Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[ehcks]

That only works, if you do in fact, feel guilt. This seems unlikely when you take part in a gang rape. Being "one of the boys" can rationalize a lot of evil.

Which is caused by a lack of education and societal and cultural failings. These can be fixed.

Perhaps it may not apply to a true sociopath with absolutely no ability to feel guilt or even understand that their actions can have consequences. I do not think that's who we're talking about here. What we have is a person raised to believe that women are not people. That they're property. Toys, even. He decided to break his toy to get a new one.

Put him in a secured institution designed to teach him that those kinds of beliefs are not just wrong, but harmful. That what he did is unacceptable. That his actions were evil, and that his culture's ideas on the subject are wrong. Then if/when he understands this, let him go.

Killing him solves nothing. It doesn't restore any damage he caused. It merely gives a sense of vengeance, which is not justice.

 

[sadhatter]

Death is a mercy.

Living with guilt is a torture.

Who says they feel guilty?

 

[MontagK505]

Which is caused by a lack of education and societal and cultural failings. These can be fixed. Perhaps it may not apply to a true sociopath with absolutely no ability to feel guilt or even understand that their actions can have consequences. I do not think that's who we're talking about here. What we have is a person raised to believe that women are not people. That they're property. Toys, even. He decided to break his toy to get a new one.

Put him in a secured institution designed to teach him that those kinds of beliefs are not just wrong, but harmful. That what he did is unacceptable. That his actions were evil, and that his culture's ideas on the subject are wrong. Then if/when he understands this, let him go.
Killing him solves nothing. It doesn't restore any damage he caused. It merely gives a sense of vengeance, which is not justice.

If a person actually believes that his evil acts are caused by a lack of education and societal and cultural failings, then it becomes easy to rationalize wrong behavior because it's not really them that's doing it. It's society's fault, not theirs, so why should they change?

A true sociopath can fake understanding of wrong doing. That's what makes them dangerous.

Killing does keep them from repeating the act. Lifetime imprisonment in a sealed room would produce the same result.

 

[Francesca R]

Enough to make one support the death penalty...

You didn't support the death penalty before, but that was because you had not heard about crimes bad enough? And now you have?

Or something else?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, they are less than animals!

No, animals are often like that, too.

My priority is to get people to quit resorting to violence to demonstrate how righteous they are in their moral and ethical beliefs.

Indeed. We often resort to means of punishment that say more about us than the offender. Sure enough, people who commit these crimes must be dealt with, but acting out of a desire for revenge serves no one.

It seems you are more upset by the fact that these vermin are going to be sentenced to death for their gang rape and lynching of a pair of young children that you are by their sickening actions.

Aw, what a nice appeal to emotion, there.

Killing a potential murderer to stay alive is a good and desirous outcome.

We are ALL potential murderers.

 

[Belz...]

Where did he argue that people who haven't butchered another human being should remove themselves from society?

The poster's point is that since potential killers must be removed from society, and some here want those killers killed, themselves therefore becoming potential killers, they should be removed as well.

I am pretty sure that education and wealth made for the lowering of the crime and violence rate, not death penalty.

This.

 

[angrysoba]

You didn't support the death penalty before, but that was because you had not heard about crimes bad enough? And now you have?

Or something else?

Yeah, I would say that most people who don't support the death penalty have particular principles that make them see it as wrong in every case rather than because of a lack of good candidates.

 

[sgtbaker]

I have revenge fantasies about slowly feeding these people feet-first into a tree-shredder. It's highly unlikely I would do if given the opportunity. I do not treat any thought as sub-human, it's simply a thought like sexual fantasies with beautiful women. Although for me the idea of having sex with a beautiful woman is much more pleasant.

Then I don't thing you and I are that far off in opinion.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Extremism is rarely a good response to perceived extremism.

That is the irony here.

These men were raised in a society where these girls were not thought to deserve the same consideration as a human, therefore they treated them like less than animals.

Some posters here are advocating for a society where these men are not thought to deserve the same consideration as a human, therefore they can be treated like less than animals.

To point this out is not an attempt to create some equivalence between these men and their victims, only to highlight the parallels in the thought process that allowed these men to justify their actions and those who are calling for treating them as sub-human. And maybe to recognize that these thoughts are very human, no matter the context.

As between a society that kills murderers and one that rapes and kills girls based on their class, the choice is easy. But is there no room for a society that kills neither?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

*snip*

Let's summarise your points.

1. You advocate a totalitarian system far beyond 1984 and the NSA, and trust the government wholeheartedly not to abuse it. Bear in mind, this is the same government that considered it a good policy to make people watch their families get tortured, and the NSA already has issues with creepy stalkers. Could you imagine Joe McCarthy with this system?

2. Your system would absolve criminals of any responsibility because "they are mentally ill". This is another totalitarian aspect, because not only did the USSR consider dissidents "mentally ill", but it denies individual agency in anything.

3. Science when it is applied blindly to sociology never ends well. The result is The War on Drugs (New Jim Crow), Polygraphs, or Phrenology or the attitudes that led to the Tuskegee study. For someone who accuses anyone who disagrees with them of promoting "ignorance and superstition", you have some pretty blind faith in science and its effects on society.

4. You put pot smokers and speeders on the same level of murderers and rapists, which is a pretty bad precedent and lacks nuance.

5. On the Death Penalty, I don't see how putting the likes of Ian Watkins or Jeffrey Dahmer on an electric chair is a sign that society had failed so much as "these are vile monsters who have forfeited their right to life because their crimes were so heinous". Also, citations are needed for links between death penalty statutes and crime sprees.

6. Lastly, evil is a choice. Look at Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. And before you go "Muh Mental Health Services!", they were not sick in the sense that they were ill, but rabid dogs that should be put down.

 

[Trakar]

That is the irony here.

These men were raised in a society where these girls were not thought to deserve the same consideration as a human, therefore they treated them like less than animals.

Some posters here are advocating for a society where these men are not thought to deserve the same consideration as a human, therefore they can be treated like less than animals.

To point this out is not an attempt to create some equivalence between these men and their victims, only to highlight the parallels in the thought process that allowed these men to justify their actions and those who are calling for treating them as sub-human. And maybe to recognize that these thoughts are very human, no matter the context.

As between a society that kills murderers and one that rapes and kills girls based on their class, the choice is easy. But is there no room for a society that kills neither?

Welcome to the discussion, you make points I have been attempting to make since I joined the discussion! My main point is a bit more nuanced perhaps. I'm not even saying that no killing should ever be tolerated, merely the acknowledgement that killing is always an undesirable and bad choice. This isn't saying that there are never circumstances where we should or must kill, only that even on the occasions when we do kill, that the act should be considered a regrettable and undesirous action, not something that should ever be cheered and celebrated or most especially should not be justified as a good and desired choice of action.

 

[Belz...]

On the Death Penalty, I don't see how putting the likes of Ian Watkins or Jeffrey Dahmer on an electric chair is a sign that society had failed so much as "these are vile monsters who have forfeited their right to life because their crimes were so heinous".

How does one forfeit the right to life ?

 

[trustbutverify]

The poster's point is that since potential killers must be removed from society, and some here want those killers killed, themselves therefore becoming potential killers, they should be removed as well.

The poster's bumbling attempt at a point was in reply to a comment that made no mention of "potential" anything. It advocated capitol punishment (or life without parole) for crimes of particularly extreme cruelty. The "logic" employed in the reply would result in people who hadn't committed any crime (outside of having an opinion) being removed from society before people who had performed atrocities on two innocent girls.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Welcome to the discussion,

I like to show up after you have taken all the heat!

you make points I have been attempting to make since I joined the discussion! My main point is a bit more nuanced perhaps. I'm not even saying that no killing should ever be tolerated, merely the acknowledgement that killing is always an undesirable and bad choice. This isn't saying that there are never circumstances where we should or must kill, only that even on the occasions when we do kill, that the act should be considered a regrettable and undesirous action, not something that should ever be cheered and celebrated or most especially should not be justified as a good and desired choice of action.

I think I get your point and simply tried to build off it. You laid a pretty nice foundation:

In every scenario where someone must die, and lets just admit that there are such scenarios, the death should be because other options were not sufficient, not because we want that person to die.

When we start to want people to die we really need to reconsider our own motives. And that is where I saw the parallels in thinking. How does the dehumanizing of these men compare to their dehumanizing of these girls? They are not the same, but they are not completely different either.

 

[Dr. Keith]

How does one forfeit the right to life ?

Being prideful of one's technological achievements and questioning the religious beliefs of one's superior officer? Should we ask Admiral Motti?

 

[newyorkguy]

...These men were raised in a society where these girls were not thought to deserve the same consideration as a human, therefore they treated them like less than animals...

When you know men like this it's not an abstract thought. I worked with two South Asian men who were unapologetic about being sexist. One was my department manager for a time.

I was working in a small office with a female tech from another department. We became friendly and would chat as we worked. The manager and his buddy began teasing me about this. He used to laugh and say, "Why do you want to talk to a woman?" He genuinely thought it was embarrassing, talking to a woman co-worker the same way I would talk to a male co-worker, that I was humiliating myself.

I asked was he serious, I said I thought he was being ridiculous. He shook his head in disbelief. He said, "If there was a dog in the office, you'd carry on a conversation with it?"

I asked was he comparing women to dogs?

He got frustrated. He said, "Look, I like women but they're basically the same as an animal, as a chicken or cow or horse. They serve a purpose, that's all."

He thought I was the one out-of-step with reality. That was the way he was raised, the way he was taught. When you live in a society like that, most people just accept the societal norms, they don't question them or rebel against them.

 

[Dr. Keith]

When you know men like this it's not an abstract thought. I worked with two South Asian men who were unapologetic about being sexist. One was my department manager for a time.

I was working in a small office with a female tech from another department. We became friendly and would chat as we worked. The manager and his buddy began teasing me about this. He used to laugh and say, "Why do you want to talk to a woman?" He genuinely thought it was embarrassing, talking to a woman co-worker the same way I would talk to a male co-worker, that I was humiliating myself.

I asked was he serious, I said I thought he was being ridiculous. He shook his head in disbelief. He said, "If there was a dog in the office, you'd carry on a conversation with it?"

I asked was he comparing women to dogs?

He got frustrated. He said, "Look, I like women but they're basically the same as an animal, as a chicken or cow or horse. They serve a purpose, that's all."

He thought I was the one out-of-step with reality. That was the way he was raised, the way he was taught. When you live in a society like that, most people just accept the societal norms, they don't question them or rebel against them.

Addressing this is likely far more important than punishing these two men. Not that these men don't deserve to be punished, but I would let them off if we could change the culture that created them.

 

[Belz...]

Being prideful of one's technological achievements and questioning the religious beliefs of one's superior officer? Should we ask Admiral Motti?

Charming to the last.

 

[MontagK505]

That is the irony here.

These men were raised in a society where these girls were not thought to deserve the same consideration as a human, therefore they treated them like less than animals.

Some posters here are advocating for a society where these men are not thought to deserve the same consideration as a human, therefore they can be treated like less than animals.

To point this out is not an attempt to create some equivalence between these men and their victims, only to highlight the parallels in the thought process that allowed these men to justify their actions and those who are calling for treating them as sub-human. And maybe to recognize that these thoughts are very human, no matter the context. As between a society that kills murderers and one that rapes and kills girls based on their class, the choice is easy. But is there no room for a society that kills neither?

There is a difference in that the victims were raped and killed because of their gender and social class, where the criminals are being judged based on their specific acts. They acted less than human and therefore they are perceived as being less than human.

 

[trustbutverify]

Addressing this is likely far more important than punishing these two men. Not that these men don't deserve to be punished, but I would let them off if we could change the culture that created them.

Why would you want to let people who gang rape and lynch kids off?