What's your view? Justice or murder?

[Kitchandro]

6 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

A life for a life is not fair justice, it's the descent into barbarism. Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

 

And that justifies vigilante justice? That justifies murder?

 

What he did was utterly repugnant, but it doesn't then mean he has to be a psychopath. 

Not true at all, a lot of people are decent and don't warrant revenge against them. It is only sensible to get rid of the trouble makers and deter potential future ones, which is why laws and prison exist in the first place. This sort of thing is no different in principle. It's just a different method. If you're going to kill a child, you might get life imprisonment or you might get killed. Don't kill people.

 

We're not talking about justifying murder here, but since you mention it, yeh. If a guy kills a baby I think it totally justifies anything anyone does to him. I say it's open season in that scenario.

 

Who cares who his murderers were. The man is dead, and no one can complain.

[The Doctor]

11 minutes ago, the fox said:

a sane person won't punch a baby to death. 

Well no, but insane moment doesn't mean incapable of ever feeling guilt. It's common in sociopaths - crimes and violent action on a heat of the moment basis, but they're not necessarily disconnected from emotion.

[the fox]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

Well no, but insane moment doesn't mean incapable of ever feeling guilt. It's common in sociopaths - crimes and violent action on a heat of the moment basis, but they're not necessarily disconnected from emotion.

he didn't steal or assault another man, he punched a baby girl to death. i don't know what kind of a "heat in the moment" scenario that was.

i don't know the guy, he may not be a psycho, who knows? what i know is, he aint getting any sympathy from me.

[The Doctor]

3 minutes ago, the fox said:

he didn't steal or assault another man, he punched a baby girl to death. i don't know what kind of a "heat in the moment" scenario that was.

i don't know the guy, he may not be a psycho, who knows? what i know is, he aint getting any sympathy from me.

Who's arguing to show him sympathy? 

[The Doctor]

20 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

Not true at all,

No, it's absolutely true. Retaliation in kind has no end point, it's a vicious cycle that will only ever escalate. You leave it to the criminal justice system - that's what it means to live in society and not an anarchist commune. 

[the fox]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Who's arguing to show him sympathy? 

think i didn't clarify here, talking about people who want him to serve time instead. imo, he should get the death penalty. no serving time for those kind of people

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, the fox said:

he didn't steal or assault another man, he punched a baby girl to death. i don't know what kind of a "heat in the moment" scenario that was.

i don't know the guy, he may not be a psycho, who knows? what i know is, he aint getting any sympathy from me.

I don’t think it takes much to kill a 2 day old to be honest. It’s not like beating to death an adult, babies are very fragile. You get very unprepared, young parents suddenly left in charge of a baby who just won’t stop screaming in the middle of the night... it only takes a second of losing control for something terrible to happen. What he did was inexcusable, of course, but I can see how these things happen. He admitted to it and was apparently very remorseful. I think life in jail was enough.

[Innovindil]

One less murderer in the world that won't hurt anyone ever again? 

 

That's good news. It has to be. 

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

One less murderer in the world that won't hurt anyone ever again? 

 

That's good news. It has to be. 

Not necessarily, what was the guy who killed him in for?

[casablancas]

50 minutes ago, the fox said:

a sane person won't punch a baby to death. 

Nothing suggests he was unwell at the time. I'm not sure how that can be put down to mental health. I dont think this is a mad v bad debate. 

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, Strokes said:

Not necessarily, what was the guy who killed him in for?

No idea, but we have a Child killer dead and another killer who'll have a longer sentence inside.

 

Everyones a winner.

[David Guiza]

I just don't understand how you can justifiably teach to society that the practise of killing another member of society is wrong if you are then happy to accept that the murder of the defendant is 'justice' for the crime. There is absolutely no doubting that the deceased killer is the lowest of the low, but by justifying one killing you open a can of worms.  

 

Does every murderer deserve to die for their actions in that case? The man who assists in turning off life support for his terminally ill wife for example? The definition of murder doesn't change based on the characteristics of the victim. Maybe that is the way to sort out violent crime though, a never ending chain of 'justice killings'. 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I just don't understand how you can justifiably teach to society that the practise of killing another member of society is wrong if you are then happy to accept that the murder of the defendant is 'justice' for the crime. There is absolutely no doubting that the deceased killer is the lowest of the low, but by justifying one killing you open a can of worms.  

 

Does every murderer deserve to die for their actions in that case? The man who assists in turning off life support for his terminally ill wife for example? The definition of murder doesn't change based on the characteristics of the victim. Maybe that is the way to sort out violent crime though, a never ending chain of 'justice killings'. 

I don’t think you can teach that murder is wrong, you either know it or you don’t. I would support capital punishment if it was cost effective because I do believe it is the only justice for the victims. I don’t think you can rehabilitate people who intentionally kill.

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I just don't understand how you can justifiably teach to society that the practise of killing another member of society is wrong if you are then happy to accept that the murder of the defendant is 'justice' for the crime. There is absolutely no doubting that the deceased killer is the lowest of the low, but by justifying one killing you open a can of worms.  

 

Does every murderer deserve to die for their actions in that case? The man who assists in turning off life support for his terminally ill wife for example? The definition of murder doesn't change based on the characteristics of the victim. Maybe that is the way to sort out violent crime though, a never ending chain of 'justice killings'. 

It's pretty easy, you justify it by not killing the innocent but killing those that do- the state actually kills people all the time, we drop drones on those that want to do us us harm, we shoot people who are considered a danger, the state doesn't just have the right to kill sometimes but it even has a duty to do so when something like the London bridge killers go on a rampage.

 

The second point is just being silly, no one has ever called or ever would call for the death penalty on someone helping his terminally ill wife to pass, not in the same league let alone ballpark as child killers.

[Finnegan]

Said it before, don't understand anyone that wants to see someone die. 

 

Life imprisonment is far worse than death. As someone that doesn't believe in hell, the idea of dying just isn't scary. I believe everything just stops. 

 

There's a certain amount of freedom in that. Seems to me like killing someone who's done something awful is letting them off easy. 

 

It's why I don't get death row at all really. Obviously life should mean life, not eight or nine years, but that's another discussion. 

 

Wishing death on someone you deplore just shows an enormous lack of imagination, to me. 

 

 

Oh and whoever killed him is still a murdering twat themselves. 

[Finnegan]

11 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Well no, but insane moment doesn't mean incapable of ever feeling guilt. It's common in sociopaths - crimes and violent action on a heat of the moment basis, but they're not necessarily disconnected from emotion.

 

This is wrong. 

 

A sociopath / psychopath* is defined as someone without a conscience. They don't feel remorse, they don't feel guilt. Commiting a crime of passion in the heat of the moment and then feeling an emotional response later is not the behavior of a psychopath. 

 

They cannot ever be rehabilitated and if they're prone to violence (not all psychopaths are, plenty live very boring lives and you probably have met one before) they should never be released. 

 

They can experience boredom, frustration, anger, depression, et all though so there's still no reason to let them off easy by executing them. Let them rot in a cell devoid of stimulus. 

 

 

(*it's a common misconception that they are different things, they aren't, it's a synonym.)

[Guest]

It's murder.

 

Does John Westland think he is Judge Dread?

 

In the West we don't kill murderers. I think there is an argument for the death sentence in some cases but I certainly don't agree here.

 

I'm sure that many of us are fathers. Can you remember when you were a father for the first time and the love of your life just cried and cried and you were inadequate and couldn't do anything to help them? and you were tired, so tired and you were stressed. Now I know that is no excuse for killing your baby or even shaking them to stop them but it happens more than you can imagine. I'm sure the father had no intent to kill the baby, I'm sure he lived in hell with what he had done and maybe he didn't really mind being killed because of it.

 

Those of you without kids can perhaps relate to instances of road rage, or shouting at a partner (I won't say intimidation or agression) or hitting your dog, things that you shouldn't do and wouldn't have done if you had thought it through cooly beforehand. I'm sure the guy just snapped for a second. That doesn't justify a vigilante killing. He's no Colin Pitchfork (just to bring in another current thread)

 

The problem here is that mothers and fathers don't have any training and very little help. Many mothers and fathers are not equipped to have children and those that are still need training in many situations. We don't let people drive cars who haven't been trained, we don't let people perform surgery who haven't been trained, we don't even let people teach our children who haven't been trained yet we expect every new mother and father to be able to handle every situation that comes their way relying on what they remember their parents doing or less.

 

In my opinion people shouldn't be allowed to have children without being vetted for suitability and capability - that isn't going to happen, so they should at least be forced onto mandatory parenting classes before birth and throughout childhood.

 

Personally I feel sorry for the child, the father and all the other relations.

[David Guiza]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t think you can teach that murder is wrong, you either know it or you don’t. I would support capital punishment if it was cost effective because I do believe it is the only justice for the victims. I don’t think you can rehabilitate people who intentionally kill.

Well, yes, I agree that it is somewhat instinctive to know whether killing is wrong though I don't think it's always that simple. You could argue that anybody could kill given a certain set of events, though of course not a defenceless child like this case.

 

I just can't get on board with capital punishment for a number reasons - sure it makes logical sense, an eye for an eye is the simplest and most effective way. However, you only have to look at America to see that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Let alone the chance of killing an innocent person, the moral conundrum of whom carries out the killings etc.

 

Rehabilitation is a complex issue - I think it's too easy to say that it's impossible in some circumstances. 

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's pretty easy, you justify it by not killing the innocent but killing those that do- the state actually kills people all the time, we drop drones on those that want to do us us harm, we shoot people who are considered a danger, the state doesn't just have the right to kill sometimes but it even has a duty to do so when something like the London bridge killers go on a rampage.

 

The second point is just being silly, no one has ever called or ever would call for the death penalty on someone helping his terminally ill wife to pass, not in the same league let alone ballpark as child killers.

Of course I was being over the top with the euthanasia comparison - but my point is where do you draw the line? Do only child killers deserve to die, or anybody other than self defence and euthanasia? Murder is so complex as is the human mind - of course there will certain crimes, like terrorism or serial killers, where it is absolutely cut and dry, but there is so much that comes into it in so many circumstances. 

 

I'm not for one moment saying that I have the answer on how to deter scum like the deceased in this case, but I am just not comfortable with accepting his murder by another individual as 'justice'. 

 

[Finnegan]

I'm pretty sure a mandatory patenting class isn't going to stop someone punching their child to death, FIF. 

 

I personally don't even imagine it'd be on the curriculum. 

 

Patricia: Thank you Tina for that lovely demonstration on nappy changing, it was very helpful. Now, next, Barbara is going to give us a short lecture on setting up your child's first mini ISA but before that, here's a quick safety message from Gary. Gary?

 

Gary: Thank you Patricia, yes we have had an increase in questions about correct child discipline. I just wanted to clarify for everyone - please do NOT punch your child in the face until death. We have established through strict testing that it's definitely a sub optimal approach to behavioural management. Once again, NO punching until death. 

 

Patricia: Thank you, Gary, any questions? Yes Steven?

[Rogstanley]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I'm pretty sure a mandatory patenting class isn't going to stop someone punching their child to death, FIF. 

 

I personally don't even imagine it'd be on the curriculum. 

 

Patricia: Thank you Tina for that lovely demonstration on nappy changing, it was very helpful. Now, next, Barbara is going to give us a short lecture on setting up your child's first mini ISA but before that, here's a quick safety message from Gary. Gary?

 

Gary: Thank you Patricia, yes we have had an increase in questions about correct child discipline. I just wanted to clarify for everyone - please do NOT punch your child in the face until death. We have established through strict testing that it's definitely a sub optimal approach to behavioural management. Once again, NO punching until death. 

 

Patricia: Thank you, Gary, any questions? Yes Steven?

It would be reasonable to teach a few techniques about staying calm, what to do If you feel as though you are struggling to cope and so on.

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

It would be reasonable to teach a few techniques about staying calm, what to do If you feel as though you are struggling to cope and so on.

 

If you're predisposed to punch a child to death then a bit of CBT is probably short of the solution to be fair. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I'm pretty sure a mandatory patenting class isn't going to stop someone punching their child to death, FIF. 

 

I personally don't even imagine it'd be on the curriculum. 

 

Patricia: Thank you Tina for that lovely demonstration on nappy changing, it was very helpful. Now, next, Barbara is going to give us a short lecture on setting up your child's first mini ISA but before that, here's a quick safety message from Gary. Gary?

 

Gary: Thank you Patricia, yes we have had an increase in questions about correct child discipline. I just wanted to clarify for everyone - please do NOT punch your child in the face until death. We have established through strict testing that it's definitely a sub optimal approach to behavioural management. Once again, NO punching until death. 

 

Patricia: Thank you, Gary, any questions? Yes Steven?

But anger/frustration management would.

 

You don't think he just came home and decided to kill his baby do you (or maybe he decided on the way home).

 

Babies can cry for hours without stopping and an experienced parent learns techniques to cope (when they can't solve the problem). New parents don't have these techniques. With older children it's far easier (plus the parents have more experience), with babies, it's not as simple as asking about the problem or using distraction techniques and some parents would never think that actually walking away and sorting your own head out might be a good solution. You don't choose the red mist, it chooses you.

 

p.s. Finnegan do you have children?

[Rogstanley]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

If you're predisposed to punch a child to death then a bit of CBT is probably short of the solution to be fair. 

How do you know if you're 'predisposed' to that before it happens? Babies can push even the calmest of people to their limits of frustration. Raising awareness so new parents are more prepared and teaching techniques to deal with frustration isn't going to do any harm.

[Finnegan]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

How do you know if you're 'predisposed' to that before it happens? Babies can push even the calmest of people to their limits of frustration. Raising awareness so new parents are more prepared and teaching techniques to deal with frustration isn't going to do any harm.

 

It's not going to do any harm, no, but it's also completely unenforceable for a start and moreover - implying that this guy was just a bit frustrated and that otherwise he was a normal joe IS likely to do harm. 

 

There's clearly something wrong with someone beyond just "the stresses of life" for them to snap and murder their own offspring. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

If you're predisposed to punch a child to death then a bit of CBT is probably short of the solution to be fair. 

I think many studies have shown that we ARE predisposed to violence and I think that's quite evident on a day to day basis. 

 

quick search shows hundreds of articles saying so:

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201610/humans-are-genetically-predisposed-kill-each-other

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/28/natural-born-killers-humans-predisposed-to-study-suggests

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/human-evolution-violence-instinct-to-kill-murder-each-other-a7335491.html

 

Not sure how anyone could argue against parenting classes either. Or are you generally against education?