|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:41:32 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.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:42:48 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.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:43:12 GMT -6
Not all sons are of equal value. What you are saying analogous to a general statement that most people value their cars over their TV. While that might be true generally, some TVs are worth more than some cars. The question is how much value society should assign to a mother's interest in being able to have a relationship with her son after the son committed murder. So if society determines that mothers have an interest in the lives of their sons, except Jewish mothers and Black mothers, then that is the objective truth? The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause would bar such a distinction.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:52:16 GMT -6
So if society determines that mothers have an interest in the lives of their sons, except Jewish mothers and Black mothers, then that is the objective truth? The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause would bar such a distinction. You're saying that all people are equal? But just a moment ago you were saying that some sons are worth more than others.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:54:45 GMT -6
The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause would bar such a distinction. You're saying that all people are equal? But just a moment ago you were saying that some sons are worth more than others. I'm saying that you can't base such distinctions on race under 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:55:47 GMT -6
You're saying that all people are equal? But just a moment ago you were saying that some sons are worth more than others. I'm saying that you can't base such distinctions on race under 14th Amendment jurisprudence. What about hair color?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 0:03:56 GMT -6
I'm saying that you can't base such distinctions on race under 14th Amendment jurisprudence. What about hair color? That would be easier, but you would have to come up with a rational basis for the distinction that the Court would acknowledge as legitimate. I think you'd have a hard time doing so in this context.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 0:06:54 GMT -6
That would be easier, but you would have to come up with a rational basis for the distinction that the Court would acknowledge as legitimate. I think you'd have a hard time doing so in this context. So what is the rational basis for claiming that a mother has less of an interest in her son once he is a convicted murderer? She claims to love him just as much, and she claims to love him as much as any mother loves her son. How do you argue against that? Remember that you are downgrading the interests of an innocent woman here, so this had better be good.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 0:07:12 GMT -6
And what's your answer to the breaking legs question?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 0:18:19 GMT -6
That would be easier, but you would have to come up with a rational basis for the distinction that the Court would acknowledge as legitimate. I think you'd have a hard time doing so in this context. So what is the rational basis for claiming that a mother has less of an interest in her son once he is a convicted murderer? She claims to love him just as much, and she claims to love him as much as any mother loves her son. How do you argue against that? Remember that you are downgrading the interests of an innocent woman here, so this had better be good. I suppose we could say that, historically, a mother's expectation of being able to have her son in her life is greatly diminished when the son is convicted of a very serious felony.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 0:21:31 GMT -6
And what's your answer to the breaking legs question? I've already answered that. It would be completely unconstitutional per the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 0:27:02 GMT -6
And what's your answer to the breaking legs question? I've already answered that. It would be completely unconstitutional per the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. No you didn't. The conversation went: AG: The Constitution is not designed to protect you from agony. It is designed to establish and protect certain rights. The Constitution certainly does not grant you some blanket right to be free from agony.
HB: Does it grant me any rights against the arbitrary imposition of agony by the state?
AG: For starters, it protects you from the deprivation of your life, your liberty, and your property without due process.
HB: Good. I sense common ground. If someone breaks the legs of my son, it is ok for the state to break the legs of his son. Right? The constitution offers his son no protection from that, and it would be just punishment for the father. You did not respond to this. Since the constitution, according to you, grants the child no protection from agony, what stops us from justly hurting the kids of a thug as punishment for him? If you want to say that breaking legs impedes liberty, switch it out with something that just causes agony. An implanted chip, perhaps, that causes painful electrical shocks as the kid goes about his free business.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 0:28:58 GMT -6
So what is the rational basis for claiming that a mother has less of an interest in her son once he is a convicted murderer? She claims to love him just as much, and she claims to love him as much as any mother loves her son. How do you argue against that? Remember that you are downgrading the interests of an innocent woman here, so this had better be good. I suppose we could say that, historically, a mother's expectation of being able to have her son in her life is greatly diminished when the son is convicted of a very serious felony. Circular argument. Why can we kill the POS even though it will grieve the mother? Because she has less of an interest in him than ordinary mothers have in their sons. Why is that? Because we are going to kill him.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 0:42:23 GMT -6
I suppose we could say that, historically, a mother's expectation of being able to have her son in her life is greatly diminished when the son is convicted of a very serious felony. Circular argument. Why can we kill the POS even though it will grieve the mother? Because she has less of an interest in him than ordinary mothers have in their sons. Why is that? Because we are going to kill him. It is common knowledge that when someone commits a crime they can be locked up as retribution or for protection. Being locked up reduces one's ability to be with family members. So we are just going one step further by killing hm if he commits murder. Bottom line is that the mother's expectation of having a relationship with him becomes diminished by him committing a crime. I did not say her expectation goes away entirely, but it is not what it was before he did the crime, regardless of whether it was a capital crime.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 0:45:28 GMT -6
Circular argument. Why can we kill the POS even though it will grieve the mother? Because she has less of an interest in him than ordinary mothers have in their sons. Why is that? Because we are going to kill him. It is common knowledge that when someone commits a crime they can be locked up as retribution or for protection. Being locked up reduces one's ability to be with family members. So we are just going one step further by killing hm if he commits murder. Bottom line is that the mother's expectation of having a relationship with him becomes diminished by him committing a crime. I did not say her expectation goes away entirely, but it is not what it was before he did the crime, regardless of whether it was a capital crime. Ah I get it. And by the same logic, if a child develops leukemia, the mother should properly be regarded as having less of an interest in the child, since the mother's expectation of having a relationship with the child is diminished by its increased likelihood of death. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 0:52:38 GMT -6
I've already answered that. It would be completely unconstitutional per the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. No you didn't. The conversation went: AG: The Constitution is not designed to protect you from agony. It is designed to establish and protect certain rights. The Constitution certainly does not grant you some blanket right to be free from agony.
HB: Does it grant me any rights against the arbitrary imposition of agony by the state?
AG: For starters, it protects you from the deprivation of your life, your liberty, and your property without due process.
HB: Good. I sense common ground. If someone breaks the legs of my son, it is ok for the state to break the legs of his son. Right? The constitution offers his son no protection from that, and it would be just punishment for the father. You did not respond to this. Since the constitution, according to you, grants the child no protection from agony, what stops us from justly punishing the kids of a thug? If you want to say that breaking legs impedes liberty, switch it out with something that just causes agony. An implanted chip, perhaps, that causes painful electrical shocks as the kid goes about his free business. I did not say that the Constitution provides you no protection from agony. I meant that the Constitution is not designed to protect you from all forms of agony. It's not even agony that the Constitution protects against per se; it's certain deprivations. I'm not going to look for a source to back this up right now, but implanting electrical shocking chips in a kid's legs might even count as a deprivation of life or limb, even if they did not actually kill or dismember. On any account, doing so would violate substantive due process and the 8th Amendment. And the source I posted for substantive due process was meant only as brief overview of the concept. There is MUCH, MUCH more to it than the paragraph I posted.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 0:57:19 GMT -6
It is common knowledge that when someone commits a crime they can be locked up as retribution or for protection. Being locked up reduces one's ability to be with family members. So we are just going one step further by killing hm if he commits murder. Bottom line is that the mother's expectation of having a relationship with him becomes diminished by him committing a crime. I did not say her expectation goes away entirely, but it is not what it was before he did the crime, regardless of whether it was a capital crime. Ah I get it. And by the same logic, if a child develops leukemia, the mother should properly be regarded as having less of an interest in the child, since the mother's expectation of having a relationship with the child is diminished by its increased likelihood of death. Right? If a kid has leukemia and the state kills the kid, the cause of the diminished relationship is different from the mother's expectations. If the kid commits a crime and the state juices the kid, the cause of the deprivation coincides with the mother's expectation.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 0:58:18 GMT -6
No you didn't. The conversation went: AG: The Constitution is not designed to protect you from agony. It is designed to establish and protect certain rights. The Constitution certainly does not grant you some blanket right to be free from agony.
HB: Does it grant me any rights against the arbitrary imposition of agony by the state?
AG: For starters, it protects you from the deprivation of your life, your liberty, and your property without due process.
HB: Good. I sense common ground. If someone breaks the legs of my son, it is ok for the state to break the legs of his son. Right? The constitution offers his son no protection from that, and it would be just punishment for the father. You did not respond to this. Since the constitution, according to you, grants the child no protection from agony, what stops us from justly punishing the kids of a thug? If you want to say that breaking legs impedes liberty, switch it out with something that just causes agony. An implanted chip, perhaps, that causes painful electrical shocks as the kid goes about his free business. I did not say that the Constitution provides you no protection from agony. I meant that the Constitution is not designed to protect you from all forms of agony. It's not even agony that the Constitution protects against per se; it's certain deprivations. I'm not going to look for a source to back this up right now, but implanting electrical shocking chips in a kid's legs might even count as a deprivation of life or limb, Clearly it would not count as deprivation of life, that's silly. And I didn't see 'limb' among those things that the constitution protects. But it's a stretch to call this the loss of a limb in any case. The chip just shocks you periodically. Why? Yup. And when you find some info to the effect that the government cannot cause agony to innocents, you will thereby have info to the effect that the government should not be causing the agony of bereavement to innocent citizens.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 1:05:08 GMT -6
Ah I get it. And by the same logic, if a child develops leukemia, the mother should properly be regarded as having less of an interest in the child, since the mother's expectation of having a relationship with the child is diminished by its increased likelihood of death. Right? If a kid has leukemia and the state kills the kid, the cause of the diminished relationship is different from the mother's expectations. If the kid commits a crime and the state juices the kid, the cause of the deprivation coincides with the mother's expectation. So you're saying that the cause of the diminished relationship has to be the same as the mother's expectations in order for the mother to have a decreased interest in the child? That right?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 1:10:38 GMT -6
Yup. And when you find some info to the effect that the government cannot cause agony to innocents, you will thereby have info to the effect that the government should not be causing the agony of bereavement to innocent citizens. There is no such thing to be found, as it would be impossible for the government to do that. For example, an innocent schizophrenic might experience terrible agony at the sight of a police officer. Or a southern plantation owner might have experienced agony when his slaves were freed when slavery first became illegal.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 1:31:05 GMT -6
Yup. And when you find some info to the effect that the government cannot cause agony to innocents, you will thereby have info to the effect that the government should not be causing the agony of bereavement to innocent citizens. There is no such thing to be found, as it would be impossible for the government to do that. It is possible for the government to avoid arbitrarily acting in ways that will predictably cause agony to normal (innocent) citizens. Even if I agree to surrender my liberty to the government for an hour's questioning, they do not have the right to water board me. Such an agonized reaction would be abnormal, and not something for which the government should be held to account. Similarly, the government should not be accused of restricting the schizophrenic's liberty just because he won't walk past a traffic light. But the fact that the government cannot help but hurt some abnormal people does not mean that anything goes and it has the right to waterboard people. Please. He might have been pissed off. But agony? Again, you might as well argue that you harmed his liberty since he has much less free time now he has to do more of his own work on the plantation.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 7:25:02 GMT -6
If a kid has leukemia and the state kills the kid, the cause of the diminished relationship is different from the mother's expectations. If the kid commits a crime and the state juices the kid, the cause of the deprivation coincides with the mother's expectation. So you're saying that the cause of the diminished relationship has to be the same as the mother's expectations in order for the mother to have a decreased interest in the child? That right? Perhaps. I'm not decided on that.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 7:29:36 GMT -6
There is no such thing to be found, as it would be impossible for the government to do that. It is possible for the government to avoid arbitrarily acting in ways that will predictably cause agony to normal (innocent) citizens. Even if I agree to surrender my liberty to the government for an hour's questioning, they do not have the right to water board me. Such an agonized reaction would be abnormal, and not something for which the government should be held to account. Similarly, the government should not be accused of restricting the schizophrenic's liberty just because he won't walk past a traffic light. But the fact that the government cannot help but hurt some abnormal people does not mean that anything goes and it has the right to waterboard people. Please. He might have been pissed off. But agony? Again, you might as well argue that you harmed his liberty since he has much less free time now he has to do more of his own work on the plantation. The mother who wants a relationship with her murdering son is also an abnormality. More to the point, she is probably either (1) a bad mother for raising such trash, in which case her claim to have him in her life is reduced, (2) in a state of denial in where she refuses to acknowledge her son's guilt, in which case her feelings are based on a false premise, or (3) a selfish person who is abnormally placing her own wants over the interest of the government. No doubt, most rational family members would be happy to have that branch cut from the family tree.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 7:35:55 GMT -6
There is no such thing to be found, as it would be impossible for the government to do that. It is possible for the government to avoid arbitrarily acting in ways that will predictably cause agony to normal (innocent) citizens. Even if I agree to surrender my liberty to the government for an hour's questioning, they do not have the right to water board me. Such an agonized reaction would be abnormal, and not something for which the government should be held to account. Similarly, the government should not be accused of restricting the schizophrenic's liberty just because he won't walk past a traffic light. But the fact that the government cannot help but hurt some abnormal people does not mean that anything goes and it has the right to waterboard people. Please. He might have been pissed off. But agony? Again, you might as well argue that you harmed his liberty since he has much less free time now he has to do more of his own work on the plantation. Going to war will predictably cause mothers to grieve. Would that be considered unconstitutional in your eyes as well? What about sentencing a POS to prison? What about cutting welfare benefits and forcing people to get a job? You can't rely solely on protection here, because no doubt Bernard Madoff was never going to physically harm anyone and his ability to cause more financial harm could have been eliminated short of sending him to prison.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 7:45:04 GMT -6
There is no such thing to be found, as it would be impossible for the government to do that. It is possible for the government to avoid arbitrarily acting in ways that will predictably cause agony to normal (innocent) citizens. Even if I agree to surrender my liberty to the government for an hour's questioning, they do not have the right to water board me. Such an agonized reaction would be abnormal, and not something for which the government should be held to account. Similarly, the government should not be accused of restricting the schizophrenic's liberty just because he won't walk past a traffic light. But the fact that the government cannot help but hurt some abnormal people does not mean that anything goes and it has the right to waterboard people. Please. He might have been pissed off. But agony? Again, you might as well argue that you harmed his liberty since he has much less free time now he has to do more of his own work on the plantation. Honky, I would suggest you read up on the innocent family fallacy: prodp.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=04&action=display&thread=12113Time to debunk another ANTI myth: the innocent family. This argument goes something like this: "why would you want to make the murderers poor innocent family suffer by executing the murderer". In response, I would say these family members are often not so innocent themselves. Look at how many murderers seek mitigation by stating what a-holes their families/parents were, and that is why they ended up the way they did. So the ANTIS are telling us on one hand it is largely their rotten home environment that led them to kill, but at the same time we should not deprive these monsters of their unholy creation. Second, in cases where it is not the families fault, I don't see why the family would want to have this person remain alive. I think Donnie brought up this brilliant point recently. If I suddenly learned my Dad had raped and murdered 20 young women, would I really want to hang out and visit him in his cell for the next 30 years, talking about the good old days? Hell no. I would distance myself from the psycho and worry constantly that I might have the same genes. Those family members who continue to "love" their murderous offspring, spouse, etc, are sick, evil people, not 'innocent" family members.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Oct 3, 2011 8:02:50 GMT -6
It is possible for the government to avoid arbitrarily acting in ways that will predictably cause agony to normal (innocent) citizens. Even if I agree to surrender my liberty to the government for an hour's questioning, they do not have the right to water board me. Such an agonized reaction would be abnormal, and not something for which the government should be held to account. Similarly, the government should not be accused of restricting the schizophrenic's liberty just because he won't walk past a traffic light. But the fact that the government cannot help but hurt some abnormal people does not mean that anything goes and it has the right to waterboard people. Please. He might have been pissed off. But agony? Again, you might as well argue that you harmed his liberty since he has much less free time now he has to do more of his own work on the plantation. Honky, I would suggest you read up on the innocent family fallacy: prodp.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=04&action=display&thread=12113Time to debunk another ANTI myth: the innocent family. This argument goes something like this: "why would you want to make the murderers poor innocent family suffer by executing the murderer". In response, I would say these family members are often not so innocent themselves. Look at how many murderers seek mitigation by stating what a-holes their families/parents were, and that is why they ended up the way they did. So the ANTIS are telling us on one hand it is largely their rotten home environment that led them to kill, but at the same time we should not deprive these monsters of their unholy creation. Second, in cases where it is not the families fault, I don't see why the family would want to have this person remain alive. I think Donnie brought up this brilliant point recently. If I suddenly learned my Dad had raped and murdered 20 young women, would I really want to hang out and visit him in his cell for the next 30 years, talking about the good old days? Hell no. I would distance myself from the psycho and worry constantly that I might have the same genes. Those family members who continue to "love" their murderous offspring, spouse, etc, are sick, evil people, not 'innocent" family members. I think the answer is that you cannot generalize, you'd have to look at each individual case on its individual components. Its lazt to apply a "one rule fits all cases".
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 8:27:15 GMT -6
Honky, I would suggest you read up on the innocent family fallacy: prodp.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=04&action=display&thread=12113Time to debunk another ANTI myth: the innocent family. This argument goes something like this: "why would you want to make the murderers poor innocent family suffer by executing the murderer". In response, I would say these family members are often not so innocent themselves. Look at how many murderers seek mitigation by stating what a-holes their families/parents were, and that is why they ended up the way they did. So the ANTIS are telling us on one hand it is largely their rotten home environment that led them to kill, but at the same time we should not deprive these monsters of their unholy creation. Second, in cases where it is not the families fault, I don't see why the family would want to have this person remain alive. I think Donnie brought up this brilliant point recently. If I suddenly learned my Dad had raped and murdered 20 young women, would I really want to hang out and visit him in his cell for the next 30 years, talking about the good old days? Hell no. I would distance myself from the psycho and worry constantly that I might have the same genes. Those family members who continue to "love" their murderous offspring, spouse, etc, are sick, evil people, not 'innocent" family members. I think the answer is that you cannot generalize, you'd have to look at each individual case on its individual components. Its lazt to apply a "one rule fits all cases". Maybe we should execute the family member who reached DR, and if he/she claims if was due to his background "family" they too should serve time in prison? That sounds reasonable to me.........
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Oct 3, 2011 8:55:31 GMT -6
I think the answer is that you cannot generalize, you'd have to look at each individual case on its individual components. Its lazt to apply a "one rule fits all cases". Maybe we should execute the family member who reached DR, and if he/she claims if was due to his background "family" they too should serve time in prison? That sounds reasonable to me......... I suppose it would sound reasonable to you. By extension, does that mean you have in the past or will in the future bear responsibility for what a near relative chooses to do by way of his or her actions? And if you share responsiblity does this in any way diminish the responsibility of the person who commits the offence? Just trying to be awkward here, considering you dont punish but a small minority of those that kill, talking about punishing extended family is in reality a real departure into fantasy land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2011 8:57:45 GMT -6
The mother who wants a relationship with her murdering son is also an abnormality. More to the point, she is probably either (1) a bad mother for raising such trash, in which case her claim to have him in her life is reduced, (2) in a state of denial in where she refuses to acknowledge her son's guilt, in which case her feelings are based on a false premise, or (3) a selfish person who is abnormally placing her own wants over the interest of the government. No doubt, most rational family members would be happy to have that branch cut from the family tree. I heartily disagree.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 9:04:07 GMT -6
Maybe we should execute the family member who reached DR, and if he/she claims if was due to his background "family" they too should serve time in prison? That sounds reasonable to me......... I suppose it would sound reasonable to you. By extension, does that mean you have in the past or will in the future bear responsibility for what a near relative chooses to do by way of his or her actions? And if you share responsiblity does this in any way diminish the responsibility of the person who commits the offence? Just trying to be awkward here, considering you dont punish but a small minority of those that kill, talking about punishing extended family is in reality a real departure into fantasy land. Sure I would bear responsibility if I in past raising my son or daugter raped, or allowed to be raped, or beaten. I would but, many would not. Would it dimnish the responsibility of say my son commited murder and rape"No" Many children unfortunately are mistreated badly and still grow up to be good citizens. If i had my way we would execute all murderers. If I or any family has a criminal background themselves, and proven they should face what they did to create their monster, maybe that would send a message to parents that abuse if they grow up dysfunctional due to parants abuse, they should too serve time., Not pity of now the state will execute their murderer they created agains't society and their own. Just as when no abuse parents were good parents, the child themselves commited the act and consquenses onto the parents, not the state if executed. By extension you agree with not executing a murderer due to his having family right?
|
|