Hope you rot in hell!!!!!

[Capt Dizle]

Are you folks saying this happened because this girl was dressed wrong?

Now, that is plain stupid.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Are you folks saying this happened because this girl was dressed wrong?

Now, that is plain stupid.

Not this crime in particular, but you have to wonder what the effect of sexualizing children will be in general.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You've offered no reason why the state is magically allowed to do this. Just because the state is an abstract entity to which we attribute legal powers, does not entail anything about those powers themselves. And it's still ordinary people who have to do the killing, or if you want to regard the state as a person, it too may not kill.

The state is 'magically' allowed to do this because it's the power broker. It's the entity which decides what rights we do and do not get. If it wishes to give itself the power to kill, it can do so. Ordinary people may have to do the killing, but they are acting on behalf of the state, not as individual principles, so they are not morally at fault for the state sanctioned killing.

And it's not clear how the offender "earns" it unless we imagine something like the giant ledger in the sky, or an equally imaginary pair of scales, or what is most likely, that it is a projection and justification of our primitive emotion of revenge.

If every person is a moral actor then when he violates the moral code of the society, he naturally deserves a punishment. He has 'earned' his punishment because of his violation of the code and the need to atone for that. Theory goes that at the end of punishment (if there is an end), the person becomes once again is whole (every crime has chipped away his moral character), because he has payed back his crime to the society. If the crime is so heinous, the payback to society may be his life itself.

And what is wrong with revenge anyway? It is funny, people have become so wrapped up in 'logic' they forget humanity is an emotional animal and primitive urges are not always evil.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
As I understand the man is insane so I don't see detterance as a likely result here, nor it does seem likely he'll pose a danger in prison. Lock him up and throw away the key, but no death.

Indeed. All pychopaths are insane. IIRC, this is a mental disorder that has no known treatment.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you folks saying this happened because this girl was dressed wrong?

Now, that is plain stupid.

Why would modesty be a virtue, except to deflect lust?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Agathon


Not this crime in particular, but you have to wonder what the effect of sexualizing children will be in general.

Well, when I came up it was a scandal for a woman to wear pants. Now we are suprised if they wear panties. Yes, it is sickening to see kids like that. I think that the country has went to hell in a handbasket.

Personally, I think we need to put the Bible and the paddle back in schools and hire only those teachers who are willing to use them.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Agathon


That's another thing that annoys me. Blame is not a zero sum game. Anyone who leaves their car unlocked at night in a bad area deserves to have it stolen for being so stupid. That doesn't excuse the crook at all - he attracts a different kind of blame.

I don't blame this girl at all. But I wouldn't let a twelve year old of mine go around looking like that - and it's a ****ed up society that thinks it's OK for children to go around dressed as sex objects.

everyone lets their kids go out like that.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why would modesty be a virtue, except to deflect lust?

Oh God, it's Ben. Now we will have to straighten up here.

Actually I can't possibly get caught in a Kenobi-Agathon crossfire.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The state is 'magically' allowed to do this because it's the power broker. It's the entity which decides what rights we do and do not get. If it wishes to give itself the power to kill, it can do so.

The State is not morally justified in doing anything, nor does it "decide" which moral rights people have, or what is right or wrong. Sure, they can make the DP legal, but you could make murder legal too.

Ordinary people may have to do the killing, but they are acting on behalf of the state, not as individual principles, so they are not morally at fault for the state sanctioned killing.

Again, I find this quite magical. You've just repeated your initial claim. Could you explain to me how they are not at fault without saying the same thing?

If every person is a moral actor then when he violates the moral code of the society, he naturally deserves a punishment.

Naturally? What if the moral code of that society is to present yourself for rape by smelly old men? Would I be morally blameworthy for refusing to do it, and should I be punished?

He has 'earned' his punishment because of his violation of the code and the need to atone for that.

Atone? That just sounds like the magic scales to me.

Theory goes that at the end of punishment (if there is an end), the person becomes once again is whole (every crime has chipped away his moral character),

Now that is bizarre. I don't see how this elaborate attempt at a metaphor has anything to do with the facts. I ask for clarification and I get the opposite.

because he has payed back his crime to the society. If the crime is so heinous, the payback to society may be his life itself.

So if I steal 50 bucks, I should give 50 bucks back. Sounds like an excellent deal to me, if I can get away with it one out of every five times. Oh... you think the punishment should be more? Why? - deterrence obviously.

And the criminal doesn't owe anything to society, only to certain individuals whom he may have wronged. There is no such thing as society, as your friends are so fond of pointing out.

And this talk of debt is again, a weird kind of metaphor that doesn't seem to indicate anything concrete.

And what is wrong with revenge anyway? It is funny, people have become so wrapped up in 'logic' they forget humanity is an emotional animal and primitive urges are not always evil.

That's an easy one. If it is permissible to act on any emotion I have, then whenever I see a woman I want to ****, I am entitled to just grab her and **** her - in the subway if need be.

If you think that is wrong, then you have to provide a reason as to why it is OK to act on some emotions and not others.


More tomorrow...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Well, when I came up it was a scandal for a woman to wear pants. Now we are suprised if they wear panties.

I agree, women should wear no lower coverings at all. And I'm not too sure about the top half either.

Women can wear what the hell they like. Children are not physically or psychologically ready for sex at age eleven. Sexualising them is a form of kiddie porn. They don't do it - they're too dumb. They wear what their friends tell them too, and the TV tells their friends.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The state is 'magically' allowed to do this because it's the power broker. It's the entity which decides what rights we do and do not get.

I agree with this, but there are two points:

1. The state apparatus does not exist in a vacuum. It merely exist to carry out the orders and wishes of the ruling class. Thus, by arguing this, you are arguing that the ruling class feels that it can pass judgement on the matter of life and death.

2. On what basis did the state apparatus base this decision?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If every person is a moral actor then when he violates the moral code of the society, he naturally deserves a punishment.

A state has no moral code -- a state must be amoral for your above point to stand.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And what is wrong with revenge anyway?

Revenge is an endless spiral. Blood feuds and all that jazz.

[Fake Boris]

Imran-

You could always try to apply the DP to any crime. After all, unless the deterrence effect is disproven, the DP is justified, right?

Hell- you can't even prove the deterrence effect of the most extreme form of punishment, and you are defending the statu quo? In fact, while I give it to you that there doesn't seem to be any causality, there is strong evidence that countries with no DP are much more peaceful. This, at worse, should warrant an immediate moratory.

Let's sort through different criminals:

-the serial killer, who's a serial killer by definition. Those guys have DEFECTIVE brains, no joke. They don't care about the DP.

-Organized crime. Its inherent dangers are already large enough that DP is only a minor deterrent. Do you think a 16 years old weighting in the decision of selling drugs will think about the eventual murders circumstances will bind him to? Do you think the mafia and the Hell's Angels would stop their activity in non-DP countries if the capital punishment was re-enacted?

-Impulsive homicide. As the name implies, the occasional murder from the bum fight gone awry, or the desperate man seeking revenge for his divorce.

-Last category. The planned, non-impulsive homicide, that has nothing to do with organized crime. To what percentage of all murders does it amount?

And BTW, your argument about the State sucked. Was the Nuremberg trial unfair because the convincted had acted on behalf of the state?

[The Mad Monk]

Anyone else drawing comparisons between Agathon in this thread, and Ben in that other one?

[Ben Kenobi]

Deep at heart, we are not far from each other.

[curtsibling]

Where are the do-gooders now to try and convince us that this murderer should be spared?

He should be experimented on.