[HoosierDaddy]

1. He wasn't coming down on your disgust. He was coming down on the "lynch"/"mob-think" mentality that was being shown. We have laws that deal with this thing, and they are there so that people can't in reality do what so many in here "want" to do.
2. There is more you can do than bitch and complain. You could be a police officer, a counselor, a conscientious neighbor who takes the time to look at the children in their neighborhood and parents behavior towards them. Things that are all widely more constructed than lamenting the fact that another senseless killing took place.

About the "mental" part. If she was seriously mentally handicapped and couldn't function as a normal person then that would have come out in court do to standard psychiatric and aptitude examinations. That sort of thing generally lessens the severity of punishment, or ends with the person in a different institution.

[eekwibble]

You've missed the point entirely HD.

This 'lamenting', as you accurately describe it, is exactly what needs to happen. More constructive behaviour comes AFTER finding out about the atrocities that occur. It's what gets people to take those jobs that you mentioned in the first place. The finding out part comes from people like Apt being so deliriously appalled that they have to share the knowledge of the crime with as many people as possible for the sake of their own sanity. Some people call this behaviour 'prurient', as I mentioned in my first post on the topic, but I don't believe that it is and it has 2 MAJOR benefits;
1: It shows people that sort of thing happens and they should be alert for it, and
2: It gives the person (in this case Apt) some sort of release from the horror they've just encountered.
I could also argue that people expressing on the interwebs that they think so-and-so should get a 'right fucking beating' for what they've done is nowhere near a lynch mob behaviour, lynch mobs lynch people. It's a natural extension of peoples disgust and a way to make it clear to everyone in the community that they wholeheartedly abhor what that person has done.
Don't tell me that you've never been with a group of guys at a bar and discussed some crime and someone's said that they'd love to kick the fucker's head in, 'cause I won't believe you.
You don't have to be the one that's said it but I'll bet you didn't turn around and try to make excuses for them or inject some ideas on positive rehabilitation strategies.
That goes for Brynjar too.
Don't be such hypocrites.

[HoosierDaddy]

How am I a hypocrite? I see mob-think before a trial has even taken place (although it has been solved now, it wasn't earlier)? I decry vigilante violence?

Quote

Don't tell me that you've never been with a group of guys at a bar and discussed some crime and someone's said that they'd love to kick the fucker's head in, 'cause I won't believe you.
You don't have to be the one that's said it but I'll bet you didn't turn around and try to make excuses for them or inject some ideas on positive rehabilitation strategies.

What does that have ANYTHING to do with my statement above?

By the way, there is absolutely nothing prurient about anything here. NOTHING. If people get their jollies from spreading this story that is sick, and if people get their jollies from the content of the article that is sicker. You do know that prurient has everything to do with lust, arousal, and all things sexual? It's a term that gets thrown around in porno supreme court cases, not child beatings.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 10 February 2009 - 03:31 AM

[eekwibble]

Hoosier, read the post properly for crying out loud. I said 'some people label this behaviour as prurient', not that you or anyone else here has. There's a freelancer who sometimes gets published in one of Englandlands main (clogged) arteries of newspaper mainstream (The Daily Mail); Carol Somethingorother, I can't remember her name, but she would jump on this as a perfect excuse to slag off people who read about it as if they were as bad as the shits that committed the crime, and were getting off on it as well.

People who say they'd love to see someone get their just desserts in some capitalistic (read: violent) sense do not necessarily mean everything they say in the heat of the moment. Something stirs the blood and they think it imperitive, if not justifiable, to lash out verbally against the culprit/s. If something nasty or even fatal were to happen to said culprits do you think Apt or Anomander or ANYONE ELSE on this site would be advocating it? I think not!
I think a little tolerance is due to those who would rather speak and get it out of their system from those who (like myself) consider the longer term implications.

My apologies over the prurience debacle, it's just that I have a long standing hatred of assholes who think things like this should be kept as low-key as possible.

I'm gonna go look for the bitch's name now. I'll edit when I've found it and try to post a link so that you can see how fucked up her viewpoint is.

EDIT: Found it. Sarler! Carol Sarler! I can't find 1 single review of her published sections in either The Daily Mail or The Times, that hasn't been thoroughly lambasted because of her messed-up sense of 'society' and 'society's failings'. It's people like this that need to be given a good fucking kicking imo! =O - *omg, did he just say that?*
Those with longer term objectives of rehabilitation for sick fuckers like child murderers, anyone murderers in fact, rapists and the like should take a step back in their judgement of those that wish to object as strongly as Apt and Anomander (and I'm sure a fair few others) have, considering it's just a lash-out against something they have no wish to dwell on and just want to show their anger about. Grow the fuck up!

This post has been edited by eekwibble: 10 February 2009 - 04:19 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Alright:

1. I'm not sure if you think that I condone the minimizing of publicity here, and if you do, well plainly said: I don't.
2. I'm not sure if you think that I believe that child murderers, serial killers, or whatnot deserve leniency. They don't. Life imprisonment should be just that. Rehabilitation really has no purpose in true life sentences. It's goal is to make the person less of a problem in the system. However, laws are there for a reason. No one wants to see mob rule in real life.
3. I'm not judging visceral reactions here. I've never once in this thread stated that people's opinions were bad or wrong. I had a problem with mob think and in real life the sort of vigilante justice that is a possible result of said mob-think. I think it is just as disgusting as you do. I think it is horrible, wrong, and should never happen. HOWEVER, I am also trained to believe that everyone has their day in court, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that the only true justice is justice done in a court of law.
4. I don't know why you think I am judging you. I never once said your emotions were wrong or out of whack. I'm not judging you at all, but you ARE judging me.
5. Lashing out, in any form is wrong. People do it, I do it, and then I feel bad afterword because lashing out is only and totally an intuitive action that often results in the wrong outcome. There is no THOUGHT behind lashing out. There is no REASON in lashing out. Lashing out is easy to do, but that doesn't make it right. Your defense of "lashing out" is often the defense of the same people you are reasonably and justifiably calling out as monsters.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 10 February 2009 - 04:42 AM

[eekwibble]

I can't believe you replied in bullet points. Man,...

I can't possibly reply to that without sounding like I'm either making it personal or flaming.

End of discussion I guess.

[cerveza_fiesta]

I'm pretty glad this lady got life. Regardless of her mental capacity, she shouldn't be out and about obviously. Hopefully the dude gets the same sentence.

Agree that what folks are posting here sounds like lynch mob mentality, but really...The only mindset the average moral person can have on this issue is extreme disgust. Its a natural extension to wish harm upon the woman. Whether or not that's correct, I'm not sure.

Maybe its for another discussion, but I definitely think the punishment in many cases is for my benefit (by "my" I mean myself and everybody else) rather than for the benefit of the crook/murderer/whatever. Sometimes the punishment can shock a criminal back into reality and help them genuinely rehabilitate, but in cases like this one the punishment is most certainly to appease the public.

Otherwise why would any state adopt the death penalty. It certainly isn't going to rehabilitate the criminal, it just gives everybody peace of mind to know that the criminal got what he/she deserved.

[Obdigore]

cerveza_fiesta, on Feb 24 2009, 06:59 AM, said:

I'm pretty glad this lady got life. Regardless of her mental capacity, she shouldn't be out and about obviously. Hopefully the dude gets the same sentence.

Agree that what folks are posting here sounds like lynch mob mentality, but really...The only mindset the average moral person can have on this issue is extreme disgust. Its a natural extension to wish harm upon the woman. Whether or not that's correct, I'm not sure.

Maybe its for another discussion, but I definitely think the punishment in many cases is for my benefit (by "my" I mean myself and everybody else) rather than for the benefit of the crook/murderer/whatever. Sometimes the punishment can shock a criminal back into reality and help them genuinely rehabilitate, but in cases like this one the punishment is most certainly to appease the public.

Otherwise why would any state adopt the death penalty. It certainly isn't going to rehabilitate the criminal, it just gives everybody peace of mind to know that the criminal got what he/she deserved.

Why is the mindset of the 'average moral person' to wish harm upon someone else?

Shouldn't the mindset be that we wish to stop things like this from happening, not wishing harm upon someone when they do?

[Mezla PigDog]

Obdi beat me to it. I don't wish harm to the woman either. Whoever it was who said that "the mark of civilisation is how it treats its prisoners" was right imo. They should be treated with dignity now matter how awful the crime. Capital punishment is a sad reflection on the people of those States in which it is still used.

[HoosierDaddy]

I don't like the death penalty either. But, if someone killed a member of my immediate family in cold blood... I'd be hard pressed to not want to see some reciprocity. That's what makes these things so murky, and why we have judges and juries who recommend and decide punishments.

Edit: typo

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 24 February 2009 - 09:43 PM

[Obdigore]

But that is the thing.

I support the death penalty, in instances such us numerous rapes/murders where the person knew what they were doing, (IE not insane), and under examination by numerous psychologists, they would do it again if ever released.

I am not for keeping someone like that alive.

Also, Mezla, I believe some people take that quote a little far. Some of the jails over here are better than section 5 housing and other things. I believe that 'paying your debt to society' means you don't get to lounge around with hi-def TV's and play cards all day.

Edit: Just to be clear, the two are inter-related. If going to prison actually involved working your debt off, then perhaps you keep them alive. Right now it is a drain on society.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 24 February 2009 - 09:40 PM

[Mezla PigDog]

Yes, they have that kind of problem in the UK as well. It is one of those mind boggling decisions to give inmates computer consoles and fancy tvs. You cannot imagine the thought processes that go into it. "What should we spend the taxpayers prison budget on?", "I know! Let's give these criminals stuff that a lot of the average taxpayers can't afford".

In the spirit of rehabilitation I think the main focus of prison should be education. How you persuade a bunch of idiot criminals that it is a good idea is beyond my policy forming skills

[HoosierDaddy]

In the U.S. the policy is that education results in less time being served. Up to 50% of prison stay being terminated by "good-time" and getting a GED, Associates Degree, or B.S.

[Obdigore]

Im going to start a new thread on 'prison and punishment ideas' or try and find the old one about the death penalty.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Obdigore, on Feb 24 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

Why is the mindset of the 'average moral person' to wish harm upon someone else? Shouldn't the mindset be that we wish to stop things like this from happening, not wishing harm upon someone when they do?

Mezla PigDog, on Feb 24 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

Obdi beat me to it. I don't wish harm to the woman either. Whoever it was who said that "the mark of civilisation is how it treats its prisoners" was right imo. They should be treated with dignity now matter how awful the crime. Capital punishment is a sad reflection on the people of those States in which it is still used.

Sorry bout my verbiage, I think you both kind of jumped over the middle part of what I said and took it to mean something quite different. I actually said was "The only mindset the average moral person can have on this issue is extreme disgust." and as a separate thought that "Its a natural extension to wish harm upon the woman."

I did not mean that all moral people should wish harm on criminals who commit violent crimes. I did mean that moral people should be extremely revolted by the crime of beating a defenseless child. They may wish harm on the criminal as well, and that would be a natural reaction, though not the only possible reaction a moral person can have.

Just wanting to clear that up so you don't think I'm trying to get all doctrinal.

HoosierDaddy, on Feb 24 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

I don't like the death penalty either. But, if someone killed a member of my immediate family in cold blood... I'd be hard pressed to not want to see some reciprocity. That's what makes these things so murky, and why we have judges and juries who recommend and decide punishments.

Hoosier describes more or less what I mean. He doesn't advocate violent punishments for criminals in general, but finds it difficult not to wish for violent punishments use under certain circumstances...whether its moral or not.

EDIT 2 or 3 times for spelling

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 25 February 2009 - 06:19 PM