A terrible way for a man to die. (Newspaper story) - Page 4

John D Harris · 03-10-2002, 06:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

Actually John D this is one area where I think I partially agree with you. Human Rights are an essantially social concept - they do not exist independant of humans in a society I mean. They are not, as far as I am concerned, a pre-determined condition. So in some ways they can't really be considered inalienable, but in my mind they are simply things that people should have the right to anyway. I think that people should have the right to life under all circumstances, however I do not consider that any kind of pre-set condition on society. I merely think it is the best way to run a society,and the only way I could run one morally. Basically, I can't think of any way in which I could justify killing another person. It won't make anything better and I don't think it is a judgement we are able to make. I understand though, as Talthyr said, that a lot of people don't agree with me on that.

I agree that rights are a societal thing, and are not inalienable. That may piss off a lot of my American brothers & sisters. Our rights came about because the founders of our county said "these are the rights that the citzens of the United States of America will have".

GEEK · 03-10-2002, 07:45 PM

I agree that everyone has a right to live. However I think they give that right up the moment they take that right from someone else. All those that are saying the death penalty is wrong should realize that the person who in sentenced to death killed someone. I just think that you give up your rights to life if you kill someone, other then self defense. I know that one death won't undo another but why give the killer more rights then the victim.

GEEK · 03-10-2002, 07:47 PM

Just a note though. It doesn't matter in this case though because it won't count as a capital crime. I don't think they will seek the death penalty in this case.

Ronn_Bman · 03-10-2002, 08:24 PM

quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:

I agree that rights are a societal thing, and are not inalienable. That may piss off a lot of my American brothers & sisters. Our rights came about because the founders of our county said "these are the rights that the citzens of the United States of America will have".

Much the same as you, I think that statement by our Founding Fathers was regarding what should/could be. Among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Ronn_Bman · 03-10-2002, 08:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel:

Yeah, but don't you see that then you would be commiting the exact same wrong as she did, in fact, that would be done more intently.

Maybe Capital Punishment is wrong, I don't deny it could be even though I believe in it for extreme circumstances, but even if she gets the death penalty, her death will not be more intentional than the man she allowed to die.

She, a qualified medical professional, allowed this man to bleed and die in her garage over a 3 day period, despite checking on him and apologizing for what she had done. She ate her meals, followed her routine, and even slept in her bed knowing a man was dying a horrific, yet preventable death mear yards/meters away. She won't have planned his death any less than her execution will be planned, but she did allow him to suffer for days while her death (if it happens) would be quick and painless.

Sir Kenyth · 03-11-2002, 12:03 PM

A sociopath choosing a career working to care for the sick and infirm. How utterly, disgustingly ironic! Her capability to have performed future injustices is unimaginable.

03-11-2002, 01:07 PM

quote:
Originally posted by khazadman:
pardon my language but the bitch deserves to die the same way he did:slowly bleeding to death while her executioner comes out and talks with her and ignores HER pleas for help.

The "friends" who helpped her ditch the body are not much better either.

Cerek the Barbaric · 03-11-2002, 01:20 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Is it just me or does anyone else find the following phrase ironic:

Person X has complete disregard for human life, so we are going to kill them.

I am not quoting anyone here specifially, but it is an argument that I hear a lot in favour of capital punishment. It was mostly Cerek that brought it back to my mind. I am not bashing the viewpoint and I am definately not trying to flame, I just consider it a very comical statement in some lights.

Basically my view on capital punishment is that we are unable to judge for ourselves when someone deserves to die. I am a strong Christian and that believes me to think that God is the only one who can make decisions like that. I personally don't feel qualified to say if a person deserves death, no matter what they have done. Sorry.

Barry,

I tried to Reply to this Saturday night, but my Response never got Posted (I think the forum was acting up a bit). I understand your disagreement and take no offense at your statements. Indeed, I respect anybody that can offer a dissenting view on such a controversial topic in such a straightforward manner without being disrespectful. Job well done.

I understand that my viewpoint appears contradictory on the surface, so I will try to explain it a little better.

If Person X has such a complete disregard for human life that they can kill Person Y in cold blood (or allow them to die, as in this case), then Person X represents a very real danger to society in general. Therefore, Person X should be permanently removed from society. Life imprisonment usually does NOT accomplish that, because there is ALWAYS a chance for parole or an appeal. In fact, it's common to hear of someone who has committed a particularly atrocious crime (like this one) being sentenced to Life + X-number of years. How can you keep somebody in prison for 15-20 years after they die? But judges have to do that to insure that a Life Imprisonment sentence actually comes close to being a true sentence. If they just sentence them to Life Imprisonment, then the criminal stands a good chance of getting out eventually.

One other thing to keep in mind is that these people are CRIMINALS!!! They aren't misunderstood or disenfranchised or victims of society. They are people who CHOOSE to break the laws established by our society. If you remove the punishment for committing crimes, then you remove any incentive for them to stop.

Talthyr Malkaviel · 03-11-2002, 01:41 PM

Ahhh, I think Barry defined well what I meant by that, let me expatiate on what I said earlier.
Rights are not inalienable in my view, they are brought by society, and is a good system to boot.
Imagine what the world would be like without humans, would a lion stop to think of the damage he was doing to the zebra population?? No, I mean, of course luckily we do have these rights, but if it weren't for society protecting said rights, they would not be in place/ adhered to.

Barry the Sprout · 03-12-2002, 07:34 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:

Barry,

I tried to Reply to this Saturday night, but my Response never got Posted (I think the forum was acting up a bit). I understand your disagreement and take no offense at your statements. Indeed, I respect anybody that can offer a dissenting view on such a controversial topic in such a straightforward manner without being disrespectful. Job well done.

I understand that my viewpoint appears contradictory on the surface, so I will try to explain it a little better.

If Person X has such a complete disregard for human life that they can kill Person Y in cold blood (or allow them to die, as in this case), then Person X represents a very real danger to society in general. Therefore, Person X should be permanently removed from society. Life imprisonment usually does NOT accomplish that, because there is ALWAYS a chance for parole or an appeal. In fact, it's common to hear of someone who has committed a particularly atrocious crime (like this one) being sentenced to Life + X-number of years. How can you keep somebody in prison for 15-20 years after they die? But judges have to do that to insure that a Life Imprisonment sentence actually comes close to being a true sentence. If they just sentence them to Life Imprisonment, then the criminal stands a good chance of getting out eventually.

One other thing to keep in mind is that these people are CRIMINALS!!! They aren't misunderstood or disenfranchised or victims of society. They are people who CHOOSE to break the laws established by our society. If you remove the punishment for committing crimes, then you remove any incentive for them to stop.

Well, first off - thanks! I try my best... [img]smile.gif[/img]

So your argument is a practical one - whilst it may be wrong to kill a person under any circumstances it is the lesser of two evils as she is dangerous alive. Well, in that case we would first need to be absolutely sure that there was no possible chance for redemption. If you are going to kill her on that justification then we need to be absolutely certain that she is dangerous and that if let her live she will kill again.

My problem is that there is always chance for redemption. There is always the possibility that out of an entire life of crime even, one day of "normalcy" might be squeezed. And we have lost the opportunity to find out, because we just kill her. You don't know why she did it, it might have been something she was going through at the time. That doesn't excuse it, but it does mean she is unlikely to do it again, so it blows the whole practicality argument out of the water. I like the idea in some respects Cerek, I just think it is still a little too risky for me.

And for your final point - I will try and remember they are criminals. You try and remember they are people.

03-10-2002, 06:46 PM	#31
John D Harris Ninja Storm Shadow Join Date: March 27, 2001 Location: Northport,Alabama, USA Age: 62 Posts: 3,577	quote: Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Actually John D this is one area where I think I partially agree with you. Human Rights are an essantially social concept - they do not exist independant of humans in a society I mean. They are not, as far as I am concerned, a pre-determined condition. So in some ways they can't really be considered inalienable, but in my mind they are simply things that people should have the right to anyway. I think that people should have the right to life under all circumstances, however I do not consider that any kind of pre-set condition on society. I merely think it is the best way to run a society,and the only way I could run one morally. Basically, I can't think of any way in which I could justify killing another person. It won't make anything better and I don't think it is a judgement we are able to make. I understand though, as Talthyr said, that a lot of people don't agree with me on that. I agree that rights are a societal thing, and are not inalienable. That may piss off a lot of my American brothers & sisters. Our rights came about because the founders of our county said "these are the rights that the citzens of the United States of America will have". __________________ Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts

03-10-2002, 08:24 PM	#34
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: I agree that rights are a societal thing, and are not inalienable. That may piss off a lot of my American brothers & sisters. Our rights came about because the founders of our county said "these are the rights that the citzens of the United States of America will have". Much the same as you, I think that statement by our Founding Fathers was regarding what should/could be. Among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-10-2002, 08:38 PM	#35
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Yeah, but don't you see that then you would be commiting the exact same wrong as she did, in fact, that would be done more intently. Maybe Capital Punishment is wrong, I don't deny it could be even though I believe in it for extreme circumstances, but even if she gets the death penalty, her death will not be more intentional than the man she allowed to die. She, a qualified medical professional, allowed this man to bleed and die in her garage over a 3 day period, despite checking on him and apologizing for what she had done. She ate her meals, followed her routine, and even slept in her bed knowing a man was dying a horrific, yet preventable death mear yards/meters away. She won't have planned his death any less than her execution will be planned, but she did allow him to suffer for days while her death (if it happens) would be quick and painless. __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-11-2002, 12:03 PM	#36
Sir Kenyth Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: August 30, 2001 Location: somewhere Age: 54 Posts: 1,785	A sociopath choosing a career working to care for the sick and infirm. How utterly, disgustingly ironic! Her capability to have performed future injustices is unimaginable. __________________ Master Barbsman and wielder of the razor wit!<br /><br />There are dark angels among us. They present themselves in shining raiment but there is, in their hearts, the blackness of the abyss.

03-11-2002, 01:07 PM	#37
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	quote: Originally posted by khazadman: pardon my language but the bitch deserves to die the same way he did:slowly bleeding to death while her executioner comes out and talks with her and ignores HER pleas for help. The "friends" who helpped her ditch the body are not much better either.

03-10-2002, 07:45 PM	#32
GEEK The Magister Join Date: January 31, 2002 Location: USA Posts: 101	I agree that everyone has a right to live. However I think they give that right up the moment they take that right from someone else. All those that are saying the death penalty is wrong should realize that the person who in sentenced to death killed someone. I just think that you give up your rights to life if you kill someone, other then self defense. I know that one death won't undo another but why give the killer more rights then the victim.

03-10-2002, 07:47 PM	#33
GEEK The Magister Join Date: January 31, 2002 Location: USA Posts: 101	Just a note though. It doesn't matter in this case though because it won't count as a capital crime. I don't think they will seek the death penalty in this case.

03-11-2002, 01:20 PM	#38
Cerek the Barbaric Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: October 29, 2001 Location: North Carolina Age: 61 Posts: 3,257	quote: Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Is it just me or does anyone else find the following phrase ironic: Person X has complete disregard for human life, so we are going to kill them. I am not quoting anyone here specifially, but it is an argument that I hear a lot in favour of capital punishment. It was mostly Cerek that brought it back to my mind. I am not bashing the viewpoint and I am definately not trying to flame, I just consider it a very comical statement in some lights. Basically my view on capital punishment is that we are unable to judge for ourselves when someone deserves to die. I am a strong Christian and that believes me to think that God is the only one who can make decisions like that. I personally don't feel qualified to say if a person deserves death, no matter what they have done. Sorry. Barry, I tried to Reply to this Saturday night, but my Response never got Posted (I think the forum was acting up a bit). I understand your disagreement and take no offense at your statements. Indeed, I respect anybody that can offer a dissenting view on such a controversial topic in such a straightforward manner without being disrespectful. Job well done. I understand that my viewpoint appears contradictory on the surface, so I will try to explain it a little better. If Person X has such a complete disregard for human life that they can kill Person Y in cold blood (or allow them to die, as in this case), then Person X represents a very real danger to society in general. Therefore, Person X should be permanently removed from society. Life imprisonment usually does NOT accomplish that, because there is ALWAYS a chance for parole or an appeal. In fact, it's common to hear of someone who has committed a particularly atrocious crime (like this one) being sentenced to Life + X-number of years. How can you keep somebody in prison for 15-20 years after they die? But judges have to do that to insure that a Life Imprisonment sentence actually comes close to being a true sentence. If they just sentence them to Life Imprisonment, then the criminal stands a good chance of getting out eventually. One other thing to keep in mind is that these people are CRIMINALS!!! They aren't misunderstood or disenfranchised or victims of society. They are people who CHOOSE to break the laws established by our society. If you remove the punishment for committing crimes, then you remove any incentive for them to stop. __________________ [img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth

03-11-2002, 01:41 PM	#39
Talthyr Malkaviel Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: August 31, 2001 Location: Land of the Britons Age: 37 Posts: 3,224	Ahhh, I think Barry defined well what I meant by that, let me expatiate on what I said earlier. Rights are not inalienable in my view, they are brought by society, and is a good system to boot. Imagine what the world would be like without humans, would a lion stop to think of the damage he was doing to the zebra population?? No, I mean, of course luckily we do have these rights, but if it weren't for society protecting said rights, they would not be in place/ adhered to. __________________ Resident cantankerous sorcerer of the Clan HADB<br />and Sorcerous Nuttella salesman of the O.R.T<br /> <br /><br />Say NO to the Trouser Tyranny! Can I drill you about this?

03-12-2002, 07:34 AM	#40
Barry the Sprout White Dragon Join Date: October 19, 2001 Location: York, UK. Age: 41 Posts: 1,815	quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Barry, I tried to Reply to this Saturday night, but my Response never got Posted (I think the forum was acting up a bit). I understand your disagreement and take no offense at your statements. Indeed, I respect anybody that can offer a dissenting view on such a controversial topic in such a straightforward manner without being disrespectful. Job well done. I understand that my viewpoint appears contradictory on the surface, so I will try to explain it a little better. If Person X has such a complete disregard for human life that they can kill Person Y in cold blood (or allow them to die, as in this case), then Person X represents a very real danger to society in general. Therefore, Person X should be permanently removed from society. Life imprisonment usually does NOT accomplish that, because there is ALWAYS a chance for parole or an appeal. In fact, it's common to hear of someone who has committed a particularly atrocious crime (like this one) being sentenced to Life + X-number of years. How can you keep somebody in prison for 15-20 years after they die? But judges have to do that to insure that a Life Imprisonment sentence actually comes close to being a true sentence. If they just sentence them to Life Imprisonment, then the criminal stands a good chance of getting out eventually. One other thing to keep in mind is that these people are CRIMINALS!!! They aren't misunderstood or disenfranchised or victims of society. They are people who CHOOSE to break the laws established by our society. If you remove the punishment for committing crimes, then you remove any incentive for them to stop. Well, first off - thanks! I try my best... [img]smile.gif[/img] So your argument is a practical one - whilst it may be wrong to kill a person under any circumstances it is the lesser of two evils as she is dangerous alive. Well, in that case we would first need to be absolutely sure that there was no possible chance for redemption. If you are going to kill her on that justification then we need to be absolutely certain that she is dangerous and that if let her live she will kill again. My problem is that there is always chance for redemption. There is always the possibility that out of an entire life of crime even, one day of "normalcy" might be squeezed. And we have lost the opportunity to find out, because we just kill her. You don't know why she did it, it might have been something she was going through at the time. That doesn't excuse it, but it does mean she is unlikely to do it again, so it blows the whole practicality argument out of the water. I like the idea in some respects Cerek, I just think it is still a little too risky for me. And for your final point - I will try and remember they are criminals. You try and remember they are people. __________________ [img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A terrible story. Don't visit hot springs with pets!	Sir Kenyth	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	12	10-15-2004 03:42 PM
Terroble, terrible, terrible....	Ilander	Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics)	19	02-21-2004 01:18 PM
Newspaper Ad????	Arvon	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	2	07-25-2002 11:08 AM
Newspaper article (by me!)	Barry the Sprout	General Discussion	99	01-16-2002 11:59 AM
Newspaper	Moridin	General Discussion	7	07-03-2001 01:57 PM