 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I stumbled across a news footage video that had by chance caught the
murder (or attempted murder, I'm not completely sure) of a captured
child kidnapper and possible rapist by the child's father. Some police
officers were escorting the perpretrator in handcuffs, and the father
was disguised in some kind of public telephone booth, from which he
proceeded to shoot the perpeptrator with a gun. Clearly it was not
something that was done in the heat of the moment, but something planned
and premeditated.
I made the error of reading some of the youtube comments. In the first
several pages every single comment, every single one of them, praised
that father's actions. Most called it rightful justice, some called him
a hero. Not a single comment of disapproval.
This is just crazy in my opinion. I see two major problems with this:
1) His son had been through a horrible experience that would probably
haunt him the rest of his life. He was probably emotionally destroyed
and in severe need of support. What does his father do? He risks everything
and is ready to go to jail, possibly for life, away from his son. What
possible good would that have done to anybody? Not only was his son
experienced a really traumatic event, but now his father would put him
through another, namely his own father going to jail rather than be at
home supporting him?
That man is not a hero. He is an idiot. I don't care how distressed and
mad he was about what happened to his son, he is still an idiot. I have
no sympathy for him. Making things potentially so much worse for his son
after such an ordeal deserves no respect nor admiration.
2) People's basically unanimous approval of his actions are just
preposterous. This was not self-defence, nor was it an overreaction done
in the heat of the moment. It was premeditated, cold-blooded first-degree
murder. The man had clearly prepared for the situation and planned his
actions. Yet most people think that what he did was justified, and a good
thing.
I can't believe that in the modern society people are so eager to defend
murder, vigilantism and taking matters to your own hands. Screw fair trials,
screw basic human rights, screw law and order. Someone murdering someone
else in revenge is ok according to these people.
And no, I'm not exaggerating here. I commented on the video about this, and
several people defended their position, and in fact emphasized it. Some
even said that this kind of action should be legal.
What kind of world do these people envision? We have long ago left behind
the times when the people of a village stoned someone to death that they
didn't like, and rightfully so. Murdering people in revenge, especially
people who have already been captured by law enforcement, is barbaric.
Someone asked me "don't tell me you wouldn't have done the same thing in
his position". I answered along the lines of: No, I would have not. I do
not believe in the death penalty, and I especially do not believe in
vigilantism and taking matters into my own hands, especially when the
perpetrator has already been captured. If you support death penalty, that's
your pregorative, but if you want death penalty in your country, you should
impose it through the proper democratic channels, in other words, by voting
or by becoming a representative. You do not take matters into your own
hands, become a vigilante and start murdering people you don't like,
bypassing the law and authorities.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/2012 9:15 PM, Warp wrote:
> I can't believe that in the modern society
> [snip]
It is not a modern society IMO. It is a society that takes its values
from the old testament.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:15:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
> That man is not a hero. He is an idiot. I don't care how distressed and
> mad he was about what happened to his son, he is still an idiot. I have
> no sympathy for him. Making things potentially so much worse for his son
> after such an ordeal deserves no respect nor admiration.
Agree 100%.
> What kind of world do these people envision? We have long ago left
> behind the times when the people of a village stoned someone to death
> that they didn't like, and rightfully so. Murdering people in revenge,
> especially people who have already been captured by law enforcement, is
> barbaric.
They envision the wild west, "an eye for an eye" kind of justice.
The ironic thing is that those who tend to believe that also tend to be
religious zealots who follow a man who was said to have said "turn the
other cheek" and to have preached "judgment is God's domain".
But they're in a hurry to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/2012 09:15 PM, Warp wrote:
> 2) People's basically unanimous approval of his actions are just
> preposterous. This was not self-defence, nor was it an overreaction done
> in the heat of the moment. It was premeditated, cold-blooded first-degree
> murder. The man had clearly prepared for the situation and planned his
> actions. Yet most people think that what he did was justified, and a good
> thing.
The media seems to be awash with stories of people who have done
terrible things, and then walked free because the evidence didn't stand
up in court, or because they had a really good lawyer, or because
somebody didn't sign the search warrant, and so forth. Consequently, a
lot of people seem to have a very low opinion of the system's ability to
punish those who deserve it.
Similarly, there are numerous stories of people given "5 life sentences"
who then walk free just 8 years later. People who commit serious crimes
and merely get given a few weeks' community service. In short, stories
of people who's punishment is not nearly severe enough for the grave
crimes they have committed.
In summary, many people rightly or wrongly believe that the justice
system doesn't work.
Then again, there will always be those people who want revenge, and will
do literally anything to get it. The people who, even if the death
penalty was legal, would want to be the one to /personally/ end
somebody's life. I don't even know what to say to that.
On top of that, almost everybody who writes comments on YouTube is male
and 12 years old. So I shouldn't expect too much mature logic from them...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-8-2012 22:15, Warp wrote:
> I stumbled across a news footage video that had by chance caught the
> murder (or attempted murder, I'm not completely sure) of a captured
> child kidnapper and possible rapist by the child's father. Some police
> officers were escorting the perpretrator in handcuffs, and the father
> was disguised in some kind of public telephone booth, from which he
> proceeded to shoot the perpeptrator with a gun. Clearly it was not
> something that was done in the heat of the moment, but something planned
> and premeditated.
>
> I made the error of reading some of the youtube comments. In the first
> several pages every single comment, every single one of them, praised
> that father's actions. Most called it rightful justice, some called him
> a hero. Not a single comment of disapproval.
>
> This is just crazy in my opinion. I see two major problems with this:
>
> 1) His son had been through a horrible experience that would probably
> haunt him the rest of his life. He was probably emotionally destroyed
> and in severe need of support. What does his father do? He risks everything
> and is ready to go to jail, possibly for life, away from his son. What
> possible good would that have done to anybody? Not only was his son
> experienced a really traumatic event, but now his father would put him
> through another, namely his own father going to jail rather than be at
> home supporting him?
>
> That man is not a hero. He is an idiot. I don't care how distressed and
> mad he was about what happened to his son, he is still an idiot. I have
> no sympathy for him. Making things potentially so much worse for his son
> after such an ordeal deserves no respect nor admiration.
>
> 2) People's basically unanimous approval of his actions are just
> preposterous. This was not self-defence, nor was it an overreaction done
> in the heat of the moment. It was premeditated, cold-blooded first-degree
> murder. The man had clearly prepared for the situation and planned his
> actions. Yet most people think that what he did was justified, and a good
> thing.
>
> I can't believe that in the modern society people are so eager to defend
> murder, vigilantism and taking matters to your own hands. Screw fair trials,
> screw basic human rights, screw law and order. Someone murdering someone
> else in revenge is ok according to these people.
>
> And no, I'm not exaggerating here. I commented on the video about this, and
> several people defended their position, and in fact emphasized it. Some
> even said that this kind of action should be legal.
Finally someone on the internet that is somewhat consistent. ;)
If it had been legal (or unpunishable) than the father would get away
with it and your main argument is invalid.
There is still a chance that he will get away with is with a light
sentence. You can (and any lawyer will) argue that the man was severely
traumatized and therefore not (fully) responsible for his deeds. The
fact that someone like that is likely a violent men with tunnel vision
is not relevant for this case itself. In a sense we can be glad that it
was just a kidnapper that was the victim and not a group of innocent
immigrants/moviegoers/schoolchildren...
BTW what country did this happen in?
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 10.08.2012 22:15, schrieb Warp:
> What kind of world do these people envision?
An american one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> BTW what country did this happen in?
It's this case:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19840317&id=J_9WAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8u4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4965,513600
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.08.2012 12:52, schrieb andrel:
> BTW what country did this happen in?
I can't believe it was anything other than the USA. Not that there
aren't any other countries where people might take the law into their
own hands, but I presume in most of them nobody would make much of a
fuss about it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/11/2012 5:52 AM, andrel wrote:
> There is still a chance that he will get away with is with a light
> sentence.
There is a chance that the jury will refuse to convict him.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/10/2012 5:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:15:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
> They envision the wild west, "an eye for an eye" kind of justice.
Do you mean the wild west as it actually existed, or the wild west as
depicted by Hollywood?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> On 8/11/2012 5:52 AM, andrel wrote:
> > There is still a chance that he will get away with is with a light
> > sentence.
> There is a chance that the jury will refuse to convict him.
Doesn't the American judicial system grant the judge the right to veto
the jury's decision if it's clearly against the law? (In other words,
even though the accused has been unambiguously established as having
committed the crime, and the law unambiguously establishes a minimum
punishment for such a crime, the jury, for whatever reason, absolves
the accused for a reason not supported by the law. It could happen, and
I'm pretty sure it has.)
Or is this only in some special cases?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18/08/2012 18:40, Warp nous fit lire :
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 8/11/2012 5:52 AM, andrel wrote:
>
>>> There is still a chance that he will get away with is with a light
>>> sentence.
>
>> There is a chance that the jury will refuse to convict him.
>
> Doesn't the American judicial system grant the judge the right to veto
> the jury's decision if it's clearly against the law? (In other words,
> even though the accused has been unambiguously established as having
> committed the crime, and the law unambiguously establishes a minimum
> punishment for such a crime, the jury, for whatever reason, absolves
> the accused for a reason not supported by the law. It could happen, and
> I'm pretty sure it has.)
>
> Or is this only in some special cases?
>
I thought, as seen on TV, that the jury of USA/states was only in charge
of "guilty/not guilty" question, and the judge was to set the sentence
(based on the ratio of the jury or the phase of the moon, and probably
about the declaration of the "candidate" ).
And maybe that the jury needed unanimity too ?
(all the TV episodes in which the last jury's member make an asshole of
himself and votes the opposite of the other... ?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/18/2012 9:40, Warp wrote:
> Doesn't the American judicial system grant the judge the right to veto
> the jury's decision if it's clearly against the law? (In other words,
Only in the direction of innocence. If the jury says the defendant is guilty
and the judge determines that the evidence wasn't sufficient for that
decision, the judge can set it aside.
In particular, each law has a set of things you have to do to have violated
that law. For example, say that to be convicted of burglary, you have to
have been on someone else's property, you have to have taken something
movable, and you have to have left the property with it. If the prosecution
doesn't present at least some evidence for each of those, then the
prosecution doesn't even have "prima facia" (initial on-the-face) evidence.
So if the jury comes back and says guilty, then the judge can say "but
nobody even claimed he took anything" or "nobody even claimed he went in the
other person's house." Of course, this is rather rare. I'd suspect it
only happens in situations of weird politically-motivated trials, like
Assange might have or something.
On the other hand, if the jury comes back and says not guilty, the judge
can't say "well, *I* think he's guilty, so off he goes." The jury said he
didn't do at least one of the things on that list, so he's innocent, and
it's the jury's job to make that decision, not the decision of the judge.
The judge can throw it out, because he can decide it was essentially a trial
that never should have happened given the amount of evidence the prosecution
lawyer was able to present. The judge can't say "sorry, jury is wrong and
he's really guilty", but he can say "sorry, jury is wrong and they never
should have heard any of this in the first place."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:09:17 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 5:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:15:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>> They envision the wild west, "an eye for an eye" kind of justice.
>
> Do you mean the wild west as it actually existed, or the wild west as
> depicted by Hollywood?
Does it actually matter? I clarified that the goal is "an eye for an
eye" justice.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:49:13 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I thought, as seen on TV, that the jury of USA/states was only in charge
> of "guilty/not guilty" question, and the judge was to set the sentence
> (based on the ratio of the jury or the phase of the moon, and probably
> about the declaration of the "candidate" ).
The jury decides guilt (or lack thereof, not defined as 'innocence' but
rather as 'insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict'). In some
cases, the jury also is involved in sentencing.
The judge is supposed to essentially act as a referee - deciding what is
and isn't admissible.
It is possible to ask for a "bench trial" (that might be civil torts
only, I'm not sure on that), in which the judge is the jury.
> And maybe that the jury needed unanimity too ?
For guilt/lack of guilt, yes, in criminal court. In capital cases, IIRC,
they also need to have unanimity for a death penalty to be given.
> (all the TV episodes in which the last jury's member make an asshole of
> himself and votes the opposite of the other... ?)
That was me in the one time I served as a juror, and only in the initial
vote. After further deliberation, I decided that my read of the law was
not correct.
That was confirmed by the judge after the case was over - I had a chance
to talk to him, and he explained that the jury instructions are assembled
by counsel from both sides, and for this type of case, the material that
the defense put in that was swaying my vote was a precedent regarding the
charge of possession of drug paraphernalia requiring "intent to
use" (which wasn't demonstrated by the prosecution). That precedent is
attempted to be used by 'green' defense lawyers who don't understand that
it doesn't apply in this particular case (it's been over 10 years, so I
don't remember the details).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
