[Bobboau]

that he wronged someone, many people in fact, and as a result had the same pain, or some small fraction of it, despenced upon him.

[Grey Wolf]

I was referring to the slow hanging that the man in the article was killed by.  As a note, I don't really agree with capital punishment at all, as:
1. How are we to know that he won't ultimately be proven innocent?
2. Life imprisonment, and being forced to serve for the crime as opposed to a quick death, seems a far more appropriate punishment.

[Unknown Target]

Yes, but that pain wont' bring those people back. That pain might give you a small satisfaction, but those people still suffered. And now you have become him, and tortured him in the way he tortured them. Now you are no different than he is, because at the end of the day, you tortured and killed a man.

EDIT: That was directed at Bob.

[Bobboau]

it wasn't intended to bring those people back, it was intended to cause him great pain.

how have you become him? you killed someone who took someone from you, someone who has caused you great unrepairable harm. he killed many innocent childeren, for the fun of it. he made your child, the thing in your life most precous to you above even your own life, and turned that child into a desposable sex toy.
you torchered and killed a man who had it comeing to him. a man who had done things, horable things, a man who owed you great suffering.

for some reason I am reminded of the Peta comerccals that liken chicken farms to the Holocost.

[Ford Prefect]

You're adding too much emotion to it. If we want to have a functioning society, the law must see all life as having equal value, no matter who the victim was or who committed the crime.

[Bobboau]

"must"
why?

[Unknown Target]

Exactly. Once you add emotion, judgement becomes clouded. Yes, Bob, he deserved it, and worse, I'm not disputing that, but you can't go around torturing and killing people because they "deserve it". You have to have limits and rules and follow those rules yourself. If your laws say that you can't kill someone, then not only can a citizen not kill someone, but neither can the government.
The real challenge is to look at every case completely emotionless and dispasionate, so you can reach a fair verdict, no matter how much you want to see that person suffer.

[Ford Prefect]

Indeed. When you decide that one person deserves it for a seemingly obvious reason, it sets a precedent that allows anyone and everyone to decide who deserves what, and you have Lord of the Flies.

[Bobboau]

but takeing the emotion out of the situation is a distortion of it. yes you need someone dispasionate to figure out what the facts are, but if it is proven that something like this happened not only do I not see a reason for continued dispasionacy I firmly regect the notion. this is a pasionate situation you are an emotional person, they have done you wrong, there will be retibution!

hows this for a rule, you reap what you sow. you may not harm another person, unless they have proportionately harmed you.

[Ford Prefect]

And how will you define "proportionately harmed"? Because it won't be the same as how someone else does. And then what happens if you get the wrong person? (All the more likely when you're blinded by your primal emotions.) What if someone gets in your way? You'd probably kill them too. That passionate desire for retribution is the reason that humanity has always and will always be the same thing, trapped in the same cycle brutality. People want what satisfies them. Very often it's harmless, but when it comes to violence, it's a force that constantly threatens to render us extinct.

[Bobboau]

and as you say, it's part of who and what we are.

[Unknown Target]

But if you allow abuses like this in the justice system, then you get people who do this to people just for the spite of it, just because they don't like them or their beliefs.
If you allow emotion into the trials, then you get prejudice, and then you have unfair trials and unfair verdicts.

Bob, right now I am looking at this with a dispassionate eye, and you are looking at it with an emotional eye. Everything in my brain is telling me that this man deserved it - hell, when I think of what he did to those kids, it's a consolation to me that he died the way he did.

However, I am overriding that thought and impulse for revenge with the thought that: yes, he was horrible, and a description of how awful he was is more than my vocabulary can produce, however, I know that it is wrong to kill someone, and that nomatter what, you must hold true to your values. Same with having sex with a drunk woman. Sure, she might be coming on to you, and only a little drunk - but she's still drunk, and if you are a good person, you will hold onto your values of not doing drunk women, and turn her down.



EDIT: And even though it's part of who we are, that doesn't make it right.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
But if you allow abuses like this in the justice system, then you get people who do this to people just for the spite of it, just because they don't like them or their beliefs.
If you allow emotion into the trials, then you get prejudice, and then you have unfair trials and unfair verdicts.
we as a people decide what is right and wrong, trials and verdicts are only unfair to those who disagree with the majority

Bob, right now I am looking at this with a dispassionate eye, and you are looking at it with an emotional eye. Everything in my brain is telling me that this man deserved it - hell, when I think of what he did to those kids, it's a consolation to me that he died the way he did.

However, I am overriding that thought and impulse for revenge with the thought that: yes, he was horrible, and a description of how awful he was is more than my vocabulary can produce, however, I know that it is wrong to kill someone, and that nomatter what, you must hold true to your values.
so if I have a knife and you have a gun and I come after you, you willnot shoot me because I am a human and it's wrong to kill me? no, I doubt that (though I do assume here), there are exeptions to normal dayly life, most of the time your vengence is overiden by other factors, from mercy to lazyness, only when someone has done something truly horid will you be hell bent on getting back at them, and usualy you'll have a majority of people on your side. but most of the time you won't be slothering about trying to fufill your desiers, you'll be trying to get along, and so will most other people, that is why we haven't killed our selves yet
Same with having sex with a drunk woman. Sure, she might be coming on to you, and only a little drunk - but she's still drunk, and if you are a good person, you will hold onto your values of not doing drunk women, and turn her down.
your a person who empathises, you are like most people, you would not like to be taken advantage of either and you recognise this in her. however usualy when one person is jrunk the other person is too, this is probly why the situation doesn't usualy play out like we would like it to. people who do take advantage of people when they are in a compromised position are reviled, much like the person who was the subject of this thread


EDIT: And even though it's part of who we are, that doesn't make it right.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Bobboau

we as a people decide what is right and wrong, trials and verdicts are only unfair to those who disagree with the majority

No, human beings are perfectly capable of discerning right and wrong. That is what our justice system should reflect, not petty emotions.

so if I have a knife and you have a gun and I come after you, you willnot shoot me because I am a human and it's wrong to kill me? no, I doubt that (though I do assume here), there are exeptions to normal dayly life, most of the time your vengence is overiden by other factors, from mercy to lazyness, only when someone has done something truly horid will you be hell bent on getting back at them, and usualy you'll have a majority of people on your side. but most of the time you won't be slothering about trying to fufill your desiers, you'll be trying to get along, and so will most other people, that is why we haven't killed our selves yet

No, I'm not saying that. I actually premented this argument earlier. Yes, I'd kill you, because you were attacking me. However, that man would be in a jail cell if there was no death penalty, and thus, harming no one.
Yes, people are more concerned with themselves than others, but that doesn't mean people who are capable of thinking above and beyond themselves shouldn't, simply because no one else does.

your a person who empathises, you are like most people, you would not like to be taken advantage of either and you recognise this in her. however usualy when one person is jrunk the other person is too, this is probly why the situation doesn't usualy play out like we would like it to. people who do take advantage of people when they are in a compromised position are reviled, much like the person who was the subject of this thread

No, the reason that I would not take advantage of a person in a compromised state is not because I would not want it to happen to me, but because I see it as completely wrong.

[Bobboau]

how do you know it's wrong?
it feels wrong, it is something you know inherently is going to cause harm.
nobody had to tell you this was wrong right?

emm, yeah, I asnwered that for you, I put that up more to show that you already have exeptions in your 'must be followed at all times' rules.

right and wrong are defined emotionaly.

[phreak]

Everyone's taken the fun out of executions these days.  We need to make it a party again.  Follow my 5 step plan for ultra-awesomeness.

1) Put the Condemned on platform that is 30 feet in the air
2) Tie an unknown length of rope to the Condemned's neck
3) Have the audience and home viewers place bets on whether the Condemned will hit the ground and die, or get get his neck snapped and die.
4) Drop the Condemned
5) FUN!!!1

/sarcasm

[Kie99]

Inappropriate but funny.

[phreak]

Actaully there's a similar Carlin routine, but his idea was to put the executions on pay-per-view and use the revenue to save social security.  I just added interaction to it.

[Ford Prefect]

right and wrong are defined emotionaly.

I think you're right about that, but like I said before, you don't have to use right and wrong to argue this point. Civilization by definition requires us to suppress our animal urge to take revenge, because if you allow people to take revenge, our society will inevitably decay into a Hobbesian state of nature. Consequentially, those who commit atrocities will be punished less than we may feel they deserve so that there is no justification for atrocities against the rest of us.