|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 23, 2010 2:44:36 GMT -5
Keep talkin' brother. You're making me look good. Your heart bleeds for criminals, mine bleeds for the victims. A very poor interpretation of both my post, and the purpose of the United States justice system. I'm not saying we should be overly sympathetic to criminals, I'm saying that your view of crime and punishment is remarkably shallow and serves no higher end. I understand the desire a person has for vengeance, but when somebody prioritizes that above what will most realistically serve to improve the country, that's a very dangerous sort of irrational thinking. Not to mention that there's a notable difference between caring about the victims, and caring about the victims to such an extent that you shut out the whole rest of the situation. If the universe functioned on your logic, Truman Capote would have written "In Cold Blood" so as to better understand the lives of Kansas farmers. Anyway, I'm not sure which I like more, how your signature is a Gandhi quote, or how blatant it is that you're under the age of 18. (EDIT - The post this was replying to was deleted. 'Scuze me for my resulting double post.) How does coddling criminals "realistically serve to improve the country?" Justice and vengeance are closely related by definition. Actually, this country understands that some folks are just a waste of human skin. It's why the death penalty is so dang popular. www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Kaneda on Sept 23, 2010 3:53:52 GMT -5
How does coddling criminals "realistically serve to improve the country?" Justice and vengeance are closely related by definition. Actually, this country understands that some folks are just a waste of human skin. It's why the death penalty is so dang popular. www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx1. I refer to justice in the sense of the administration of the law and the establishment of rights. Not justice in the sense of "fairness." In a civilized society, vengeance should have no part in the former. 2. At no point did I say one should coddle criminals. What I said is that you should look at the nature of the crime from a broader and more informed perspective than just the end result. If actually looking at the whole picture does result in a more sympathetic view of the criminal, all that means is that the sympathetic view is LOGICALLY JUSTIFIED. I know that you're going to entirely misinterpret what I just said though. 3. At no point did I voice an opposition to the death penalty. Additionally, the subject of the death penalty is a nuanced issue and has many more facets to it than just the vengeance aspect, and as such should be kept out of this discussion for the most part. 4. Your argument in favor of the benefits of vengeance is so pi ss poor that I'm not going to give a real rebuttal. A poll of the public opinion? Really? Come back with an actual argument.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 23, 2010 9:17:45 GMT -5
1. I refer to justice in the sense of the administration of the law and the establishment of rights. Not justice in the sense of "fairness." In a civilized society, vengeance should have no part in the former. So fairness plays no part in justice? What "whole picture"? Can their be a whole picture without considering the victim? Seems to me you're not interested in looking at the end result at all. So a four year old was killed. I can certainly see why your sympathies would lie with the 13 year old killer instead, after all, he said he was picked on *gasp*. I'm sure 20 minutes in time out ought to do the trick. I'm rolling my eyes so much, I'm getting a headache. Now your contradicting yourself. If you think vengeance, as you stated above, should play no role in the criminal justice system yet acknowledge that the DP is, at least partially, about vengeance, how can you be anything other than opposed to it? I just think folks ought to get what they deserve. Forget notions of deterrence and rehabilitation *hurl*, sometimes it's just about punishment. As far as the poll, I just knew if I didn't supply a link supporting my contention that American's really like the death penalty, Gran would be on my ass back. I have to give you credit though, I have learned something from you. Modified : I did post and explain what it was I learned, but now I think I better exercise the better part of valor here and delete it.
|
|
Aanglover
Avatar Yangchen
The Aang Guru
This isn't the end, but rather, a new beginning.
Posts: 1,537
|
Post by Aanglover on Sept 23, 2010 9:34:48 GMT -5
well in my opinion, even if it is an 8 year old...he had to have had some sort of mental realization of what he was doing. and Even though he committed murder i feel that an 8 year old shouldn't have a high punishment as being put in an actual jail cell. Maybe juvy like Sheogorath said...it seems less harsh but still will remind him that he did something that will probably haunt him for the rest of his life.
|
|
|
Post by Kaneda on Sept 23, 2010 14:44:20 GMT -5
What "whole picture"? Can their be a whole picture without considering the victim? Seems to me you're not interested in looking at the end result at all. So a four year old was killed. I can certainly see why your sympathies would lie with the 13 year old killer instead, after all, he said he was picked on *gasp*. I'm sure 20 minutes in time out ought to do the trick. I must by psychic or something, seeing as I called you misinterpreting what I said. At no point did I suggest the outcome of the act should be ignored, what I said was practically the opposite. NO ASPECT OF THE ACT SHOULD BE IGNORED. What you're proposing is to ignore every aspect of the act other than the outcome, simply because it might happen to lend itself to a sympathetic view. Reading comprehension. My sympathies don't lie with any party in this scenario, as I am not exceptionally informed in regards to the details of the case. However, I am prepared to look at said details from a rational perspective. If that perspective lends itself to a sympathetic view of the murderer, then that's the way it's meant to be. You propose looking at the case (not the details though because you clearly don't care about those) from an irrational perspective. I can be opposed to that single aspect of it. AS I SAID EARLIER, it's a nuanced issue with many other facets. What I was implying was that it's possible for a person to support the death penalty for those other reasons, excluding revenge. Reading comprehension. Fairness plays a part in justice only in that punishment should be proportional to the nature of the crime, which again, must take every detail into account. Your idea of fairness is a very literal, face value, equal exchange of punishment, regardless of whether or not that's the rational decision. The purpose of justice is to maintain a better society, and anyone who makes a decision based on petty, irrational, personal impulses clearly doesn't have that in mind. Etc etc. Anyway, this debate is getting really redundant by now. If there's a new compelling argument or some such, I'll post again, but if not you can just refer back to what I've said already and just pretend that's my response.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 24, 2010 10:14:35 GMT -5
A little reminder:
1. No swearing or name calling. There are other ways to get a point across than swearing. Petty name calling and insulting someone’s ideas or arguments is an answer for lazy debaters, and it serves as a substitute for a real answer to the issue presented. There will be no more of it.
2. No derogatory religion-based comments or racism. While it hasn’t been a huge issue yet, it may pop up in the future.
3. No Republican vs. Democrat wars. Only debates about issues being discussed in the thread are allowed, without mention of your own political affiliation. No threads dedicated to wars of political affiliation are allowed either.
4. Stay on topic. The need to emphasize this point is immense. When a thread begins to rot because of the negative energy created by people going on off-topic rants, it creates tension between members and grounds for fighting. Not good.
5. If something extremely offensive is geared at you, PM a staff member. We will handle it. If the offense is minor, try to breathe it off. While you're steaming and need to get your mind on something else, I'm sure the pens on your desktop need inspecting.
6. Only post if you can contribute something to the topic/debate. This means no more: "What <insert name> Said" , or "I agree/disagree".
7. Do not take anything personally. No flaming.
8. Please, use spell check, or at least form sentences that make sense. Pretend that you are writing an Essay for class.
9. Since this is a Critical Thinking Forum use evidence to back up your statement if needed. This means no more: "The Bible says so." Actually find the verse that says so (just an example).
Expanded Rules: These rules are for people who have never really debated in a forum before.
1. I have noticed a ton of arguments being taken personally. Critical Thinking is a place for discussion and debate. Debate is where someone refutes an opinion and supports his or her own. There is no reason to take offense about a reasonably presented debate. I know if someone insults what you believe in you tend to get insulted, however part of what makes humans sentient is the ability to control instinctive reactions. If someone debates with you, debate back. Don't insult them. Sure, put a harsh twinge on your comments, it makes it more fun, but do not insult the person for having an opinion.
However on the flip side, if you present your opinion in a juvenile, disrespectful or just plain stupid way; you should expect to be made fun of.
If you keep arguing about something that people have just completely disproved, you should expect some insults. No one is going to respond politely to the same opinion over and over again.
2. If you state a fact that is not your opinion or common knowledge, be sure you have the sources to back it up. A common way to discredit an opponent is to ask where they got their sources. If they cannot cite their sources then it discredits their opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Appayipyip the Klingon on Jun 6, 2011 22:29:03 GMT -5
If there is a legal cutoff age for what you are tried as, go by it. In that case 8 SHOULD be being tried as a child. Problem solved.
|
|
SD
Momo
Posts: 30
|
Post by SD on Jun 8, 2011 17:41:13 GMT -5
im sorry i cant be botherd to read the article but no matter how horrible it was a child is a child you teach them ,things they should do and shouldnt do prepare them for whats right and for whats wrong in the world
i dont know if the kid got raised as in most normal way ''thats possible'' but either way the kid probly didnt even know entirely what he was doing now if he was 12 i wouldnt say this but 8...
|
|
Mari
Sokka
I Love Psychology
Posts: 142
|
Post by Mari on Jun 17, 2011 16:15:52 GMT -5
I didn't read every thought on here but my thought on the matter is the gun shouldn't have been anywhere the 8 year old could have accessed it. Taking your kid hunting is one thing but giving him a gun is another. He is 8! That gun should have been locked up with the key thrown away.
He should be charged as a child, but also he should have a full psychiatric evaluation to determine the charge. He shouldn't go unpunished but she should be trialed as an adult either. An adult is 18 in this country and that's how it should remain!!
|
|