5 ms·

When you take a life you forfeit any more rights you have, if there’s probable cause and a warrant and it can bring closure to the victims then it’s 100% accept

by stirlo 7y ago

When you take a life you forfeit any more rights you have, if there’s probable cause and a warrant and it can bring closure to the victims then it’s 100% acceptable.

skookumchuck 7y ago
> When you take a life you forfeit any more rights you have When you're convicted of it. Not before. > bring closure This seems to be a very recent thing. First off, I don't think the justice system is meant to "bring closure" to the victims, whatever that means. And secondly, if someone close to me was murdered, I seriously doubt that "closure" would make me feel any better about it.
- ebg13 7y ago
  > When you're convicted of it. Not before. A warrant does change your rights a bit.
- berkut 7y ago
  > This seems to be a very recent thing. First off, I don't think the justice system is meant to "bring closure" to the victims, whatever that means. And secondly, if someone close to me was murdered, I seriously doubt that "closure" would make me feel any better about it. As someone who had a parent murdered ~15 years ago and still doesn't know for certain what happened, I can tell you that personally the fact that I haven't had closure regarding the incident has severely affected my life for the worse.
  - skookumchuck 7y ago
    I am sorry for what happened to you. But can you know in advance what having further information would do to your feelings? And there'll always be gaps in that information, even in the case the article was about. For example, when my father died, I was presented with the option of having an autopsy done to find out just what had killed him. I declined, because it wouldn't change anything. He was just as gone, I'd miss him just as much, and I'd still think about him every day.
    - berkut 7y ago
      I think so: it's actually not so much regarding the victim, but the fact that a life was taken via murder (which wouldn't have happened otherwise), and it's possible the guilty party has gotten away with it (and I might even know them) plays on my mind. It's basically the uncertainty in terms of the who, what (although this answer is fairly evident) and why. Who for me is the big one. I suspect if I knew for certain who was responsible, I could at least put it behind me. I accepted the "they're gone" part years ago, but not knowing who did it (for certain) at least in my case is extremely annoying (and is the same with other relatives incidentally).
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      I don't believe either of you is presenting a convincing argument that the other is wrong. It seems quite plausible to me that some portion of people will be affected by not-knowing what happened, and some portion of people less so.
- thrower123 7y ago
  It's also veering very close to vengeance. And if that's what the people want, then, what the hell, let's bring back hangings in the town square, so they can get the satisfaction of seeing the murderer swing after trial, and cut out the 20-50 years of keeping them in prison.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    And if they ever get it wrong, do we get to hang the jury, judge and prosecutor for murder too? You get a hanging! And you get a hanging! And YOU get a hanging!
- efitz 7y ago
  >This seems to be a very recent thing. First off, I don't think the justice system is meant to "bring closure" to the victims, A stable society needs a mechanism to achieve justice other than vigilantism. So yes, "closure" (and, as mentioned elsewhere, "revenge") are aspects to punishment. There are several aspects to punishment that must be considered to have an effective justice system: 1. Deterrent - the punishment combined with the chance of getting caught should ideally cause most people to reject committing the act in the first place. 2. The punishment should protect other people from the person who has shown willingness to cause harm. 3. The punishment should be severe enough as well as proportionate to provide a sense of justice/fairness/revenge to the victims and remove the impetus for vigilantism. 4. Many people also want the punishment to rehabilitate the convicted so that they no longer pose a threat to others.
oaththrowaway 7y ago
> When you take a life you forfeit any more rights you have Does that include the state?
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  If we held the state and it’s servants to the same standards as the state sometimes holds private individuals society would collapse. Assange wrote about this in some documents about wilileaks. If the way things actually worked were public people would be calling for heads on spikes. There’s no reason to believe it’s possible to run a state morally and the state enables more human flourishing than the state of nature. The universal hypocrisy is moral.
TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
> When you take a life you forfeit any more rights you have Any rights? I firmly believe you still have the right to not be tortured. Can you think of any others?
technofiend 7y ago
Don't presume to speak for victims because you're painting with too broad of a brush. My sister's killer was convicted and sent to prison. Justice may have been served but for me the day after his conviction was the same as the day before: she was still dead and nothing can change that. There are too many downsides to putting causal DNA collection into the law enforcement toolkit. Starting with the fact the frankly anything given to law enforcement is often abused and used out of context to the fact that a false positive means anything from financial ruin to possibly a plea bargain for a crime the person didn't commit due to the abusive charge stacking prosecutors use the days. And although it may feel righteous to you to punish the guilty it should never been done at the cost of due process. We really can't afford the erosion of any more civil liberties, IMHO.

by stirlo 7y ago

When you take a life you forfeit any more rights you have, if there’s probable cause and a warrant and it can bring closure to the victims then it’s 100% acceptable.

skookumchuck 7y ago

> When you take a life you forfeit any more rights you have When you're convicted of it. Not before. > bring closure This seems to be a very recent thing. First off, I don't think the justice system is meant to "bring closure" to the victims, whatever that means. And secondly, if someone close to me was murdered, I seriously doubt that "closure" would make me feel any better about it.

ebg13 7y ago
> When you're convicted of it. Not before. A warrant does change your rights a bit.
berkut 7y ago
> This seems to be a very recent thing. First off, I don't think the justice system is meant to "bring closure" to the victims, whatever that means. And secondly, if someone close to me was murdered, I seriously doubt that "closure" would make me feel any better about it. As someone who had a parent murdered ~15 years ago and still doesn't know for certain what happened, I can tell you that personally the fact that I haven't had closure regarding the incident has severely affected my life for the worse.
- skookumchuck 7y ago
  I am sorry for what happened to you. But can you know in advance what having further information would do to your feelings? And there'll always be gaps in that information, even in the case the article was about. For example, when my father died, I was presented with the option of having an autopsy done to find out just what had killed him. I declined, because it wouldn't change anything. He was just as gone, I'd miss him just as much, and I'd still think about him every day.
  - berkut 7y ago
    I think so: it's actually not so much regarding the victim, but the fact that a life was taken via murder (which wouldn't have happened otherwise), and it's possible the guilty party has gotten away with it (and I might even know them) plays on my mind. It's basically the uncertainty in terms of the who, what (although this answer is fairly evident) and why. Who for me is the big one. I suspect if I knew for certain who was responsible, I could at least put it behind me. I accepted the "they're gone" part years ago, but not knowing who did it (for certain) at least in my case is extremely annoying (and is the same with other relatives incidentally).
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    I don't believe either of you is presenting a convincing argument that the other is wrong. It seems quite plausible to me that some portion of people will be affected by not-knowing what happened, and some portion of people less so.
thrower123 7y ago
It's also veering very close to vengeance. And if that's what the people want, then, what the hell, let's bring back hangings in the town square, so they can get the satisfaction of seeing the murderer swing after trial, and cut out the 20-50 years of keeping them in prison.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  And if they ever get it wrong, do we get to hang the jury, judge and prosecutor for murder too? You get a hanging! And you get a hanging! And YOU get a hanging!
efitz 7y ago
>This seems to be a very recent thing. First off, I don't think the justice system is meant to "bring closure" to the victims, A stable society needs a mechanism to achieve justice other than vigilantism. So yes, "closure" (and, as mentioned elsewhere, "revenge") are aspects to punishment. There are several aspects to punishment that must be considered to have an effective justice system: 1. Deterrent - the punishment combined with the chance of getting caught should ideally cause most people to reject committing the act in the first place. 2. The punishment should protect other people from the person who has shown willingness to cause harm. 3. The punishment should be severe enough as well as proportionate to provide a sense of justice/fairness/revenge to the victims and remove the impetus for vigilantism. 4. Many people also want the punishment to rehabilitate the convicted so that they no longer pose a threat to others.

oaththrowaway 7y ago

> When you take a life you forfeit any more rights you have Does that include the state?

barry-cotter 7y ago
If we held the state and it’s servants to the same standards as the state sometimes holds private individuals society would collapse. Assange wrote about this in some documents about wilileaks. If the way things actually worked were public people would be calling for heads on spikes. There’s no reason to believe it’s possible to run a state morally and the state enables more human flourishing than the state of nature. The universal hypocrisy is moral.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago

> When you take a life you forfeit any more rights you have Any rights? I firmly believe you still have the right to not be tortured. Can you think of any others?

technofiend 7y ago

Don't presume to speak for victims because you're painting with too broad of a brush. My sister's killer was convicted and sent to prison. Justice may have been served but for me the day after his conviction was the same as the day before: she was still dead and nothing can change that. There are too many downsides to putting causal DNA collection into the law enforcement toolkit. Starting with the fact the frankly anything given to law enforcement is often abused and used out of context to the fact that a false positive means anything from financial ruin to possibly a plea bargain for a crime the person didn't commit due to the abusive charge stacking prosecutors use the days. And although it may feel righteous to you to punish the guilty it should never been done at the cost of due process. We really can't afford the erosion of any more civil liberties, IMHO.