|
Post by Mister Buch on Dec 2, 2009 20:33:57 GMT 1
I disagree very strongly with some of these opinions, Till and Zars.
I'm going to rant against them, in a friendly manner.
-
I'm not saying any nation's law is always right. We should arrive at our own moral beliefs and follow them. Often breaking the law is not only justified, but the right thing to do.
Of course the law is flawed. By its nature, it always will be. No single person will ever view it as perfect. But I'm still waiting to hear a better idea.
And these are my beliefs -
Taking the life of another human, no matter who that person is, should ONLY be done to save another. And then, it should be the very last resort. 'An eye for an eye' is giving in to instict, and accomplishes nothing. It makes both parties as blind as one another, to paraphrase Gandhi. No-one should have the right to kill a prisoner, or perform an unrequested sex change.
These are just my opinions. But I really wanted to state them here.
Please don't find this post aggressive. Each of you has earned a lot of my respect and also my friendship - and I respect all the opinions I've read on this thread. I really do.
But I disagree with some of them, a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Dec 2, 2009 21:41:21 GMT 1
I didn't read your post as aggressive. And I agree.
The system is flawed, and it's constantly being taken advantage of. That's why we have baseless lawsuits happening every 10 seconds and why people like OJ Simpson don't go to jail for murdering their wives but for trying to steal some old football cards. It's an odd thing. If you watch Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore, even if you don't agree with his message, there are some very real instances of people suffering because the law was being taken advantage of.
Judges are not always honorable, not if someone pays them to be otherwise.
Vigilante justice is something I agree with sometimes, but never in the Rorschach sense of things. People like that old man in Australia who kept that girl in his basement for twenty-something years, and used her purely for sex -- he should have no right to life, since he took years of that girl's life away.
I dunno. I could sit here all day and attempt to draw the line, but it would take too long. As I said before, those who intend to take life or have taken life, have no right to life themselves in my book. But it's certainly not for us or prisoners to decide.
The moment that we start condoning those acts, that's precisely when we lose our humanity. And if you think this sounds rational, just wait till you hear where I heard it. >=O
|
|
|
Post by Zarsthor on Dec 3, 2009 2:34:46 GMT 1
Nobody said anything about killing anyone. I specifically said I don't agree with the death sentence. Come on guys this is the 5th time in a month you've been miss reading people.... I'm going to bed before I get annoyed.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Dec 3, 2009 3:19:52 GMT 1
Well, I'm not condoning Viligant acts but I'm not condeming it either.
I'm not saying we should not believe the law and such nor go into violent extreme ends to bring justices. Personallity I'm more a type of person who belives that if someone admits they are wrong and VERY remorseful, then they ought to be givien a chance. I guess it's coming from me who has a brother that got into the crime scene back in his past. (And all I can say is, he's a good decent man despite his flaws, no more questions.) Don't get me wrong Buch, I've still belive the system has it's purpose. Without it we're going through a dire state where what's left of humanity will be eroded away by a lawless nation.
My point is that there are times we have to turn a blind eye on the viligant acts if they justifed the crime itself that the system could not protect. Like the story how a half of the townsfork killed one man for his crime. They are not killing because of revenge nor being vilagant. They just self defending themselves from his wrath at the time and protecting the chemist shop keeper. (Although I have to admit, that's an overkill).
You do have some points there Buch. And I've don't condone death sentances, violance nor sex changes. But let's just call it "agree to a disagree" I've don't know the law much and sadly the measurement of the person itself is varied to the point that it's hard to find what is right and wrong.
All I can say is that we ought encourage other bystanders to help out a person in need a lot more. The Genovese case is one of the more disturbing sernario if what if bystanders kept to themselves.
Sorry if I'm a little argumentive over here. Just that my views are kinda skewed by the horrid history behind the system my parents have suffered back in Vietnam
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Dec 3, 2009 3:28:02 GMT 1
I'm sorry if I offended or annoyed anyone in the least. Till- Definitely agree to disagree! (Although this is maybe the first time you and I have ever disagreed! ) Like I say, you're all my friends and I hate to argue with you like this. Again please don't think I meant anything personally - just wanted to get my views out there. I don't mean to make a big deal out of any of this. I guess politics get me going. You (all) made some good points that gave me pause too. And also - the Genovese case has always been very prevalent in my mind. When I read Watchmen and saw Rorscach affected by it just as I had been, the book really amazed me. Zars- I know and understand that you don't condone execution. Looking back on my post - where I was going on about vigilante killing/execution - I can see I communicated that point badly. When I mentioned the forced-sex-change idea - that was a counter-argument to one of yours. The part about rejecting the flawed-system kinda was too. The stuff about execution was not. That was sparked by the story about the guy killed by the townspeople. Like I say I communicated it badly - the sex change stuff is in the same sentence as my refusing the death penalty. Sorry. Like I said, I disagreed with a lot of points that you and Till had made - that was not one of them - and I really didn't mean my post to be personal or offensive to you.
|
|
|
Post by Zarsthor on Dec 3, 2009 4:01:00 GMT 1
What I was saying is that I strongly agree with rehabilitation and wish that it was better executed in our criminal system and I consider Sex change as a realistic idea for serious cases. I mean SERIOUS, serial rapists serious. Its an idea to the system not the system itself. But if there can't be rehabilitation and a better punishment system I see the need for vigilante style punishment as a last resort. Not death but punishment to work at least as a deterrent.
I fell asleep then woke up 30 minutes later and started reading a Deadpool comic...
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Dec 3, 2009 4:07:26 GMT 1
I just re-edited my reply for the millionth time while you were typing that one! I'll leave it alone now.
I also strongly agree with rehabilitation, but I am very much against the sex-change idea. As for the vigilante beatings in the case studies - Knight said there is a thin line. I set that line very low - or high - or however this metaphor works.
I'm getting out of this thread right now.
|
|
|
Post by Zarsthor on Dec 3, 2009 4:19:38 GMT 1
I'm going back to my comic. It just got confusedly interesting. Deadpool is trying not to kill a band of cyborg thugs because Daredevil made him feel silly about killing them.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Dec 3, 2009 5:41:42 GMT 1
None taken Buch.
Sorry if I've gone overboard with it. It's one of those talks that made me more talkative like you do with Religeon. In my case, the justice system.
I think we had enough talking about this for one day. I ought to do something more light hearted like... making fun of Twilight.
|
|
|
Post by Zarsthor on Dec 3, 2009 5:47:36 GMT 1
Or new moon
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Dec 3, 2009 5:56:02 GMT 1
more like 'waning moon"
That title makes more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Dec 3, 2009 6:24:15 GMT 1
The moment that we start condoning those acts, that's precisely when we lose our humanity. And if you think this sounds rational, just wait till you hear where I heard it. >=O GAH! I was hoping one of you would respond to that and say, "Hey that did sound rational and super-awesome, where did you hear it?" And then you would have walked into my trap and I would have told you all to go see 2012! Boo! Anyway, everyone in this thread, I'd like to think that we don't get too passionate over these debates. Honestly, I don't get into them thinking we can solve them or set some new ethics standard. I just see it as a tossing back-and-forth of ideas, nothing more. And Buch, if you swing by one more time, I wouldn't worry so much about your opinion. Everyone, you included, is very straight-forward in what they believe. I'm sure you've yet to step on anyone's toes. Everyone in the world has a different idea of the rule of law, that's why not everyone is completely comfortable with their own system of law. When someone asks me if I support the death penalty, the first thing I think is always, "No...buuuut...it seems okay in this case..." I'm going to bring up that thin line again, and say that you could put it almost anywhere, and in multiple places.
|
|
|
Post by ravenchick on Dec 3, 2009 10:07:53 GMT 1
I agree that any human system is going to be inherently imperfect and that the legal system is certainly that. While our society has the moral obligation to protect the incarcerated, the reality of the situation falls far short of the ideal. There is simply not enough space or funds to offer perfect protection and rehabilitation. To do so would deprive the rest of society with resources that they need. I think two other things impact on this as well - the far right's banner waving on being tough on crime has caused many non-violent offenders to become needlessly incarcerated when rehab would be the better option; the far left's out of control use of the legal system to hamstring the courts, law enforcement, and the prisons. Both agendas drain attention and resources to create a better system. I think that a lack of perceived protection and justice helps to create vigilantes. While it's human nature to try and rectify the situation, sometimes taking matters into our own hands, the slippery slope is where does it end? As citizens, we should be empowered to intervene in a crime and detain the suspect, even using reasonable force in the process. This may even include deadly force should the person be threatening or violent. But to serve as executioner or to seek out a suspect in lieu of properly trained law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent. What if it's the wrong person? What if the situation were a misunderstanding? Great discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Dec 3, 2009 13:09:13 GMT 1
While it's human nature to try and rectify the situation, sometimes taking matters into our own hands, the slippery slope is where does it end? It ends with the Dog! And I agree. A big step toward minimizing violence in prisons is to stop the incarceration of people who really don't deserve to be there. While I won't touch the legalization of cannabis debate, I will say that I don't think it's a crime punishable by prison time. We (the land of the free/home of the brave) have more prisons, and more people occupying them, than any other country in the world. By lessening the offense of smoking cannabis, that reduces the number of inmates by a very large number. So, I guess I'm not for the legalization of cannabis, but I'm all for the decriminalization of it. Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Dec 3, 2009 15:02:40 GMT 1
I think we should change the title of this thread to "Walking on the bounderies of the law" or something as this talk is veering into the justice system discussion. You do have a point about the dangers of mistaking someone for a crime they don't commit. That's one of the reasons why we still need the system. If used properly, it's a safegaurd from sentancing the wrong person behind bars if there's they set up the proceedures with the evidance, testermony and witnesses well. Also on the other side of the coin, viligants tend to be bias towards the case itself or didn't see something amiss, so it's is a dangerous situation here. Here's a good example when the system is used properly. This case is about a mother and her 3 children who were stuck in some violent shoot out that resulted one child dead, two children servely injuired. Apprently the mother 'protested' to the public that the system is wrongfully pin the blame on her for the brutal murder of her children. The public, especially the mothers were quite pissed off about it. However, with the careful prodeedures with the witnesses, evidance and planning... let's just say it ended a very happy ending... just read it I'm not going to spoil it.. This is one of the few cases I've seen that put a smile to my face. www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/downs/index_1.html
|
|