Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2011 9:37:34 GMT -6
It is easy to say that killing a correctioal officer could have been avoided when you're the one not doing the job. Most things in life can be avoided. But as we go about living life and doing our jobs it is easy for something to happen. Remember correctional officers do this probably 40 hours a week. So they like the rest of us get used to doing their jobs. Criminals, on the other hand have time to think and make plans so they get time to carve something into a weapon, or appear to behave well until they have time to launch their plan. They're not there because they are nice people. It's easy to judge a correctional officer who has been killed until maybe you have walked in his or her shoes. I wasn't judging the correctional officer, Stormy. I was saying they're inadequately trained. I was saying they aren't paid enough. I was remarking on the fact than (it appears) some states house our most dangerous felons inadequately.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 5, 2011 9:48:31 GMT -6
It is easy to say that killing a correctioal officer could have been avoided when you're the one not doing the job. Most things in life can be avoided. But as we go about living life and doing our jobs it is easy for something to happen. Remember correctional officers do this probably 40 hours a week. So they like the rest of us get used to doing their jobs. Criminals, on the other hand have time to think and make plans so they get time to carve something into a weapon, or appear to behave well until they have time to launch their plan. They're not there because they are nice people. It's easy to judge a correctional officer who has been killed until maybe you have walked in his or her shoes. I wasn't judging the correctional officer, Stormy. I was saying they're inadequately trained. I was saying they aren't paid enough. I was remarking on the fact than (it appears) some states house our most dangerous felons inadequately. That may be be true, but how trained can a person be for the unexpected? The same would be true for a police officer and someone in the military. As far as being paid enough are people willing to have their taxes raised? And if they did raise or taxes for this would they spend it on giving better salary to those in law enforcement? You have to wonder. It think housing our most dangerous inadequately comes from political correctness. From people who think we need to rehabilitate them. You know educate them and give them a job and they'll change. So I'm guessing if a violent offender behaved well enough he or she (mostly hes) had the opportunity to be move to a minimum security prison. (This is just my opinion.) I think many prisons hopefully are getting away from this trend and hopefully away from releasing them early for good behavior.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Oct 5, 2011 11:56:52 GMT -6
Also, although they are not mothers, Donnie, Joseph, and I think a few others have said that if one of their children committed murder, they would like to serve as the executioner. To be fair, though, they are... odd. Yes, but just a little.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 6, 2011 10:02:06 GMT -6
Nothing that is lawful is malicious? Correct. Then it seems we have a disagreement over first principles. You think that a law that punishes slaves from fleeing is, being a law, not malicious. I think it is malicious. The Nazis could not create a malicious law no matter how they tried? Strictly speaking, no. Again, that seems simply insane to me. The persecution of Jews, no matter how many laws they used to legally sanctify it, was malicious. Seems like a cop out. Word games. Malevolent, malicious, whatever. It comes down to this. I define murder as the act, you make the definition depend on who is doing it. I take a moral stance. You take a semantic one. Key word: 'transfer'. You can't transfer the right to kill restrained men to the state, since no one ever had that right to transfer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2011 10:56:43 GMT -6
I wasn't judging the correctional officer, Stormy. I was saying they're inadequately trained. I was saying they aren't paid enough. I was remarking on the fact than (it appears) some states house our most dangerous felons inadequately. That may be be true, but how trained can a person be for the unexpected? The same would be true for a police officer and someone in the military. As far as being paid enough are people willing to have their taxes raised? And if they did raise or taxes for this would they spend it on giving better salary to those in law enforcement? You have to wonder. It think housing our most dangerous inadequately comes from political correctness. From people who think we need to rehabilitate them. You know educate them and give them a job and they'll change. So I'm guessing if a violent offender behaved well enough he or she (mostly hes) had the opportunity to be move to a minimum security prison. (This is just my opinion.) I think many prisons hopefully are getting away from this trend and hopefully away from releasing them early for good behavior. Money is a more important consideration than life. But then, let's stop pretending it isn't. Let's accept that in consideration of monetary gain (and loss, naturally) human life (ie: murder victims) takes a back seat.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 6, 2011 11:05:21 GMT -6
Then it seems we have a disagreement over first principles. You think that a law that punishes slaves from fleeing is, being a law, not malicious. I think it is malicious. It depends how and why you define malice. I've read several definitions. We could say malicious is simply meaning to do harm. Yet we punish illegal activity, often harshly. Is that not harmful? Is harm always wrong? We could define malice as the intention or desire to do evil; ill will. This requires an awareness that an act being contemplated is wrong, and committing the act anyway. That's problematic because people do not always agree on the rectitude of a human action. You can't call the delivery of a runaway slave to a slaveowner as malicious, under that definition, if the deliverer thought it was morally defensible and/or legal. I would have to ask you why you believe LWOP is a just punishment, no matter how maliciously imposed and maintained, and why capital punishment is always unjust, notwithstanding the same malice. Again, that seems simply insane to me. The persecution of Jews, no matter how many laws they used to legally sanctify it, was malicious. If you believe all malicious killing or treatment of fellow human creatures is wrong, you're a pacifist. Are you? If not, please explain which malicious, state-sanctioned killings are OK and which aren't, and why. Word games. Malevolent, malicious, whatever. It comes down to this. I define murder as the act, you make the definition depend on who is doing it. I take a moral stance. You take a semantic one. Your moral stance is beyond reproach only if you're a pacifist. If you're a pacifist, you win. If not, you're saying certain killings make you feel bad, and certain killings don't. Key word: 'transfer'. You can't transfer the right to kill restrained men to the state, since no one ever had that right to transfer. The social contract implies such a right. It always did and always will. The social contract requires a minimum of three people. Let's say you and two others are somehow isolated from the rest of humanity. You have a choice to get along with the other two or leave. You can't tell the other two that they have no right to take your life if they agree your death is a just punishment for a certain transgression. You can argue they ought not to exercise that right, and collectively forbid such a punishment, but that can be changed, and you know it. Your Jeffersonian sentiments will not protect you if you pi#ss them off to the point they feel you have to be expunged.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 6, 2011 12:15:52 GMT -6
I would have to ask you why you believe LWOP is a just punishment, no matter how maliciously imposed and maintained, and why capital punishment is always unjust, notwithstanding the same malice. I have neither view. LWOP can be maliciously imposed and maintained. And capital punishment can be delivered without malice. A poor country with a high murder rate might kill rather than imprison simply because it cannot afford to protect its citizens in any other way. But in this country, the DP is inflicted with malice. The aim is to harm a convict who has been safely incarcerated for years and sometimes decades. By the definition you just gave, yes. Killing in self defense is alright, but that's not malicious. Great. It was fun. Sounds like 'might makes right' to me. A famous confusion.
|
|