qt
- Thread starter don_quixote
- Start date
the whole concept of "evil" is ridiculous western/chrisitan bollocks.. "Evil" has been abused as an easy way out of difficult/complex results of an over complicated society. Politicans love evil (maybe more secretively now) because it doesn't reflect on anything other than some abstract force as opposed to generations of fucked up behaviors that have been allowed to progress to the point of complete psycho/socio paths.
Allways think its stupid when i hear people fuss about the killing of animals that are in their infancy considering they are on the whole as defenseless to humans as there fully grown counterparts. Thats never/very rarley the case regarding humans to infantile humans so it is totally different.
Allways think its stupid when i hear people fuss about the killing of animals that are in their infancy considering they are on the whole as defenseless to humans as there fully grown counterparts. Thats never/very rarley the case regarding humans to infantile humans so it is totally different.
Last edited:
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you...
Woebot
Well-known member
There are at least two reasons why it can be said to be worse. Firstly, because your poor old Grandmother has lived a long life, whereas a child hasn't. Ask the question, would you rather someone murdered you when you were 90 or when you were 10? Of course it is worse, from the victim's perspective, to be murdered at 10. Therefore the murderer of the child is more culpable.
Secondly, there is the innocence and vulnerability of a child. I think there is something worse about picking a vulnerable victim -- mugging a poor, defenceless old lady who can barely walk makes the mugger more culpable in my mind. If your Grandmother is vulnerable, then the difference between her murder and a child's mightn't be exceptional, but the difference between murdering a healthy adult and a 10-year-old would.
Is there any reason at all to believe this? From every account I've read of this, it seems 100% clear that they knew exactly what they were doing. They even tried to cover up what they'd done my trying to make it look like he'd been killed by a train. It seems very odd that someone's first reaction would be to try and make excuses for the murderer without any evidence or justification. They were found guilty and so found to have the mens rea for murder. I see no reason to question that decision.
Especially with adults, such as Baby P's killer, I fail to see how this is relevant. The adults in that case were late 20s to early 30s: why should they not be responsible for their actions? I can see that the reason they're such fucked-up people is because of their upbringing, but the idea that this in any way justifies the deaths of innocent people strikes me as absurd. The aim of the law should be to deter people from committing these crimes and punishing them when they do. Saying "well, you can kill anyone you like because you've had a terrible upbringing" is contrary to the interests of everybody else. It should be no more of an excuse than the fact that you don't like Mondays.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
i watched highlights on youtube last night. Vorderman was chilling. Will Self went up 1000x in my estimation.
I agree it's arbitrary -- same as the ages of consent, drinking, driving, &c. It's difficult to think of a much better solution, though, than a simple age limit. At least it provides certainty, is predictable and is the same for everyone. In this case, I think it would have been worse had they not been prosecuted, if they had been under the age of criminal responsibility. Yes, it is a shortcoming of the law that this could easily happen, but I don't see a better solution.
vimothy
yurp
The fact that a distinction is made is not the biggest problem IMO (though obviously problematic in certain respects)--I was just addressing the slight circularity of your argument. I'm not actually that convinced that ten is the correct age for criminal responsibility. Although wtf do I know.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh come on, that's pretty lame. Where did I say anything that indicates "you can kill anyone you like"? I'm not saying someone like Baby P's mother should simply be allowed to walk away free with no repercussions at all, and neither is anyone else. That would be ridiculous, obviously. What I'm saying is that someone who's had extremely traumatic things happen to them, especially in childhood, could very probably be considered mentally ill or at least damaged in some way, and that it's therefore reasonable to apply a different standard of culpability when they in turn commit terrible crimes, compared to someone who'd had a more or less normal upbringing (or at any rate, hadn't been beaten/raped/neglected) but just happened to have a severe sadistic streak and no regard for the rights or welfare of others.
And I'm not saying that having had a traumatic upbringing is an absolute get-out-of-jail free card, either, since it clearly doesn't morally absolve someone absolutely. There are loads of people who've had terrible things happen to them and don't turn into monsters, after all. But at the same time, there is a well-known correlation between being a victim of severe abuse and the likelihood of going on to become a perpetrator.
Edit: having said that, I agree (largely) with your other point, that children who these things are aware of what they're doing and know it's wrong. I'm saying that there may be tangible reasons why they have sadistic urges in the first place, or why they lack the impulse control or empathy that would otherwise prevent them from acting on those urges. Tangible reasons that someone who hasn't had those kinds of traumatic early like experiences, which I expect and hope includes you (and certainly includes me), can't really appreciate on any kind of subjective level.
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I don't think that imprisonment should constitute anything more than a period of enforced exile from society, with the protection from the criminal that this affords. This is with the proviso that conditions in prison should be no better than those enjoyed by the most deprived non-homeless in our society, so that prison is not likely to offer an escape from want (not so much a deterrent as a non-attractant).
Given that imprisonment then becomes segregation rather than punishment (there is no idea of retribution or 'justice') the guilt or otherwise of the criminal, beyond the bare facts of the case (proximal rather than distal guilt), becomes immaterial: one would be as justified in imprisoning those who, through no fault of their own, due to neurological damage sustained during a poor childhood, for example, will remain highly likely to commit a crime for the rest of their lives, regardless of the rehabilitative programmes to which they may be submitted.
There is an upside for those who appear doomed to be unable to function in normal society, however: as the comparative comfort of prison has less influence on their actions (ie. would not have served to attract them), they can expect to be allowed better living conditions once inside. In other words, homicidal nutters are in for life but get to smoke cuban cigars and play canasta.
Children under 10 would be unlikely to be imprisoned at all, or at the most only for a few months, because, in their early stage of development, it is taken that they would they respond essentially to suitable rehabilitation (truly, a 're-forming').
Given that imprisonment then becomes segregation rather than punishment (there is no idea of retribution or 'justice') the guilt or otherwise of the criminal, beyond the bare facts of the case (proximal rather than distal guilt), becomes immaterial: one would be as justified in imprisoning those who, through no fault of their own, due to neurological damage sustained during a poor childhood, for example, will remain highly likely to commit a crime for the rest of their lives, regardless of the rehabilitative programmes to which they may be submitted.
There is an upside for those who appear doomed to be unable to function in normal society, however: as the comparative comfort of prison has less influence on their actions (ie. would not have served to attract them), they can expect to be allowed better living conditions once inside. In other words, homicidal nutters are in for life but get to smoke cuban cigars and play canasta.
Children under 10 would be unlikely to be imprisoned at all, or at the most only for a few months, because, in their early stage of development, it is taken that they would they respond essentially to suitable rehabilitation (truly, a 're-forming').
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Woebot
Well-known member
Watched this and find it extremely difficult to fathom how you've come to the conclusion that:
"The argument that perhaps the murder of a child and the murder of an (equally innocent) adult might be equally reprehensible. The murder of a child is always far, far worse apparently. "
Will Self isn't saying any such thing! He's saying that it's wrong to assume there's a difference in the character of an adult murderer and a child murderer - that the idea of a child murder being "super-evil" is fallacious. He also makes a quite valid point that the children might not have been fully aware what they were doing - which is very possible.
How you get from Will Self's point to yours I have no idea at all?!?!?!?
Voderman = Standard Daily Mail business.
Last edited:
john eden
male pale and stale
Going down that road gets you to a discussion of the relative merits of individuals and their worth.
Is murdering a doctor worse than murdering a street sweeper?
matt b
Indexing all opinion
Quite. The age of the victim is irrelevant.
I'm more concerned with people's views of the purpose of prison...
john eden
male pale and stale
Well obviously prison is there to punish people for doing BAD THINGS, because if you punish people HARD ENOUGH then they will never ever doing anything BAD ever again. And if they do you need to punish them EVEN HARDER.
Mkay?
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Not if it's Dr Fox.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
OTOH, plenty of old people are ignorant grumpy old racist twats, so fuck 'em.