Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

BWhite · 2005-03-22 20:10:41

Surgical abortion is barbaric and should be avoided entirely. Its too bad many in America vigorously oppose good education on contraception.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 20:14:40

If you are going to imprison someone, either for rehabilitation purposes or to keep them isolated from the general populace (population, people, citizenry .. whatever word you prefer), I believe they should have basic amenities and reasonably civilized treatment. In other words, prison should be hard but not unduly cruel.

I expected you'd think I was being a bit extreme on this one, admittedly so. I suppose I have my own demons when it comes to dealing with murderers, rapists and their ilk. Death by lethal injection, just slipping away doesn't seem enough given the suffering they've caused others. As though kharmic scales need balancing or something.

It just now occurs to me we may have stumbled onto a way to catch more of them. A small group out to administer particularly brutal punishments should an offender be captured and convicted under their watch might act as incentive for them to turn themselves in to the police.

Just thinking aloud, or in type as the case may be. Not really interested in defending that musing.

Palomar · 2005-03-22 21:55:55

[P.S. As an aside, I still find it peculiar that so many of the group we loosely define as 'the Left' can cheerfully approve the torturous dismemberment and death of a 20- or 24-week old innocent fetus, while fighting tooth and nail to preserve the life of a vicious multiple murderer.
The fetus has done nothing wrong and cannot speak for itself - only a few weeks separate it from birth and the assumption of full human rights under the law - yet its death is 'O.K.'.
The multiple murderer, fully in control of his/her own destiny, has deliberately, purposefully, and mercilessly taken the lives of several innocent humans and is very likely to do it again. Yet that creature's life must be defended out of some kind of contrived moral ascendancy on the part of the Left.
I've never understood that, myself, despite all the lectures about how a fetus isn't a human being etc. (And the vicious multiple murderer is??! ) ???

*I agree with you, Shaun. I can't understand anyone being anti-capital punishment (as am I) yet also pro-abortion on demand.

It made no sense to me when I was 15 years old and it still doesn't 2 months shy of 40.

Bill: Surgical abortion is barbaric and should be avoided entirely. Its too bad many in America vigorously oppose good education on contraception.

It's even more of a pity that people don't use all the free contraceptive devices handed out at various clinics. I used to deliver reports to a birth control clinic inside a hospital; on the front desk was a big plastic bucket full of sealed foil condoms. Anyone could take 1 or a handful, like Halloween candy.

Abortion in most instances is so unnecessary; pregnancy is usually a condition that can be prevented obviously.

In my view, it'd be the same as -not- putting an antiseptic on a cut and -not- having your tetanus shot up to date, thereby allowing an infection to set in to the point of gangrene and THEN going to a hospital demanding to have part of your limb amputated as treatment.

Talk about "an ounce of prevention" being worth "a pound of cure." The morality issue aside, it's stupid.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-03-22 22:07:41

I expected you'd think I was being a bit extreme on this one, admittedly so. I suppose I have my own demons when it comes to dealing with murderers, rapists and their ilk. Death by lethal injection, just slipping away doesn't seem enough given the suffering they've caused others. As though kharmic scales need balancing or something.

*Well, I'll admit I understand that gut-level "desire to get even." I mean make Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols experience every death, every maiming, every dismemberment for the OK City bombing..

But violence begets violence. And it doesn't bring the victims back.

I think of all the millions of people who perished in the Holocaust. Where is the -justice- for these people? I see little justice anywhere.

The basic point is, don't go down to the same moral level of the scoundrel. That's what capital punishment is, IMO.

If anyone will be civil it won't be the scoundrel. So then, it's up to us. Cobra, I was nearly the victim of a violent crime when I was 19 years old. Fortunately I just narrowly avoided being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which was my own apartment. I knew the would-be assailant. If his intentions had been carried out, would I want him killed for it? I don't know (but doubt it), because I didn't experience (thank god) what he had planned. But as a potential "about as close as you can get" victim? No. Prison time? Yep, indeed.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-03-23 01:55:30

LO
Ethical ?
So you have choice : being impalated under australian summer sun till death follows or be locked in an isolation cell for an undetermined period of time.
Will you go and sit up on the stake ?

I can imagine CC, Shaun and Treb sitting on their stakes at top of some Golgotha mount just to bring the demonstration that they "see little ethical difference between DonPanic's mental torture and CC's physical torture... and don't personally condone ..."

Calling the isolation cell "mental torture" for the purpose of defending capital punishment then seems to me some as some vicious intellectual trick.
In french, this way of pretending that the sardin is equivalent to the whale by twisting the facts to fit them to the argumentation is called "to f_ck the flies".

It's so easy to take the worse of men misconduct to preach for capital punishment, neglecting the fact that murderers and rapists are always somehow mad peoples at the moment of their crimes, no matter their are clever or not.
The rapist is sure that he isn't a rapist, but a real man that shows to that hoar who's the he-man., or something like that...
In substance, a SK doesn't do things worse than a cold blood killer which planifies methodically to eliminate someone for a determined purpose.

'populace' is a straight across synonym for 'population' in English.

That isn't what the Webster says : the common people : masses. Maybe you're right for US english, but as I frequently travel in Engand, in spite of many weaknesses, my english is good enough (though structurated as french) to make me feel the very difference between "populace" and "population" and here "common" is opposed to "gentry".

slipping away doesn't seem enough given the suffering they've caused others..

Applying talion s'law... Eye for eye

DonPanic · 2005-03-23 03:11:24

Hi

But violence begets violence. And it doesn't bring the victims back.

This reminds me a yemenite tribe trial council. (Seen on TV report)
Imagine a large room, the village Ancients facing the population, most eating khat and smoking narghilees...
After chatchating, they take care of the village affairs.
A man is convicted of having killed another one in a quarrel.
After a long deliberation, the village Ancients council condems the man to death (by hanging)
The killed man's widow stands up and says:
"Killing this man will not bring my husband back.
Alone, I cannot cultivate my parcel of land and my chidren and I will starve, and also the murderer's family.
I wish that man to be condemned to cultivate my parcel of land half of the days of his life, so I can raise my family, and so he can raise his family too"
After a short discussion, the Ancients Coucil condemned the murderer following the widow's whish.
The murderer's wife stands up and kisses the widow.

I think that there is more wisdom in the case than in our occidental ordinary justice that would have sentenced the man to jail or to death, letting two families in distress.

What do the capital punishment supporters think of that ?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-23 07:11:26

You're bending the facts and distorting the argument here, DP.:-

A man is convicted of having killed another one in a quarrel.

This man wouldn't make it onto our list of the "richly deserving few" and I think you know this perfectly well. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-23 08:15:19

But violence begets violence.

Sometimes. And sometimes it ends that particular cycle.

If anyone will be civil it won't be the scoundrel. So then, it's up to us.

This is one of those issues where I think we're all right in our own way. In a sense I'm "bad cop" on this, hopefully our non-American participants are familiar with that expression. On the one hand we've got Don, self-appointed "good cop" arguing for civility of a sort (largely illusory) while I'm in the shadows sharpening stakes. Makes Shaun's position look damn sensible and moderate by comparison.

So you have choice : being impalated under australian summer sun till death follows or be locked in an isolation cell for an undetermined period of time.
Will you go and sit up on the stake ?
I can imagine CC, Shaun and Treb sitting on their stakes at top of some Golgotha mount just to bring the demonstration that they "see little ethical difference between DonPanic's mental torture and CC's physical torture... and don't personally condone ..."

So now you're using my specific statements against Shaun and Treb? They never said anything supportive about the stakes, Shaun specifically came out against it. This can only be argued against me.

Unless you mean it as a comparison, "what would you rather have, the stake or my bottle-cell" which is a silly exercise. Your "torture" is meant to break people for re-education (a red flag term itself) while mine is intended to kill people. But both have the specific purpose of inflicting pain and suffering and like it or not we'd both be condemned by several human rights groups were we ever in a position to enact our respective approaches.

Calling the isolation cell "mental torture" for the purpose of defending capital punishment then seems to me some as some vicious intellectual trick.

I'll explain it then. You put them in the cell, hoping it's miserable enough to make them receptive to any conditioning that might change their very nature. Eventually they can't stand it anymore and beg to be let out for "re education".

As statistics, personal experience and anectodal evidence from every police officer and corrections worker I've ever known indicate, rehabilition doesn't work on these vicious types. You can't rehabilitate a multiple-rapist or a serial killer. It's what they do, who they are. So this make them good people again nonsense isn't going to happen no matter how hard you try. They will have to be locked up for life.

So again, you lock them in a cell designed specifically to induce panic, misery and a willingness to do anything to end it, and you have to leave them there until they die. That strikes me as a particularly miserable way to go, but then you don't have those anoyying pictures of staked bodies floating around on Amnesty International websites so it's all well and good.

We're talking about the same thing here, I'm just not trying to convince anyone I'm morally superior.

It's so easy to take the worse of men misconduct to preach for capital punishment, neglecting the fact that murderers and rapists are always somehow mad peoples at the moment of their crimes, no matter their are clever or not.
The rapist is sure that he isn't a rapist, but a real man that shows to that hoar who's the he-man., or something like that...

Yes, and Hitler really though he was doing what was best for his people.
If they're "mad" and incapable of seeing objectively what they've done then that's even more reason to kill them and be done with it. Unless you think we can reason with a madman now? How 'bout talking down rabid dogs?

That isn't what the Webster says : the common people : masses. Maybe you're right for US english, but as I frequently travel in Engand, in spite of many weaknesses, my english is good enough (though structurated as french) to make me feel the very difference between "populace" and "population" and here "common" is opposed to "gentry".

We don't have "gentry" here.

This man wouldn't make it onto our list of the "richly deserving few" and I think you know this perfectly well. :;):

Quite right.

DonPanic · 2005-03-23 09:27:54

LO
I told that I was trying to keep the respect of human life as a guideline and act logically in this way.

You said "It's what they do, who they are."
That's the point I disagree. Here in France, we have the case of pedophile teachers who had vicious behaviors and sexual abuses at many children on their working place, while leading perfect family and apparent social life. So, who are they ?

I'll dress the bad cop uniform, so you have no monopoly on it, CC
I lock criminals in mental torture cells, keeping them alive and miserable till they die, if they cannot be reeducated, as you say.
So what ? is this long lasting punishment contradictory with the pro capital punishment and those who think that no retaliation is good enough for this type of criminals, if just killing them is too soft a penalty ?
Should be happy ??? you have both the long range torture and the death.

In this system, none takes the decision to shorten somebody's life, so nobody has the right to kill somebody.
The principle remains.

But if only one out of one hundred harsh criminals can turn into an honest man, I think it worth trying...

DonPanic · 2005-03-23 09:44:14

LO

We don't have "gentry" here.

Not defined as nobless, but you have your gentry, for sure.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-23 19:13:02

DP:-

You said "It's what they do, who they are."
That's the point I disagree. Here in France, we have the case of pedophile teachers who had vicious behaviors and sexual abuses at many children on their working place, while leading perfect family and apparent social life. So, who are they ?

I think I can help you here, DP; I know exactly who these pedophile teachers are.
They're fully-fledged registrants on the list of the "richly deserving few" ... that's who they are!! :realllymad:

The fact that you seem to have doubts about the true nature of these disgusting predators indicates strongly, at least to me, that your understanding of what constitutes a serious threat to society is gravely impaired. Teachers are entrusted with the safety of our children. These teachers have systematically abused that trust, using their positions to harm grievously the very children they were assumed to be nurturing. This is one of the most heinous of crimes and, in my opinion, completely unforgivable. The fact that these contemptible creatures covered up their despicable behaviour by deliberately and slyly assuming the mantle of civilized behaviour while perpetrating their offences, only makes them all the worse - not better!

This glaring inconsistency on your part, DP, and your inability to see long-term mental torture (even unto death) as no better than swift painless execution, shows the disturbing dearth of logic in your attitude. If you are typical of the people who seem to be in control of the way justice is administered these days, at least here in Australia, it's not difficult to see why the safety of ordinary citizens is being compromised and the rule of law is breaking down.
???

srmeaney · 2005-03-24 00:31:35

Shaun Barrett,

The rule of law is breaking down because too many are ignoring the legal and constitutional rights and responsibilities of the people.

Even in the Commonwealth (of Which the people of Australia are a part) there is one single law that has defined your right to freedom from tyranny and terrorism.

1. It prevents the Government from taking away your rights or altering the law or constitution to change the nature of your rights.
2. It prevents corporations from exploiting you for profit.
3. It prevents the individual from attacking the right of others to an equal share of the benifits and responsibilities that come with citizenship.

The problem is that they have along with most of the population, been guilty of acts of treason against the Commonwealth and it's right to preserve and promote this law.

Sedition: any act that causes the government, constitution, law, and/or sovereign to be held in hatred and/or contempt is an act of Sedition therefore any attack on your right to an equal share of the responsibilities and benefits that come with citizenship by any act of sovereign, government, law, constitution, corporation, or individual that is likely to cause you to hold the constitution, law, sovereign, or government in hatred and/or contempt is an act of Sedition. Collectivly, conspiracy to Sedition. As conspiracy to Sedition is an attack on the Commonwealth, the Charge is Treason.

Considering that no Commonwealth Government has enforced this law because they realize it makes them unemployed and powerless in the face of self government by the individual you now know why the rest of the world is worse off than this corrupted little Commonwealth. Only Chinese governed Hong Kong has this law because the government is misusing it for the purpose of oppression. In recognising it, China has effectivly given all it's citizens the right to self government (and the responsibility to recognise that right of all other citizens). As of the Hong Kong take over, China has a legal loophole that expands to include all of its citizens in the right to an equal share of the benefits and responsibilities that come with citizenship. Anyone in Hong Kong is automaticly subjected to that law. Anyone attempting to invalidate or misinterpret that law is guilty of treason against the people of China.
The Government of China must, by its own claim to support the rule of law, surrender all authority to its people. Not just the majority of its people. All its people. Every one in China has the right to an equal share of the benefits and responsibilities that come with Citizenship (including the right to self government).

Sean R. Meaney

DonPanic · 2005-03-24 03:07:52

Hi Shaun
It seems that you intend me with intention process,
with contradictory accusations of being
- too soft one way, not killing people
- too wild another way, detaining criminals in "inhuman" conditions.
Your implicite theory is that a human being NEVER changes his mind, what I don't agree with, except for you, may be.
For some people, this is a quality, for some others, its a sign of great stupidity.
Your other explicit critic is totally ideologic making of me some all leftist guy, what I can deny, my appreciation on politics and political men depends on their own qualities, no matter which side they are.
I disagree with CC, but he keeps my full respect, being of the ones which can autocriticise.

Pedophilia is a mental ilness, and here, we don't kill mentally ill people.
I teach sciences to children. In the actual society, many of them live in broken families, lacking affection, and some would easily report on me their need of love, as some substitute for a missing father. It breaks my heart to refuse them some plain tender gestures, as a caress on the cheek, a hand on the shoulder, because of the pedophilia cases and the pedophilia paranoïa.
I just allow myself to hold their hand when tended at me, let them kiss me at the end of the scholar year when we wont see again. Same for many teachers.
So, I must overcome the hate, disgust and deepest wildery that invade me at the thought that someone could do any arm to "my" children, and treat the pedophilic ones as sick peoples.

Palomar · 2005-03-24 05:23:10

Pedophilia is a mental illness

*Careful, DonPanic. Some people might stalk, harm, or molest children because they have emotional and/or mental problems and pedophilia is part of a greater problem. But based on what I have seen (television reports, in my medical-oriented career) and read, etc., a lot of pedophiles are predators, pure and simple. They're akin to rapists. I don't considered rape as the result of mental illness. Some rapists may be mentally ill, but not all are.

Some people are simply voracious, twisted predators who seek a victim: The defenseless, the weak, the vulnerable.

I think it's dangerous to characterize -all- pedophilic predators as "mentally ill" because that absolves every one of them from any personal responsibility for their behaviors and actions.

So, I don't believe every aberrance in human behavior is a mental illness (I am not saying you do believe this, I am simply commenting) just as I don't believe every excess in human behavior (drink, food, substances) is "a disease." There has to be some level of personal accountability and responsibility, IMO. And most people are sane/normal enough to be held to accountability.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-24 06:20:57

Sorry, DonPanic.
When it comes to the safety of children, I don't compromise and I make no apology for that. When I finally come to power, pedophiles will be an endangered species ... but only briefly.

DonPanic:-

I disagree with CC, but he keeps my full respect ..

Your full respect, huh?
So far you've told him his attitude is on a par with the rogue soldiers responsible for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, his arguments are "mad" and "uncontrolled", and he has a "Middle Ages mentality".
If that's your full respect, I'm glad he has it.
I'm not sure I could cope with it. :laugh:

Gennaro · 2005-03-24 06:33:29

It's so easy to take the worse of men misconduct to preach for capital punishment, neglecting the fact that murderers and rapists are always somehow mad peoples at the moment of their crimes, no matter their are clever or not.

Why would you suggest this? Rape has a long history in natural biological evolution. Big apes do it all the time, and big apes among humans do it as well. It's not a sign of illness, it's a sign of strength, the acting out of a primitive mind, power being abused in a voluntarily manner against the defenceless because the perpetrator is able to. It's an act of the will. It's natural.

Punishment should be metered out to serve two functions, settling the scales (as Cobra puts it), you can call this revenge or restoration of honour if you like, and as a cleansing of the social body. On a deeper level, these two are actually intertwined. In the end, civilisation is nothing but power used to protect the community against power used to destroy it. Believing it could try for "rehabilitation" on the other hand is pure hubris, in my opinion (which coincidentally might well be suspected of hiding a sociopathic disregard for the victim - I have come to believe this in fact is a typical trait of the left. They always side with the predator).

As for the soul of the criminal, I can only leave that to the Allmighty. Our responsibility is (or rather should be) to the victim. That this isn't so in our western legal systems is simply a disgrace.

P.S: Some sort of abortion must be allowed in any case. I wouldn't want to force a woman to bear the child of a rapist.

BWhite · 2005-03-24 07:32:04

It's so easy to take the worse of men misconduct to preach for capital punishment, neglecting the fact that murderers and rapists are always somehow mad peoples at the moment of their crimes, no matter their are clever or not.
Why would you suggest this? Rape has a long history in natural biological evolution. Big apes do it all the time, and big apes among humans do it as well. It's not a sign of illness, it's a sign of strength, the acting out of a primitive mind, power being abused in a voluntarily manner against the defenceless because the perpetrator is able to. It's an act of the will. It's natural.
Punishment should be metered out to serve two functions, settling the scales (as Cobra puts it), you can call this revenge or restoration of honour if you like, and as a cleansing of the social body. On a deeper level, these two are actually intertwined. In the end, civilisation is nothing but power used to protect the community against power used to destroy it. Believing it could try for "rehabilitation" on the other hand is pure hubris, in my opinion (which coincidentally might well be suspected of hiding a sociopathic disregard for the victim - I have come to believe this in fact is a typical trait of the left. They always side with the predator).
As for the soul of the criminal, I can only leave that to the Allmighty. Our responsibility is (or rather should be) to the victim. That this isn't so in our western legal systems is simply a disgrace.
P.S: Some sort of abortion must be allowed in any case. I wouldn't want to force a woman to bear the child of a rapist.

The State must always guard against allowing its processes to be subverted towards those same natural brutish ends you describe.

If blacks are executed by lethal injection at five times the rate of whites, perhaps the "big age" you speak of has been clever enough to clothe himself in a uniform.

And some on the "Left" merely seek to resist the "big ape" who has falsely clothed himself in the colors of the State.

= = =

I agree with this:

In the end, civilisation is nothing but power used to protect the community against power used to destroy it.

And we must also beware wolves in sheep's clothing. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1111671273

DonPanic · 2005-03-24 07:49:26

LO

I disagree with CC, but he keeps my full respect ..
Your full respect, huh?
So far you've told him his attitude is on a par with the rogue soldiers responsible for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, his arguments are "mad" and "uncontrolled", and he has a "Middle Ages mentality".
If that's your full respect, I'm glad he has it.:

Yes, he admitted he could have some hidden demons, and that's enough for me to say he's really an honest man.
And I'm sincere.
Ho, I forgot, you think that a man can never change his mind

Sorry, DonPanic.
When it comes to the safety of children, I don't compromise and I make no apology for that. When I finally come to power, pedophiles will be an endangered species ... but only briefly..

We had a recent case where the Investigation Magistrate (french particular lawyer) took all the children testimonies as always true, following the advices of chidren's psychologists.
As a result, some men and women have been wrongly accused of being a part of a pedophilic network, and sent to jail.
With your brief justice, maybe you should have paid a visit to their family saying
"Sorry, your mother or father have been killed by mistake, I apologise. Anything I can do to repair ?"
By chance french justice is very slow, don't behead people anymore so that mistakes can be partly corrected, if peoples can overcome the traumatism to be falsely prosecuted with of such horrible accusations
Now, lawyers are very cautious about children testimonies and investigate further on to see if their parents do not push the children's testimonies

*Careful, DonPanic.(...)Some rapists may be mentally ill, but not all are..

How can you know, if you can't have them to observe and study ?

Punishment should be metered out to serve two functions, settling the scales (as Cobra puts it), you can call this revenge or restoration of honour if you like, and as a cleansing of the social body.

When these peoples are at mercy and stop to endanger society, is it really necessary to delete them ?

I have come to believe this in fact is a typical trait of the left. They always side with the predator).

Is there anything I said that makes you believe I side with predators ?

Gennaro · 2005-03-24 08:03:51

If blacks are executed by lethal injection at five times the rate of whites, perhaps the "big age" you speak of has been clever enough to clothe himself in a uniform.

Uh-ho.
Let's just say I'm a proponent of legal equality.

And some on the "Left" merely seek to resist the "big ape" who has falsely clothed himself in the colors of the State.

And in my book that would mean they are not really leftists anymore, but everyone is free to label himself the way he feels fit, I suppose.

I agree with this:
Quote
In the end, civilisation is nothing but power used to protect the community against power used to destroy it.

And we must also beware wolves in sheep's clothing. :;):

Indeed. Well, the eternal question of practical philosophy, I guess.

Palomar · 2005-03-24 08:29:50

*Careful, DonPanic.(...)Some rapists may be mentally ill, but not all are..

How can you know, if you can't have them to observe and study ?

*But many other people have studied them, DonPanic. I've worked in the medical field for many years -- which is often linked to the legal field. I've also worked (for nearly 3 years) in a psychiatric hospital (which doubled as a drug rehabilitation hospital).

To say all rapists are mentally ill is also a disservice to the genuinely mentally ill, many of whom are nonviolent. Imagine you are schizophrenic, and someone says "all rapists are mentally ill." Others might associate you with a rapist. :-\

Some rapists and pedophiles are probably mentally ill; their criminal behavior is part of a greater problem.

But not all are, IMO. Based on what I've read, reports I've transcribed, real-life crime books I've read, a forensic pathologist I formerly worked for, etc. No, I'm not an authority on the matter.

Again, I think some people are simply rotten, vicious predators. They see someone weaker than they, or vulnerable, and they attack.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-03-24 12:05:53

LO

To say all rapists are mentally ill is also a disservice to the genuinely mentally ill, many of whom are nonviolent. Imagine you are schizophrenic, and someone says "all rapists are mentally ill." Others might associate you with a rapist. :-\

If I say that all criminals who kill a parent in order to catch an inheritage faster are just ordinary people, that doen't mean that all ordinary people are criminals,
right ?

When I say that pedophilia is a form of madness, the women's rapists are not part of if, they are not sexually attracted by children. Sexual attraction by young mature girls isn't really pedophilia.

Palomar · 2005-03-24 12:28:11

LO
To say all rapists are mentally ill is also a disservice to the genuinely mentally ill, many of whom are nonviolent. Imagine you are schizophrenic, and someone says "all rapists are mentally ill." Others might associate you with a rapist. :-\
If I say that all criminals who kill a parent in order to catch an inheritage faster are just ordinary people, that doen't mean that all ordinary people are criminals,
right ?

*I see your point, DonPanic.

But there is a stigma attached to mental illness.

Generally speaking, there is NO stigma attached to being normal.

That's the primary difference, IMO.

--Cindy

Trebuchet · 2005-03-24 14:50:14

Again, I think some people are simply rotten, vicious predators. They see someone weaker than they, or vulnerable, and they attack.

I believe that a lot of people, deep down in their heart, do not or cannot believe this, and that mental blindness is at the root of much judicial stupidity.

DonPanic · 2005-03-24 17:45:53

LO

Again, I think some people are simply rotten, vicious predators. They see someone weaker than they, or vulnerable, and they attack.
I believe that a lot of people, deep down in their heart, do not or cannot believe this, and that mental blindness is at the root of much judicial stupidity.

I perfectly admit that !

Now,
1) is a woman or a man nasty by nature, born nasty,
or does she/he become nasty ?
2) are they always nasty, or by crisis, or by circumstances ?

You say someone is enraged, OK, that's a fact I don't deny
where is the mental blindness in asking "why" ?
where is the blindness to investigate ?

When there is a problem, do you personnaly always avoid the problem, or do you try to solve the problem ?
If a member of your family is sick, do you let him die,
or do you call the doctor ?

Palomar · 2005-03-24 21:01:18

LO
Again, I think some people are simply rotten, vicious predators. They see someone weaker than they, or vulnerable, and they attack.
I believe that a lot of people, deep down in their heart, do not or cannot believe this, and that mental blindness is at the root of much judicial stupidity.
I perfectly admit that !
Now,
1) is a woman or a man nasty by nature, born nasty,
or does she/he become nasty ?
2) are they always nasty, or by crisis, or by circumstances ?
You say someone is enraged, OK, that's a fact I don't deny
where is the mental blindness in asking "why" ?
where is the blindness to investigate ?
When there is a problem, do you personnaly always avoid the problem, or do you try to solve the problem ?
If a member of your family is sick, do you let him die,
or do you call the doctor ?

*Nature or nuture?

I think it's a -combination of- genetic predisposition and environmental surroundings.

Are you asking me if I believe some people are born evil? If so: No, I don't believe anyone is born evil. I don't believe Jeffrey Dahmer was born evil, etc.

You seem to think everyone who does anti-social things is simply ill and can be cured. I don't agree. Some people enjoy being cruel; some people feel sorry for themselves, nurse a grudge and grow to hate -- and feed their hatred.

There are mentally ill people.

And there are people who are hateful and hurtful, who know they are this way and don't care. They think life has been rotten to them so they will make -others- suffer because of their pain. Can they be helped? If they're not willing to see their faults and help themselves, all we can do is TRY...but (old American saying) "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make the horse drink."

A former in-law of mine was raised in a chaotic, unhappy home. His mother rejected him as a child (she also rejected his half-brother). There was extensive substance abuse in the family. There was emotional and psychological abuse.

I met him when I was 13 years old. At first he was nice. It quickly turned out he was a very bitter, frustrated and angry young man. If he found someone in his proximity who was vulnerable, he'd target that person for extreme emotional and psychological abuse. Once or twice he admitted he was wrong to do this, and wanted to stop. But he always reverted back to his old behaviors. He's currently on his 4th marriage, has 3 children he's abandoned, etc.

Does he need help? Yes. Will he get help? So far he has not willingly gotten help, though he claims to have tried. Do I feel sorry for him? Yes (and I am one of the people he directed his anger at, more than once). I believe this man was a very sensitive, loving and trusting little boy once; and if he had had a good, loving, supportive home he would be a very different person today.

But if he is not willing to help himself, WHO can? But he is not a criminal.

As for criminals like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer: What makes them tick? I don't know.

If a family member is sick, you call the doctor. The doctor can prescribe medicine. But no one can force the patient to take the medicine. If the patient refuses the medicine...what then?

Please remember: I am opposed to capital punishment.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-03-22 20:10:41

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#152 2005-03-22 20:14:40

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#153 2005-03-22 21:55:55

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#154 2005-03-22 22:07:41

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#155 2005-03-23 01:55:30

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#156 2005-03-23 03:11:24

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#157 2005-03-23 07:11:26

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#158 2005-03-23 08:15:19

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#159 2005-03-23 09:27:54

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#160 2005-03-23 09:44:14

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#161 2005-03-23 19:13:02

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#162 2005-03-24 00:31:35

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#163 2005-03-24 03:07:52

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#164 2005-03-24 05:23:10

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#165 2005-03-24 06:20:57

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#166 2005-03-24 06:33:29

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#167 2005-03-24 07:32:04

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#168 2005-03-24 07:49:26

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#169 2005-03-24 08:03:51

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#170 2005-03-24 08:29:50

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#171 2005-03-24 12:05:53

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#172 2005-03-24 12:28:11

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#173 2005-03-24 14:50:14

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#174 2005-03-24 17:45:53

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#175 2005-03-24 21:01:18

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

Board footer