DEATH for the DC sniper

[FuSoYa]

Actually, I agree. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[xfer]

OMG toby GANDALF THE GREY disagrees with you. how can you argue with GANDALF THE GREY?

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

 

[FuSoYa]

Yeah, that's a pretty obvious philosophy.

But I think in relation to this case, it would imply not imprisoning him at all.

 

[FalseTodd]

You're basically saying that J.A.M. shouldn't have gotten death only because certain other people who have gotten death might not have deserved it.

OR you are saying that J.A.M. shouldn't have gotten death because you have a moral objection to killing, regardless of circumstance.

OR you are saying that J.A.M. shouldn't have gotten death because the government's power ought to be restricted.

The fact remains, the dude would best serve society by dying.

Um, shouldn't the burden of justification lie on deciding to end a life, not deciding not to? Your argument only works if you assume that killing J.A.M.is the "natural" or "sensible" thing to do, unless there is an extenuating circumstance. That society would be best served by J.A.M.'s death is not a fact.

 

[xfer]

"I disagree" was edited into "I agree".

 

[FuSoYa]

No, there should be no burden of justification. Everyone should agree.

And if there is a burden of justification it should lie on those who are acting out of a desire to be perceived as 'good people' rather than on those who are acting practically.

 

[xfer]

Practically generally means resources, not principle.

 

[FuSoYa]

Yes, I know. This is in response to Sam's. I'm saying that it is the sensible thing to do.

 

[FalseTodd]

The practicality of his death has been in question at several points in this thread! You're operating on the assumption that your opinion is the natural order of things!

 

[FuSoYa]

I guess.

 

[FuSoYa]

In actuality I think that no one knows what the natural order of things is, but I also think that if you run shit based on notions that Fate will take care of things then you might as well let J.A.M. run free.

 

[AndICried]

Question 2: Should people go to jail with absolutely no chance of parole for the rest of their life?

 

[xfer]

Sure, why not? As Toby said, sometimes people are permanently not able to be a part of society anymore. They can still grow as people, learn to look inward, perhaps be redeemed. In a jail cell.

 

[FuSoYa]

Well, you're giving them the opportunity to devise an escape. So, yeah.

 

[xfer]

Oh, come on. The chance of that compared to the number of criminals overall is almost as minimal as the possibility that their victims will be found having been accidentally buried alive.

 

[AndICried]

What I meant was: Should some people go to jail with absolutely no opportunity for rehabilitation into society.

 

[FalseTodd]

What I meant was: Should some people go to jail with absolutely no opportunity for rehabilitation into society.

With those stated goals? No. With that as a possible outcome? Yes.

 

[xfer]

Hitler would come to mind.

 

[FalseTodd]

In actuality I think that no one knows what the natural order of things is, but I also think that if you run shit based on notions that Fate will take care of things then you might as well let J.A.M. run free.

I don't think this anything to do with throwing up your hands to the winds of Fate. We lock people up and deprive their rights to keep them from depriving other people of their rights. Execution goes beyond this, IMO.

 

[FuSoYa]

That's a good point.