Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2011 9:09:21 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. Ridiculous. This argument uses an extremely rare case of mass murder to support the writer's theory that anyone wishing to associate with anyone convicted of murder is sick and evil themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2011 9:17:59 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. 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. or (4) a good mother who did the best she could with the jerk who chose the murderer's road anyway, regardless of how she tried, expects him to pay the price for what he has done (not an enabler), and is still maintaining contact and trying to love and teach him even while he is incarcerated. I believe I know of one.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Oct 3, 2011 9:22:38 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. I have always had concerns about Josephs attitude to children, his own not excluded.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 9:28:26 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. or (4) a good mother who did the best she could with the jerk who chose the murderer's road anyway, regardless of how she tried, expects him to pay the price for what he has done (not an enabler), and is still maintaining contact and trying to love and teach him even while he is incarcerated. I believe I know of one. I agree. Perhaps I was too harsh or over-broad. But notice you said "expects him to pay the price for what he has done (not an enabler)". That's all I am asking for. I don't blame her for visiting him on DR and feeling bad about his death, but I do think her "interest" in her child's life is reduced compared to a mother whose child was murdered or died for reasons unrelated to the child's own crime.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 9:33:14 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". Felix, as a professional, what are your thoughts on considering the subjective feelings of a criminal's loved ones when deciding how to punish the criminal? Should a POS who has a mother who loves him be treated with more leniency than an orphan?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2011 9:39:11 GMT -6
or (4) a good mother who did the best she could with the jerk who chose the murderer's road anyway, regardless of how she tried, expects him to pay the price for what he has done (not an enabler), and is still maintaining contact and trying to love and teach him even while he is incarcerated. I believe I know of one. I agree. But notice you said "expects him to pay the price for what he has done (not an enabler)". That's all I am asking for. I don't blame her for visiting him on DR and feeling bad about his death, but I do think her "interest" in her child's life is reduced compared to a mother whose child was murdered or died for reasons unrelated to the child's own crime. I was only addressing the issue of the "mother wanting a relationship with her murdering son". She is not necessarily abnormal. I expect the kind I described would be the quieter sort and hard to locate. But I do personally know of at least one. I freely admit I haven't (and probably won't) read the whole thread.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 9:42:48 GMT -6
I agree. But notice you said "expects him to pay the price for what he has done (not an enabler)". That's all I am asking for. I don't blame her for visiting him on DR and feeling bad about his death, but I do think her "interest" in her child's life is reduced compared to a mother whose child was murdered or died for reasons unrelated to the child's own crime. I was only addressing the issue of the "mother wanting a relationship with her murdering son". She is not necessarily abnormal. I expect the kind I described would be the quieter sort and hard to locate. But I do personally know of at least one. I freely admit I haven't (and probably won't) read the whole thread. That's cool. What I really meant was that I am critical of a mother who thinks her child should be allowed to live so she can continue to have a relationship with him. I think that is distinct from a mother who visits her son while he awaits execution and who does not expect society to spare the POS just so she can continue that relationship.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 10:29:50 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'm with Lynne here. Erick, this is warped thinking, even for you. Try being both father and mother to children, as I did. Maybe you'll understand.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 10:33:24 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. I've never stated that at all.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 10:33:34 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'm with Lynne here. Erick, this is warped thinking, even for you. Try being both father and mother to children, as I did. Maybe you'll understand. Joseph D. Phillips: t comes down to what's more important -- selfish loyalty to one's family, right or wrong, or a wider respect to one's neighbors, fellow citizens and/or to the human family?
My own family members mean nothing to me to the extent they bring deserved opprobrium to the family name. I live in a community, not in some self-absorbed clan like the Manson family.
I therefore have nothing but loathing and contempt for family members that stick up for relatives convicted of murder. I can understand personal conflict and shame for having a brutal killer in the family. There are people here with relatives on death row who refuse to make excuses for them. For these folks I have respect.
The ones that bring out the worst in me are in denial about their relatives' guilt, or demand special consideration because of their relationships to killers. For these people I have no sympathy, because they obviously feel no connection to their fellow citizens, no sense of obligation, and no sense of having been betrayed by their murderous relatives.
Anyone with common sense knows disgrace attaches to the family of a killer. It's the family that imposed the killer upon the world by giving it birth and developing it into adulthood. No one knows this better than CookieLady, who is very much concerned that we understand her very personal conflict over her brother. She has my utmost respect for that, as do others that recognize the harm their relatives have caused society and don't make excuses for murder.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 10:39:37 GMT -6
This quote does not support your argument, Erick.
I may not like that a mother stands by her son through thick and thin, even if he has murdered, but I do understand it.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 10:44:06 GMT -6
Have you ever thought about moving? All the time, but I can't afford it, and I don't want to be apart from my kids.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 10:45:51 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. I've never stated that at all. "Were one of my kids to kill someone in cold blood, I would be hard-pressed not to take matters into my own hands and do society the favor of expunging him/her myself. My shame, sense of betrayal and anger at that murderer-child would be that pervasive and unbearable."~JDP
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 10:55:10 GMT -6
I'd be that angry and ashamed, but I couldn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 11:04:38 GMT -6
I've never stated that at all. "Were one of my kids to kill someone in cold blood, I would be hard-pressed not to take matters into my own hands and do society the favor of expunging him/her myself. My shame, sense of betrayal and anger at that murderer-child would be that pervasive and unbearable."~JDP You would become a pp to someone Actually about a yr ago, my son who cannot stay away from drugs was living in a place a women ran, someone there murdererd her. All there are involved or taking drugs. My son is an adult. Due too the drugs I feared could it have been my son? I was worried to death what if my son did murder her? Fear and many thoughts going on inside me. That is when I decided if he did, I would have horrible feelings towards him yet, I would stay in touch and love him, whatever the law does it does. He would have to face what he did, be it LWOP or even the DP. He does not smoke nor like alcohol but drugs are killing him, hope it never comes to commiting a murder or other to another is all I can do. His Being an adult I have no legal rights makes me feel helpless. Drugs "hard durgs" have a powerful effect. He was never exposed to drugs, I hate drugs so did my hubby then, alcohol was only on special occcassions no criminals in my family history. We never even swore while raising him, yet he would come home from school ans spout out cuss words. If he had murdered someone, and I knew I would turn him in myself. Say he did something to get the DP, I would be silent and want no anti crap even if my son.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 11:09:41 GMT -6
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. Well decide.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 11:11:48 GMT -6
Going to war will predictably cause mothers to grieve. Indeed, which is why we should go to war only to avoid more grief. I.e. to defend ourselves against an aggressor.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 11:13:39 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. The state can't make a case that the family deserves what's coming to them unless it convicts them of something in a court of law. You know that.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 11:15:24 GMT -6
Going to war will predictably cause mothers to grieve. Indeed, which is why we should go to war only to avoid more grief. I.e. to defend ourselves against an aggressor. So is it cool to juice if it reduces the grief of the MVS more than it increases the grief of the executee's family?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 11:20:22 GMT -6
or (4) a good mother who did the best she could with the jerk who chose the murderer's road anyway, regardless of how she tried, expects him to pay the price for what he has done (not an enabler), and is still maintaining contact and trying to love and teach him even while he is incarcerated. I believe I know of one. I agree. Perhaps I was too harsh or over-broad. But notice you said "expects him to pay the price for what he has done (not an enabler)". That's all I am asking for. I don't blame her for visiting him on DR and feeling bad about his death, but I do think her "interest" in her child's life is reduced compared to a mother whose child was murdered or died for reasons unrelated to the child's own crime. But I am still trying to fathom what your argument is for this claim. You have at times implied that the murderer is a lesser human and that this implies that the mother has a lesser interest in him. But I know of no legal ruling that counts the convict as a lesser human. Perhaps you do.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 11:23:50 GMT -6
Indeed, which is why we should go to war only to avoid more grief. I.e. to defend ourselves against an aggressor. So is it cool to juice if it reduces the grief of the MVS more than it increases the grief of the executee's family? IMO no, for other reasons. But as far as the argument from grief goes, that would be the beginnings of a decent counter. However, you would have to establish that the MVS's grief is significantly lessened by the execution of the murderer. Speaking just for myself, I can't see how killing the POS, even though I would find it satisfying, would in any way lessen my sense of loss.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 11:26:14 GMT -6
Actually about a yr ago, my son who cannot stay away from drugs was living in a place a women ran, someone there murdererd her. All there are involved or taking drugs. My son is an adult. Due too the drugs I feared could it have been my son? I was worried to death what if my son did murder her? Fear and many thoughts going on inside me. That is when I decided if he did, I would have horrible feelings towards him yet, I would stay in touch and love him, whatever the law does it does. He would have to face what he did, be it LWOP or even the DP. He does not smoke nor like alcohol but drugs are killing him, hope it never comes to commiting a murder or other to another is all I can do. His Being an adult I have no legal rights makes me feel helpless. Drugs "hard durgs" have a powerful effect. He was never exposed to drugs, I hate drugs so did my hubby then, alcohol was only on special occcassions no criminals in my family history. We never even swore while raising him, yet he would come home from school ans spout out cuss words. If he had murdered someone, and I knew I would turn him in myself. Say he did something to get the DP, I would be silent and want no anti crap even if my son. I had a similar experience with my son. Fortunately, he dug himself out of the drug culture and started making the right choices. Like I said I've had to be both parents to my kids. As a father I am Moses, but as a "mom" I am something else. I cannot follow the argument between Erick and Honky, about motherhood and murderers. I have no idea what they're trying to say. I want to know what it is we can do to lower the murder rate, with or without the death penalty, because the death penalty, right now, by itself, isn't doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 11:29:51 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'm with Lynne here. Erick, this is warped thinking, even for you. Try being both father and mother to children, as I did. Maybe you'll understand. The parent, more than anyone else, has a responsibility to fellow citizens to not only abandon a child who has murdered, but to sit in the front row and watch it expire.
What is the point of protecting a relative who has forever stained the family name and brought wretched opprobrium to all of its members? Does honor mean nothing to you? Have you no sense of responsibility to your fellow citizens, who depended on your to raise your child not to murder?
I'm so sick of people protecting family members who have murdered, only to say "Oops, I'm sorry for your loss" to the bereaved.
Murders are the results of purely voluntarily, criminal acts. They are not mere mistakes of judgment. If society is serious about preventing murders, we can all start by refusing to accept excuses for murder, particularly from people who should have raised their kids properly to begin with. prodp.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=05&action=display&thread=12238&page=4
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 11:40:23 GMT -6
What is your point, Erick. None of my comments contradict what I've been saying today.
It is probably human nature to love children unconditionally, or at least it might be for mothers. Castigating the family members of murderers isn't going to increase the average time served for murder. And it sure won't revive a dying death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 11:41:44 GMT -6
What is your point, Erick. None of my comments contradict what I've been saying today. It is probably human nature to love children unconditionally, or at least it might be for mothers. Castigating the family members of murderers isn't going to increase the average time served for murder. And it sure won't revive a dying death penalty. Honky thinks that we should not execute murderers because of the harm it does to the murderers' families.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 11:58:12 GMT -6
It's not a bad argument, given our reluctance to execute murderers, and our hypocrisy about murder in general.
I would have difficulty explaining to the mother of a murderer why her son or daughter needs to be executed, when I am sparing the lives of 240 other murderers whose mothers are allowed, even encouraged, to visit their children in prison.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 12:06:18 GMT -6
It's not a bad argument, given our reluctance to execute murderers, and our hypocrisy about murder in general. I would have difficulty explaining to the mother of a murderer why her son or daughter needs to be executed, when I am sparing the lives of 240 other murderers whose mothers are allowed, even encouraged, to visit their children in prison. I guess the law has the answer why some get LWOP or DP already established no?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 12:12:23 GMT -6
I guess the law has the answer why some get LWOP or DP already established no? If there is no rational point to the law, I could hardly offer it as an answer.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 12:14:46 GMT -6
What is your point, Erick. None of my comments contradict what I've been saying today. It is probably human nature to love children unconditionally, or at least it might be for mothers. Castigating the family members of murderers isn't going to increase the average time served for murder. And it sure won't revive a dying death penalty. Honky thinks that we should not execute murderers because of the harm it does to the murderers' families. Good lord now the murderers family !! Actual victims even further out of the picture
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 12:15:23 GMT -6
I agree. Perhaps I was too harsh or over-broad. But notice you said "expects him to pay the price for what he has done (not an enabler)". That's all I am asking for. I don't blame her for visiting him on DR and feeling bad about his death, but I do think her "interest" in her child's life is reduced compared to a mother whose child was murdered or died for reasons unrelated to the child's own crime. But I am still trying to fathom what your argument is for this claim. You have at times implied that the murderer is a lesser human and that this implies that the mother has a lesser interest in him. But I know of no legal ruling that counts the convict as a lesser human. Perhaps you do. I did not say he is a lesser human. Rather, I said his mother has a reduced expectation of having a relationship with him due to his crime. If Johnny is away at college and wants to come home for Mother's Day and the police say he can't even though he broke no laws, wouldn't that be different from an inmate in state prison who wants to go home?
|
|