced our chances for conflict. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on September 12, 2016, 12:54:21 PM
I'm going to agree with The Bart. Punishment is such a minor part of justice, and only a means to an end, it shouldn't be the end goal itself. But, sadly it is. People get off on seeing others get punished. To be fair, it's the one morally acceptable way we can express pleasure at another human being harmed.

I was going to respond later, but after reading this I almost fell off my chair. I don't know anyone who "gets off" on seeing others punished. Is it suddenly now a crime to see others get what's coming to them? You seem to be more concerned about the criminal than the victim. It's not about "getting off". It's about having faith in a system that works. The problem is the deterrent (punishment) isn't effective enough. A slap on the wrist needs to be a bat to the skull, metaphorically speaking...sometimes.  ;)
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 12, 2016, 01:12:13 PM
There are several reasons why I generally disagree with this, but for the time being I'll go with the role of the penal system. You imply punishment, and that's at best a lesser role, IMO. Granted, it seems to be the only role people care about nowadays, as demonstrated by this thread, but by focusing solely on the punitive aspect you're actually creating the timidness people have about holding people accountable. Of course people are going to be trying to get at whether or not somebody was mentally competent when the result determines whether or not he's eventually destroyed as a human being.

I don't know that my response only involves "punishment".  I'm okay with the other roles as well (rehabilitation, vengeance, and incentive, to name three), but the point is that personal accountability is inherent in ALL of them.   You can't rehab someone that doesn't take responsibility for their actions.   Incentive is lost if you push the idea that "we all have our excuses".  Honestly, I don't care about the methodology; the idea for me is that whatever system you have, when you measure the start and the finish that you have less people committing the crimes at hand, less people being victimized by the crimes at hand, and less people interrupted from their daily lives by the crimes at hand.
Fair enough. In American justice when I hear personal accountability I assume vengeance. Sadly, that is the nature of things. However, even applied to rehabilitation and deterrence, I still think there need to be degrees of accountability. As with so many things, I think it's the conflict between simple and complex that set people apart. Accountability isn't binary, at least in my opinion, and a whole lot of people get pissed off when it isn't demonstrated as such.

Quote
Quote
In a causal chain you can find any number of links. In a perfect world you can address all of them. In this situation it seems you want to hold one person accountable for the entire effect because one link was his. The other links don't exist?

No, just the opposite; I want to hold ALL persons accountable.  The guy with the badge doesn't get a pass because he has a badge, and the guy in the street doesn't get a pass because he's of color.   "Tend Your Own Garden".   I can't control you, I can only control myself.  So if I account for all our interactions as if I am responsible, and you do the same (for the same reasons) we've greatly reduced our chances for conflict.
But there are links that exist beyond accountability to a specific case. One of my favorite examples is Henry Lee Lucas. We fault him for not breaking his link, but there were dozens of others well outside his control. We hold him accountable for not stopping something that myriad other factors put into play? On the basis that others might have?

And as to your greater end, I think that's a largely systemic problem, where our present mechanism fails quite hard. Personal accountability might be one of the problem points, but not a particularly large one in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 12, 2016, 01:17:19 PM
I'm going to agree with The Bart. Punishment is such a minor part of justice, and only a means to an end, it shouldn't be the end goal itself. But, sadly it is. People get off on seeing others get punished. To be fair, it's the one morally acceptable way we can express pleasure at another human being harmed.

I was going to respond later, but after reading this I almost fell off my chair. I don't know anyone who "gets off" on seeing others punished. Is it suddenly now a crime to see others get what's coming to them? You seem to be more concerned about the criminal than the victim. It's not about "getting off". It's about having faith in a system that works. The problem is the deterrent (punishment) isn't effective enough. A slap on the wrist needs to be a bat to the skull, metaphorically speaking...sometimes.  ;)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c1cyktbuzapwpbatuhtx.jpg)
Setting aside the people who celebrate executions, I think the problem is the degree to which people lament when denied their pound of flesh.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on September 12, 2016, 02:00:52 PM
Fair enough. In American justice when I hear personal accountability I assume vengeance. Sadly, that is the nature of things. However, even applied to rehabilitation and deterrence, I still think there need to be degrees of accountability. As with so many things, I think it's the conflict between simple and complex that set people apart. Accountability isn't binary, at least in my opinion, and a whole lot of people get pissed off when it isn't demonstrated as such.

Next time I see you and there is beer involved, maybe we can talk about this aspect more, because I have really come to the conclusion - I've been thinking this for a while but it's really been rammed home in the last year - that NOTHING is binary, except light switches and computers.  When you have a very complex - too complex to fully understand - system, sometimes it helps to bite off small chunks and think of them in binary terms, and you can worry about the nuances and the greys later.  Like with a car that won't start.   Get it running, and from that point you can trouble shoot why it's not purring like a kitten.   I think we've reached the point where we know enough - about human nature, about natural law, about our society - that we are starting to do harm by "forcing" a binary approach to things.   


Quote
But there are links that exist beyond accountability to a specific case. One of my favorite examples is Henry Lee Lucas. We fault him for not breaking his link, but there were dozens of others well outside his control. We hold him accountable for not stopping something that myriad other factors put into play? On the basis that others might have?

And as to your greater end, I think that's a largely systemic problem, where our present mechanism fails quite hard. Personal accountability might be one of the problem points, but not a particularly large one in the grand scheme of things.

To the first point, I think I'm talking about a form of "joint and several liability".  Holding Henry accountable doesn't absolve anyone else of THEIR accountability.  And certainly in the punishment phase there can and should be a discussion - as there supposed to be now - of the relative merits of the possible outcomes for each of the possible players.   I just think the pendulum is on the far side of "rest" at this point in terms of giving people a lot of leeway for their context.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 12, 2016, 02:32:40 PM
Fair enough. In American justice when I hear personal accountability I assume vengeance. Sadly, that is the nature of things. However, even applied to rehabilitation and deterrence, I still think there need to be degrees of accountability. As with so many things, I think it's the conflict between simple and complex that set people apart. Accountability isn't binary, at least in my opinion, and a whole lot of people get pissed off when it isn't demonstrated as such.

Next time I see you and there is beer involved, maybe we can talk about this aspect more, because I have really come to the conclusion - I've been thinking this for a while but it's really been rammed home in the last year - that NOTHING is binary, except light switches and computers.  When you have a very complex - too complex to fully understand - system, sometimes it helps to bite off small chunks and think of them in binary terms, and you can worry about the nuances and the greys later.  Like with a car that won't start.   Get it running, and from that point you can trouble shoot why it's not purring like a kitten.   I think we've reached the point where we know enough - about human nature, about natural law, about our society - that we are starting to do harm by "forcing" a binary approach to things.   
And then some asshole had to come along and invent the dimmer switch.

I think we're pretty much in agreement here. The problem is that when you can't treat something as black/white you open the door for the situations that piss people off. And I'm not excluded from that group, by the way. As reasonable people you and I can agree that somebody that's off his rocker shouldn't be treated the same way as the coldblooded, calculating killer. Yet people still want their pound of flesh. When you can't fairly hold somebody accountable, it's frustrating.

And this is only a microcosm of the "nothing is binary" problem. We see that in the political arena all the time. I seem to recall a recent discussion in the other thread about kindergarten logic. There's a certain satisfaction to being able to see something as black and white, which is often times also quite logical. It's just rarely the solution to the problem.

Quote
To the first point, I think I'm talking about a form of "joint and several liability".  Holding Henry accountable doesn't absolve anyone else of THEIR accountability.  And certainly in the punishment phase there can and should be a discussion - as there supposed to be now - of the relative merits of the possible outcomes for each of the possible players.   I just think the pendulum is on the far side of "rest" at this point in terms of giving people a lot of leeway for their context.
Well, outside of the philosophical discussion about the existence of freewill, I can't really argue with you there. All I can really say is that it seems in the current system you're either not guilty or you're guilty and deserving of punishment. Guilty and in need of rehabilitation or compassion doesn't seem to come up much. Presenting mitigating circumstances after that only lessens the severity of the punishment. This doesn't sit all that well with me.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on September 12, 2016, 05:00:31 PM
I'm going to agree with The Bart. Punishment is such a minor part of justice, and only a means to an end, it shouldn't be the end goal itself. But, sadly it is. People get off on seeing others get punished. To be fair, it's the one morally acceptable way we can express pleasure at another human being harmed.

I was going to respond later, but after reading this I almost fell off my chair. I don't know anyone who "gets off" on seeing others punished. Is it suddenly now a crime to see others get what's coming to them? You seem to be more concerned about the criminal than the victim. It's not about "getting off". It's about having faith in a system that works. The problem is the deterrent (punishment) isn't effective enough. A slap on the wrist needs to be a bat to the skull, metaphorically speaking...sometimes.  ;)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c1cyktbuzapwpbatuhtx.jpg)
Setting aside the people who celebrate executions, I think the problem is the degree to which people lament when denied their pound of flesh.

The Reagan mask is a nice touch. Kidding aside, I still don't see something wrong with reveling in seeing justice done. Imagine the families of victims of serial killers, sitting in court for an exhausting trial. Eventually, the sentence is given out, and the killer either gets life in prison or, with any luck it's a death penalty state, and he is sentenced to death. Does it make them horrible people for celebrating justice? It doesn't mean, as Adami said, that people get off on it like it's some twisted fetish. Now imagine your that same family and the killer gets some paltry sentence, like twenty years. They would have every right to be pissed off and upset about their "pound of flesh".

I know most people here disagree, but death should be met with death. That's just how it should be. Yes, there are some circumstances that might deserve a bit more consideration, but anything less than that is an insult to those who lost someone. I really hate when people seem to put more concern into the criminal's rights than the victims. Any discussion like this does just that. You try to martyr the guy by accusing people of wrongdoing because they "celebrate" him/her being punished for a crime they committed.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 12, 2016, 09:27:06 PM
The Reagan mask is actually quite ironic. Ten or fifteen years ago two things became popular. One was for republican primary debates to be held at the Reagan Library, and the other was for the prospective candidates to illicit cheers by touting the number of executions they've presided over. Stating that you've signed 124 death warrants is good street cred. After one such debate Patti Davis wrote an open letter describing Ronnie's attitude towards such things, which is actually somewhat similar to my own. As governor of California signing off on death warrants was his responsibility. He didn't shy away from it, but when it came time to do so he called in his pastor to pray with him and he recognized the seriousness of what he was having to do. The point she stressed very clearly was that to her father it was not something to celebrate. It was a necessary but very regrettable thing.

I find it disheartening that so many Republicans choose to be so unlike the people they seem to hold in the highest esteem.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on September 12, 2016, 09:50:28 PM
I don't see punishment as something to be celebrated. I think that speaks to our less than good nature, but clearly I am in a very very small minority with that opinion.

I apologize for my phrase "get off" I didn't mean to imply that you're jerking off to a video of someone being executed, though no judgments if you're into that too. You said it better, it's feeling really good, really proud and really pleased and fulfilled at the suffering/death of others as a means of punishment or public appeasement. I cannot condone such a mindset under any circumstances.

Since pedophiles are the go-to example of criminals around here, I will ask this.

Say you have a pedophile who got caught diddling a 4 year old. (I dunno, make it as depraved as you see fit)

Cops come in and arrest the dude. He is sentenced to be put away until it can be 100% proven that he would never harm anyone again, and if that can't be proven, he's gone for the rest of his life.

Does it really matter if he's living those years in a dark cell without water being raped and beaten daily by big men or strap-ons lined with razor blades while others rip out his eye and piss in it or if he's living those days in a normal room somewhere, comfortably (though not luxuriously) where he can never cause harm to another again?

Personally, to me, Justice is the removal harm. If the dude is no longer a threat, then I see no reason to harm/kill anyone. Killing should only be done if it is the means of harm removal with the least amount of harm caused.

Like I said, I know I am in an almost non-existent minority on this one, but I firmly believe the above is what an ideal just society would look like.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on September 12, 2016, 10:07:14 PM
It was a necessary but very regrettable thing.

I'll be the first to argue whether or not it's actually necessary, but when it is, I very much agree with this statement.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Jaffa on September 12, 2016, 11:09:02 PM
I really hate when people seem to put more concern into the criminal's rights than the victims.

Well, it's not just about weighing the people, it's about weighing the rights.  In this case, we're talking about weighing the right of a criminal to continue being alive versus the right of the victim to witness the death of someone who hurt them.  In my opinion, one of these things should be a right, and the other shouldn't.  It's that simple.

I believe that when we sanction something like execution, all we're really doing is admitting that we don't know how to deal with extreme crimes except by resorting to extreme punishment.  And I don't really like the idea of living in a society that accepts that.  I certainly don't accept it. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on September 13, 2016, 06:08:43 AM
I don't see punishment as something to be celebrated. I think that speaks to our less than good nature, but clearly I am in a very very small minority with that opinion.

I apologize for my phrase "get off" I didn't mean to imply that you're jerking off to a video of someone being executed, though no judgments if you're into that too. You said it better, it's feeling really good, really proud and really pleased and fulfilled at the suffering/death of others as a means of punishment or public appeasement. I cannot condone such a mindset under any circumstances.

Since pedophiles are the go-to example of criminals around here, I will ask this.

Say you have a pedophile who got caught diddling a 4 year old. (I dunno, make it as depraved as you see fit)

Cops come in and arrest the dude. He is sentenced to be put away until it can be 100% proven that he would never harm anyone again, and if that can't be proven, he's gone for the rest of his life.

Does it really matter if he's living those years in a dark cell without water being raped and beaten daily by big men or strap-ons lined with razor blades while others rip out his eye and piss in it or if he's living those days in a normal room somewhere, comfortably (though not luxuriously) where he can never cause harm to another again?

Personally, to me, Justice is the removal harm. If the dude is no longer a threat, then I see no reason to harm/kill anyone. Killing should only be done if it is the means of harm removal with the least amount of harm caused.

Like I said, I know I am in an almost non-existent minority on this one, but I firmly believe the above is what an ideal just society would look like.

I get your logic and part of me totally agrees. I find death no real punishment since you're dead and that's rather final. However, aren't you just getting off on keeping the person alive and celebrating his torture?  ;)

I really hate when people seem to put more concern into the criminal's rights than the victims.

Well, it's not just about weighing the people, it's about weighing the rights.  In this case, we're talking about weighing the right of a criminal to continue being alive versus the right of the victim to witness the death of someone who hurt them.  In my opinion, one of these things should be a right, and the other shouldn't.  It's that simple.

I believe that when we sanction something like execution, all we're really doing is admitting that we don't know how to deal with extreme crimes except by resorting to extreme punishment.  And I don't really like the idea of living in a society that accepts that.  I certainly don't accept it. 

How should extreme crimes be handled then?

The Reagan mask is actually quite ironic. Ten or fifteen years ago two things became popular. One was for republican primary debates to be held at the Reagan Library, and the other was for the prospective candidates to illicit cheers by touting the number of executions they've presided over. Stating that you've signed 124 death warrants is good street cred. After one such debate Patti Davis wrote an open letter describing Ronnie's attitude towards such things, which is actually somewhat similar to my own. As governor of California signing off on death warrants was his responsibility. He didn't shy away from it, but when it came time to do so he called in his pastor to pray with him and he recognized the seriousness of what he was having to do. The point she stressed very clearly was that to her father it was not something to celebrate. It was a necessary but very regrettable thing.

I find it disheartening that so many Republicans choose to be so unlike the people they seem to hold in the highest esteem.

That is an interesting story, one I wasn't aware of. I think your last sentence points to the ignorance that a lot of people have about those they hold in high esteem. A lot of Reaganites probably don't even know that he was more of a Democrat in his earlier years, and since I doubt he did a complete 180, he probably still had some left leaning ideas.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Super Dude on September 13, 2016, 06:09:40 AM
Indeed, I think it is in these cases of more heinous and extreme crimes that the Constitutional rights of the accused are that much more important. To flay even human monsters alive is to be just as savage as the accused (assuming that the accused actually is guilty of the crime - maybe you just publicly executed the wrong guy).
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on September 13, 2016, 09:20:24 AM
I don't see punishment as something to be celebrated. I think that speaks to our less than good nature, but clearly I am in a very very small minority with that opinion.

I apologize for my phrase "get off" I didn't mean to imply that you're jerking off to a video of someone being executed, though no judgments if you're into that too. You said it better, it's feeling really good, really proud and really pleased and fulfilled at the suffering/death of others as a means of punishment or public appeasement. I cannot condone such a mindset under any circumstances.

Since pedophiles are the go-to example of criminals around here, I will ask this.

Say you have a pedophile who got caught diddling a 4 year old. (I dunno, make it as depraved as you see fit)

Cops come in and arrest the dude. He is sentenced to be put away until it can be 100% proven that he would never harm anyone again, and if that can't be proven, he's gone for the rest of his life.

Does it really matter if he's living those years in a dark cell without water being raped and beaten daily by big men or strap-ons lined with razor blades while others rip out his eye and piss in it or if he's living those days in a normal room somewhere, comfortably (though not luxuriously) where he can never cause harm to another again?

Personally, to me, Justice is the removal harm. If the dude is no longer a threat, then I see no reason to harm/kill anyone. Killing should only be done if it is the means of harm removal with the least amount of harm caused.

Like I said, I know I am in an almost non-existent minority on this one, but I firmly believe the above is what an ideal just society would look like.

I've come around, in a circuitous way, to thinking like this as well.    Of course, some assumptions are important:   
- I don't think all crimes are equal in the sense that I don't think the child molester is curable in the same way that a 15 year old who lifts the latest Beiber album from FYE might be.   
- I've not been in that position directly, but I don't see the "joy" or "relief" of "justice".  I honestly could not identify with Ron Goldman's dad at all.  I think he and his daughter endured a horrible tragedy but they let it define them in a way that if I was Ron, I wouldn't be happy with.  In no event does it bring back the lost victim, and knowing what I know (or think I know) about how the human brain works, I'm not getting any vindication.  Ted Bundy did not feel bad for even one second for the crimes he committed.
- I've come to believe that it is wrong to knowingly and with purpose, take a single human life.   Yeah, this position is fraught with peril (war, self defense, immediate survival) but we're not talking about those things right now.  I think it runs against the laws of nature to have an event at day 0 cause society at some point say 1750 days later to knowingly, calmly, and with forethought take the life of the actor of the day 0 event.   
- My personal jury is out on the scenario Adami put forth; given the above, is it then okay to let that molestor rot in a cell knowing what we now know about personal incarceration and enforced solitude?   I don't know.  I honestly don't know how I feel about that yet. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Jaffa on September 13, 2016, 07:26:42 PM
I really hate when people seem to put more concern into the criminal's rights than the victims.

Well, it's not just about weighing the people, it's about weighing the rights.  In this case, we're talking about weighing the right of a criminal to continue being alive versus the right of the victim to witness the death of someone who hurt them.  In my opinion, one of these things should be a right, and the other shouldn't.  It's that simple.

I believe that when we sanction something like execution, all we're really doing is admitting that we don't know how to deal with extreme crimes except by resorting to extreme punishment.  And I don't really like the idea of living in a society that accepts that.  I certainly don't accept it. 

How should extreme crimes be handled then?

Pretty much what Adami said.  Removing the harm is the important step.  Since you already responded to this when he said it...

Personally, to me, Justice is the removal harm. If the dude is no longer a threat, then I see no reason to harm/kill anyone. Killing should only be done if it is the means of harm removal with the least amount of harm caused.

Like I said, I know I am in an almost non-existent minority on this one, but I firmly believe the above is what an ideal just society would look like.

I get your logic and part of me totally agrees. I find death no real punishment since you're dead and that's rather final. However, aren't you just getting off on keeping the person alive and celebrating his torture?  ;)

I would say there are a number of good reasons for keeping extreme criminals alive, none of which have anything to do with any pro-torture mentality. 

One reason is that we might be able to learn something from them.  The idea that these people are irredeemable monsters does not really help anyone; all it does is give us an excuse to write them off.  If we really have an interest in preventing these crimes, the first step has to be reaching a better understanding of why they happen in the first place, and we cannot achieve that goal by simply dismissing the criminals as evil and throwing their lives away. 

Another reason would be for the simple betterment of us as a society.  I don't know about you, but I would very much like to live in a world where people were capable of treating even despicable criminals with respect and compassion.  Even if they might not deserve it, I think it's worth giving it to them anyway - for our own sake, because we can better ourselves by treating others better. 

More significantly, I just don't think that killing the criminal actually accomplishes anything.  Seeing a child murderer get executed might provide some small comfort for the parents of his victim, but I'm not sure we really want to cater to the parts of human nature that crave that kind of punishment.  I think we would be far better off trying to move past that instinct.  Scratching an itch rarely does anything real to address the cause of the itch, and sometimes it has a way of making a problem much worse.  It's a cliche, but one that exists for a good reason: if you really want to move on with your life after a tragedy, forgiveness tends to be a better tool than vengeance. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on September 13, 2016, 07:51:09 PM
Jaffa Kree!

Always wanted to say that.


Anyway, Jaffa's my man.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on September 14, 2016, 05:44:43 AM
I would say there are a number of good reasons for keeping extreme criminals alive, none of which have anything to do with any pro-torture mentality. 

One reason is that we might be able to learn something from them.  The idea that these people are irredeemable monsters does not really help anyone; all it does is give us an excuse to write them off.  If we really have an interest in preventing these crimes, the first step has to be reaching a better understanding of why they happen in the first place, and we cannot achieve that goal by simply dismissing the criminals as evil and throwing their lives away. 

Another reason would be for the simple betterment of us as a society.  I don't know about you, but I would very much like to live in a world where people were capable of treating even despicable criminals with respect and compassion.  Even if they might not deserve it, I think it's worth giving it to them anyway - for our own sake, because we can better ourselves by treating others better. 

More significantly, I just don't think that killing the criminal actually accomplishes anything.  Seeing a child murderer get executed might provide some small comfort for the parents of his victim, but I'm not sure we really want to cater to the parts of human nature that crave that kind of punishment.  I think we would be far better off trying to move past that instinct.  Scratching an itch rarely does anything real to address the cause of the itch, and sometimes it has a way of making a problem much worse.  It's a cliche, but one that exists for a good reason: if you really want to move on with your life after a tragedy, forgiveness tends to be a better tool than vengeance.

Not everybody feels that way, though.

I don't think everybody deserves the same treatment. There are billions of people in the world. To treat each one of them the same, is belying what makes one of them unique. People aren't these mass produced robots that are programmed to think and act the same. There are gradations of personalities that should be dealt with accordingly. Since there are different types of criminals, there should be different degrees of repercussions. You wouldn't give a murderer the same sentence that you would a purse snatcher. So, why should extreme criminals get the same treatment as good, law-abiding citizens?
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 14, 2016, 07:42:07 AM
More significantly, I just don't think that killing the criminal actually accomplishes anything.  Seeing a child murderer get executed might provide some small comfort for the parents of his victim, but I'm not sure we really want to cater to the parts of human nature that crave that kind of punishment.  I think we would be far better off trying to move past that instinct.  Scratching an itch rarely does anything real to address the cause of the itch, and sometimes it has a way of making a problem much worse.  It's a cliche, but one that exists for a good reason: if you really want to move on with your life after a tragedy, forgiveness tends to be a better tool than vengeance.

we can debate the cause of the 'itch' all day long, and I'm sure that some of these people that commit these horrific acts have had some pretty crappy things happen to them in their lives....but that doesn't excuse their actions AT ALL. There's a very tiny percentage of these criminals who commit horrific acts that may have some low IQ that puts them at child like mentality....I can see in those RARE instances showing a level of compassion. But the bulk of these people are calculating, evil people who will do nothing but take advantage of the weak approach suggested here. Talk about 'evolving' as a society....a zero tolerance rule against child molestation/rape, Rape in general and first degree murder is a good place to start. You commit these type's of horrid crimes you forfeit your right to breathe the air the rest of us breathe.


I would say there are a number of good reasons for keeping extreme criminals alive, none of which have anything to do with any pro-torture mentality. 

One reason is that we might be able to learn something from them.  The idea that these people are irredeemable monsters does not really help anyone; all it does is give us an excuse to write them off.  If we really have an interest in preventing these crimes, the first step has to be reaching a better understanding of why they happen in the first place, and we cannot achieve that goal by simply dismissing the criminals as evil and throwing their lives away. 

I have to completely disagree. there is not ONE good reason to keep a man, who lets say has raped, tortured and then savagely killed a woman or child alive. None. There's absolutely no rehabilitating them....and 'quizzing' them as to why they did it is an utter waste of time. It'll be one excuse after another IF he isn't playing you. and if you want DNA or anything physiological.....get a sample after you take his dead body to the morgue. You dismiss them as evil because that's what they are....and to try and combat extreme criminals with any behavior less than double what they've displayed does nothing to deter others...only encourage them.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Jaffa on September 14, 2016, 08:40:12 AM
Not everybody feels that way, though.

I don't think everybody deserves the same treatment. There are billions of people in the world. To treat each one of them the same, is belying what makes one of them unique. People aren't these mass produced robots that are programmed to think and act the same. There are gradations of personalities that should be dealt with accordingly. Since there are different types of criminals, there should be different degrees of repercussions. You wouldn't give a murderer the same sentence that you would a purse snatcher. So, why should extreme criminals get the same treatment as good, law-abiding citizens?

Well, they shouldn't, and I never meant to imply that they should.  Extreme criminals should be imprisoned indefinitely.  That's definitely not the way I suggest we treat good, law-abiding citizens. 

That being said, I'm interested by the first half of your post, and I'm not sure I'm understanding it correctly.  Specifically, I don't know if I see what it has to do with my point about forgiveness versus vengeance.  You say not everyone feels the way I do on that point, and that's fair enough, but what does it have to do with deciding how we should deal with criminals?  Are you saying that the sentencing system should take into account the feelings of the victim?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's out it came across to me, so I just want to clarify. 

More significantly, I just don't think that killing the criminal actually accomplishes anything.  Seeing a child murderer get executed might provide some small comfort for the parents of his victim, but I'm not sure we really want to cater to the parts of human nature that crave that kind of punishment.  I think we would be far better off trying to move past that instinct.  Scratching an itch rarely does anything real to address the cause of the itch, and sometimes it has a way of making a problem much worse.  It's a cliche, but one that exists for a good reason: if you really want to move on with your life after a tragedy, forgiveness tends to be a better tool than vengeance.

we can debate the cause of the 'itch' all day long, and I'm sure that some of these people that commit these horrific acts have had some pretty crappy things happen to them in their lives....but that doesn't excuse their actions AT ALL.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to the 'itch' of criminals to commit evil acts.  I was referring to our 'itch' to see vengeance.  My point is that when we want to see someone get hurt (or executed, or violated with a hot cattle prod, or whatever), that feeling is typically a result of a deeper pain within us, and seeing that vengeance done will rarely do anything to address our actual pain.  Sometimes, when you scratch the itch at the surface, the deeper wound just gets infected. 

I would say there are a number of good reasons for keeping extreme criminals alive, none of which have anything to do with any pro-torture mentality. 

One reason is that we might be able to learn something from them.  The idea that these people are irredeemable monsters does not really help anyone; all it does is give us an excuse to write them off.  If we really have an interest in preventing these crimes, the first step has to be reaching a better understanding of why they happen in the first place, and we cannot achieve that goal by simply dismissing the criminals as evil and throwing their lives away. 

I have to completely disagree. there is not ONE good reason to keep a man, who lets say has raped, tortured and then savagely killed a woman or child alive. None. There's absolutely no rehabilitating them....and 'quizzing' them as to why they did it is an utter waste of time. It'll be one excuse after another IF he isn't playing you. and if you want DNA or anything physiological.....get a sample after you take his dead body to the morgue. You dismiss them as evil because that's what they are....and to try and combat extreme criminals with any behavior less than double what they've displayed does nothing to deter others...only encourage them.

A couple things to address real quick. 

First, modern psychological profiling can go quite a bit deeper than just 'quizzing' them.  And building psychological profiles for killers is a large part of what helps law enforcement deal with killers moving forward.

Secondly, it's interesting to me that you are so willing to dismiss them as evil. Earlier in your post, you mentioned a tiny percentage of people who might have low IQ that puts them at a childlike mentality.  You say that in these rare cases, you can see showing them compassion.  So, you admit that there are rare exceptions to your 'they're just evil' rule.  Here's a thought experiment: what if we discover another exception in the future, once our understanding of the human psyche has moved forward?  What if we discover another mental condition that might be worthy of your compassion?  And what if, in the mean time, we have executed people with that mental condition without understanding what was going on in their head? 

Again, this is just a thought experiment.  The point of it is, the only way to guarantee that we never execute anyone unfairly is to just not execute people in the first place.  Otherwise there is always going to be room for new information to shed light on old cases long after we have done things that we can't undo. 

Finally, I stand by my original point about compassion.  If we want to be truly good, I think we need to have compassion even for those we perceive as evil. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 14, 2016, 08:53:11 AM
A couple things to address real quick. 

First, modern psychological profiling can go quite a bit deeper than just 'quizzing' them.  And building psychological profiles for killers is a large part of what helps law enforcement deal with killers moving forward.

Secondly, it's interesting to me that you are so willing to dismiss them as evil. Earlier in your post, you mentioned a tiny percentage of people who might have low IQ that puts them at a childlike mentality.  You say that in these rare cases, you can see showing them compassion.  So, you admit that there are rare exceptions to your 'they're just evil' rule.  Here's a thought experiment: what if we discover another exception in the future, once our understanding of the human psyche has moved forward?  What if we discover another mental condition that might be worthy of your compassion?  And what if, in the mean time, we have executed people with that mental condition without understanding what was going on in their head? 

Again, this is just a thought experiment.  The point of it is, the only way to guarantee that we never execute anyone unfairly is to just not execute people in the first place.  Otherwise there is always going to be room for new information to shed light on old cases long after we have done things that we can't undo. 

Finally, I stand by my original point about compassion.  If we want to be truly good, I think we need to have compassion even for those we perceive as evil.

I've admitted and understand that my position on how to handle these types of people not only is in direct conflict with my Faith and how I'm taught to treat people....it's also fueled by a vengeful element of my mind. For all the counseling and therapy I've been through from my own encounters with being molested and the advancements I've made in dealing with that....I can't seem to relieve myself of the 'vengeful' desire to see people that do these horrific things decidedly punished.

I think your thought experiment is thought provoking....because if there's anything we do know about the human mind it's that there is still MUCH to learn about it. I understand what you're getting at....but like I said, I can't seem to conquer the desire within me to "make these people pay". I think about 'what if it were my kids' or my parents or my wife that suffered these things and I will admit that it boils my blood and I see red.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Jaffa on September 14, 2016, 09:04:23 AM
A couple things to address real quick. 

First, modern psychological profiling can go quite a bit deeper than just 'quizzing' them.  And building psychological profiles for killers is a large part of what helps law enforcement deal with killers moving forward.

Secondly, it's interesting to me that you are so willing to dismiss them as evil. Earlier in your post, you mentioned a tiny percentage of people who might have low IQ that puts them at a childlike mentality.  You say that in these rare cases, you can see showing them compassion.  So, you admit that there are rare exceptions to your 'they're just evil' rule.  Here's a thought experiment: what if we discover another exception in the future, once our understanding of the human psyche has moved forward?  What if we discover another mental condition that might be worthy of your compassion?  And what if, in the mean time, we have executed people with that mental condition without understanding what was going on in their head? 

Again, this is just a thought experiment.  The point of it is, the only way to guarantee that we never execute anyone unfairly is to just not execute people in the first place.  Otherwise there is always going to be room for new information to shed light on old cases long after we have done things that we can't undo. 

Finally, I stand by my original point about compassion.  If we want to be truly good, I think we need to have compassion even for those we perceive as evil.

I've admitted and understand that my position on how to handle these types of people not only is in direct conflict with my Faith and how I'm taught to treat people....it's also fueled by a vengeful element of my mind. For all the counseling and therapy I've been through from my own encounters with being molested and the advancements I've made in dealing with that....I can't seem to relieve myself of the 'vengeful' desire to see people that do these horrific things decidedly punished.

I think your thought experiment is thought provoking....because if there's anything we do know about the human mind it's that there is still MUCH to learn about it. I understand what you're getting at....but like I said, I can't seem to conquer the desire within me to "make these people pay". I think about 'what if it were my kids' or my parents or my wife that suffered these things and I will admit that it boils my blood and I see red.

I understand and sympathize.  You have every reason to feel the way you do.  I also admire you for being so open about it.

That being said, do you mind if I ask you something about your feelings?  It is related to what we're discussing, and I think it could provide some interesting insight into the subject and a point I'd like to make about it, but if you'd prefer, I can send you a PM to continue in private.  Or, if you'd rather not talk about it at all, that's fine, too.  I don't want to poke a sore spot for you. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on September 14, 2016, 09:08:34 AM
To be clear, I wasn't referring to the 'itch' of criminals to commit evil acts.  I was referring to our 'itch' to see vengeance.  My point is that when we want to see someone get hurt (or executed, or violated with a hot cattle prod, or whatever), that feeling is typically a result of a deeper pain within us, and seeing that vengeance done will rarely do anything to address our actual pain.  Sometimes, when you scratch the itch at the surface, the deeper wound just gets infected. 

But how do you get to say that?   I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but rather how you got there.  How do you know that "vengeance" rarely addresses the pain?  Much of our society is predicated on the idea of "justice" and "vengeance".  Schwartzenegger, Willis, and Diesel have made entire careers and hundreds of millions (if not BILLIONS) of dollars on the idea of "vengeance".   Rob Halford has been SCREAMING for it for over 30 years.  I don't feel it, personally, but I have long assumed I am in the minority on that point.  I also don't quite get the dying need for "closure" that most people feel either, but it's a prevailing emotion.

Secondly, it's interesting to me that you are so willing to dismiss them as evil. Earlier in your post, you mentioned a tiny percentage of people who might have low IQ that puts them at a childlike mentality.  You say that in these rare cases, you can see showing them compassion.  So, you admit that there are rare exceptions to your 'they're just evil' rule.  Here's a thought experiment: what if we discover another exception in the future, once our understanding of the human psyche has moved forward?  What if we discover another mental condition that might be worthy of your compassion?  And what if, in the mean time, we have executed people with that mental condition without understanding what was going on in their head? 

Again, this is just a thought experiment.  The point of it is, the only way to guarantee that we never execute anyone unfairly is to just not execute people in the first place.  Otherwise there is always going to be room for new information to shed light on old cases long after we have done things that we can't undo. 

Finally, I stand by my original point about compassion.  If we want to be truly good, I think we need to have compassion even for those we perceive as evil.

Not a hypothetical, and not a sarcastic question, but who says we want to be "truly good"?   Meaning, who's to say what is truly good?   The entire body of psychology and sociology is LITTERED with examples that show the same decision is in some cases optimal and in some cases to be avoided.     You control a train; you can either send the train to the left track, killing ten people, nine innocent adults and one serial killer, or you can send the train to the right track and kill two small children.  I have thought a lot about this, and while I am not for the death penalty (for some of the reasons you state) I am deeply torn with the extremes of that point of view.  I don't feel it is appropriate for a human to knowingly and with intent take another's life - death penalty, abortion (though I am pro-choice, strongly) - but what about self-defense?  Wat about the US invading Normandy to stop Hitler?   Hiroshima?  bin Laden?   
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 14, 2016, 09:20:39 AM
A couple things to address real quick. 

First, modern psychological profiling can go quite a bit deeper than just 'quizzing' them.  And building psychological profiles for killers is a large part of what helps law enforcement deal with killers moving forward.

Secondly, it's interesting to me that you are so willing to dismiss them as evil. Earlier in your post, you mentioned a tiny percentage of people who might have low IQ that puts them at a childlike mentality.  You say that in these rare cases, you can see showing them compassion.  So, you admit that there are rare exceptions to your 'they're just evil' rule.  Here's a thought experiment: what if we discover another exception in the future, once our understanding of the human psyche has moved forward?  What if we discover another mental condition that might be worthy of your compassion?  And what if, in the mean time, we have executed people with that mental condition without understanding what was going on in their head? 

Again, this is just a thought experiment.  The point of it is, the only way to guarantee that we never execute anyone unfairly is to just not execute people in the first place.  Otherwise there is always going to be room for new information to shed light on old cases long after we have done things that we can't undo. 

Finally, I stand by my original point about compassion.  If we want to be truly good, I think we need to have compassion even for those we perceive as evil.

I've admitted and understand that my position on how to handle these types of people not only is in direct conflict with my Faith and how I'm taught to treat people....it's also fueled by a vengeful element of my mind. For all the counseling and therapy I've been through from my own encounters with being molested and the advancements I've made in dealing with that....I can't seem to relieve myself of the 'vengeful' desire to see people that do these horrific things decidedly punished.

I think your thought experiment is thought provoking....because if there's anything we do know about the human mind it's that there is still MUCH to learn about it. I understand what you're getting at....but like I said, I can't seem to conquer the desire within me to "make these people pay". I think about 'what if it were my kids' or my parents or my wife that suffered these things and I will admit that it boils my blood and I see red.

I understand and sympathize.  You have every reason to feel the way you do.  I also admire you for being so open about it.

That being said, do you mind if I ask you something about your feelings?  It is related to what we're discussing, and I think it could provide some interesting insight into the subject and a point I'd like to make about it, but if you'd prefer, I can send you a PM to continue in private.  Or, if you'd rather not talk about it at all, that's fine, too.  I don't want to poke a sore spot for you.

I don't mind....go ahead and ask away.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Jaffa on September 14, 2016, 09:51:34 AM
(@Stadler: I will respond later.  I have to get to work soon, but I wanted to put this out real quick.)

A couple things to address real quick. 

First, modern psychological profiling can go quite a bit deeper than just 'quizzing' them.  And building psychological profiles for killers is a large part of what helps law enforcement deal with killers moving forward.

Secondly, it's interesting to me that you are so willing to dismiss them as evil. Earlier in your post, you mentioned a tiny percentage of people who might have low IQ that puts them at a childlike mentality.  You say that in these rare cases, you can see showing them compassion.  So, you admit that there are rare exceptions to your 'they're just evil' rule.  Here's a thought experiment: what if we discover another exception in the future, once our understanding of the human psyche has moved forward?  What if we discover another mental condition that might be worthy of your compassion?  And what if, in the mean time, we have executed people with that mental condition without understanding what was going on in their head? 

Again, this is just a thought experiment.  The point of it is, the only way to guarantee that we never execute anyone unfairly is to just not execute people in the first place.  Otherwise there is always going to be room for new information to shed light on old cases long after we have done things that we can't undo. 

Finally, I stand by my original point about compassion.  If we want to be truly good, I think we need to have compassion even for those we perceive as evil.

I've admitted and understand that my position on how to handle these types of people not only is in direct conflict with my Faith and how I'm taught to treat people....it's also fueled by a vengeful element of my mind. For all the counseling and therapy I've been through from my own encounters with being molested and the advancements I've made in dealing with that....I can't seem to relieve myself of the 'vengeful' desire to see people that do these horrific things decidedly punished.

I think your thought experiment is thought provoking....because if there's anything we do know about the human mind it's that there is still MUCH to learn about it. I understand what you're getting at....but like I said, I can't seem to conquer the desire within me to "make these people pay". I think about 'what if it were my kids' or my parents or my wife that suffered these things and I will admit that it boils my blood and I see red.

I understand and sympathize.  You have every reason to feel the way you do.  I also admire you for being so open about it.

That being said, do you mind if I ask you something about your feelings?  It is related to what we're discussing, and I think it could provide some interesting insight into the subject and a point I'd like to make about it, but if you'd prefer, I can send you a PM to continue in private.  Or, if you'd rather not talk about it at all, that's fine, too.  I don't want to poke a sore spot for you.

I don't mind....go ahead and ask away.

Thank you.

My question is this: Do you feel that seeing people get punished is ultimately helpful to you?  Does it heal your pain?  Does it bring you peace?
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 14, 2016, 10:13:55 AM
My question is this: Do you feel that seeing people get punished is ultimately helpful to you?  Does it heal your pain?  Does it bring you peace?

Hmmm...I can honestly say that hearing/reading about a pedophile or someone who has molested a kid being punished has never given me any sense of peace personally, but rather gives me satisfaction that the victim of that person received a sense of justice. I think when abuse/rape comes into the picture there really is no punishment that you can inflict on the abuser that comes close to matching the mental and psychological damage their victims will feel the rest of their lives. Ending their time on earth seems trivial to what those victims have to deal with the rest of their days and also seems like the least thing we could do for them. In my case, I feel like I'm at a pretty good place concerning my healing yet I don't feel that I'll ever truly be at a place that'd I'd have been at had it not happened.

When I talk to the point of these criminals who inflict horrific crimes like rape, murder torture of kids/women etc. that are just brutal in nature....I think the sense of "peace" that accompanies knowing those people were put to death comes less from knowing they'll never do it again and more from knowing that if that were to ever happen to my kids/wife/parents/siblings that the criminal would face the ultimate punishment....and honestly, if I sat and thought about it right now and say one of my sons was abused/raped etc by someone.....my mind immediately forfeits everything I'm taught by my Faith and jumps right to wanting 5 minutes alone with the person who did that to my kid so I can rip them limb from limb. Is that right to think like that? When put in context of my Faith I know that is completely contradictory to how I'm urged to carry myself and treat others.....but in any instance where I see something happen to a kid or wife or parent that's horrific in nature I can't help but think of my own family and if that had happened to them and then jump to that line of thinking rather than the forgiveness and compassion that I 'know' I should be demonstrating.

I don't know if that really answered your question though?
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on September 14, 2016, 11:25:41 AM
Not everybody feels that way, though.

I don't think everybody deserves the same treatment. There are billions of people in the world. To treat each one of them the same, is belying what makes one of them unique. People aren't these mass produced robots that are programmed to think and act the same. There are gradations of personalities that should be dealt with accordingly. Since there are different types of criminals, there should be different degrees of repercussions. You wouldn't give a murderer the same sentence that you would a purse snatcher. So, why should extreme criminals get the same treatment as good, law-abiding citizens?

Well, they shouldn't, and I never meant to imply that they should.  Extreme criminals should be imprisoned indefinitely.  That's definitely not the way I suggest we treat good, law-abiding citizens. 

That being said, I'm interested by the first half of your post, and I'm not sure I'm understanding it correctly.  Specifically, I don't know if I see what it has to do with my point about forgiveness versus vengeance.  You say not everyone feels the way I do on that point, and that's fair enough, but what does it have to do with deciding how we should deal with criminals?  Are you saying that the sentencing system should take into account the feelings of the victim?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's out it came across to me, so I just want to clarify. 


I could probably live with extreme criminals being imprisoned for life with no chance of parole. Pedophiles usually get their assholes torn apart as soon a they get into prison, and that is far more excruciating than a few moments of voltage.

Let me see if I can clarify my first sentence. What you said is this:

Quote
It's a cliche, but one that exists for a good reason: if you really want to move on with your life after a tragedy, forgiveness tends to be a better tool than vengeance.

What I said is that not everybody feels that way, meaning not everyone wants to forgive and move on, especially if the criminal gets a slap on the wrist. People want justice and forgiveness hinders that in many cases. People aren't objective about crime and they should be. We're suddenly worried about the criminal and whether underneath the way he gut his victim with a knife there's a boy who wants to be loved. Just no.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 14, 2016, 11:34:35 AM
I think it reflects poorly on us when we consider the imposition of suffering justice.

People aren't objective about crime and they should be. We're suddenly worried about the criminal and whether underneath the way he gut his victim with a knife there's a boy who wants to be loved. Just no.
I read the first part and briefly though we were in agreement. Technically we are, in that people aren't objective about crime, but I was looking at the bloodthirsty rather than the bleeding hearts.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on September 14, 2016, 11:39:32 AM
I think it reflects poorly on us when we consider the imposition of suffering justice.

People aren't objective about crime and they should be. We're suddenly worried about the criminal and whether underneath the way he gut his victim with a knife there's a boy who wants to be loved. Just no.
I read the first part and briefly though we were in agreement. Technically we are, in that people aren't objective about crime, but I was looking at the bloodthirsty rather than the bleeding hearts.

I think it's suffice to say there is irrationality on both sides.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 14, 2016, 12:21:45 PM
Perfect Example:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-jail-time-iowa-teen-141027964.html


at minimum he should have to serve the full 10 yrs of that ridiculously small 'sentence' AND be castrated...balls and shaft. This type of 'justice' is exactly what makes me go insane with this stuff. I have zero interest as to 'why' he did it.....he knew it was wrong but did it anyway and certainly deserved far worse a punishment. This judge should be removed from the bench immediately....it's a joke.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 14, 2016, 12:33:15 PM
And your post is a fine example of why there's push back. You refer to justice, but to the rest of us it's amazingly clear that what you want is revenge. For one thing, there's a huge difference between putting him in prison, which we as a society have deemed appropriate 'justice' and cutting his dick off. What you want has never been acceptable in this country. While it certainly seems to me that he didn't get what was coming to him, what was coming to him is a very different thing than what you want for him. Secondly, and the crux of the problem, you post this because you're, for some reason, genuinely pissed off about it. As has been stated several times here, justice doesn't work when it's derived from passion.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 14, 2016, 12:41:11 PM
And your post is a fine example of why there's push back. You refer to justice, but to the rest of us it's amazingly clear that what you want is revenge. For one thing, there's a huge difference between putting him in prison, which we as a society have deemed appropriate 'justice' and cutting his dick off. What you want has never been acceptable in this country. While it certainly seems to me that he didn't get what was coming to him, what was coming to him is a very different thing than what you want for him. Secondly, and the crux of the problem, you post this because you're, for some reason, genuinely pissed off about it. As has been stated several times here, justice doesn't work when it's derived from passion.

But if the very real possibility of getting his dick cut off were there.....I'd be willing to bet he'd at least have thought twice before acting on his desires. And, this person should not have the opportunity to father a kid...period.....nor 'enjoy' any sort of sexual gratification, and simply sterilizing him isn't harsh enough. He should have to look down at an empty crotch everyday as further reminder and punishment for this sinister act. IMO your reproductive and sexual gratification is all forfeited when you sexually abuse an infant/kid/woman.....but ESPECIALLY a defenseless child. I honestly don't see what the issue is other than the repeated soft justice approach to these types of crimes offers zero reason for anyone contemplating molesting and raping a child not to do it.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Chino on September 14, 2016, 12:47:58 PM
And your post is a fine example of why there's push back. You refer to justice, but to the rest of us it's amazingly clear that what you want is revenge. For one thing, there's a huge difference between putting him in prison, which we as a society have deemed appropriate 'justice' and cutting his dick off. What you want has never been acceptable in this country. While it certainly seems to me that he didn't get what was coming to him, what was coming to him is a very different thing than what you want for him. Secondly, and the crux of the problem, you post this because you're, for some reason, genuinely pissed off about it. As has been stated several times here, justice doesn't work when it's derived from passion.

But if the very real possibility of getting his dick cut off were there.....I'd be willing to bet he'd at least have thought twice before acting on his desires.

Would it though? We see this kind of behavior in a lot of our enemies, and still, after generations of being aware of it, people are still getting their hands chopped off for theft, beaten for not worshipping hard enough, and getting burned alive or beheaded for having relationships with the same sex.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Super Dude on September 14, 2016, 12:52:37 PM
Jesus, it's not hard to see why Genowyn posted what he did in the chat thread.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 14, 2016, 12:53:32 PM
There was still a very real possibility of getting put in prison for the rest of his life. Cast down with the sodomites, so to speak. There's still the very real possibility of getting executed if you kill somebody, yet even in Texas we still have 1100-1200 murders per year. Deterrence is only effective when a criminal thinks rationally at the time they commit their crime.

edit: or in other words, like Chino said.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on September 14, 2016, 01:58:34 PM
And your post is a fine example of why there's push back. You refer to justice, but to the rest of us it's amazingly clear that what you want is revenge. For one thing, there's a huge difference between putting him in prison, which we as a society have deemed appropriate 'justice' and cutting his dick off. What you want has never been acceptable in this country. While it certainly seems to me that he didn't get what was coming to him, what was coming to him is a very different thing than what you want for him. Secondly, and the crux of the problem, you post this because you're, for some reason, genuinely pissed off about it. As has been stated several times here, justice doesn't work when it's derived from passion.

But if the very real possibility of getting his dick cut off were there.....I'd be willing to bet he'd at least have thought twice before acting on his desires. And, this person should not have the opportunity to father a kid...period.....nor 'enjoy' any sort of sexual gratification, and simply sterilizing him isn't harsh enough. He should have to look down at an empty crotch everyday as further reminder and punishment for this sinister act. IMO your reproductive and sexual gratification is all forfeited when you sexually abuse an infant/kid/woman.....but ESPECIALLY a defenseless child. I honestly don't see what the issue is other than the repeated soft justice approach to these types of crimes offers zero reason for anyone contemplating molesting and raping a child not to do it.

I don't say this to be a dick, but to be reasonably entertaining, but if that's how you feel, lobby to pass the law.   Let society take a referendum on it.  See if that's how the MAJORITY of people think.  I didn't even click the link - on purpose - because it doesn't really matter.   As el Barto says, that you are outraged kind of makes you the least reliable person to weigh in on this, because everyone has their pet projects.  I know women who would cut off - balls and shaft (I'm going to steal that) - anyone who rapes.  Then you get the case where the kid banged the girl on Friday, they were at a party on Saturday, he's macking on someone else, and all of a sudden maybe Friday wasn't as consensual as we all thought.  Does that kid - a male whore but NOT a rapist - deserve to have his balls and shaft removed?   

Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Genowyn on September 14, 2016, 02:06:23 PM
Sometimes just because the majority agrees with it doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority and all that. That's why we live in representative democracies rather than direct democracies, so that at some point someone can say "You know what that's fucked up so let's not ok?"

This is a case where I think the majority might even agree with GMD... doesn't make it right. I'm sure there's all sorts of odious shit the majority of people believe.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 14, 2016, 02:32:11 PM
Sometimes just because the majority agrees with it doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority and all that. That's why we live in representative constitutional democracies rather than direct democracies, so that at some point someone can say "You know what that's fucked up so let's not ok?"

This is a case where I think the majority might even agree with GMD... doesn't make it right. I'm sure there's all sorts of odious shit the majority of people believe.
FTFY. Where GMD will run into a bigger problem, and thank the gods for that, is what he wants is flagrantly unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Genowyn on September 14, 2016, 02:55:16 PM
I mean, you still have elected representatives who do the actual voting on laws rather than direct democracy. Is that not the definition of representative democracy?

There are further breakdowns of representative democracy (like parliamentary republic or what have you) but broadly, representative democracy describes most democratic nations.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 14, 2016, 03:16:53 PM
Yeah. That makes sense. I'm just putting the constitution out there as a check against mob rule mentality. In the past I suppose politicians could be counted on to check the irrational whims of the people. Now they seem to be not only be relying on them, but trying to outbatshit each other to gain the mob's favor.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Genowyn on September 14, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
Ah I see.

I figured there would be constitutional protections from the kinds of punishment being suggested but not sure as it's not my country :D
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on September 14, 2016, 03:39:06 PM
Ah I see.

I figured there would be constitutional protections from the kinds of punishment being suggested but not sure as it's not my country :D
Oh, I forgot, you're one of those Canadian people.  :lol  Yeah, I'm pretty confident that any person not acting out of seething rage is gong to consider dismemberment cruel and unusual punishment. So while you could certainly get a 51% majority of congressmen to support our good doctor's Sun Cannonô as a form of punishment, the Supreme Court is going to laugh at them for the attempt.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Super Dude on September 14, 2016, 05:28:18 PM
Ah I see.

I figured there would be constitutional protections from the kinds of punishment being suggested but not sure as it's not my country :D

There are. Notice that the DTF attorneys, if they have appeared at all, have pounced on this thread. :p
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: j on September 14, 2016, 06:10:54 PM
But if the very real possibility of getting his dick cut off were there.....I'd be willing to bet he'd at least have thought twice before acting on his desires. And, this person should not have the opportunity to father a kid...period.....nor 'enjoy' any sort of sexual gratification, and simply sterilizing him isn't harsh enough. He should have to look down at an empty crotch everyday as further reminder and punishment for this sinister act. IMO your reproductive and sexual gratification is all forfeited when you sexually abuse an infant/kid/woman.....but ESPECIALLY a defenseless child. I honestly don't see what the issue is other than the repeated soft justice approach to these types of crimes offers zero reason for anyone contemplating molesting and raping a child not to do it.

Just to approach one aspect of this that hasn't been addressed, the efficacy of some potential punishment as a "deterrent" like this depends on a lot of things, many of them inexact and unpredictable.  Getting your dick chopped off sounds terrible, but so does life in prison and/or death, and even a lot less than that.  I suspect that if one was ineffective as a deterrent for some reason (i.e. the individual was acting irrationally/impulsively, thought his chances of being caught were low enough to take the risk, etc), so too would the others be.  My guess is that it's not often that these types of crimes are committed with calculating rationality and detailed cost-benefit analysis.

-J
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Jaffa on September 14, 2016, 11:11:05 PM
To be clear, I wasn't referring to the 'itch' of criminals to commit evil acts.  I was referring to our 'itch' to see vengeance.  My point is that when we want to see someone get hurt (or executed, or violated with a hot cattle prod, or whatever), that feeling is typically a result of a deeper pain within us, and seeing that vengeance done will rarely do anything to address our actual pain.  Sometimes, when you scratch the itch at the surface, the deeper wound just gets infected. 

But how do you get to say that?   I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but rather how you got there.  How do you know that "vengeance" rarely addresses the pain? 

I suppose I don't, really.  Not with any authority or certainty, at any rate.  My perspective of this based largely on what makes sense in my own brain.  And, while it does line up with my own experience and my observations of the people in my life, I definitely shouldn't pretend it's a universal truth.  I'm sure there are plenty of people who do feel a sense of genuine comfort or satisfaction at the idea of a horrific criminal being punished in a way they find appropriate.  Though, even then, I'm not convinced that the sense of comfort or satisfaction they experience is actually healthy.

Look at the five stages of grief.  In the process of dealing with loss, almost everyone experiences anger.  That's perfectly natural, and it can be an important part of the healing process.  But it's important to keep in mind that the eventual goal is acceptance.  And I think that when people get caught up in that anger stage - no matter how justified the anger may be - it has a way of keeping them away from acceptance and delaying their healing process.

Not a hypothetical, and not a sarcastic question, but who says we want to be "truly good"?   Meaning, who's to say what is truly good?   The entire body of psychology and sociology is LITTERED with examples that show the same decision is in some cases optimal and in some cases to be avoided.     You control a train; you can either send the train to the left track, killing ten people, nine innocent adults and one serial killer, or you can send the train to the right track and kill two small children.  I have thought a lot about this, and while I am not for the death penalty (for some of the reasons you state) I am deeply torn with the extremes of that point of view.  I don't feel it is appropriate for a human to knowingly and with intent take another's life - death penalty, abortion (though I am pro-choice, strongly) - but what about self-defense?  Wat about the US invading Normandy to stop Hitler?   Hiroshima?  bin Laden?

Well, for my part, I've pretty much made peace with the idea of killing in order to actively prevent harm.  If there is a shooter on the loose, a police officer might have to choose between three fairly bad options: letting the shooter continue hurting people, approaching the shooter to attempt to disarm him at great personal risk, or putting a bullet in the shooter's brain.  In this case, I can live with the cop pulling the trigger.  He is hurting someone for the simple reason that if he doesn't, other people will get hurt.


That's not the equation on death row.  It's not like there are two people strapped into separate electric chairs, one of them innocent and one of them guilty, and we have to choose which one to fry.  We're simply choosing whether or not to kill a person. 

I personally cannot make peace with the idea of being presented with that decision and choosing to end a life. 

My question is this: Do you feel that seeing people get punished is ultimately helpful to you?  Does it heal your pain?  Does it bring you peace?

Hmmm...I can honestly say that hearing/reading about a pedophile or someone who has molested a kid being punished has never given me any sense of peace personally, but rather gives me satisfaction that the victim of that person received a sense of justice. I think when abuse/rape comes into the picture there really is no punishment that you can inflict on the abuser that comes close to matching the mental and psychological damage their victims will feel the rest of their lives. Ending their time on earth seems trivial to what those victims have to deal with the rest of their days and also seems like the least thing we could do for them. In my case, I feel like I'm at a pretty good place concerning my healing yet I don't feel that I'll ever truly be at a place that'd I'd have been at had it not happened.

When I talk to the point of these criminals who inflict horrific crimes like rape, murder torture of kids/women etc. that are just brutal in nature....I think the sense of "peace" that accompanies knowing those people were put to death comes less from knowing they'll never do it again and more from knowing that if that were to ever happen to my kids/wife/parents/siblings that the criminal would face the ultimate punishment....and honestly, if I sat and thought about it right now and say one of my sons was abused/raped etc by someone.....my mind immediately forfeits everything I'm taught by my Faith and jumps right to wanting 5 minutes alone with the person who did that to my kid so I can rip them limb from limb. Is that right to think like that? When put in context of my Faith I know that is completely contradictory to how I'm urged to carry myself and treat others.....but in any instance where I see something happen to a kid or wife or parent that's horrific in nature I can't help but think of my own family and if that had happened to them and then jump to that line of thinking rather than the forgiveness and compassion that I 'know' I should be demonstrating.

I don't know if that really answered your question though?

You did answer my question, more or less. 

I suppose it all comes down to the bolded question.  Is it right to think like that?

It seems you yourself are torn on this question, your faith in one hand and your emotions on the other.  Itís not too often that I take the side of faith, but it seems to me that in this case, your faith is something you have taken great care to cultivate through personal and intellectual pursuit.  On the other hand, your emotions on the subject are knee jerk reactions that, in your own words, you canít help. 

To put it in perspective, you mentioned that if anyone abused your children, you would want five minutes alone with them.  Which is totally understandable.  But if you got those five minutes,  and did what you wanted to do, you would be acting against beliefs that are crucially important to you and who you are. 

It seems to me that if something can make you do that, it has too much power over you.  And thatís why I believe that the thirst for extreme justice can be unhealthy and dangerous.  The pursuit of that kind of justice often involves disregarding the ideals and beliefs that make us who we are.   
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 15, 2016, 07:35:10 AM
You did answer my question, more or less. 

I suppose it all comes down to the bolded question.  Is it right to think like that?

It seems you yourself are torn on this question, your faith in one hand and your emotions on the other.  Itís not too often that I take the side of faith, but it seems to me that in this case, your faith is something you have taken great care to cultivate through personal and intellectual pursuit.  On the other hand, your emotions on the subject are knee jerk reactions that, in your own words, you canít help. 

To put it in perspective, you mentioned that if anyone abused your children, you would want five minutes alone with them.  Which is totally understandable.  But if you got those five minutes,  and did what you wanted to do, you would be acting against beliefs that are crucially important to you and who you are. 

It seems to me that if something can make you do that, it has too much power over you.  And thatís why I believe that the thirst for extreme justice can be unhealthy and dangerous.  The pursuit of that kind of justice often involves disregarding the ideals and beliefs that make us who we are.

Dang Jaffa.....this is very thought provoking. I really appreciate the response. Others have expressed a similar outlook but I guess the manner in which you presented it really penetrated the defensive position I've taken on the matter. Thanks.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on September 15, 2016, 09:32:58 AM
I suppose I don't, really.  Not with any authority or certainty, at any rate.  My perspective of this based largely on what makes sense in my own brain.  And, while it does line up with my own experience and my observations of the people in my life, I definitely shouldn't pretend it's a universal truth.  I'm sure there are plenty of people who do feel a sense of genuine comfort or satisfaction at the idea of a horrific criminal being punished in a way they find appropriate.  Though, even then, I'm not convinced that the sense of comfort or satisfaction they experience is actually healthy.

You don't know me from a row of assholes, but that's a big thing for me, and it has nothing to do with you personally.  It applies to you, me, GMD, el Barto... I don't feel at all that any one person - a fallible, human person - can make that determination for anyone but themselves.    Not for this thread but I have deep and grave concerns about our - collective - ability to even approach "universal truth", and yet some of us operate as if it is a fait accompli that we have and know what those are.   Even base things, things that we have been (recently) taught are beyond discussion, beyond debate (like racism, homophobia) I believe ought to be looked at periodically to make sure that our assumptions still hold and that our execution of such principles are sound (I'm not at all suggesting that we should "relook at whether we should be racist!" but rather, to reevaluate how we deal with those principles.  Is shaming ok?  Is our legal framework adequate? Etc.). 


Quote
I personally cannot make peace with the idea of being presented with that decision and choosing to end a life. 


As do I, very much.  I have a 15-year-old daughter and an 18-year-old stepdaughter, and so this comes up a fair amount, and I freely make jokes about having 15 minutes with any potential boyfriend, but that's all it is.  I certainly don't want to end up like Ron Goldman's dad, but it's a painful thing to accept how powerless we might actually be.  But it is something that we have to get our arms around.  Our society seems to be predicated on a subtle level of vengeance and quasi-"justice".  Road rage.  Shaming.   It's not healthy, and it is in my view a clear sign that we are not dealing with our emotions in any fruitful or productive way. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on November 29, 2016, 02:04:43 PM
Two more instances where these two "men" should have to prove to a court or judge why they deserve to live and are innocent of killing these infants, and when they can't....because they can't.....they should be executed immediately.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/baby-boy-in-wentzville-child-abuse-case-dies/article_0004c76a-047a-5376-ac4e-a3ce9db8434b.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3983410/Maryland-father-24-pleads-guilty-sexually-abusing-killing-10-week-old-daughter-repeatedly-dropping-baby-breaking-bones.html
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on November 29, 2016, 02:18:11 PM
Sing it, Mick! Sing it!
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on November 29, 2016, 09:01:43 PM
Two more instances where these two "men" should have to prove to a court or judge why they deserve to live and are innocent of killing these infants, and when they can't....because they can't.....they should be executed immediately.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/baby-boy-in-wentzville-child-abuse-case-dies/article_0004c76a-047a-5376-ac4e-a3ce9db8434b.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3983410/Maryland-father-24-pleads-guilty-sexually-abusing-killing-10-week-old-daughter-repeatedly-dropping-baby-breaking-bones.html

Unless someone confesses or pleads guilty, then they should get a trial. I don't like to think that a coincidence could be responsible for the wrongful execution of someone.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on November 29, 2016, 09:09:10 PM
Two more instances where these two "men" should have to prove to a court or judge why they deserve to live and are innocent of killing these infants, and when they can't....because they can't.....they should be executed immediately.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/baby-boy-in-wentzville-child-abuse-case-dies/article_0004c76a-047a-5376-ac4e-a3ce9db8434b.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3983410/Maryland-father-24-pleads-guilty-sexually-abusing-killing-10-week-old-daughter-repeatedly-dropping-baby-breaking-bones.html

Unless someone confesses or pleads guilty, then they should get a trial. I don't like to think that a coincidence could be responsible for the wrongful execution of someone.

The 2nd dude pleaded guilty.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on November 29, 2016, 09:27:42 PM
It doesn't matter to me what they plead. In my eyes if you can do what they did to helpless infants, you forfeit your rights, both as a citizen and as a member of the species. Absolutely no place in society for people who do that to infants/kids. Period.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2016, 09:23:08 AM
It doesn't matter to me what they plead. In my eyes if you can do what they did to helpless infants, you forfeit your rights, both as a citizen and as a member of the species. Absolutely no place in society for people who do that to infants/kids. Period.

Fair points, but they have to have DONE IT.   Not "we kinda think so".  Not "as far as we know he's the last one to have seen the kid".   We have to KNOW.   The court system provides an acceptable (to society) mechanism for determining "KNOW".  Yeah, some people feel like there are false positives (and false negatives) but part of the social contract is that we agree that that is the arbiter of that question. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on November 30, 2016, 09:40:09 AM
Nah, not a fair point at all. He said it himself. "In my eyes." Right now he's mad because the victims were apparently infants. However, I suspect he's got a list of categories where the same extrajudicial punishment is warranted. But that's only GMD's list of people the process doesn't apply to. Everybody would have their own list of people that the rules don't apply to. So what, we decide on a list of recognized, compromised bad guys that don't warrant due process?

With all of this talk of liberal PC thugs complaining because their feelings are hurt, I'd say there's an equally dangerous problems of people on the other side who fail to recognize that certain requirements are in place for everybody and that means You Can't Always Get What You Want. President Grabby clearly doesn't get that, and a helluva lot of people who think similarly now feel legitimized.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2016, 10:09:26 AM
okay, fair point to you. :)

I'm with you.  I don't really go in for that eye-for-an-eye crap, though I do understand it, and so I was just showing respect for his opinion.   
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on November 30, 2016, 11:03:43 AM
Part of me does wonder why we spend so much money to keep people who are clearly fucked up and unable to return to society alive in jail.  I know that's pretty vicious, but the thought does come to my mind every once in awhile. 

Which leads me to George Carlin's view on the death penalty  :lol https://youtu.be/qDO6HV6xTmI (https://youtu.be/qDO6HV6xTmI)
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: portnoy311 on November 30, 2016, 11:19:00 AM
I'm with Jesus Barto. The system is set up purpsefully as the only way to ensure it works for everyone, at least theoretically. It's not even a slippery slope question (which are usually fallacious) - if we're going to fasttrack killing people, how do we 100% make sure they did it, their confessions were lucid and not coerced, and everything is as believed? A trial.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on November 30, 2016, 01:36:46 PM
I'm with Jesus Barto. The system is set up purpsefully as the only way to ensure it works for everyone, at least theoretically. It's not even a slippery slope question (which are usually fallacious) - if we're going to fasttrack killing people, how do we 100% make sure they did it, their confessions were lucid and not coerced, and everything is as believed? A trial.

Which, though I worded it shittily, was my point on the nose.  It doesn't matter WHAT the punishment is, we just can't have some father or brother of the victim making an emotional call of GUILTY based on vengeance and convenience.   There is NO doubt in my mind that the night of the arrest Ron Goldman's dad would have been all in on a public flaying, and whether you agree with the outcome or not, OJ WAS found not guilty. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 01, 2016, 12:16:59 PM
you can play verbal gymnastics all day long. The bottom line is these two people brutalized helpless infants....there is no question that they did so...and those infants are dead due to these pieces of crap. What I said is, if you perform actions on helpless infants like these guys did...and countless others do everyday, you FORFEIT your rights...as a citizen and as a member of our race. Allowing people like this to continue to breathe is just as big a travesty as what they did to those kids. They cannot be rehabilitated, they will ultimately waste hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars in court costs and incarceration. They sealed their fate IMO.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on December 01, 2016, 12:19:12 PM
you can play verbal gymnastics all day long. The bottom line is these two people brutalized helpless infants....there is no question that they did so...and those infants are dead due to these pieces of crap. What I said is, if you perform actions on helpless infants like these guys did...and countless others do everyday, you FORFEIT your rights...as a citizen and as a member of our race. Allowing people like this to continue to breathe is just as big a travesty as what they did to those kids. They cannot be rehabilitated, they will ultimately waste hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars in court costs and incarceration. They sealed their fate IMO.

I disagree. I don't think we can forfeit those rights.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 01, 2016, 12:25:39 PM
you can play verbal gymnastics all day long. The bottom line is these two people brutalized helpless infants....there is no question that they did so...and those infants are dead due to these pieces of crap. What I said is, if you perform actions on helpless infants like these guys did...and countless others do everyday, you FORFEIT your rights...as a citizen and as a member of our race. Allowing people like this to continue to breathe is just as big a travesty as what they did to those kids. They cannot be rehabilitated, they will ultimately waste hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars in court costs and incarceration. They sealed their fate IMO.

I disagree. I don't think we can forfeit those rights.

you (and EB) are probably more 'right' than I am. I can't remove myself from the emotion of thinking about a man who shoved his hands and fingers down a crying baby's throat because it's crying and then shaking the  :censored out of it to get it to stop crying....rather than just walking out of the room. Or continually dropping an infant and sexually abusing it....or like the one I read today about a man who sexually abused a 4 month old over and over until she died.....I simply cannot place any value at all on a persons life who does things like that. Is that a massive character flaw and a flaw in my Faith? Yep...it is. People that do those things in my eyes simply do not deserve to live.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: portnoy311 on December 01, 2016, 12:28:38 PM
Verbal gymnastics?

In the process you're calling for innocent people will be executed without a trial. It's absolutely going to happen. And I'd rather err on the side of making sure everyone has due process than being so blood thirsty we end up killing someone who turned up innocent. Again, the only way to be sure is a trial.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 01, 2016, 12:30:08 PM
@Gary: What age is the cutoff for abuse/murder where a person forfeits all rights? To what level does the abuse need to rise? Is death necessary, or does severe emotional trauma suffice?

I'm not trying to be a smartass, but these are the sorts of things that have to be taken into account. Without those considerations, you're creating mob rule, where the laws are based around the mood and emotional state of the day.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on December 01, 2016, 01:05:24 PM
you can play verbal gymnastics all day long. The bottom line is these two people brutalized helpless infants....there is no question that they did so...and those infants are dead due to these pieces of crap. What I said is, if you perform actions on helpless infants like these guys did...and countless others do everyday, you FORFEIT your rights...as a citizen and as a member of our race. Allowing people like this to continue to breathe is just as big a travesty as what they did to those kids. They cannot be rehabilitated, they will ultimately waste hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars in court costs and incarceration. They sealed their fate IMO.

I respect your position, but "inalienable" means literally and exactly what Adami says:  they can neither be forfeited nor taken away.  Depending how you look at it, one of those rights is "due process" and another of those rights is a protection against "cruel and unusual punishment".  None of this can be just glossed over by saying "you do something I think is bad, you forfeit rights!"
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: bosk1 on December 01, 2016, 05:07:26 PM
I sympathize with Gary's feelings.  I do.  And I agree that the penalty for such crimes, once all reasonable doubt as to guilt has been removed, should be the harshest.  And I think that maybe we have gotten to the point where we are focused too much on due process to the point that the process has become too slow and cumbersome, and has too many opportunities to the guilty to evade application of justice (maybe).  But the process is incredibly important to protect the rights of all, not just the ones who are guilty of these crimes, but ALL of us.  We cannot just abandon it because we might subjectively want the wheels of justice to move more swiftly and the hammer of justice to fall more forcefully in the most egregious of cases.  We just can't.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: eric42434224 on December 01, 2016, 06:57:57 PM
I sympathize with gmillerdrake.  I can totally relate, and can only imagine the rage I would feel if something like that affected me personally.  Those types of feelings are EXACTLY why the process was created, and why it needs to remain protected.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: portnoy311 on December 01, 2016, 07:32:14 PM
I sympathize with gmillerdrake.  I can totally relate, and can only imagine the rage I would feel if something like that affected me personally.  Those types of feelings are EXACTLY why the process was created, and why it needs to remain protected.

That is a great, great point. The process is there for a reason - following it is the way to stay levelheaded and make correct decisions, when emotions would otherwise make it impossible to do so.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 01, 2016, 08:17:03 PM
I completely understand and agree with the point you guys are making. Those rights are there for a reason and the system protects against the emotion that I'm clearly giving in to.

My larger point is basically what the title of the thread is. People that do these type of horrific crimes and rape and brutalize infants should have to prove to a jury of their peers why they shouldn't be hung the next day. They get thier trial and a chance. They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.



Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: eric42434224 on December 01, 2016, 08:26:38 PM
I completely understand and agree with the point you guys are making. Those rights are there for a reason and the system protects against the emotion that I'm clearly giving in to.

My larger point is basically what the title of the thread is. People that do these type of horrific crimes and rape and brutalize infants should have to prove to a jury of their peers why they shouldn't be hung the next day. They get thier trial and a chance. They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.

You're saying the same thing, just in a different way.  Innocent until proven guilty is an irreplaceable part of the process we say is so important.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on December 02, 2016, 09:53:34 AM
I completely understand and agree with the point you guys are making. Those rights are there for a reason and the system protects against the emotion that I'm clearly giving in to.

My larger point is basically what the title of the thread is. People that do these type of horrific crimes and rape and brutalize infants should have to prove to a jury of their peers why they shouldn't be hung the next day. They get thier trial and a chance. They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.

NO NO NO.  You HAVE to have the process exact that guilt from them.  Your passion and zeal to see justice is EXACTLY why that has to happen.  It's a brake ON PURPOSE, to diffuse that emotion and make sure that justice is served in ALL cases.  That's also (in part) why CRIMES (as opposed to civil cases) are tried by an independent prosecutor and not private attorneys hired by the victim, or (if the victim is not available) representatives of the victim.

Once guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt, THEN perhaps you have the felon plead for their life.  Personally I'm against the death penalty, but I don't make the call on that, legislature does.  If it's there, then at least use it.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 02, 2016, 11:44:55 AM
Tim Roth, The Hangman, described it damn well in The Hateful Eight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYLLoG8zd74
Justice administered without dispassion is always in danger of not being justice at all.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: 73109 on December 02, 2016, 11:49:01 AM
They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.

Tautology much?
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on December 02, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
Tim Roth, The Hangman, described it damn well in The Hateful Eight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYLLoG8zd74
Justice administered without dispassion is always in danger of not being justice at all.

 :lol I didn't see that movie, but that dialogue is so Tarantino, makes me want to catch that movie now. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 02, 2016, 12:16:51 PM
They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.

Tautology much?

Only sometimes but not all the time
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 02, 2016, 12:28:49 PM
Tim Roth, The Hangman, described it damn well in The Hateful Eight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYLLoG8zd74
Justice administered without dispassion is always in danger of not being justice at all.

 :lol I didn't see that movie, but that dialogue is so Tarantino, makes me want to catch that movie now.
The first hour and a half is nothing but Tarantino dialogue and some wonderful super-widescreen cinematography. Following that is an hour of some of the most savage, brutal violence I've ever seen. Yet, thanks to it being a QT film, that hour is still damned entertaining and even comical at times. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Jaffa on December 02, 2016, 10:24:39 PM
I completely understand and agree with the point you guys are making. Those rights are there for a reason and the system protects against the emotion that I'm clearly giving in to.

My larger point is basically what the title of the thread is. People that do these type of horrific crimes and rape and brutalize infants should have to prove to a jury of their peers why they shouldn't be hung the next day. They get thier trial and a chance. They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.

Alright.  I have a thought experiment.  Fair warning: I'm going to do some verbal gymnastics. 

I say we should have two types of trials.

If someone is accused of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether they are guilty.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their guilt, they are presumed innocent.  We'll call this trial A.

If someone is guilty of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether or not they are innocent.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their innocence, they are presumed guilty.  We'll call this trial B.

Here's the dilemma: How do we decide which trial a person should get?

Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: 73109 on December 02, 2016, 11:32:05 PM
It's whether they did it or not! Duh!


Seriously though, I have no idea how this thread has made it to three pages.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on December 06, 2016, 10:35:21 AM
I completely understand and agree with the point you guys are making. Those rights are there for a reason and the system protects against the emotion that I'm clearly giving in to.

My larger point is basically what the title of the thread is. People that do these type of horrific crimes and rape and brutalize infants should have to prove to a jury of their peers why they shouldn't be hung the next day. They get thier trial and a chance. They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.

Alright.  I have a thought experiment.  Fair warning: I'm going to do some verbal gymnastics. 

I say we should have two types of trials.

If someone is accused of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether they are guilty.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their guilt, they are presumed innocent.  We'll call this trial A.

If someone is guilty of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether or not they are innocent.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their innocence, they are presumed guilty.  We'll call this trial B.

Here's the dilemma: How do we decide which trial a person should get?

We decide by the system we have in place right now. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Jaffa on December 06, 2016, 05:58:12 PM
I agree.  My question was directed at gmiller, who is questioning the system we have in place. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on December 06, 2016, 08:11:41 PM
I completely understand and agree with the point you guys are making. Those rights are there for a reason and the system protects against the emotion that I'm clearly giving in to.

My larger point is basically what the title of the thread is. People that do these type of horrific crimes and rape and brutalize infants should have to prove to a jury of their peers why they shouldn't be hung the next day. They get thier trial and a chance. They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.

I think that unless someone is admitting guilt, they deserve a fair trial. In the end, the punishment should be harsh, not some slap on the wrist. Hangings would certainly send a strong message. Vlad the Impaler had a good thing going, except he would do it to people just for looking at him the wrong way. Maybe a guillotine. But instead of taking the head off right away, maybe do his hands and feet first, then the torso, watch the entrails come flowing out. I think he'd be dead by then.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on December 06, 2016, 08:14:21 PM
I completely understand and agree with the point you guys are making. Those rights are there for a reason and the system protects against the emotion that I'm clearly giving in to.

My larger point is basically what the title of the thread is. People that do these type of horrific crimes and rape and brutalize infants should have to prove to a jury of their peers why they shouldn't be hung the next day. They get thier trial and a chance. They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.

I think that unless someone is admitting guilt, they deserve a fair trial. In the end, the punishment should be harsh, not some slap on the wrist. Hangings would certainly send a strong message. Vlad the Impaler had a good thing going, except he would do it to people just for looking at him the wrong way. Maybe a guillotine. But instead of taking the head off right away, maybe do his hands and feet first, then the torso, watch the entrails come flowing out. I think he'd be dead by then.

The only people that would benefit are the people who really love the idea of people who do bad things suffering immensely.

The people who DO these bad things, aren't currently doing them with the mindset of "Well...this is totally worth 20-life in prison!" they're thinking they either won't get caught, or they don't consider the consequences at all. Going Vlad the Impaler on people won't change that whatsoever. If anything, it'll make everyone else think that people deserve to be horribly tortured and brutally murdered if they do something we don't approve of.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: bosk1 on December 06, 2016, 08:24:50 PM
I completely understand and agree with the point you guys are making. Those rights are there for a reason and the system protects against the emotion that I'm clearly giving in to.

My larger point is basically what the title of the thread is. People that do these type of horrific crimes and rape and brutalize infants should have to prove to a jury of their peers why they shouldn't be hung the next day. They get thier trial and a chance. They are guilty when that trial starts, because they are guilty.

I think that unless someone is admitting guilt, they deserve a fair trial. In the end, the punishment should be harsh, not some slap on the wrist. Hangings would certainly send a strong message. Vlad the Impaler had a good thing going, except he would do it to people just for looking at him the wrong way. Maybe a guillotine. But instead of taking the head off right away, maybe do his hands and feet first, then the torso, watch the entrails come flowing out. I think he'd be dead by then.

The only people that would benefit are the people who really love the idea of people who do bad things suffering immensely.

The people who DO these bad things, aren't currently doing them with the mindset of "Well...this is totally worth 20-life in prison!" they're thinking they either won't get caught, or they don't consider the consequences at all. Going Vlad the Impaler on people won't change that whatsoever. If anything, it'll make everyone else think that people deserve to be horribly tortured and brutally murdered if they do something we don't approve of.

A question occurs to me.  And don't get me wrong--I'm not advocating for what PS proposed.  I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this:  Do you believe there is a likelihood that some of those who don't consider the consequences at all might be more inclined to consider the consequences if those consequences were swift and severe?
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Adami on December 06, 2016, 08:27:49 PM
I guess it depends on the crime.

Would a pedophile be less likely? Probably not. That's just how they're wired.

Would SOME people be less likely? Of course. I'm just not convinced it would be a number large enough to justify blood thirsty vengeance as justice.

The only way it would be truly effective (and I am soooo not advocating this) is just to go all draconian and boil people alive for stealing some donuts.

But then you can look at countries in the middle east who actually do these types of things. They're either usually in a state of revolution or are dictatorships.  I'm not sure a happy medium exists. My disapproval of capital punishment aside.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: bosk1 on December 06, 2016, 08:30:01 PM
Yeah, I wonder why that is.  I mean, why there is no "happy medium."  Interesting.  Or maybe I'm just strange to think so.  :lol
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on December 06, 2016, 08:35:42 PM
I guess it depends on the crime.

Would a pedophile be less likely? Probably not. That's just how they're wired.

Would SOME people be less likely? Of course. I'm just not convinced it would be a number large enough to justify blood thirsty vengeance as justice.

The only way it would be truly effective (and I am soooo not advocating this) is just to go all draconian and boil people alive for stealing some donuts.

But then you can look at countries in the middle east who actually do these types of things. They're either usually in a state of revolution or are dictatorships.  I'm not sure a happy medium exists. My disapproval of capital punishment aside.

Well, I don't think stealing donuts deserves that kind of punishment. That does seem like something more fitting for someone who rapes children. Can I stick a stethoscope in the water as the person gets thrown in so I can hear said person scream?  :xbones
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 06, 2016, 11:01:04 PM
I guess it depends on the crime.

Would a pedophile be less likely? Probably not. That's just how they're wired.

Would SOME people be less likely? Of course. I'm just not convinced it would be a number large enough to justify blood thirsty vengeance as justice.

The only way it would be truly effective (and I am soooo not advocating this) is just to go all draconian and boil people alive for stealing some donuts.

But then you can look at countries in the middle east who actually do these types of things. They're either usually in a state of revolution or are dictatorships.  I'm not sure a happy medium exists. My disapproval of capital punishment aside.
And yet the headsman in Saudi Arabia still has business. People still get their hands cut off. People still smuggle drugs in Thailand. People still commit capital crimes in China. Like you said, people don't weigh the various outcomes should they be caught.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2016, 08:28:18 AM
Alright.  I have a thought experiment.  Fair warning: I'm going to do some verbal gymnastics. 

I say we should have two types of trials.

If someone is accused of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether they are guilty.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their guilt, they are presumed innocent.  We'll call this trial A.

If someone is guilty of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether or not they are innocent.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their innocence, they are presumed guilty.  We'll call this trial B.

Here's the dilemma: How do we decide which trial a person should get?

The root of why I raise the question is that simply, the punishment for flat out cold blooded first degree murder and horrific crimes perpetrated against defenseless infants and children is not harsh enough. Capitol punishment is not effective when it takes 30 friggin' years to administer it. I understand the need to make sure an innocent person isn't being killed....but the same technology and scientific breakthroughs that are freeing some of these people who were wrongfully convicted back in the day is the same processes that will make the convictions to come that much more concrete.

You get convicted and sentenced to die....you should get an immediate appeal to a judge to review....after that has happened and you're still found guilty the sentence is administered immediately.

This light footed, easy road crap these violent criminals who cannot be rehabilitated is an utter travesty of justice and is nothing more than taking advantage of a system that increasingly looks like it's set up to benefit the guilty.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Chino on December 07, 2016, 08:42:32 AM
Alright.  I have a thought experiment.  Fair warning: I'm going to do some verbal gymnastics. 

I say we should have two types of trials.

If someone is accused of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether they are guilty.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their guilt, they are presumed innocent.  We'll call this trial A.

If someone is guilty of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether or not they are innocent.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their innocence, they are presumed guilty.  We'll call this trial B.

Here's the dilemma: How do we decide which trial a person should get?

The root of why I raise the question is that simply, the punishment for flat out cold blooded first degree murder and horrific crimes perpetrated against defenseless infants and children is not harsh enough. Capitol punishment is not effective when it takes 30 friggin' years to administer it.

Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, period. I don't think it has anything to do with the time. People with a brain that's fucked up enough to kill or rape an infant are not going to be stopped with a more efficient method of capital punishment. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2016, 08:50:15 AM
Alright.  I have a thought experiment.  Fair warning: I'm going to do some verbal gymnastics. 

I say we should have two types of trials.

If someone is accused of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether they are guilty.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their guilt, they are presumed innocent.  We'll call this trial A.

If someone is guilty of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether or not they are innocent.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their innocence, they are presumed guilty.  We'll call this trial B.

Here's the dilemma: How do we decide which trial a person should get?

The root of why I raise the question is that simply, the punishment for flat out cold blooded first degree murder and horrific crimes perpetrated against defenseless infants and children is not harsh enough. Capitol punishment is not effective when it takes 30 friggin' years to administer it.

Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, period. I don't think it has anything to do with the time. People with a brain that's fucked up enough to kill or rape an infant are not going to be stopped with a more efficient method of capital punishment.

Fair enough....but it's still no reason not to execute them immediately rather than wait 30 years and waste the $$ and resources on keeping POS alive and breathing.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on December 07, 2016, 09:52:30 AM
Alright.  I have a thought experiment.  Fair warning: I'm going to do some verbal gymnastics. 

I say we should have two types of trials.

If someone is accused of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether they are guilty.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their guilt, they are presumed innocent.  We'll call this trial A.

If someone is guilty of a crime, we put them on trial to determine whether or not they are innocent.  If there is insufficient evidence to establish their innocence, they are presumed guilty.  We'll call this trial B.

Here's the dilemma: How do we decide which trial a person should get?

The root of why I raise the question is that simply, the punishment for flat out cold blooded first degree murder and horrific crimes perpetrated against defenseless infants and children is not harsh enough. Capitol punishment is not effective when it takes 30 friggin' years to administer it.

Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, period. I don't think it has anything to do with the time. People with a brain that's fucked up enough to kill or rape an infant are not going to be stopped with a more efficient method of capital punishment.

I never really viewed it as a deterrent.  Like Barto stated, even countries with sever crime penalties still have crime.   I'm more in favor of capitol punishment because I don't see the point in keeping people alive who will never leave prison.  If you have life with no parole, what's the point of that life?  Pretty brutal, I know, but to get life without parole, you most likely are a very brutal person.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on December 07, 2016, 02:34:09 PM
I don't think Capital Punishment deters in the sense of "Hey, hmm, I could whack this guy, but I might get the chair... better not!".    This pisses people off when I say this, but I think our self-control is less than we give it credit for.  There are certain impulses - someone mentioned child molesters; I think people who get off on children are no different in a biological urge stand point than a guy that likes to be tied up, or likes big asses, or long thin cocks.  It's a desire, albeit an aberrant one.  The difference there is that the child molestation harms someone else (not that the others couldn't, but... consent, etc.).   

But it has some place; to the extent that any of those urges are biological, perhaps it has a selection aspect to it, though that is probably a random effect.   Certainly it has a PROTECTION aspect; if in fact that sociopath CANNOT control his/her homicidal urges, killing them is the ultimate way of making sure no one else is harmed (including other inmates).   And of course, do not forget the retribution aspect (it's not really justice in that sense). 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2016, 03:40:32 PM
I don't think Capital Punishment deters in the sense of "Hey, hmm, I could whack this guy, but I might get the chair... better not!".    This pisses people off when I say this, but I think our self-control is less than we give it credit for.  There are certain impulses - someone mentioned child molesters; I think people who get off on children are no different in a biological urge stand point than a guy that likes to be tied up, or likes big asses, or long thin cocks.  It's a desire, albeit an aberrant one.  The difference there is that the child molestation harms someone else (not that the others couldn't, but... consent, etc.).   

But it has some place; to the extent that any of those urges are biological, perhaps it has a selection aspect to it, though that is probably a random effect.   Certainly it has a PROTECTION aspect; if in fact that sociopath CANNOT control his/her homicidal urges, killing them is the ultimate way of making sure no one else is harmed (including other inmates).   And of course, do not forget the retribution aspect (it's not really justice in that sense).
Was there a sense where it does serve as a deterrent? You were pretty specific about the sense that it doesn't work.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Jaffa on December 07, 2016, 07:21:26 PM
You get convicted and sentenced to die....you should get an immediate appeal to a judge to review....after that has happened and you're still found guilty the sentence is administered immediately.

But how do you get convicted?  What is the process that leads from accusation to conviction before that final appeal?
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Prog Snob on December 07, 2016, 08:15:27 PM
I don't think Capital Punishment deters in the sense of "Hey, hmm, I could whack this guy, but I might get the chair... better not!".    This pisses people off when I say this, but I think our self-control is less than we give it credit for.  There are certain impulses - someone mentioned child molesters; I think people who get off on children are no different in a biological urge stand point than a guy that likes to be tied up, or likes big asses, or long thin cocks.  It's a desire, albeit an aberrant one.  The difference there is that the child molestation harms someone else (not that the others couldn't, but... consent, etc.).   

But it has some place; to the extent that any of those urges are biological, perhaps it has a selection aspect to it, though that is probably a random effect.   Certainly it has a PROTECTION aspect; if in fact that sociopath CANNOT control his/her homicidal urges, killing them is the ultimate way of making sure no one else is harmed (including other inmates).   And of course, do not forget the retribution aspect (it's not really justice in that sense).
Was there a sense where it does serve as a deterrent? You were pretty specific about the sense that it doesn't work.

I was criticized about this once before but I still stand firm in my point of view.

For many people, before it even becomes a matter of the legal repercussions, they look at it from an ethical and moral standpoint above all else. The legal deterrent doesn't even come into play. For me though, I think it's more a matter of the repercussions. I don't see it as being completely unethical and immoral to kill. There are exceptions to the rule.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2016, 11:00:59 AM
I don't think Capital Punishment deters in the sense of "Hey, hmm, I could whack this guy, but I might get the chair... better not!".    This pisses people off when I say this, but I think our self-control is less than we give it credit for.  There are certain impulses - someone mentioned child molesters; I think people who get off on children are no different in a biological urge stand point than a guy that likes to be tied up, or likes big asses, or long thin cocks.  It's a desire, albeit an aberrant one.  The difference there is that the child molestation harms someone else (not that the others couldn't, but... consent, etc.).   

But it has some place; to the extent that any of those urges are biological, perhaps it has a selection aspect to it, though that is probably a random effect.   Certainly it has a PROTECTION aspect; if in fact that sociopath CANNOT control his/her homicidal urges, killing them is the ultimate way of making sure no one else is harmed (including other inmates).   And of course, do not forget the retribution aspect (it's not really justice in that sense).
Was there a sense where it does serve as a deterrent? You were pretty specific about the sense that it doesn't work.

I don't have an answer for you, boss.  I don't know that there IS a sense where it's a deterrent.  I think you'd be hard pressed to ask the average person if their state even has the death penalty, in most cases.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on December 08, 2016, 12:15:11 PM
I don't think Capital Punishment deters in the sense of "Hey, hmm, I could whack this guy, but I might get the chair... better not!".    This pisses people off when I say this, but I think our self-control is less than we give it credit for.  There are certain impulses - someone mentioned child molesters; I think people who get off on children are no different in a biological urge stand point than a guy that likes to be tied up, or likes big asses, or long thin cocks.  It's a desire, albeit an aberrant one.  The difference there is that the child molestation harms someone else (not that the others couldn't, but... consent, etc.).   

But it has some place; to the extent that any of those urges are biological, perhaps it has a selection aspect to it, though that is probably a random effect.   Certainly it has a PROTECTION aspect; if in fact that sociopath CANNOT control his/her homicidal urges, killing them is the ultimate way of making sure no one else is harmed (including other inmates).   And of course, do not forget the retribution aspect (it's not really justice in that sense).
Was there a sense where it does serve as a deterrent? You were pretty specific about the sense that it doesn't work.

I don't have an answer for you, boss.  I don't know that there IS a sense where it's a deterrent.  I think you'd be hard pressed to ask the average person if their state even has the death penalty, in most cases.

Without checking, I don't know if NJ does or doesn't honestly, I'm going to lean towards no since I can't ever recall hearing of anyone getting the death penalty.  I just looked up however, there were 19 executions this year in the US.  I actually thought the number would be less.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2016 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2016)

Also interesting to see that two people were labelled as "volunteer - an inmate who waived ordinary appeals that remained at the time of his or her execution"

I also did look up after I typed this to find that NJ abolished the death penalty in 2007.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 08, 2016, 01:15:32 PM
I actually watched a documentary last night on the alleged "most dangerous man on death row." Feller in Nevada that's serving 4 life sentences, 1 death sentence and a dozen or so other terms. Not the brightest chap in the world, but thoughtful, sincere and well-spoken. It actually covered a whole lot of what we're talking about here. He's not a nice man. He's committed quite a few crimes. While he didn't strike me as a sociopath, he's pretty good at rationalizing violence. He's refreshingly honest about owning up to his crimes and not trying to mitigate them, going so far as to prevent his family from describing the trials of his childhood. As he put it, "lots of people have it just as bad."

Yet there were equally compelling reasons not to execute him. His only capital offense was killing a cellmate in what he claimed was self defense, with no evidence to the contrary. He acted as his own co-council and correctly stated that for any other person it would have been a lesser manslaughter charge. Like some of us have been saying, the process matters. In his case he's just generally been a genuine pain in the ass. He's escaped a few times, participated in two prison hostage takings, and returned to committing crimes any time he's been released. Yet none of these offenses warrants a death sentence.

He's a perfect example of somebody to whom punishment is not a deterrence. Almost to a fault. From his perspective trying to weasel out of punishment by playing for sympathy would be chickenshit. Though, not trying to escape it would be similarly weak. Simply placement of principles.

While he refuses to let it be a factor in his sentencing, he's a damn good example of someone who was turned bad by the state. After getting into a fight (and losing badly) with his alcoholic, violent father around 13 or so, his mom sent him to a state run camp for at-risk youths. Naturally it was run by physically abusive pedophiles. Since then he developed a severe resentment towards authority; go figure. From there it was all down hill.

And the reason he's still awaiting execution after nearly 40 years is perhaps his most compelling argument. The State of Nevada has been so gung-ho to try and secure death sentences that it consistently ignores the rules. Process matters. He's been retried twice and is still winning appeals. In the most recent example (which was 10 years ago) they wheeled him into the courtroom Hannibal Lector style, insisting that it was due to unnamed security threats and in no way prejudicial. 

I'm not going into this as an argument against capital punishment. Nor am I trying to suggest that he's a good guy; he's not. Just bringing it up as an example of how gray many of these situations actually are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA6zFFKGFMU
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on December 08, 2016, 01:55:13 PM
Agree with the grayness on his and probably a large amount of death row inmates.  It's very rare that something is so cut and clear that gmiller's thought process of throwing the book at the person makes sense.  The process matters like you say. 

In his case he's just generally been a genuine pain in the ass. He's escaped a few times, participated in two prison hostage takings, and returned to committing crimes any time he's been released. Yet none of these offenses warrants a death sentence.

However, I know this was talked about somewhere else on this forum, but at what point does that summation of smaller offenses equal a death sentence?

Also, while he had a terrible childhood that no doubt played a role in shaping his terrible life, I can't find that as an excuse to not execute him (assuming his crimes warranted that).  I'm not sure any of his back story should have any weight on his sentence (I don't think you were implying this, just stating) as unfortunate as that may be.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Agree with the grayness on his and probably a large amount of death row inmates.  It's very rare that something is so cut and clear that gmiller's thought process of throwing the book at the person makes sense.  The process matters like you say. 

In his case he's just generally been a genuine pain in the ass. He's escaped a few times, participated in two prison hostage takings, and returned to committing crimes any time he's been released. Yet none of these offenses warrants a death sentence.

However, I know this was talked about somewhere else on this forum, but at what point does that summation of smaller offenses equal a death sentence?

Also, while he had a terrible childhood that no doubt played a role in shaping his terrible life, I can't find that as an excuse to not execute him (assuming his crimes warranted that).  I'm not sure any of his back story should have any weight on his sentence (I don't think you were implying this, just stating) as unfortunate as that may be.

AMAZING question, and one of the reasons I've started moving away from the death penalty as a viable option.  I would like to think about this a little bit, but my gut says that there is no math for that.  For the summation of lesser offenses into the death penalty. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 08, 2016, 02:09:38 PM
However, I know this was talked about somewhere else on this forum, but at what point does that summation of smaller offenses equal a death sentence?
At no point. You don't off somebody for being a pain in the ass. At that point you can't even latch onto the Pentateuch to rationalize your annoyance, which is essentially all it is.

Quote
Also, while he had a terrible childhood that no doubt played a role in shaping his terrible life, I can't find that as an excuse to not execute him (assuming his crimes warranted that).  I'm not sure any of his back story should have any weight on his sentence (I don't think you were implying this, just stating) as unfortunate as that may be.
Well, as somebody who denies the existence of free will, I disagree. Nobody asks for the sum-total of their existence.

edit: Sorry Stadler, I'm answering it for you.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on December 08, 2016, 02:18:37 PM
However, I know this was talked about somewhere else on this forum, but at what point does that summation of smaller offenses equal a death sentence?
At no point. You don't off somebody for being a pain in the ass. At that point you can't even latch onto the Pentateuch to rationalize your annoyance, which is essentially all it is.

Quote
Also, while he had a terrible childhood that no doubt played a role in shaping his terrible life, I can't find that as an excuse to not execute him (assuming his crimes warranted that).  I'm not sure any of his back story should have any weight on his sentence (I don't think you were implying this, just stating) as unfortunate as that may be.
Well, as somebody who denies the existence of free will, I disagree. Nobody asks for the sum-total of their existence.

edit: Sorry Stadler, I'm answering it for you.

If someone is a disturbance to society, they shouldn't get unlimited attempts to try and assimilate.  Whether you say they should die or just be locked up is a fine debate, but to think the summation of crimes just equates to an annoyances makes little sense to me unless we are talking petty crimes that don't have real victims.

Also, I do believe in free will.  Certainly this man or others similar were put in bad situations where that free will is significantly altered, but I do believe the free will still exists.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Dave_Manchester on December 08, 2016, 02:34:17 PM
This isn't quite on topic, but it's conneced with the idea of very severe punishment appropriate to certain crimes.

A few days ago I was reading about America's most secure prison, reserved for its most dangerous and heinous criminals: ADX Florence. Inmates include the likes of Ted Kaczynski, Richard Reid (the 'shoe bomber'), Djokhar Tsarnaev (Boston marathon bomber), and various other assorted 9/11 organisers, cartel leaders, serial child rapists, and mob bosses.

Among this list of reprobates was a guy I'd never heard of (though probably should have) called Robert Hanssen. His picture and brief biography stood out to me, it's why I noticed him. A clearly very well-heeled and educated man. Very long story short he was an FBI agent who had been spying for the Soviets and later Russia for more than 20 years. Treason in other words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen

A film was recently made about him, starring Chris Cooper.

He was sentenced to 15 life terms (despite personally never having killed anyone) without the possibility of parole, and will now live out the remainder of his days spending 23 hours a day in solitary confinement.

Since reading this story a few days ago I've been trying to decide for myself - does he really deserve that level of horrific punishment? I don't have my opinion yet. Treason is a very serious crime if you've decided to serve your country, no doubt, but I can't help thinking that Hanssen's strange (to me) punishment was designed to serve as a warning to others in the FBI or CIA who are thinking of doing it, rather than as an appropriate sentence for someone like him (as far as I can tell, not one single expert describes him as a danger to himself or to others, or as a flight risk, so why the 23-hours-a-day solitary confinement in the most secure prison in America alongside the terrrorists and psychotic contract killers?)

Any thoughts on whether you think the guy deserves this kind of incarceration? Do you think (if it were available in this case) he deserves the death penalty for what he did?
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 08, 2016, 03:08:55 PM
However, I know this was talked about somewhere else on this forum, but at what point does that summation of smaller offenses equal a death sentence?
At no point. You don't off somebody for being a pain in the ass. At that point you can't even latch onto the Pentateuch to rationalize your annoyance, which is essentially all it is.

Quote
Also, while he had a terrible childhood that no doubt played a role in shaping his terrible life, I can't find that as an excuse to not execute him (assuming his crimes warranted that).  I'm not sure any of his back story should have any weight on his sentence (I don't think you were implying this, just stating) as unfortunate as that may be.
Well, as somebody who denies the existence of free will, I disagree. Nobody asks for the sum-total of their existence.

edit: Sorry Stadler, I'm answering it for you.

If someone is a disturbance to society, they shouldn't get unlimited attempts to try and assimilate.  Whether you say they should die or just be locked up is a fine debate, but to think the summation of crimes just equates to an annoyances makes little sense to me unless we are talking petty crimes that don't have real victims.
There are myriad ways of dealing with such a person. Locking him up, for example. The problem is from people who take offense at having to pay to keep such a person alive. Sorry, but that's an annoyance. And for what it's worth, I find it an annoyance, as well. Just for different reasons.

Quote
Also, I do believe in free will.  Certainly this man or others similar were put in bad situations where that free will is significantly altered, but I do believe the free will still exists.
Yet who among us is qualified to determine where that freewill, now altered, intersects with the ability to control one's actions? You can only speak from your own perspective.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 08, 2016, 03:17:30 PM
This isn't quite on topic, but it's conneced with the idea of very severe punishment appropriate to certain crimes.

A few days ago I was reading about America's most secure prison, reserved for its most dangerous and heinous criminals: ADX Florence. Inmates include the likes of Ted Kaczynski, Richard Reid (the 'shoe bomber'), Djokhar Tsarnaev (Boston marathon bomber), and various other assorted 9/11 organisers, cartel leaders, serial child rapists, and mob bosses.

Among this list of reprobates was a guy I'd never heard of (though probably should have) called Robert Hanssen. His picture and brief biography stood out to me, it's why I noticed him. A clearly very well-heeled and educated man. Very long story short he was an FBI agent who had been spying for the Soviets and later Russia for more than 20 years. Treason in other words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen

A film was recently made about him, starring Chris Cooper.

He was sentenced to 15 life terms (despite personally never having killed anyone) without the possibility of parole, and will now live out the remainder of his days spending 23 hours a day in solitary confinement.

Since reading this story a few days ago I've been trying to decide for myself - does he really deserve that level of horrific punishment? I don't have my opinion yet. Treason is a very serious crime if you've decided to serve your country, no doubt, but I can't help thinking that Hanssen's strange (to me) punishment was designed to serve as a warning to others in the FBI or CIA who are thinking of doing it, rather than as an appropriate sentence for someone like him (as far as I can tell, not one single expert describes him as a danger to himself or to others, or as a flight risk, so why the 23-hours-a-day solitary confinement in the most secure prison in America alongside the terrrorists and psychotic contract killers?)

Any thoughts on whether you think the guy deserves this kind of incarceration? Do you think (if it were available in this case) he deserves the death penalty for what he did?
I could be mistaken, but wouldn't a person such as himself have been eligible for the death penalty? You'll never get a defense of American prisons out of me, but I'm not sure a potential death sentence makes him the best example of the wrongs.

But yes, we do use such things to set examples. I don't think very many of the people we send to ADX actually pose a greater threat than other maximum security prisoners. At this point it's simply the most severe punishment we can administer short of a needle.

By the way, look into Woody Harrelson's dad. He spent the last few years of his life there. Enlightened fellow, I thought. He was pretty clear that he thought the whole place was designed to destroy people's minds, but also that intelligent people such as himself could cope far better there than with the general population. They had shuffled him around quite a bit and Florence was the only place he actually enjoyed. He read vociferously. Watched lots of cable news. Wrote letters and journals of his thoughts. Never had to worry about getting shanked or fighting over the last roll at dinner. It might be on his wikiP page, but somewhere is a handwritten letter he wrote to a friend on the outside that I found quite interesting. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on December 08, 2016, 03:20:25 PM
In response to Dave,

Death penalty sounds way better than 23 hours of solitary confinement for life.

I guess what secrets he let out would help me determine what kind of punishment he should get and maybe you are right that he was made an example out of.  I will say that treason should be taken pretty seriously so I'm not against a hard sentence in that scenario, but he got something worse than death IMO.

In response to Barto:

Ok yea it's definitely annoying on some level and agree, but it's a drain on society and the guy clearly won't learn or adapt in that scenario so it's hard for me to think differently even when in my view, I am trying to be fair.  I know we won't agree on this as I recall this exact convo last year or something  :lol  As for the free will part, there is a grey area on psychological issues IMO.  I think it's easy to blame psychological issues, but I still think someone in lots of cases free willingly chose to do something wrong.  I don't think you can always use "I had a bad childhood" as an excuse to commit crimes whereas there may be times where that is the case.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 08, 2016, 03:55:32 PM
In response to Dave,

Death penalty sounds way better than 23 hours of solitary confinement for life.

I guess what secrets he let out would help me determine what kind of punishment he should get and maybe you are right that he was made an example out of.  I will say that treason should be taken pretty seriously so I'm not against a hard sentence in that scenario, but he got something worse than death IMO.

In response to Barto:

Ok yea it's definitely annoying on some level and agree, but it's a drain on society and the guy clearly won't learn or adapt in that scenario so it's hard for me to think differently even when in my view, I am trying to be fair.  I know we won't agree on this as I recall this exact convo last year or something  :lol  As for the free will part, there is a grey area on psychological issues IMO.  I think it's easy to blame psychological issues, but I still think someone in lots of cases free willingly chose to do something wrong.  I don't think you can always use "I had a bad childhood" as an excuse to commit crimes whereas there may be times where that is the case.
In your response to your response to Dave, again, Harrelson. A person who is comfortable being alone will do just fine there. I'd probably prefer it, myself, given reasonable means to find enlightenment. But to the bulk of society, yeah, torturous shit. Not suitable for an allegedly civilized society.

As for your response to me, I don't actually disagree with you. There are people to whom it doesn't really apply. The problem is that you either need to accept that there are instances where the circumstances of their lives are pertinent, which I believe you just did, and then try and figure out who this does and does not apply to, or dismiss the entire thing outright and remove past history from the equation altogether. I find the latter to be wrong, and the former to be impossible.

Insofar as the sum of their crimes eventually earning a death sentence, it's not my intention to call you a monster but, well, executing somebody because they become a drain on society is what sci-fi villains in dystopic futures do.  :lol
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on December 08, 2016, 04:07:39 PM
Oh, you can call me a monster  :lol I believe I certainly can be.  I think my views on death penalty are extreme.  I just loose faith in people when they show time and time again they are "bad people" and I am all for second chances, even thirds maybe depending on situation, but it's about the life of a person.  If the life has been negative allt he way through, I start to lose my humanity towards said person.  I get it, it's brutal, but it's how I feel on the situation.  And I'm no innocent person either speaking from some high horse.  I've gotten in trouble with the law before.  I'm also talking about crimes that hurt innocent people.  Not petty stuff just to be clear. 

As for solitary confinement vs death, I guess to each their own.  I don't know how I could survive 23 hours alone in a room without connection to the outside world.  I feel like I'd go insane and would just ask to be killed. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: cramx3 on December 09, 2016, 07:56:28 AM
Funny how this was in the news today (although there is nothing funny about this story)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-scheduled-execute-man-clerks-1994-killing-084353447.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-scheduled-execute-man-clerks-1994-killing-084353447.html)

Even as much as I am in favor of the death penalty, this case is troublesome in the fact that the jury rules in favor of a life sentence not death, but the judge over ruled and said he gets the death penalty due to the murder being of execution style.  Which leads back to the point of the topic, I still think it's important to follow the laws and procedures for trials so everyone get's their due diligence.  I think this guy shouldn't of been executed if his jury of peers did not think so.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Stadler on December 09, 2016, 08:19:42 AM
Isn't the answer el Barto gave to Cram about free will the same answer here?   Meaning, isn't it problematic to try to prescribe one punishment to a bunch of different people and expect the same reaction and/or the same result. 
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on December 09, 2016, 08:25:32 AM
Funny how this was in the news today (although there is nothing funny about this story)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-scheduled-execute-man-clerks-1994-killing-084353447.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-scheduled-execute-man-clerks-1994-killing-084353447.html)

Even as much as I am in favor of the death penalty, this case is troublesome in the fact that the jury rules in favor of a life sentence not death, but the judge over ruled and said he gets the death penalty due to the murder being of execution style.  Which leads back to the point of the topic, I still think it's important to follow the laws and procedures for trials so everyone get's their due diligence.  I think this guy shouldn't of been executed if his jury of peers did not think so.
While I agree with your final remark, this is the way they crafted their law. It's not a matter of ignoring process because the judge has that power built into it. I think it's way too much power to afford one guy, but in the end it's just another reason to pretend Alabama doesn't exit.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on April 11, 2017, 08:15:39 AM
I wouldn't even waste the tax money on a trial for this waste of plasma, this man IS guilty and CANNOT prove his innocence. He should have to die suffocating like the defenseless infant he suffocated did, immediately, not 20 years from now. 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/father-accused-of-suffocating--month-old-boy-in-st/article_8a1cefb3-596c-5ceb-8013-946e4ed385f1.html
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: El Barto on April 11, 2017, 08:52:58 AM
Yeah, lets do it 3 three days on Good Friday. Or would that be in poor taste? I'm a little hazy on Christian execution etiquette.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: Chino on April 11, 2017, 08:59:53 AM
Meh. All citizens have that right, even the worst ones. I'd rather this guy get a trial and not need it over people who need a trial not getting one.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on April 11, 2017, 09:29:22 AM
Yeah, lets do it 3 three days on Good Friday. Or would that be in poor taste? I'm a little hazy on Christian execution etiquette.

I've admitted many times that instances like this are a challenge for me personally. I understand what my Faith asks me to do in this situation, but cannot seem to conquer the impulse to want to see this 'man' be executed in the same manner in which he cold heart killed that defenseless little three month old baby.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: portnoy311 on April 12, 2017, 12:59:51 AM
I actually feel more safe living in a society where people aren't executed after someone reads a news clipping about them and what they supposedly did.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: jingle.boy on April 12, 2017, 04:41:56 AM
Yeah, lets do it 3 three days on Good Friday. Or would that be in poor taste? I'm a little hazy on Christian execution etiquette.

I've admitted many times that instances like this are a challenge for me personally. I understand what my Faith asks me to do in this situation, but cannot seem to conquer the impulse to want to see this 'man' be executed in the same manner in which he cold heart killed that defenseless little three month old baby.

I hear ya, could feel the same way, and am offering no defense for this person/situation.  The problem is, where is the line drawn?  What should be deemed do-not-pass-go/no-trial/go-straight-to-the-hangman?  Your line might be different than your neighbours.  The rules/laws/processes are there for a reason.  Lynch mobs didn't work, and you're essentially advocating for a 'new-age' way of bypassing judge and jury.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: gmillerdrake on April 12, 2017, 06:35:32 AM
Yeah, lets do it 3 three days on Good Friday. Or would that be in poor taste? I'm a little hazy on Christian execution etiquette.

I've admitted many times that instances like this are a challenge for me personally. I understand what my Faith asks me to do in this situation, but cannot seem to conquer the impulse to want to see this 'man' be executed in the same manner in which he cold heart killed that defenseless little three month old baby.

I hear ya, could feel the same way, and am offering no defense for this person/situation.  The problem is, where is the line drawn?  What should be deemed do-not-pass-go/no-trial/go-straight-to-the-hangman?  Your line might be different than your neighbours.  The rules/laws/processes are there for a reason.  Lynch mobs didn't work, and you're essentially advocating for a 'new-age' way of bypassing judge and jury.

Totally get it and agree....the hypothetical line would be different for everyone. But this dude would fall beneath anyone of those.



I actually feel more safe living in a society where people aren't executed after someone reads a news clipping about them and what they supposedly did.

there's no 'supposed' with this person. He admitted to the police what he did. Even said that after he had buried the defenseless little babies head in the mattress first to kill it..when he flipped it over thinking it was dead and then the little baby started to take breaths to keep living....he then covered its nose and mouth suffocating it. No supposedly....no speculation as to 'maybe this happened'...it did...dude should have to prove his innocence in court and when he can't he should be immediately killed.
Title: Re: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Post by: jingle.boy on April 12, 2017, 08:01:47 AM
If it truly is "beyond a reasonable doubt", it should be a quick process.