arndt@squirt.DEC (12/09/85)
The real crime IS that those poor wonderful five young teenagers who killed that man won't be executed for a brutal murder!!! No one here but us victims, eh?? (They being 'victims' of homophobia.) Merde! Isn't there SOMEONE SOMEWHERE who is responsibile for SOMETHING??? I mean, sure they no doubt otherwise ARE likeable young men. No doubt you are sorry fort the dead man, but you didn't say so in your posting. Next time you go 'cruising', carry a gun. THAT'S part of safe sex too in today's world, eh?? Keep chargin' Ken Arndt "Sleep with your 'clicker' in your hand." (You ole 'Namies' will know what I mean.
jrc@ritcv.UUCP (James R. Carbin) (12/11/85)
In article <1650@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@squirt.DEC writes: > >The real crime IS that those poor wonderful five young teenagers who killed >that man won't be executed for a brutal murder!!! > >No one here but us victims, eh?? (They being 'victims' of homophobia.) >Merde! Isn't there SOMEONE SOMEWHERE who is responsible for SOMETHING??? >I mean, sure they no doubt otherwise ARE likeable young men. No doubt you >are sorry for the dead man, but you didn't say so in your posting. > >Next time you go 'cruising', carry a gun. THAT'S part of safe sex too in >today's world, eh?? > >Keep chargin' > >Ken Arndt > >"Sleep with your 'clicker' in your hand." (You ole 'Namies' will know what >I mean. Right ON! I can't believe that I finally agree with Ken about something! Maybe he isn't such a bad guy after all?? :-) If the victim had been a member of some other minority group, would anyone suggest that these five were victims of "the vestiges of descrimination which exist in our society?" Hell NO! At least this time, I can only say, "Keep Chargin' Ken!" j.r. {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jrc
egk@lll-crg.ARpA (Edjik) (12/12/85)
This message is empty.
richw@ada-uts.UUCP (12/13/85)
> But it wasn't homophobia that killed that man in Toronto. It was > five drunk teenagers who did it. Five PEOPLE. Five PEOPLE who should > be held accountable for their actions. > > John Reuling People who believe that society and upbringing affect the actions of an individual get a lot of CRAP from people who classify them as "bleeding hearts". The ranting and raving surrounding this murder is an example. Having been accused of being such a "bleeding heart", I'd like to say that I much prefer trying (rationally) to figure out how "justice" is to be served over madly letting (irrational) revenge guide our actions. Three simple words are relevent: compensation, deterrence, and retribution. Unfortunately, lots of people think that criminal justice should exclusively involve retribution. Compensation: ------------- Funny how no one has suggested ways in which to ease the suffering of the victim's family -- everyone is too busy trying to come up with the most sadistic thing to do to the murderers. Deterrence: ----------- Society should make every effort to prevent such a disaster from occurring again. YES, this includes locking up the murderers -- prison is a WONDERFUL deterrent (while prisoners are in it). Capital punishment is obviously a better deterrent. But what rights do WE have to take away someone's freedom (or life!) ? That's an honest question -- I don't know. I happen to think we have the right to remove criminals from our lives. Period. Prisons serve that purpose. And, to at least do something to try to compensate victims (or their families), I think criminals should be forced to work and earn money in prison and give the earnings to the victim (or his/her family). You can't pay for killing someone. But it's better than sitting idly in jail learning how to not get caught the next time. Retribution (or punishing because it is "good" to punish the "bad"): ----------- Making the life of a criminal miserable can act as a deterrent. If it does, then punish. Otherwise, people whose knee-jerk reaction to crime is "Cut his balls off" does NOT indicate deterrent intentions. Sadistic intentions, maybe. I'm SICK of hearing people righteously advocate torture. You may have noticed that I never said the murderers should not be sent to prison, or that they should not be executed, or that they should not be punished. I DID say that we should have REASONS for doing each of those things. Saying criminals "should be held accountable for their actions" is NOT a reason. To summarize: there are moral and ethical questions surrounding how society should deal with criminals AND victims. I have certain BELIEFS about how society should act. I DON'T like people trying to force their narrow-minded retributionism down my throat! -- Rich Wagner P.S. What the hell does "Keep chargin'" mean? Charge where? Maybe "Onward, through the fog"?
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (12/18/85)
<followup to Wagner & Manis> I don't mean to beat up on netters or clog this newsgroup with more flamish postings. However, I don't think anyone (except maybe K. Arndt, but I n-key all his articles) has accused anyone else of being a "bleeding heart" or has wanted to "cut" anyone's "balls off." The criticisms are valid ones. Characterizing punishment as "retribution" already stacks the deck somewhat, given the later term's emotional connotations. The notion of punishment involves much more than mere "vengeance," and is perhaps as psychologically and penally sophisticated as notions of rehabilita- tion. To always favor the latter as more enlightened is probably simply a prejudice, for there are situations where it's simply inappropriate to make it the major concern. I still find Vince's implicit notion of homophobia, as exemplified in phrases like "young people with no apparent homophobic attitudes" and "what possessed them to think that killing a fag was OK," unusual. And to treat a literal and a metaphorical idea of victimization with equal weight, ie the kids were "as much their own victims," particularly given the brutal and deliberate nature of this crime, strikes me as wrong-headed. Finally, effectiveness is not the only kind of consideration to include in making penal policy; morality is another & probably "ultimately" more important one. And official infliction of pain is not the only or even the leading moral issue. Cheers, Ron Rizzo
richw@ada-uts.UUCP (12/19/85)
>> (Ron Rizzo) However, I don't think anyone (except maybe K. >> Arndt, but I n-key all his articles) has accused anyone else of being >> a "bleeding heart" or has wanted to "cut" anyone's "balls off." You're right; I apologize. I think I jumped the gun. My flames were triggered less by netters than by some people I know personally. >> (Ron Rizzo) Finally, effectiveness is not the only kind of >> consideration to include in making penal policy; morality is >> another & probably "ultimately" more important one. And official >> infliction of pain is not the only or even the leading moral issue. Could you be more specific? What moral issues? It seems that making policy based on morality is something society should avoid. I personally would not accept courts imposing sentences and justifying them with "Because it's the `moral' thing to do". I get very upset when someone tries to impose ANY moral standards on me. Some points to consider in answering the above: I feel that morality has no place in legal systems. For instance, I can't say that murder is wrong -- in the wild, it isn't. There's no "Document-Of-Absolute- Truth" that one can point to and say, "Yup, murder is quite definitely wrong" (I apologize to those that feel the Bible is such a document). Nevertheless, I think murder should definitely be illegal. Why? Because I feel the purpose of law is to maintain order in society -- to keep it "civilized". Yes, the latter term is also not well-defined. But, I view society as a group of people that have agreed to live a certain way, and that way is not the way "of the wild". Law protects those people from those that disrupt the majority's "chosen way of life". Please don't bother telling me that my opinions of what the legal system should be are also not to be found in the "Document-Of-Absolute-Truth"; I know. The purpose of this reply is to discuss, not to prove. -- Rich Wagner
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (12/24/85)
>Could you be more specific? What moral issues? It seems that making >policy based on morality is something society should avoid. I personally >would not accept courts imposing sentences and justifying them with >"Because it's the `moral' thing to do". I get very upset when someone >tries to impose ANY moral standards on me. > Now, *I* don't understand. Do you want any courts at all? If you do, don't you want them to uphold the laws? And don't you want your laws to be moral? Not liking somebody else's morals -- this I can understand. But not having *any* morals at all? My mind boggles -- I can't understand it at all. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (12/24/85)
The end of my message got somewhat fuzzy (keyboard fatigue), but Laura Creighton makes exactly the point I was trying to. "Morality" certainly is one of the most loaded words you can use, and I understand and respect the distinction between law & morality. I tend to favor legal minimalism (legislate only when necessary, & I think civil rights laws beyond the US Constitution are necessary in this sense), which means legally ignore any immoral or evil act however heinous it may be considered unless it is not one of those which if neglected would signifi- cantly damage the common good, as understood in a reasonably impartial & objective sense. Or some such formulation. (Further note: for me, legal minimalism doesn't imply political or economic laissez faire: eg, I don't think anti-trust or fair advertising laws are ipso facto bad law.) But a moral impulse underlies the definition of what is a crime, even if you believe that morality reduces to other notions, like pleasure/ pain (utilitarianism), non/coercion (Libertarianism), even if you don't don't legislate against most immoral or evil acts. Still, given the extremely common confusion of law with specific moral codes & the fact that many (most?) members of the English-speaking world don't grasp even the most rudimentary notions of the common law tradition, it's certainly worth calling me to account for not being clear. I guess we should continue this, if necessary, in personal mail, or net.philosophy (no, no! not that! please!). Cheers, Ron Rizzo