KKK member sentenced 60 years 76 replies

Please wait...

Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,568 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,161 Posts

6 Threads

#71 13 years ago
MephistophelesI wouldn't serve an authoritarian surveillance state for the sake of total protection.

I wouldn't want you to, IMO protecting privacy of the individual is one of a government's main responsibilities. There are some lines we cannot cross without defeating the point of the exercise. My ideas of what I'd like to replace the current system in the way of punishments are debatable, they may not even be good ideas. But the rest of it, well I can't see the point in tracking these people down. It's petty and wasteful.




Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,707 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,674 Posts

780 Threads

#72 13 years ago
Nemmerle"He broke the law. He broke the law!" Well yes he did. It doesn't make it right to punsh him at this stage because we have a law that says that we should do so. This is not him taking responsibility for his actions, to my mind people are always responsible, they can try and deny it but they're always responsible. Does this force him to acknowledge the error of his actions? No it does not. Therefore it is not making him take responsibility for them in the sense you most likely mean.

On the contrary, it'll make him question whether or not wasting away the last precious years of his life was worth him killing three people all those years ago. The conclusion he'll come to is 'no, it wasn't.'

Of course any law which isn't the current law is anarchy :rolleyes:

What you're proposing is that we arbitrarily let people off the hook because of their age. Maybe we should start letting cute people get away with things as well, because they're just too cute to be hidden from the world?! No. Such subjective opinions would lead to anarchy.

Where have I said I will single handedly rewrite the legal system? Point to it. Oh dear, you can't. Someone asked what I would do if I could and I answered.

Allowing people to get off the hook is a contrast to (the intentions of, at least) our current legal system. Ergo, you intend to rewrite it.

Typical western arogance, hey Matt, you like gun control right? Well best hop off to Nazi Germany :rolleyes:

I like gun control so that people like yourself can't get hold of guns so easily.

Just because somewhere with a regretable situation decides to do something doesn't make it wrong. I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue though

I'm not even sure what you are saying there.

Fuck what's right, screw what's good. Let's just take our vengeance, let's make him HURT. *Irrelevant emotional blackmail* That's not Justice.

No. That's your theory, though, not mine. You're the one in favour of torture and killing.

"It's the law, it's the law" Well the law is in the wrong. Not that you care.

That's where you're wrong -- it's not. This law is sound.

He's managed to keep his nose clean for what, four decades, if he was going to do a repeat killing then he'd have likely done it before now. I can't be one hundred percent sure, but we can be reasonably sure.

He's managed to keep his nose clean for four decades, most likely, to avoid being detected, which would imply some degree of intelligence. This suggests to me that he planned to kill those three people and showed no remorse in doing so, which suggests he would have no problem doing it again.

Odd that you're willing to do anything to him whether it's morally right or not just because it's the law but you oppose the torturing of terrorists for information, and corporal punishment. Even a bit hypocritical.

The torturing of terrorists and corporal punishment IS illegal, in case you didn't know. And it's YOU willing to do anything to anybody, I might add, not me. He got his prison sentence all by himself, he doesn't need any help from me.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,568 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,161 Posts

6 Threads

#73 13 years ago

Oh dear, Matt, :vikki: *sigh*

"It's the law" That's the ground you've decided to have this on, well we can make a lot of things the law, and "it's the law" wouldn't make them right. But if we accept your argument then it would, which clearly cannot be. If we make genocide legal, then by your argument that's okay now.

Mr. MattWhat you're proposing is that we arbitrarily let people off the hook because of their age. Maybe we should start letting cute people get away with things as well, because they're just too cute to be hidden from the world?![/quote]

Don't be absurd. I'm suggesting that we let people off the hook so to speak based upon the time it has been they committed the crime and their history of offences. By all accounts this has been a one off and he is unlikely to do it again.

Mr. MattOn the contrary, it'll make him question whether or not wasting away the last precious years of his life was worth him killing three people all those years ago. The conclusion he'll come to is 'no, it wasn't.'[/quote]

Irrelevant, it does not make him acknowledge that what he did was wrong. He might wish he hadn't done it but that's a different thing entirely.

Mr. MattAllowing people to get off the hook is a contrast to (the intentions of, at least) our current legal system. Ergo, you intend to rewrite it.

You dislike Blair, ergo you intend to assassinate him... You dislike joining the EU ergo you intend to destroy it. :rolleyes:

[quote=Mr. Matt]He's managed to keep his nose clean for four decades, most likely, to avoid being detected, which would imply some degree of intelligence. This suggests to me that he planned to kill those three people and showed no remorse in doing so, which suggests he would have no problem doing it again.

I don't care why he's kept his nose clean, nor do I care if he would have a problem doing it again. All that is important is the likelihood of him doing it again, which is, given that he has not done it in forty years, very low.

[quote=Mr. Matt]The torturing of terrorists and corporal punishment IS illegal, in case you didn't know.

But it can be made legal, and when/if it is then you're argument that "It's the law... Therefore we have to do it" Will apply to that as well.




Oblivious

I tawt I taw a puddy tat...

50 XP

30th December 2002

0 Uploads

2,806 Posts

0 Threads

#74 13 years ago

:n0e:

How can anyone seriously try to defend not doing anything with this individual? He killed 3 people. What does it matter what he's done since then? Squeeky clean or not, he killed 3 people. Incarcerating him is not a meant as a to deterrant to other criminals, but as punishment for his actions. He did, after all, kill 3 people.

And please enlighten us again, because maybe I missed it: What was it we should do with murderers who don't get caught for a long time? Nothing? Leave 'em alone? Should we just toss out all the Cold Cases? What is the exact timeframe that a murder case becomes OK and not worth prosecuting because it was done in the past? Obviously, 40 years is fine. What about 20 years, or 10? Hell, why not make it just 5?

:kerian:

He was convicted by a jury of his peers for killing 3 people. He needs to serve his time. End of story.




Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,707 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,674 Posts

780 Threads

#75 13 years ago
NemmerleOh dear, Matt, :vikki: *sigh* "It's the law" That's the ground you've decided to have this on, well we can make a lot of things the law, and "it's the law" wouldn't make them right. But if we accept your argument then it would, which clearly cannot be. If we make genocide legal, then by your argument that's okay now.

The law that has been broken here is that this man has MURDERED three people. If you're in favour of changing this law, then fine. But I'm not.

Don't be absurd. I'm suggesting that we let people off the hook so to speak based upon the time it has been they committed the crime and their history of offences. By all accounts this has been a one off and he is unlikely to do it again.

The fact that he has done it in the first place means he is perfectly likely to do it again if given a reason. Everyone is capable of murder, but very few people actually act on that capability. And when you've done it once, it's a lot easier to do it again. That mentality will be with him still. The fact that he hasn't killed since doesn't mean that he's not more prone than most to do so.

Irrelevant, it does not make him acknowledge that what he did was wrong. He might wish he hadn't done it but that's a different thing entirely.

That's all you can hope to achieve. As this forum clearly demonstrates it's virtually impossible to force somebody to change on such a deep level.

You dislike Blair, ergo you intend to assassinate him... You dislike joining the EU ergo you intend to destroy it. :rolleyes:

Yes, because that's exactly the same thing.

I don't care why he's kept his nose clean, nor do I care if he would have a problem doing it again. All that is important is the likelihood of him doing it again, which is, given that he has not done it in forty years, very low.

The point being, if we had a time limit on how long you could get away with murder, other people (perhaps also this person) might not be so inclined to never do it again once they passed by that time limit. You're thinking in regards to this one case, and only in regards to AFTER the crime has been committed. The law serves not just as a protective entity but a preventative one as well. Rewarding people for evading detection for a certain amount of time regardless of the severity of their act won't help this. I'll agree with you that such a system could be put into place for far more minor offences. If you shoplifted once in your youth, and then 20 years later the police come and fine you for doing so, then that is being a little overly pedantic. But murder is far too extreme, far too damaging, far too unforgivable and psychologically complicated for such a passive attitude.

But it can be made legal, and when/if it is then you're argument that "It's the law... Therefore we have to do it" Will apply to that as well.

Well, if it is made legal, fine. I'll move to a different, less insane country. But it won't, as the rest of the country isn't quite as... unique, as you are.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#76 13 years ago

Why does this even need discussing? He was found guilty for the murders of three people, without any mental deficiencies or handicaps. He is sentenced to something like 60 to life, and he DESERVES IT. He commited three acts of homicide. He is now being punished for it, with no possibility of parole. He will spend what is probably the rest of his life in an 8'*10' cell, with food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,568 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,161 Posts

6 Threads

#77 13 years ago
Mr. MattThe fact that he has done it in the first place means he is perfectly likely to do it again if given a reason. Everyone is capable of murder, but very few people actually act on that capability. And when you've done it once, it's a lot easier to do it again. That mentality will be with him still. The fact that he hasn't killed since doesn't mean that he's not more prone than most to do so.

That he killed without justification making him more predisposed to it... Hmm, wouldn't work that way for me, there's a set of conditions for the application of force but, hmm. You're probably right there, I concede, lock him away.