The joke is in the long-winded, self-centered empty apologies and appeals to God; the punchline is in the subsequent brief and clinical descriptions of completely unforgivable acts. These are nauseating to read.
I appreciate the recommendation and I will read it (I also appreciate that you made a recommendation instead of downvoting me), however I don't think free will has much to do with this. If they were predetermined to be like this then I have sympathy for the bad dice roll, but once they've stomped an infant to death they're always that person. It doesn't change much about how to deal with them; you can't trust that they won't do it again no matter how much time passes, and that means that saying sorry and making Pascal's wager come off as completely hollow.
The deeds are horrifying to read. You can do nothing wrong and die by hands of some piece of shit just because you were at wrong place at wrong time. follow up actions of some are even more sad and scary. Killing another human being meant nothing to some of murderers, like killing a fly.
Those apologies are too little too late. Good riddance.
I have no sympathy for them, and I’m all in for using those for involuntary dangerous drug testing and stuff like that. Those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did.
Yes, those acts are immensely terrible and the apologies feel minuscule by comparison. But I think there's room for more nuance here.
There are multiple reasons we put people in jail:
1. the victims can feel some vindication and retribution
2. other members of society can feel some vindication and retribution and a sense of justice
3. other would-be criminals are detered from committing similar crimes for fear of punishment
4. making people feel safe by showing them criminals are punished
5. removing a bad actor from society
6. reforming a bad actor and reintroducing them into society
Different cultures emphasize different combinations of reasons. For example, ine notable divide is how, in the US, 6. is considered to be the product of a naive mind, whereas in some nordic countries, that goal is taken seriously, with some amount of success (and perhaps at the detriment of other goals).
Anyway, I think your point is that, even if you take the convicts' apologies at face value, goals 1. and 2. remain unfulfilled. And 3. is probably weakened.
Of course goal 1 is unfulfilled. Because victims are already dead. Often in very bad way.
I’m sure there are enough people who will consider goals 2, 4 and 5 fulfilled. I disagree with your assessment.
As I said - those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did. You don’t fix them or reintroduce them to society.
I don’t care about abstracts. I care about the fact that some of those scumbags were kept alive longer than their victims lived on this earth, and suffered less in their demise.
I've always felt very alone in my view on this, so don't feel bad if you disagree with me because most people probably do, but I just feel super morally icky when I hear about how part of our justice system is built around "retribution" / "vindication". Like it is one thing to punish, it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment, even if they were victims, I just find it sick. It means as a society we are no better than the perpetrators at the end of the day.
> it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment
I sometimes see this behavior in close friends, and it totally changes the way I see them. I don't know if it's a moral failing on their part, but I just don't experience the desire for vengeance the same way they do, and it really scares me to see how they experience it. What will they do when they start to have mental decline, and (wrongly) decide they were wronged in some way? :(
I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it.
I’m sure that if needed, society can develop necessary framework (declare them “legally dead” or something like that).
I consider the risk of wrongful conviction to be an argument against the death penalty and for the very same reason I'm against performing any kind of inhuman treatment of them (which might be worse than death).
Even if 95% would totally deserve it, I don't think we should just accept that on average 4 innocent people every year are just treated as subhumans just so we can unleash our wrath over those who did truly horrible things.
Death is still a better option rather than being used as lab rat
There should be doubt. There should be due process.
At the same time, I think that with the advancement of the tech (surveillance cameras everywhere, dna tests, the cell tower triangulation and/or mobile device location tracking) there are cases when the guilt can be established without any doubt, and the overall chance of wrongful conviction will drop down.
Hell, have you read the website? One of those pieces of shit made his accomplice to video the murder on the phone.
There's at least one wrongful conviction in there.
An interesting Asian counterpart is the Japanese death haiku.
MUMON GENSEN
Died on the twenty-second day of the third month, 1390 at the age of sixty-eight
Life is an ever-rolling wheel
And every day is the right one.
He who recites poems at his death
Adds frost to snow.
Interesting but now suprizing how many have found solace in religion.
For a lot of parole boards "belief in a higher power" is a mandatory part of being eligible for any kind of clemency.
In other words: if they want to have any chance of making it out alive, they have to at least pretend to be religious.
Where else would you go?
How come no one ever makes a joke?
The joke is in the long-winded, self-centered empty apologies and appeals to God; the punchline is in the subsequent brief and clinical descriptions of completely unforgivable acts. These are nauseating to read.
I advise having a read through Sapolskys book "Determined" to get another perspective
I appreciate the recommendation and I will read it (I also appreciate that you made a recommendation instead of downvoting me), however I don't think free will has much to do with this. If they were predetermined to be like this then I have sympathy for the bad dice roll, but once they've stomped an infant to death they're always that person. It doesn't change much about how to deal with them; you can't trust that they won't do it again no matter how much time passes, and that means that saying sorry and making Pascal's wager come off as completely hollow.
What is your goal in asking someone to read this book, we're supposed to have sympathy for those who have had a bad rap in nature and nurture.
That 'the system' is responsible for driving them to their actions ?
You didn’t find the “that will be 5 dollars” one funny?
The deeds are horrifying to read. You can do nothing wrong and die by hands of some piece of shit just because you were at wrong place at wrong time. follow up actions of some are even more sad and scary. Killing another human being meant nothing to some of murderers, like killing a fly.
Those apologies are too little too late. Good riddance.
I have no sympathy for them, and I’m all in for using those for involuntary dangerous drug testing and stuff like that. Those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did.
Yes, those acts are immensely terrible and the apologies feel minuscule by comparison. But I think there's room for more nuance here.
There are multiple reasons we put people in jail:
1. the victims can feel some vindication and retribution
2. other members of society can feel some vindication and retribution and a sense of justice
3. other would-be criminals are detered from committing similar crimes for fear of punishment
4. making people feel safe by showing them criminals are punished
5. removing a bad actor from society
6. reforming a bad actor and reintroducing them into society
Different cultures emphasize different combinations of reasons. For example, ine notable divide is how, in the US, 6. is considered to be the product of a naive mind, whereas in some nordic countries, that goal is taken seriously, with some amount of success (and perhaps at the detriment of other goals).
Anyway, I think your point is that, even if you take the convicts' apologies at face value, goals 1. and 2. remain unfulfilled. And 3. is probably weakened.
Of course goal 1 is unfulfilled. Because victims are already dead. Often in very bad way.
I’m sure there are enough people who will consider goals 2, 4 and 5 fulfilled. I disagree with your assessment.
As I said - those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did. You don’t fix them or reintroduce them to society.
I don’t care about abstracts. I care about the fact that some of those scumbags were kept alive longer than their victims lived on this earth, and suffered less in their demise.
I've always felt very alone in my view on this, so don't feel bad if you disagree with me because most people probably do, but I just feel super morally icky when I hear about how part of our justice system is built around "retribution" / "vindication". Like it is one thing to punish, it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment, even if they were victims, I just find it sick. It means as a society we are no better than the perpetrators at the end of the day.
> it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment
I sometimes see this behavior in close friends, and it totally changes the way I see them. I don't know if it's a moral failing on their part, but I just don't experience the desire for vengeance the same way they do, and it really scares me to see how they experience it. What will they do when they start to have mental decline, and (wrongly) decide they were wronged in some way? :(
You're definitely not alone and I 100% share the thought in your last sentence.
> Those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did.
If inmates don't get human rights, then every single person is just a corrupt judge away from becoming a non-person.
No matter how horrible a person has acted, the government simply cannot be trusted not to abuse such power.
Please don’t rephrase me so it’s easier to argue.
I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it.
I’m sure that if needed, society can develop necessary framework (declare them “legally dead” or something like that).
I consider the risk of wrongful conviction to be an argument against the death penalty and for the very same reason I'm against performing any kind of inhuman treatment of them (which might be worse than death).
Even if 95% would totally deserve it, I don't think we should just accept that on average 4 innocent people every year are just treated as subhumans just so we can unleash our wrath over those who did truly horrible things.
Death is still a better option rather than being used as lab rat
There should be doubt. There should be due process.
At the same time, I think that with the advancement of the tech (surveillance cameras everywhere, dna tests, the cell tower triangulation and/or mobile device location tracking) there are cases when the guilt can be established without any doubt, and the overall chance of wrongful conviction will drop down.
Hell, have you read the website? One of those pieces of shit made his accomplice to video the murder on the phone.