Skipjack wrote:
windywave wrote:
Strapped his three year old into a car seat and set the car on fire.
Does this make the cut if you usually are opposed to the death penalty?
To the high and mighty who believe government doesn't have the right to kill people, would you consider vigilantism in this case.
And yes Duffy, I'd throw the first match. (I'd also strongly advocate no accelerants and green wood).
On board with taking people out of the pool in cases like this. Put me down for vigilantism as well.
There was an even worse story out of CHI the other day. Something about 2 individuals removing and strangling a fetus while it was still connected. Honestly I glanced at the headline and decided it was too horrible of a story to read fully so I might have not picked it up accurately.
I've seen some horrible shit in my life but something about the potential of that (perceived) headline and article got me scrolling quickly past it.
CaptainCanada wrote:
windywave wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:
windywave wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:
windywave wrote:
Strapped his three year old into a car seat and set the car on fire.
Does this make the cut if you usually are opposed to the death penalty? To the high and mighty who believe government doesn't have the right to kill people, would you consider vigilantism in this case.
And yes Duffy, I'd throw the first match. (I'd also strongly advocate no accelerants and green wood).
Nope
You miss the part where he strapped the three year old in and then burned the thtee year old alive?
Nope, it was a terrible crime and he should go to jail forever.
No to vigilantism too?
A strong no to vigilantism. Mobs are stupid. That's why there is a system of justice with rules and evidentiary burdens. I also support keeping inmates safe. That means not allowing them to get beaten, raped, or otherwise brutalized by other defendants, regardless of their offense.
I'm OK w/ removing people who are clearly unfit to continue living among us forever, but also a strong no to vigilantism ~ who the hell gets to decide what the appropriate threshold is for the next case and the next? That's a slippery slope into wanton barbarism; where will that get us? Keeping the guy alive on the public dime for the rest of his life is a poor use of limited tax dollars, so if it's determined that he's too big a risk to ever get rehabbed and released then no use in keeping him around or even letting the other inmates continue perpetuating the cycle of barbarism, but the State should never take any relish in it either.
No amount of retribution will ever bring the victim back or undo the crime; it only enables the evil or sadism to grow in others when we give it our seal of approval. It's ultimately still the same old "Two wrongs don't make a Right" rule when you boil it down ~ even though the tools & outcomes may have escalated since we were in kindergarden, the principle remains unchanged. In a civilized society, the process should be dutifully upheld as solemnly and objectively as possible, and if so deemed then the piece of shit should be put down as dispassionately as possible too. I view it much like simply euthanizing a dog that mauled a kid. It's not about 'punishing' the dog (because duh), only utility or expedience in eliminating it as a further threat.
Maybe it helps if you simply try to think of someone whose mind is that fucked up as a rabid dog... People already use words like 'animal' or 'subhuman' to describe remorseless killers, so this is just another stop on that track. We'll euthanize a mountain lion that roams into a rural neighborhood and kills a kid or even pets, not because the cat is aware it's doing anything wrong or how much suffering it inflicted on its prey, but simply as a public service to the immediate community.