Faustian Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 what is uncivilised is monsters like fritzel who raped (said to be 3000 times) and tortured his own daughter in a rat infested dungeon for 24 years without any doubt whatsoever of his guilt will die in relative comfort in prison. how anyone can advocate and promote him having the need for human dignity is beyond me, he ceased being human the moment this cruel and evil act started with the first rape. this is not biblical eye for an eye nonsense. its natural revenge, in fact his daughter should be allowed to mete out her chosen form of justice. actually death is too easy for him, he should be lowered into a dank rat infested pit and given the minimal about of food and water to exist and have constant sleep deprevation tactics used on him and daily water boarding and so on till the devil croakes it disclaimer i dont purport to be anymore horrified by this than anyone else. There's nothing natural about revenge. It is a human concept, not generally found amongst other species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTO Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Hi, (Not directed at Faustian, just a general reply.) Ok, slightly different approach. Scenario: You see a guy rape and kill a 15-yr-old girl, but are for whatever reason unable to prevent the crime. Within seconds of killing the girl the guy is apprehended. 100% certainty he committed the crime. Question: What do you think his punishment should be? Sanuk! Because it assumes "you" are 100% honest. The jury doesn't know that. For example your on the jury - only one witness - a priest - who says this man shot the girl. How do we know that is the truth? Maybe the priest shot the girl he was molesting and blamed the faterh who was coming to shoot the priest. "You" when you are the witness knows the truth - but the legal system doesn't know you do - they have to believe yo - and what happens if "You" are lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 if i broke in your house stole your stereo and took and shit on your carpet you'd want to kick my ass. perfectly natural reaction! revenge is a reaction not a 'concept' or idea. other species not have a revenge mechanism perhaps but they also dont lock up their ofspring for 1/4 of a century and pull through unspeakable things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 CTO if this is the case what right does 12 people and a judge have to put people in jail for years on end on hear say????. on your logic people should just be presumed innocent on every occasion and allowed to walk free!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Hi, No, LP, I see CTO's point. The evidence should be compelling enough to establish guilt without reasonable doubt. So, 1 witness may not be enough, but 20 independent witnesses would be. Or 1 witness and a DNA match. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTO Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 KS - Correct - but let's go a little further. A crowd of 50 men see one man get killed - they then say this man killed him. Sounds like compelling evidence Now the devils advocate - let's this evidence isn't allowed in court, that the 50 men are all KKK members and they say one negro killed the other. Evidence that looks completely may not really be real after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 if i broke in your house stole your stereo and took and shit on your carpet Aha ! I bloody well knew it was you, Phil - can you account for your whereabouts on the morning of April 23, 1986 ? No ? I thought as much ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Hi, "Now the devils advocate - let's this evidence isn't allowed in court, that the 50 men are all KKK members and they say one negro killed the other." Hence my mention of 'independent witnesses' 50 men who all know each other are not independent witnesses. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 the Fritzel case is a clear one for execution. Care to explain how you came to that conclusion? His obvious guilt aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playtheblues Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 A judge and a jury sentencing a murderer to death are killing a person in cold blood. Due to the time lag between sentence and execution the convicted murderer usually will await his death with the outmost agony. Many murders are done, not in cold blood but in a spontaneous act of rage. Adrenaline is acting, judgment about consequences is cut off. Many times a murder takes place so fast that the victim dies before having time to understand what is happening. There is thus an asymmetry between the murder act and the penalty. Wasn't one of the last cases of hangings in Britain about a woman who routinely had been beated by her husband until she could not stand it any longer an killed him? She killed him in a rage, her judge killed her in cold blood. There is something revolting about the whole procedure of a state in cold blood killing a person in revenge for his/her act of maybe a hot blooded murder. But there are more difficult cases of course, calculated murder in cold blood. Even though waiting for the execution is horrible, the convicted murderer cannot suffer when he is dead, which is why maybe a life sentence is a harder torment because of its quasi-eternal duration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.