Author Topic: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead  (Read 935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18774
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #35 on: May 08, 2018, 10:06:49 AM »
If you feel the need to call out a "bad person," that probably says more about you than them.

I'd say this is situational.  Like me bitching on social media about someone after they died is kind of lame IMO, but a writer doing a historical piece should be able to call out the "bad person" assuming it's accurate.  But also some people were just horrible people.  Like Harmony's example.  While I personally don't feel much need to publicly bash people, if in my group of friends the topic came up, I don't think it would say a whole lot about me if I said Manson was a douche.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6550
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #36 on: May 08, 2018, 10:21:31 AM »
Her will specified even distribution between her sons, but a judge ended up ruling in favor (to a degree) of the three other brothers.

I know nothing about the law, wills, probate, any of that. But I never would have thought a judge's ruling could supersede that which was put down in a will.

That being said, assuming mom made her will splitting her assets equally between her 4 sons, I don't know how I feel about the three sons demanding a higher percentage of her estate based on their actions. Maybe she would have wanted to revise her will based on what happened after she was incapacitated, but no one could presume to know that.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20214
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #37 on: May 08, 2018, 10:27:09 AM »
Her will specified even distribution between her sons, but a judge ended up ruling in favor (to a degree) of the three other brothers.

I know nothing about the law, wills, probate, any of that. But I never would have thought a judge's ruling could supersede that which was put down in a will.

That being said, assuming mom made her will splitting her assets equally between her 4 sons, I don't know how I feel about the three sons demanding a higher percentage of her estate based on their actions. Maybe she would have wanted to revise her will based on what happened after she was incapacitated, but no one could presume to know that.

I think that's the argument they went with. And the brothers weren't trying to not give the brother anything, they just wanted to recoup some of the added healthcare costs.

My understanding of this comes from the three degrees of separation from the diseased. It's entirely possible that some detail has been lost in translation. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #38 on: May 08, 2018, 10:39:08 AM »
To Chino and Stadler - isn't there an old saying that goes something along the lines of "Nothing brings out the worst in families more than weddings and funerals"?  Your stories are tragically not uncommon.  In my case, it isn't the aftermath yet - great something to look forward to! - but dealing with an aging parent who is rapidly declining mentally and who isn't willing to understand that dying at home may not be an option if round the clock care is necessary.  Which it undoubtedly will be.  Hospice is involved but cannot advocate against their wishes unless/until they are no longer conscious.  The ability to make available programs that are necessary to provide care that doesn't cost $4K a week means filing for Medicaid and VA benefits and this person isn't willing to start the application process - a process that in the VA's case can take upwards of 6 months to determine eligibility.  We don't have 6 months.  I cannot apply on their behalf so my hands are tied.  I can't see how any of this is going to work out well.  I have zero answers.

Probably not the time or place - and you don't have to reply in forum to any of this, since it's personal (Oh, and this is not legal advice) but it wouldn't hurt to get a consultation from a Probate attorney.  There are some things that can be done; conservatorship, for example, may be an option here. 


Quote
If you feel the need to call out a "bad person," that probably says more about you than them.

So when Charles Manson died and people were calling out the bad things he did while he was alive and murdering innocent people makes the person calling those things out is horrible for bringing it up?  Really?

I guess I'm horrible for my little private jig I did at the news he'd finally croaked.  Frankly, I don't care if people think poorly of me for doing that.  I'm sure it won't be the last time.  FWIW, I'm 99% against the death penalty.  1% for it is saved up for people like him.

I don't know that "horrible" is the word; you're entitled to your feelings.  I know for me, though, with someone like Manson; there's a difference between "ignoring reality" - he was convicted of those crimes, so it's not 'speculation' or innuendo - and "constructing reality".   Not to go all Godwin's Law on you, but there's benefit to discussing Hitler.  It happened, it's documentable and there are lessons to be learned there.    I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a moratorium on discussing facts surrounding those cases.    In fact, for me, the opposite.   We can learn a lot about human nature in discussing them (guys like Bundy as well).   The aforementioned Kirk Douglas is sort of in the latter column.  Yeah, #MeToo, and believe the victims and all that, but the victim is dead.   He's dying.   What does desecrating his name at that point do?  What do we learn from him that we can't learn from Harvey Weinstein, AND have the added bonus of letting him TRY to weasel out of taking accountability for his crimes and spectacularly failing (I anticipate)?   

Online kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 40382
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2018, 12:41:46 PM »
This is an easy answer.  You speak well of those who lived life well. 

Or just:  Speak well of people, or don't speak at all.

If you feel the need to call out a "bad person," that probably says more about you than them.

That's me.  I feel no need to talk about someone on the internet.  Now you sods....
“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2018, 12:55:30 PM »
The aforementioned Kirk Douglas is sort of in the latter column.  Yeah, #MeToo, and believe the victims and all that, but the victim is dead.   He's dying.   What does desecrating his name at that point do?  What do we learn from him that we can't learn from Harvey Weinstein, AND have the added bonus of letting him TRY to weasel out of taking accountability for his crimes and spectacularly failing (I anticipate)?

First, thanks for your advice which is not legal advice.   ;)  Sincerely.  There are mitigating factors that make a conservatorship impossible in our situation but seeking legal advice makes sense.

"He's dying."  Aren't we all?  Bill Cosby is what - 80?  He's dying.  Should the victim in that case have just let it go?

And it is highly possible that Natalie Wood's family has proof of a crime.  I don't know but if she kept a diary or told people at the time - which from what I read appeared to be the case - then a case could've been brought.  But oh yeah...those pesky statute of limitations laws would've made bringing forth a case even decades ago moot right out of the gate.  Those laws need to go when it comes to sexual assault because victims can take years to come to terms with what happened to them, some never do.  It isn't some scripted timeline of events.  We are talking about deep psychological trauma.  Just ask the thousands of victims in the priest sex abuse scandals about why it took them decades to come forward.

I have no dog in the KD/NW story and in fact just heard it about it from reading this thread yesterday.  But famous people aside, why should "desecrating his name" be a factor in whether or not a legit victim comes forward?  Why is HIS/HER NAME more of a consideration than HIS/HER SEXUAL ASSUALT?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #41 on: May 08, 2018, 01:07:34 PM »
The aforementioned Kirk Douglas is sort of in the latter column.  Yeah, #MeToo, and believe the victims and all that, but the victim is dead.   He's dying.   What does desecrating his name at that point do?  What do we learn from him that we can't learn from Harvey Weinstein, AND have the added bonus of letting him TRY to weasel out of taking accountability for his crimes and spectacularly failing (I anticipate)?

First, thanks for your advice which is not legal advice.   ;)  Sincerely.  There are mitigating factors that make a conservatorship impossible in our situation but seeking legal advice makes sense.

No problem; I'd offer to answer (simple) questions, but it's SOOO state specific it's almost impossible beyond the broadest strokes.  Thankfully, many attorneys recognize this, and the "probate" area is probably one of the more 'generous' ones when it comes to that kind of thing.  The clerk at your local probate court may be able to point you in the right direction (though i'll bet you a beer/lemonade that they tell you "Oh, we can't give you any legal advice!") 

Quote

"He's dying."  Aren't we all?  Bill Cosby is what - 80?  He's dying.  Should the victim in that case have just let it go?

And it is highly possible that Natalie Wood's family has proof of a crime.  I don't know but if she kept a diary or told people at the time - which from what I read appeared to be the case - then a case could've been brought.  But oh yeah...those pesky statute of limitations laws would've made bringing forth a case even decades ago moot right out of the gate.  Those laws need to go when it comes to sexual assault because victims can take years to come to terms with what happened to them, some never do.  It isn't some scripted timeline of events.  We are talking about deep psychological trauma.  Just ask the thousands of victims in the priest sex abuse scandals about why it took them decades to come forward.

I have no dog in the KD/NW story and in fact just heard it about it from reading this thread yesterday.  But famous people aside, why should "desecrating his name" be a factor in whether or not a legit victim comes forward?  Why is HIS/HER NAME more of a consideration than HIS/HER SEXUAL ASSUALT?

Well, we're talking about multiple things here.   I'm not saying "just let him die in peace".  If there's a provable case, go after him.   If nothing else it sends the message to the next dirty old man that there's no limits to justice.  I'm all in favor of that.   I go both ways on the statute of limitations thing; it's a balance of credibility of evidence (including testimony) versus personal fortitude.  There's also the trade off of popular sentiment; good for some of us, I'm sure, but as an officer of the court - someone who believes justice is blind and shouldn't follow trends and numbers of "likes", it is very VERY troublesome that popular opinion might be influencing the outcome of some of these cases.  For every Bill Cosby that has been elusive but very likely did SOMETHING illegal there's going to be one that used bad judgment but didn't ACTUALLY cross any lines and will be sucked into the vortex.  That should worry you.   

My comment about Kirk Douglas was more along the  lines of the Twitter Bully Team raking him over the coals.   It's one thing if there is a case and justice is served: I have no sympathies for Kirk Douglas.   But "time passed" doesn't give armchair pundits the opportunity to libel their former favorite star.  If a victim comes forward, let the justice scales tip as they may, and there should be no doubt about that with me. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20879
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2018, 02:27:32 PM »
Insofar as Spartacus is concerned, Lana Woods knows who did it, or at least who Natalie has accused. In a strange twist to this thread, she's waiting for him to croak before outing him. No idea why. Last pictures I saw of Kirk didn't exactly make me think of Luca Brasi or anything.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #43 on: May 08, 2018, 04:45:34 PM »
Insofar as Spartacus is concerned, Lana Woods knows who did it, or at least who Natalie has accused. In a strange twist to this thread, she's waiting for him to croak before outing him. No idea why. Last pictures I saw of Kirk didn't exactly make me think of Luca Brasi or anything.

See, I sort of question that.  Why would you wait?  So he can't refute the charges?  They either are or aren't, and it's only fair that both sides have their say in the matter.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20879
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #44 on: May 08, 2018, 04:55:16 PM »
Insofar as Spartacus is concerned, Lana Woods knows who did it, or at least who Natalie has accused. In a strange twist to this thread, she's waiting for him to croak before outing him. No idea why. Last pictures I saw of Kirk didn't exactly make me think of Luca Brasi or anything.

See, I sort of question that.  Why would you wait?  So he can't refute the charges?  They either are or aren't, and it's only fair that both sides have their say in the matter.
Part of me thinks you're exactly right. At the same time refuting rape allegations is often times very nasty business. Maybe she just doesn't want to hear that Natalie was asking for it. Also, it's not like Natalie would be able to refute his refutation.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 28106
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #45 on: May 08, 2018, 09:09:46 PM »


So when Charles Manson died and people were calling out the bad things he did while he was alive and murdering innocent people makes the person calling those things out is horrible for bringing it up?  Really?

I guess I'm horrible for my little private jig I did at the news he'd finally croaked.  Frankly, I don't care if people think poorly of me for doing that.  I'm sure it won't be the last time.  FWIW, I'm 99% against the death penalty.  1% for it is saved up for people like him.

That basically makes you pro-death penalty then.  Sure, you get the occasional extremist who wants to fry anyone who commits a felony, but, by and large, most pro-death penalty people have the stance that you just took.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #46 on: May 08, 2018, 10:03:59 PM »


So when Charles Manson died and people were calling out the bad things he did while he was alive and murdering innocent people makes the person calling those things out is horrible for bringing it up?  Really?

I guess I'm horrible for my little private jig I did at the news he'd finally croaked.  Frankly, I don't care if people think poorly of me for doing that.  I'm sure it won't be the last time.  FWIW, I'm 99% against the death penalty.  1% for it is saved up for people like him.

That basically makes you pro-death penalty then.  Sure, you get the occasional extremist who wants to fry anyone who commits a felony, but, by and large, most pro-death penalty people have the stance that you just took.

Well aside from your assertion about who/what I 'basically' am, I will admit to engaging in a bit of hyperbole there.  I would vote every time to abolish the death penalty even if that meant convicted serial killers got to live out their sorry existences behind bars.  Even the ones who created a cult of killers to do his dirty work for him.

So maybe not so much 'the stance' that you assumed.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2018, 10:43:21 AM »


So when Charles Manson died and people were calling out the bad things he did while he was alive and murdering innocent people makes the person calling those things out is horrible for bringing it up?  Really?

I guess I'm horrible for my little private jig I did at the news he'd finally croaked.  Frankly, I don't care if people think poorly of me for doing that.  I'm sure it won't be the last time.  FWIW, I'm 99% against the death penalty.  1% for it is saved up for people like him.

That basically makes you pro-death penalty then.  Sure, you get the occasional extremist who wants to fry anyone who commits a felony, but, by and large, most pro-death penalty people have the stance that you just took.

Well aside from your assertion about who/what I 'basically' am, I will admit to engaging in a bit of hyperbole there.  I would vote every time to abolish the death penalty even if that meant convicted serial killers got to live out their sorry existences behind bars.  Even the ones who created a cult of killers to do his dirty work for him.

So maybe not so much 'the stance' that you assumed.

Not calling you (or your position) out at all, but for me, the "epiphany" for me regarding the death penalty was "can one human knowingly and with intent take the life of another?   Does it change if the 'one human' is in fact institutionalized?"    And for me, I felt that the "institutionalizing" of it actually made it worse.   So for me, there is no "99%/1%", it's a binary equation.  You're either willing to take a life or you're not.  Personally, I'm not, no matter what they might have done.     

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27016
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #48 on: May 09, 2018, 10:45:54 AM »
I somewhat disagree. I am 100% against death penalty. I don't care what they did.

However, I am okay with taking someone out if not taking them out would cost way more lives.

For instance. If there's a guy you need to arrest, but you know that going in to arrest him would cost the lives of a lot of people, you might consider taking him out another way. But that's it.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20879
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #49 on: May 09, 2018, 11:22:59 AM »
I somewhat disagree. I am 100% against death penalty. I don't care what they did.

However, I am okay with taking someone out if not taking them out would cost way more lives.

For instance. If there's a guy you need to arrest, but you know that going in to arrest him would cost the lives of a lot of people, you might consider taking him out another way. But that's it.
Interesting. I actually disagree somewhat strongly. The situation you describe has come up a few times, notably here in Dallas a couple of years ago. When it has happened, say, blowing up the DPD sniper, it was justified as necessary to protect the lives of officers, but the truth is that there was no immediate threat from a guy barricaded in a closet. He was blown up because the protracted standoff was an inconvenience. The same thing applies to that So-Cal cop that went off his nut a few years ago. He was holed up in an abandoned cabin with no means of escape. Their response was to burn the cabin down.

If there's an immediate need for self-defense then I've got no qualms about dead bad guys. You do what you gotta do. If there's just a hypothetical need that might arise, then dead bad guys represent an extrajudicial killing in my book.

Perhaps I'm mistaking your point of view, but it seems to me that by your logic the solution to the Branch Davidian siege would have been to Paveway the compound and call it a job well done. You're a pretty level-headed guy, so I'm thinking that maybe I am mistaken, but your arrest example certainly doesn't seem like it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20214
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #50 on: May 09, 2018, 11:29:48 AM »
I'm against the death penalty entirely, regardless of the crime or how much proof we have.

We talk all the time in this country about how we have a mental health crisis. What good is the Parkland shooter if he's dead? He may be of no help now, but who knows where brain imaging technology will be in 20, 30, or 40 years time. For all we know keeping the fucker's brain intact could produce concrete, observable brain abnormalities that contribute the manifestation of that sort of behavior.

If we're serious about addressing mental health in this country, destroying the brains of the worst of them is going in the completely wrong direction. Don't lock the guy in solitary confinement. Keep that brain in healthy and functioning condition at all costs in hopes that we can one day learn something from it.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27016
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #51 on: May 09, 2018, 11:35:19 AM »
I somewhat disagree. I am 100% against death penalty. I don't care what they did.

However, I am okay with taking someone out if not taking them out would cost way more lives.

For instance. If there's a guy you need to arrest, but you know that going in to arrest him would cost the lives of a lot of people, you might consider taking him out another way. But that's it.
Interesting. I actually disagree somewhat strongly. The situation you describe has come up a few times, notably here in Dallas a couple of years ago. When it has happened, say, blowing up the DPD sniper, it was justified as necessary to protect the lives of officers, but the truth is that there was no immediate threat from a guy barricaded in a closet. He was blown up because the protracted standoff was an inconvenience. The same thing applies to that So-Cal cop that went off his nut a few years ago. He was holed up in an abandoned cabin with no means of escape. Their response was to burn the cabin down.

If there's an immediate need for self-defense then I've got no qualms about dead bad guys. You do what you gotta do. If there's just a hypothetical need that might arise, then dead bad guys represent an extrajudicial killing in my book.

Perhaps I'm mistaking your point of view, but it seems to me that by your logic the solution to the Branch Davidian siege would have been to Paveway the compound and call it a job well done. You're a pretty level-headed guy, so I'm thinking that maybe I am mistaken, but your arrest example certainly doesn't seem like it.

Oh I wasn't thinking or talking about any of that stuff. I was focusing more on Middle Eastern examples since that's what I'm more familiar with. I also don't agree with execution to "hypothetically" protect officers. I really meant in those SUPER rare instances where trying to arrest the people would result in many deaths, both soldiers/officers and civilians and leaving them be will also result in many deaths. I only mean in a scenario where not executing them results in a lot of death.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20879
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #52 on: May 09, 2018, 11:49:39 AM »
Isn't that the rationale that Israel uses when it blows up a car in a crowded street because a suspected terrorist is inside?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2018, 11:50:16 AM »
I'm against the death penalty entirely, regardless of the crime or how much proof we have.

We talk all the time in this country about how we have a mental health crisis. What good is the Parkland shooter if he's dead? He may be of no help now, but who knows where brain imaging technology will be in 20, 30, or 40 years time. For all we know keeping the fucker's brain intact could produce concrete, observable brain abnormalities that contribute the manifestation of that sort of behavior.

If we're serious about addressing mental health in this country, destroying the brains of the worst of them is going in the completely wrong direction. Don't lock the guy in solitary confinement. Keep that brain in healthy and functioning condition at all costs in hopes that we can one day learn something from it.

That's an interesting and provocative take, Chino.  I read your first sentence and I was like "Brian and I are simpatico, completely."   It got better in the second paragraph.   But - and not to say I disagree - you threw a real curveball in that last paragraph.  I had assumed all along that you're okay with PUNISHMENT, just not "death".   Are you saying keep them in gen-pop to best replicate "normal operating conditions" for the brain?     I have to think about this, but certainly at first blush it seems that potentially preventing every mass shooting that comes after might be justification for easing up on the punitive gas pedal for one perpetrator.   

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #54 on: May 09, 2018, 11:57:16 AM »
I'm against the death penalty entirely, regardless of the crime or how much proof we have.

We talk all the time in this country about how we have a mental health crisis. What good is the Parkland shooter if he's dead? He may be of no help now, but who knows where brain imaging technology will be in 20, 30, or 40 years time. For all we know keeping the fucker's brain intact could produce concrete, observable brain abnormalities that contribute the manifestation of that sort of behavior.

If we're serious about addressing mental health in this country, destroying the brains of the worst of them is going in the completely wrong direction. Don't lock the guy in solitary confinement. Keep that brain in healthy and functioning condition at all costs in hopes that we can one day learn something from it.

All of that can be addressed with a guillotine and chest freezer.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20214
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #55 on: May 09, 2018, 12:00:14 PM »
I'm against the death penalty entirely, regardless of the crime or how much proof we have.

We talk all the time in this country about how we have a mental health crisis. What good is the Parkland shooter if he's dead? He may be of no help now, but who knows where brain imaging technology will be in 20, 30, or 40 years time. For all we know keeping the fucker's brain intact could produce concrete, observable brain abnormalities that contribute the manifestation of that sort of behavior.

If we're serious about addressing mental health in this country, destroying the brains of the worst of them is going in the completely wrong direction. Don't lock the guy in solitary confinement. Keep that brain in healthy and functioning condition at all costs in hopes that we can one day learn something from it.

All of that can be addressed with a guillotine and chest freezer.

It absolutely could not.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27016
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #56 on: May 09, 2018, 12:02:43 PM »
Isn't that the rationale that Israel uses when it blows up a car in a crowded street because a suspected terrorist is inside?

It is. But that doesn’t reflect my own perspective.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20214
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #57 on: May 09, 2018, 12:07:07 PM »
I'm against the death penalty entirely, regardless of the crime or how much proof we have.

We talk all the time in this country about how we have a mental health crisis. What good is the Parkland shooter if he's dead? He may be of no help now, but who knows where brain imaging technology will be in 20, 30, or 40 years time. For all we know keeping the fucker's brain intact could produce concrete, observable brain abnormalities that contribute the manifestation of that sort of behavior.

If we're serious about addressing mental health in this country, destroying the brains of the worst of them is going in the completely wrong direction. Don't lock the guy in solitary confinement. Keep that brain in healthy and functioning condition at all costs in hopes that we can one day learn something from it.

That's an interesting and provocative take, Chino.  I read your first sentence and I was like "Brian and I are simpatico, completely."   It got better in the second paragraph.   But - and not to say I disagree - you threw a real curveball in that last paragraph.  I had assumed all along that you're okay with PUNISHMENT, just not "death".   Are you saying keep them in gen-pop to best replicate "normal operating conditions" for the brain?     I have to think about this, but certainly at first blush it seems that potentially preventing every mass shooting that comes after might be justification for easing up on the punitive gas pedal for one perpetrator.

Absolutely. And if they are too dangerous for genpop, you can still have them in a facility where they aren't just sitting in a hole all day. Let them take a walk outside everyday (within fences of course). Let them paint or draw if they want. Give them some religious texts if they're requested. Even if it's not the best conditions, don't make them feel like an animal.

It might be a stretch, but if that kind of containment could lead to that guy seeing any kind of light, and in 10-20 years maybe come around some, trained psychologists might actually be able to get something useful out of him.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13890
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #58 on: May 09, 2018, 12:28:04 PM »
I might steal that.  I'm a big fan of the idea that a lot of this stuff is biological in nature, meaning, it's not just some "intangible" that some people are "scumbags".   They might still be "scumbags" but that's just an emotional descriptor.  I think that whether it's nature or nuture, at some point science is going to be able to better explain behavior that we now consider "aberrant".   When we do that, I think in at least some instances, we will find ways of addressing that proactively.

Think "proactive mastectomies" as an example.   We might be able to, for example, diagnose potential child molesters/pedophiles in advance and find ways of tempering their urges in ways that don't result in harm to children.   

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20214
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #59 on: May 09, 2018, 12:31:30 PM »
That's exactly where my head's at with this. Who knows, maybe it's a pipe dream and we'll ever learn anything, but at least explore the potential, especially if they are going to be locked up anyway. Killing the person or letting their brain tissue slowly rot away, or at worse have other mental health issues develop, does nobody any good.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 06:17:49 PM by Chino »

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18774
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #60 on: May 09, 2018, 12:46:50 PM »
Wouldn't too much of the person change by waiting for the science to get better to understand such a person's brain?  Maybe not, I'm not a neurologist, but I feel like preserving the brain in the current state might be more useful, or at least just as useful for such purposes.   Hence, I would be OK with the below if the science agreed it would be useful:

All of that can be addressed with a guillotine and chest freezer.

Maybe I am a rare breed, but I am OK with the death penalty.  We kill plenty of other things including humans with little regard.  I can get onboard with keeping such people alive for science and would see the usefulness in that, but I think that could also be seen as more cruel than just offing them.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20214
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2018, 12:53:23 PM »
Wouldn't too much of the person change by waiting for the science to get better to understand such a person's brain?  Maybe not, I'm not a neurologist, but I feel like preserving the brain in the current state might be more useful, or at least just as useful for such purposes.   Hence, I would be OK with the below if the science agreed it would be useful:

All of that can be addressed with a guillotine and chest freezer.

Maybe I am a rare breed, but I am OK with the death penalty.  We kill plenty of other things including humans with little regard.  I can get onboard with keeping such people alive for science and would see the usefulness in that, but I think that could also be seen as more cruel than just offing them.

Not necessarily. If there is a misfiring of the brain due to improper formation that causes certain thought processes (think Kim Peek and other idiot savants), those will be still detectable over time. It'd be just like someone being born with a hand with an extra digit. It's a detectable mistake, just on a different part of the body.

Looking at a preserved brain will not give you a full picture. You need to be able to see the brain's reaction to images, sounds, and sensations. Is there a particular trigger that lights up two conflicting parts of the brain at once? Why does this person's brain show little to no activity when we show them pictures of babies or play a particular song, but when combined lights up an unexpected part of the brain? We need the brains functioning if we want to know how and why they are processing the way they do.

I know it sounds far fetched, but advancements in imaging technology combined with the inevitable breakthroughs in the power of AI, we will be able to see and interpret the brain in ways we can't even conceive of yet.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20879
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #62 on: May 09, 2018, 12:56:37 PM »
Wouldn't too much of the person change by waiting for the science to get better to understand such a person's brain?  Maybe not, I'm not a neurologist, but I feel like preserving the brain in the current state might be more useful, or at least just as useful for such purposes.   Hence, I would be OK with the below if the science agreed it would be useful:

All of that can be addressed with a guillotine and chest freezer.

Maybe I am a rare breed, but I am OK with the death penalty.  We kill plenty of other things including humans with little regard.  I can get onboard with keeping such people alive for science and would see the usefulness in that, but I think that could also be seen as more cruel than just offing them.
Christian barbarism aside, I don't think you'll run into too much trouble. I suspect the greatest insight would likely come from simply talking to them, and that's something that won't be terribly altered by psychological atrophy. In the case of Numbnuts School Shooter, he's an idiot kid right now. Provided he manages to enlighten himself a bit over the next few years he could provide wonderful insight into what went down as he ages and gains some wisdom. People often do that. A fascinating serial killer that nobody ever heard of is Edmond Kemper. A highly intelligent and thoughtful guy that was quite eager to share his insights into what made him tick. He became a key impetus for what we now know as the FBI's behavioral science unit. The more people you talk to the more you can piece together. As we progress further we'll be able to go beyond simple chit-chat, which is what Chino's getting at.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 488
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2018, 01:57:45 PM »
A fascinating serial killer that nobody ever heard of is Edmond Kemper. A highly intelligent and thoughtful guy that was quite eager to share his insights into what made him tick. He became a key impetus for what we now know as the FBI's behavioral science unit. The more people you talk to the more you can piece together. As we progress further we'll be able to go beyond simple chit-chat, which is what Chino's getting at.

Hey I watched that Netflix show, it was dope.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 28106
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2018, 08:16:37 PM »
I used to be in favor of the death penalty, but now I take the approach that letting someone rot in jail for 50 years is a far worst punishment than putting them out of their misery.  If we can learn more about killers and whatnot by studying their brains while they rot, even better.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6550
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Don't Speak Ill of the Dead
« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2018, 08:22:01 PM »
The death penalty is mostly a legal negotiating tool now.

This thread took a weird turn.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'