Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
hang the damn bastard!
Life is just to short for drama.
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Hoss;996323 wrote: Innumerable? Really that many? I don't think so.
There will always be errors, we should not, not try to fulfill justice, we must try to do all we can to be perfect in our judgment and execute justice as best we can. Let the cases that have been proven to be wrong speak for themselves, pay restitution and move on and continue to do the best we can. If we don't then there is no justice. We have to figure out a way to do both.
I’ll bet that if we looked at the few cases there are we could find where the errors occurred and see if we can come up with some fail safes for the future.
Is that reasonable to you?
Innumerable doesn't mean myriad, it means that the nature of the question is such that a number can't be found but it's more than one.
You don't think that if fail-safes were possible they'd have been put in place by now? The problem's been recognised for centuries. The Christian response has always been "send them to God and he'll know his own and care for them" which is shockingly parochial and does nothing for people who share no such philosophy of an afterlife.
There will always be errors, we should not, not try to fulfill justice, we must try to do all we can to be perfect in our judgment and execute justice as best we can. Let the cases that have been proven to be wrong speak for themselves, pay restitution and move on and continue to do the best we can. If we don't then there is no justice. We have to figure out a way to do both.
I’ll bet that if we looked at the few cases there are we could find where the errors occurred and see if we can come up with some fail safes for the future.
Is that reasonable to you?
Innumerable doesn't mean myriad, it means that the nature of the question is such that a number can't be found but it's more than one.
You don't think that if fail-safes were possible they'd have been put in place by now? The problem's been recognised for centuries. The Christian response has always been "send them to God and he'll know his own and care for them" which is shockingly parochial and does nothing for people who share no such philosophy of an afterlife.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Yes, I noticed that Troy Davis is still among the living. I'll keep an interested eye on what happens.
"it doesn't matter who shares the belief, it is truth that all meet God and will be judged by him based on what they believe" is an interpretation, not a truth. It's an internal truth that depends on belief, it's not universally true for all people unless you're imposing your own belief on them all. That's the problem with being a believer in an exclusive religion which insists that all other religions are imperfect by definition, yet nobody can be a literal-bible believer and avoid that conclusion.
"it doesn't matter who shares the belief, it is truth that all meet God and will be judged by him based on what they believe" is an interpretation, not a truth. It's an internal truth that depends on belief, it's not universally true for all people unless you're imposing your own belief on them all. That's the problem with being a believer in an exclusive religion which insists that all other religions are imperfect by definition, yet nobody can be a literal-bible believer and avoid that conclusion.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Hoss;996737 wrote: LOL, so say many. There are those that live in reality and those that choose to redefine it for their own purposes. I'll stay in reality.
I read all the last posts with interest. I'm with you Hoss. Good advice.
I read all the last posts with interest. I'm with you Hoss. Good advice.At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
I think what is clear in any case of injustice is that it is down the failings of man. Every country need authorities to protect the innocent from corrupt prosecution & police officers. As i said before, if any-one handed down the death penalty had their case independantly re-examined by an unbiased authority before they were executed, it would eliminate all if not nearly all injustices. Simon Wilson did not kill the old lady he attacked in London, purely because he was disturbed, however she was horrifically injured. He would have killed her. Where were her rights when a man who had killed before was released after only 16 yrs??
To sacrifice future lives because there may possibly be one injustice is a ridiculous notion. I'll repeat what Hoss said. "They get out, they come back" What about the lives of the people they "Come back" for?? Proper regulation of evidence in trials & unbiased re-examination before anyone is executed will save lives of future victems & even possibly, in the case of Troy Davis, innocents wrongly accused.
I know of a trial, not a murder trial, a very trivial trial infact. Defence witnesses were surpressed by the investigating officer & a vital 999 (911) call not revealed to the defendant. Only due to the quality of the defence lawyer, did they come to light. Whilst giving a statement to the investigating officer, two witnesses spoke of another adult independant witness even giving details where this person worked. The person was never approached by police as well as other witnesses that were offered up by the defendant. In court, when pushed to answer why the investigating officer had not interviewed these vital witnesses, she replied "Beacuse i didn't". This investigating officer had to be legally "Forced" into court to give evidence after doing everything to get out of it. If these witnesses had been called, the outcome could have been very different. It appears that the investigating officer "chose" not to seek out these witnesses. Only due to the defence lawyers own investigations into the case, did they find a 999 call made to police from a member of the public asking for help for the defendant not the alleged victem. This 999 call was never revealed by police, cps or the prosecution. The transcript of the call was there all the time. If it were a murder charge, a guilty verdict would have meant an injustice of an innocent person being executed. In this particular trial, senior police picked up on the "failings" in this trial & now the investigating officer has been served with a "section nine". The whole case is being re-examined by c.i.d. from another police force. If this kind of monitering by unbiased authorities were in effect in all trials of defendants facing a death penalty, injustices would very rarely happen. People like Simon Wilson could then not be free or alive to go on to harm anyone else & innocent people would not be executed. I believe that is the answer, a review by unbiased authorities before anyone is executed. It may take longer, it may take resources but it would stop innocent people being executed. The only reason an injustice takes place is for the example of the trial i have just given, vital evidence & witnesses being deliberatly surpressed by police & prosecution lawyers, even police prosecuters to get a verdict whatever. It is human corruption, sometimes even in the most trivial of cases that sends innocent people to their death & stupidity that allows guilty one's to walk free. We all like to believe that the authorities are there to protect us & be truthfull when the real truth is that there are exceptions. The defendant in the trial i have mentioned is lucky that unbiased authorities were looking on. the result of the independant police investigation is expected around the end of December. It's likely that a mis-trial could be announced due to the findings.
To sacrifice future lives because there may possibly be one injustice is a ridiculous notion. I'll repeat what Hoss said. "They get out, they come back" What about the lives of the people they "Come back" for?? Proper regulation of evidence in trials & unbiased re-examination before anyone is executed will save lives of future victems & even possibly, in the case of Troy Davis, innocents wrongly accused.
I know of a trial, not a murder trial, a very trivial trial infact. Defence witnesses were surpressed by the investigating officer & a vital 999 (911) call not revealed to the defendant. Only due to the quality of the defence lawyer, did they come to light. Whilst giving a statement to the investigating officer, two witnesses spoke of another adult independant witness even giving details where this person worked. The person was never approached by police as well as other witnesses that were offered up by the defendant. In court, when pushed to answer why the investigating officer had not interviewed these vital witnesses, she replied "Beacuse i didn't". This investigating officer had to be legally "Forced" into court to give evidence after doing everything to get out of it. If these witnesses had been called, the outcome could have been very different. It appears that the investigating officer "chose" not to seek out these witnesses. Only due to the defence lawyers own investigations into the case, did they find a 999 call made to police from a member of the public asking for help for the defendant not the alleged victem. This 999 call was never revealed by police, cps or the prosecution. The transcript of the call was there all the time. If it were a murder charge, a guilty verdict would have meant an injustice of an innocent person being executed. In this particular trial, senior police picked up on the "failings" in this trial & now the investigating officer has been served with a "section nine". The whole case is being re-examined by c.i.d. from another police force. If this kind of monitering by unbiased authorities were in effect in all trials of defendants facing a death penalty, injustices would very rarely happen. People like Simon Wilson could then not be free or alive to go on to harm anyone else & innocent people would not be executed. I believe that is the answer, a review by unbiased authorities before anyone is executed. It may take longer, it may take resources but it would stop innocent people being executed. The only reason an injustice takes place is for the example of the trial i have just given, vital evidence & witnesses being deliberatly surpressed by police & prosecution lawyers, even police prosecuters to get a verdict whatever. It is human corruption, sometimes even in the most trivial of cases that sends innocent people to their death & stupidity that allows guilty one's to walk free. We all like to believe that the authorities are there to protect us & be truthfull when the real truth is that there are exceptions. The defendant in the trial i have mentioned is lucky that unbiased authorities were looking on. the result of the independant police investigation is expected around the end of December. It's likely that a mis-trial could be announced due to the findings.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Hoss;996323 wrote: Innumerable? Really that many? I don't think so.
There will always be errors, we should not, not try to fulfill justice, we must try to do all we can to be perfect in our judgment and execute justice as best we can. Let the cases that have been proven to be wrong speak for themselves, pay restitution and move on and continue to do the best we can. If we don't then there is no justice. We have to figure out a way to do both.
I’ll bet that if we looked at the few cases there are we could find where the errors occurred and see if we can come up with some fail safes for the future.
Is that reasonable to you?
Obviously innumerable as no one can put an accurate figure on the number of innocent people killed by a death penalty.
Basically, I disagree with your definition of justice - you imply that justice is not served unless that prisoner is killed by the state, I do not accept that.
You say we should execute justice as best we can - fine, incarcerate the prisoner for life or until subsequent evidence proves him innocent. How the hell do you pay restitution to an innocent that you have murdered in the name of justice - it cannot be done.
The trouble with trying to analyse out the faults in the system is that they're so varied and include both deliberate and subconscious manipulation of the evidence by the law enforcement authorities - often because the public demand a swift answer to high profile cases.
There will always be errors, we should not, not try to fulfill justice, we must try to do all we can to be perfect in our judgment and execute justice as best we can. Let the cases that have been proven to be wrong speak for themselves, pay restitution and move on and continue to do the best we can. If we don't then there is no justice. We have to figure out a way to do both.
I’ll bet that if we looked at the few cases there are we could find where the errors occurred and see if we can come up with some fail safes for the future.
Is that reasonable to you?
Obviously innumerable as no one can put an accurate figure on the number of innocent people killed by a death penalty.
Basically, I disagree with your definition of justice - you imply that justice is not served unless that prisoner is killed by the state, I do not accept that.
You say we should execute justice as best we can - fine, incarcerate the prisoner for life or until subsequent evidence proves him innocent. How the hell do you pay restitution to an innocent that you have murdered in the name of justice - it cannot be done.
The trouble with trying to analyse out the faults in the system is that they're so varied and include both deliberate and subconscious manipulation of the evidence by the law enforcement authorities - often because the public demand a swift answer to high profile cases.
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Hoss;996409 wrote: I'm sure it is more than one. I think that if there was a perfect failsafe then yes, there would be one right now. But justice still needs to be done regardless of the risk involved. I don't really care for that response, Christian or not, not that I ever heard any of that preached in my lifetime at the churches I attend. But it doesn't matter who shares the belief, it is truth that all meet God and will be judged by him based on what they believe.
A local politician was killed a few weeks ago, the police arrested three, charged two, both have pleaded not guilty. They will get a fair trial, they will get legal representation, they will get legally prosecuted and if found guilty will probably be executed after their appeal process has been exhausted. I complain because they authorities don't carry out the execution fast enough for it to be understood by a single generation as a deterrent. But I don't want to execute an innocent man either.
Did you see in the news that the man you mentioned was not executed for review of evidence?
I like the Old Testament method, where a permanent party of judges, schooled in the law reviews the evidence rather than the jury method. I think the judges need to be elected directly by the people rather than appointed by a representative through the process. I would like to see these judges just review capitol offenses only. Maybe handle it on the state level not the federal level. Then have one appeal to the supreme court of the land then end it.
The reasons for trial by jury are manifold but two jump out at me :-
A small and restricted group of permanent judges are open to manipulation - either by the government of the day or by criminal organisations.
A separate judicial group is liable to drift from the common reality and become the law for the sake of the law - too much danger of extremism creeping in and placing a jury of your peers between you is an excelent way of preventing this.
A local politician was killed a few weeks ago, the police arrested three, charged two, both have pleaded not guilty. They will get a fair trial, they will get legal representation, they will get legally prosecuted and if found guilty will probably be executed after their appeal process has been exhausted. I complain because they authorities don't carry out the execution fast enough for it to be understood by a single generation as a deterrent. But I don't want to execute an innocent man either.
Did you see in the news that the man you mentioned was not executed for review of evidence?
I like the Old Testament method, where a permanent party of judges, schooled in the law reviews the evidence rather than the jury method. I think the judges need to be elected directly by the people rather than appointed by a representative through the process. I would like to see these judges just review capitol offenses only. Maybe handle it on the state level not the federal level. Then have one appeal to the supreme court of the land then end it.
The reasons for trial by jury are manifold but two jump out at me :-
A small and restricted group of permanent judges are open to manipulation - either by the government of the day or by criminal organisations.
A separate judicial group is liable to drift from the common reality and become the law for the sake of the law - too much danger of extremism creeping in and placing a jury of your peers between you is an excelent way of preventing this.
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Hoss;999909 wrote: I disagree, but I see your points.
To me Justice demands that a murderer is put to death. Anything less than that is not justice. I guess you could say what we have is a degree of fairness. But it's not justice.
I think that we need to find men of honest report that won’t manipulate facts and are not subject to prejudices, or pressure. What your saying is that there are no more uncorrupted men out there. I don’t believe that. I know dozens of good men that could honestly and justly preside over evidence and come to a conclusion, that either there is enough evidence to convict or not or that they have the wrong man.
I think locking someone up for life without parole is far more harsh than execution, both to the victim and the perpetrator.
I don’t know that you can make restitution for a life, but if it happens then the government should try.
We quit to easy. Instead of fixing the problems we settle for a lessor sytem of justice.
I don't think I am saying that, what I am saying is that there are many good men (amongst many not so good men but that's a different point) but they are only human.
Where the public is baying for blood and your bosses are pressing for a quick solution it is all too easy, consciously or sub-consciously, to see what you're looking for and, once an idea is in your mind, it is natural to look for evidence to back up your theory.
I am a systems troubleshooter and I'm counted to be good at my job but I see exactly the same effect in myself occasionally - a big production problem that could well hit the nationals if not fixed *now* and, like it or not, a stray remark can take the investigation down the wrong road for quite a while. Luckily I have to spec a fix that is provable with a regression test whereas the police only have to convince a jury and will present the evidence they need to do so.
To me Justice demands that a murderer is put to death. Anything less than that is not justice. I guess you could say what we have is a degree of fairness. But it's not justice.
I think that we need to find men of honest report that won’t manipulate facts and are not subject to prejudices, or pressure. What your saying is that there are no more uncorrupted men out there. I don’t believe that. I know dozens of good men that could honestly and justly preside over evidence and come to a conclusion, that either there is enough evidence to convict or not or that they have the wrong man.
I think locking someone up for life without parole is far more harsh than execution, both to the victim and the perpetrator.
I don’t know that you can make restitution for a life, but if it happens then the government should try.
We quit to easy. Instead of fixing the problems we settle for a lessor sytem of justice.
I don't think I am saying that, what I am saying is that there are many good men (amongst many not so good men but that's a different point) but they are only human.
Where the public is baying for blood and your bosses are pressing for a quick solution it is all too easy, consciously or sub-consciously, to see what you're looking for and, once an idea is in your mind, it is natural to look for evidence to back up your theory.
I am a systems troubleshooter and I'm counted to be good at my job but I see exactly the same effect in myself occasionally - a big production problem that could well hit the nationals if not fixed *now* and, like it or not, a stray remark can take the investigation down the wrong road for quite a while. Luckily I have to spec a fix that is provable with a regression test whereas the police only have to convince a jury and will present the evidence they need to do so.
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
I've never yet found a satisfactory simple definition of "justice" - and this is hardly surprising. It means different things to different people. Hoss, I guess you'd argue that God is just and his justice is absolute. Fine. And when we reach the Pearly Gates I guess we'll be dealt with in that light. But, here on earth, we're living with man's concept of "justice" and that's a very relative and different idea.
The payback mode. You kill one of mine, I'll kill one of yours. You kill me, I'll kill you. Fine. But in some countries some people can buy their way out of this.
What happens if you kill two of mine? Twenty people. Can justice deprive you of your life twenty times?
And in what way is this justice going to help the families of the twenty victims? Is justice just revenge? If you rape and torture and then kill - surely you should be raped, tortured and then killed, under this? Who says a simple lethal injection is enough? You throw acid in my face, that's what you get!!! You hurt my kid, I hurt your kid???
If justice is just what the law of the land says at any one time, then this is going to vary from country to country.
Stoning a woman for adultery is justice in some places.
All I'm trying to say is that without a clear universal definition of justice - it's very hard to take such a dogmatic stance.
Personally - I'm all for revenge. I'm not noble. Or evolved. If someone hurts one of mine, I'll be onto them. And they better know that. What the civilised forces of law of my country do to me after that, for the sake of their idea of justice.. I'll leave to them.
Justice cannot bring back the murdered. Nor can it heal the grief of the bereaved. It can't undo violence or brutality. Justice which involved erasing a murderer can however give some sense of completion to the bereaved who otherwise have somehow to go on living, without their loved one, while the murderer continues to breathe.
The payback mode. You kill one of mine, I'll kill one of yours. You kill me, I'll kill you. Fine. But in some countries some people can buy their way out of this.
What happens if you kill two of mine? Twenty people. Can justice deprive you of your life twenty times?
And in what way is this justice going to help the families of the twenty victims? Is justice just revenge? If you rape and torture and then kill - surely you should be raped, tortured and then killed, under this? Who says a simple lethal injection is enough? You throw acid in my face, that's what you get!!! You hurt my kid, I hurt your kid???
If justice is just what the law of the land says at any one time, then this is going to vary from country to country.
Stoning a woman for adultery is justice in some places.
All I'm trying to say is that without a clear universal definition of justice - it's very hard to take such a dogmatic stance.
Personally - I'm all for revenge. I'm not noble. Or evolved. If someone hurts one of mine, I'll be onto them. And they better know that. What the civilised forces of law of my country do to me after that, for the sake of their idea of justice.. I'll leave to them.
Justice cannot bring back the murdered. Nor can it heal the grief of the bereaved. It can't undo violence or brutality. Justice which involved erasing a murderer can however give some sense of completion to the bereaved who otherwise have somehow to go on living, without their loved one, while the murderer continues to breathe.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Bryn Mawr;999901 wrote: Obviously innumerable as no one can put an accurate figure on the number of innocent people killed by a death penalty.
Basically, I disagree with your definition of justice - you imply that justice is not served unless that prisoner is killed by the state, I do not accept that.
You say we should execute justice as best we can - fine, incarcerate the prisoner for life or until subsequent evidence proves him innocent. How the hell do you pay restitution to an innocent that you have murdered in the name of justice - it cannot be done.
The trouble with trying to analyse out the faults in the system is that they're so varied and include both deliberate and subconscious manipulation of the evidence by the law enforcement authorities - often because the public demand a swift answer to high profile cases. "Deliberate & subconcious manipulation of the evidence by the law enforcement authorities"? "High profile cases?" Does that mean that your aware that police can deliberately surpress vital evidence & witnesses Bryn? Does that mean that police try to hush up high profile cases reported in national newspapers? Especially when they have the most famous lawyer in the country & he attracts increased national media scrutiny? The petty trial i spoke of turned into a media scrum. Did that have an effect on the verdict?
Basically, I disagree with your definition of justice - you imply that justice is not served unless that prisoner is killed by the state, I do not accept that.
You say we should execute justice as best we can - fine, incarcerate the prisoner for life or until subsequent evidence proves him innocent. How the hell do you pay restitution to an innocent that you have murdered in the name of justice - it cannot be done.
The trouble with trying to analyse out the faults in the system is that they're so varied and include both deliberate and subconscious manipulation of the evidence by the law enforcement authorities - often because the public demand a swift answer to high profile cases. "Deliberate & subconcious manipulation of the evidence by the law enforcement authorities"? "High profile cases?" Does that mean that your aware that police can deliberately surpress vital evidence & witnesses Bryn? Does that mean that police try to hush up high profile cases reported in national newspapers? Especially when they have the most famous lawyer in the country & he attracts increased national media scrutiny? The petty trial i spoke of turned into a media scrum. Did that have an effect on the verdict?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Hoss;999935 wrote: I had in mind a group of wise and honest men.
With what appears to me to be not enough common sense on the part of jury's these days, and manipulative lawyers looking for technicalities, wise men of good report is the way to go, its less likely that they will be manipulated being experts in the law.
A jury of my peers is not 12 men and women between the ages of 18 and 70, picked because they have no prior prejudices against me or my crime.
A jury of my peers is 12 male 18 year olds of deep biblical conviction.
The jury of a young male murdering gang banger is 12 young male murdering gang bangers.
You think we can have justice like that? Or do you think 12 men of honest report well versed in preserving the law of the land (not writing new laws), but dispensing justice to murderers.
Your interpretation of the ideal of a jury of your peers is not the historical interpretation and, I agree, we would not have justice under your interpretation. Using the historical ideal, however, I believe we would and a thousand years of experience suggest that we do - interfere with that at your peril.
With what appears to me to be not enough common sense on the part of jury's these days, and manipulative lawyers looking for technicalities, wise men of good report is the way to go, its less likely that they will be manipulated being experts in the law.
A jury of my peers is not 12 men and women between the ages of 18 and 70, picked because they have no prior prejudices against me or my crime.
A jury of my peers is 12 male 18 year olds of deep biblical conviction.
The jury of a young male murdering gang banger is 12 young male murdering gang bangers.
You think we can have justice like that? Or do you think 12 men of honest report well versed in preserving the law of the land (not writing new laws), but dispensing justice to murderers.
Your interpretation of the ideal of a jury of your peers is not the historical interpretation and, I agree, we would not have justice under your interpretation. Using the historical ideal, however, I believe we would and a thousand years of experience suggest that we do - interfere with that at your peril.
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
oscar;999938 wrote: "Deliberate & subconcious manipulation of the evidence by the law enforcement authorities"? "High profile cases?" Does that mean that your aware that police can deliberately surpress vital evidence & witnesses Bryn? Does that mean that police try to hush up high profile cases reported in national newspapers? Especially when they have the most famous lawyer in the country & he attracts increased national media scrutiny? The petty trial i spoke of turned into a media scrum. Did that have an effect on the verdict?
I do not see the public outrage and overriding pressure for a quick resolution in that case - not exactly "high profile".
There are cases, however, such as the Birmingham Pub Bombings, where it was obvious that the police suppressed evidence.
I do not see the public outrage and overriding pressure for a quick resolution in that case - not exactly "high profile".
There are cases, however, such as the Birmingham Pub Bombings, where it was obvious that the police suppressed evidence.
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Hoss;999984 wrote: I guess I got carried away hearing myself talk. Sorry. You're right.
:wah: Happens to the best of us :-6
:wah: Happens to the best of us :-6
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
AussiePam;999933 wrote: I've never yet found a satisfactory simple definition of "justice" - and this is hardly surprising. It means different things to different people. Hoss, I guess you'd argue that God is just and his justice is absolute. Fine. And when we reach the Pearly Gates I guess we'll be dealt with in that light. But, here on earth, we're living with man's concept of "justice" and that's a very relative and different idea.
The payback mode. You kill one of mine, I'll kill one of yours. You kill me, I'll kill you. Fine. But in some countries some people can buy their way out of this.
What happens if you kill two of mine? Twenty people. Can justice deprive you of your life twenty times?
And in what way is this justice going to help the families of the twenty victims? Is justice just revenge? If you rape and torture and then kill - surely you should be raped, tortured and then killed, under this? Who says a simple lethal injection is enough? You throw acid in my face, that's what you get!!! You hurt my kid, I hurt your kid???
If justice is just what the law of the land says at any one time, then this is going to vary from country to country.
Stoning a woman for adultery is justice in some places.
All I'm trying to say is that without a clear universal definition of justice - it's very hard to take such a dogmatic stance.
Personally - I'm all for revenge. I'm not noble. Or evolved. If someone hurts one of mine, I'll be onto them. And they better know that. What the civilised forces of law of my country do to me after that, for the sake of their idea of justice.. I'll leave to them.
Justice cannot bring back the murdered. Nor can it heal the grief of the bereaved. It can't undo violence or brutality. Justice which involved erasing a murderer can however give some sense of completion to the bereaved who otherwise have somehow to go on living, without their loved one, while the murderer continues to breathe.
You trash my village war memorial, i trash your bike. Let god judge us when we get there. God will judge poth parties & make the right choice. Until then, i'm on planet earth in the real world.
The payback mode. You kill one of mine, I'll kill one of yours. You kill me, I'll kill you. Fine. But in some countries some people can buy their way out of this.
What happens if you kill two of mine? Twenty people. Can justice deprive you of your life twenty times?
And in what way is this justice going to help the families of the twenty victims? Is justice just revenge? If you rape and torture and then kill - surely you should be raped, tortured and then killed, under this? Who says a simple lethal injection is enough? You throw acid in my face, that's what you get!!! You hurt my kid, I hurt your kid???
If justice is just what the law of the land says at any one time, then this is going to vary from country to country.
Stoning a woman for adultery is justice in some places.
All I'm trying to say is that without a clear universal definition of justice - it's very hard to take such a dogmatic stance.
Personally - I'm all for revenge. I'm not noble. Or evolved. If someone hurts one of mine, I'll be onto them. And they better know that. What the civilised forces of law of my country do to me after that, for the sake of their idea of justice.. I'll leave to them.
Justice cannot bring back the murdered. Nor can it heal the grief of the bereaved. It can't undo violence or brutality. Justice which involved erasing a murderer can however give some sense of completion to the bereaved who otherwise have somehow to go on living, without their loved one, while the murderer continues to breathe.
You trash my village war memorial, i trash your bike. Let god judge us when we get there. God will judge poth parties & make the right choice. Until then, i'm on planet earth in the real world.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Australia Sent This Murdering Rapist Back To Britain. 3 Months Later, He Struck Again
Bryn Mawr;999930 wrote: I don't think I am saying that, what I am saying is that there are many good men (amongst many not so good men but that's a different point) but they are only human.
Where the public is baying for blood and your bosses are pressing for a quick solution it is all too easy, consciously or sub-consciously, to see what you're looking for and, once an idea is in your mind, it is natural to look for evidence to back up your theory.
I am a systems troubleshooter and I'm counted to be good at my job but I see exactly the same effect in myself occasionally - a big production problem that could well hit the nationals if not fixed *now* and, like it or not, a stray remark can take the investigation down the wrong road for quite a while. Luckily I have to spec a fix that is provable with a regression test whereas the police only have to convince a jury and will present the evidence they need to do so.
I agree with some of this. Sometimes certain lawyers take on cases pro bono to raise their own profile. Once in a while, that lawyer will unravel a real injustice by surpressed evidence. He/She will stick by their client, hell or high water out of a true sense of justice & fairness. It happens.
Where the public is baying for blood and your bosses are pressing for a quick solution it is all too easy, consciously or sub-consciously, to see what you're looking for and, once an idea is in your mind, it is natural to look for evidence to back up your theory.
I am a systems troubleshooter and I'm counted to be good at my job but I see exactly the same effect in myself occasionally - a big production problem that could well hit the nationals if not fixed *now* and, like it or not, a stray remark can take the investigation down the wrong road for quite a while. Luckily I have to spec a fix that is provable with a regression test whereas the police only have to convince a jury and will present the evidence they need to do so.
I agree with some of this. Sometimes certain lawyers take on cases pro bono to raise their own profile. Once in a while, that lawyer will unravel a real injustice by surpressed evidence. He/She will stick by their client, hell or high water out of a true sense of justice & fairness. It happens.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon