7 ms·

The deeds are horrifying to read. You can do nothing wrong and die by hands of some piece of shit just because you were at wrong place at wrong time. follow up

by galkk 7mo ago

The deeds are horrifying to read. You can do nothing wrong and die by hands of some piece of shit just because you were at wrong place at wrong time. follow up actions of some are even more sad and scary. Killing another human being meant nothing to some of murderers, like killing a fly. Those apologies are too little too late. Good riddance. I have no sympathy for them, and I’m all in for using those for involuntary dangerous drug testing and stuff like that. Those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did.

maest 7mo ago
Yes, those acts are immensely terrible and the apologies feel minuscule by comparison. But I think there's room for more nuance here. There are multiple reasons we put people in jail: 1. the victims can feel some vindication and retribution 2. other members of society can feel some vindication and retribution and a sense of justice 3. other would-be criminals are detered from committing similar crimes for fear of punishment 4. making people feel safe by showing them criminals are punished 5. removing a bad actor from society 6. reforming a bad actor and reintroducing them into society Different cultures emphasize different combinations of reasons. For example, ine notable divide is how, in the US, 6. is considered to be the product of a naive mind, whereas in some nordic countries, that goal is taken seriously, with some amount of success (and perhaps at the detriment of other goals). Anyway, I think your point is that, even if you take the convicts' apologies at face value, goals 1. and 2. remain unfulfilled. And 3. is probably weakened.
- sam0x17 7mo ago
  I've always felt very alone in my view on this, so don't feel bad if you disagree with me because most people probably do, but I just feel super morally icky when I hear about how part of our justice system is built around "retribution" / "vindication". Like it is one thing to punish, it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment, even if they were victims, I just find it sick. It means as a society we are no better than the perpetrators at the end of the day.
  - rkomorn 7mo ago
    You're definitely not alone and I 100% share the thought in your last sentence.
  - pinkmuffinere 7mo ago
    > it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment I sometimes see this behavior in close friends, and it totally changes the way I see them. I don't know if it's a moral failing on their part, but I just don't experience the desire for vengeance the same way they do, and it really scares me to see how they experience it. What will they do when they start to have mental decline, and (incorrectly) decide they were wronged in some way? :(
  - worthless-trash 7mo ago
    I think this thought process is something that only people who have never been wronged can afford. There comes a time in life where the punishment must fit the crime, even if its only to make an example of the criminal. Life is hard enough, we should deter crimes at every possibility, people are rarely punished for every evil they commit.
    - Macha 7mo ago
      I was mugged as a teenager, and my house was burned down as an adult because a drug dealer lived on the same street. Does that count me as sufficiently wronged to not be dismissed for sharing the parent posters viewpoint?
      - worthless-trash 7mo ago
        If it doesn't.. it wasnt.
    - sam0x17 7mo ago
      See this is my point though, it shouldn't matter what has happened to you, if that matters, then this is 100% emotional and not based on reason or justice.
- galkk 7mo ago
  Of course goal 1 is unfulfilled. Because victims are already dead. Often in very bad way. I’m sure there are enough people who will consider goals 2, 4 and 5 fulfilled. I disagree with your assessment. As I said - those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did. You don’t fix them or reintroduce them to society. I don’t care about abstracts. I care about the fact that some of those scumbags were kept alive longer than their victims lived on this earth, and suffered less in their demise.
  - maest 7mo ago
    > Because victims are already dead. In this case, I was thinking of the family as the "victims", but, yes, you do have a point.
- blell 7mo ago
  The Nordic countries do not have the demographics of the US. There’s some kind of person who is not reformable.
  - orwin 7mo ago
    One of the man was convicted and put to death for killing his abusive mother. Don't get me wrong, killing is bad, he should feel bad and get punished, but his brother forgave him, he already did 20 (!) years, I don't know who you're protecting by putting him to death. A second mother?
crote 7mo ago
> Those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did. If inmates don't get human rights, then every single person is just a corrupt judge away from becoming a non-person. No matter how horrible a person has acted, the government simply cannot be trusted not to abuse such power.
- galkk 7mo ago
  Please don’t rephrase me so it’s easier to argue. I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it. I’m sure that if needed, society can develop necessary framework (declare them “legally dead” or something like that).
  - ithkuil 7mo ago
    I consider the risk of wrongful conviction to be an argument against the death penalty and for the very same reason I'm against performing any kind of inhuman treatment of them (which might be worse than death). Even if 95% would totally deserve it, I don't think we should just accept that on average 4 innocent people every year are just treated as subhumans just so we can unleash our wrath over those who did truly horrible things. Death is still a better option rather than being used as lab rat
    - galkk 7mo ago
      There should be doubt. There should be due process. At the same time, I think that with the advancement of the tech (surveillance cameras everywhere, dna tests, the cell tower triangulation and/or mobile device location tracking) there are cases when the guilt can be established without any doubt, and the overall chance of wrongful conviction will drop down. Hell, have you read the website? One of those pieces of shit made his accomplice to video the murder on the phone.
      - ithkuil 7mo ago
burnt-resistor 7mo ago
The presumption and occasional assumption of justice system infallibility is breathtakingly arrogant. And then the bloodthirsty, heartless rabble that cheers on more pain and death without regard to actual guilt, incompetency, or innocence. Judge not ...

by galkk 7mo ago

maest 7mo ago

Yes, those acts are immensely terrible and the apologies feel minuscule by comparison. But I think there's room for more nuance here. There are multiple reasons we put people in jail: 1. the victims can feel some vindication and retribution 2. other members of society can feel some vindication and retribution and a sense of justice 3. other would-be criminals are detered from committing similar crimes for fear of punishment 4. making people feel safe by showing them criminals are punished 5. removing a bad actor from society 6. reforming a bad actor and reintroducing them into society Different cultures emphasize different combinations of reasons. For example, ine notable divide is how, in the US, 6. is considered to be the product of a naive mind, whereas in some nordic countries, that goal is taken seriously, with some amount of success (and perhaps at the detriment of other goals). Anyway, I think your point is that, even if you take the convicts' apologies at face value, goals 1. and 2. remain unfulfilled. And 3. is probably weakened.

sam0x17 7mo ago
I've always felt very alone in my view on this, so don't feel bad if you disagree with me because most people probably do, but I just feel super morally icky when I hear about how part of our justice system is built around "retribution" / "vindication". Like it is one thing to punish, it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment, even if they were victims, I just find it sick. It means as a society we are no better than the perpetrators at the end of the day.
- rkomorn 7mo ago
  You're definitely not alone and I 100% share the thought in your last sentence.
- pinkmuffinere 7mo ago
  > it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment I sometimes see this behavior in close friends, and it totally changes the way I see them. I don't know if it's a moral failing on their part, but I just don't experience the desire for vengeance the same way they do, and it really scares me to see how they experience it. What will they do when they start to have mental decline, and (incorrectly) decide they were wronged in some way? :(
- worthless-trash 7mo ago
  I think this thought process is something that only people who have never been wronged can afford. There comes a time in life where the punishment must fit the crime, even if its only to make an example of the criminal. Life is hard enough, we should deter crimes at every possibility, people are rarely punished for every evil they commit.
  - Macha 7mo ago
    I was mugged as a teenager, and my house was burned down as an adult because a drug dealer lived on the same street. Does that count me as sufficiently wronged to not be dismissed for sharing the parent posters viewpoint?
    - worthless-trash 7mo ago
      If it doesn't.. it wasnt.
  - sam0x17 7mo ago
    See this is my point though, it shouldn't matter what has happened to you, if that matters, then this is 100% emotional and not based on reason or justice.
galkk 7mo ago
Of course goal 1 is unfulfilled. Because victims are already dead. Often in very bad way. I’m sure there are enough people who will consider goals 2, 4 and 5 fulfilled. I disagree with your assessment. As I said - those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did. You don’t fix them or reintroduce them to society. I don’t care about abstracts. I care about the fact that some of those scumbags were kept alive longer than their victims lived on this earth, and suffered less in their demise.
- maest 7mo ago
  > Because victims are already dead. In this case, I was thinking of the family as the "victims", but, yes, you do have a point.
blell 7mo ago
The Nordic countries do not have the demographics of the US. There’s some kind of person who is not reformable.
- orwin 7mo ago
  One of the man was convicted and put to death for killing his abusive mother. Don't get me wrong, killing is bad, he should feel bad and get punished, but his brother forgave him, he already did 20 (!) years, I don't know who you're protecting by putting him to death. A second mother?

crote 7mo ago

> Those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did. If inmates don't get human rights, then every single person is just a corrupt judge away from becoming a non-person. No matter how horrible a person has acted, the government simply cannot be trusted not to abuse such power.

galkk 7mo ago
Please don’t rephrase me so it’s easier to argue. I am not talking about generic inmates, who deserve all protection (“no cruel and unusual punishment”), I’m talking about people like ones from the website. Who did horrible stuff and were convicted to death for it. I’m sure that if needed, society can develop necessary framework (declare them “legally dead” or something like that).
- ithkuil 7mo ago
  I consider the risk of wrongful conviction to be an argument against the death penalty and for the very same reason I'm against performing any kind of inhuman treatment of them (which might be worse than death). Even if 95% would totally deserve it, I don't think we should just accept that on average 4 innocent people every year are just treated as subhumans just so we can unleash our wrath over those who did truly horrible things. Death is still a better option rather than being used as lab rat
  - galkk 7mo ago
    There should be doubt. There should be due process. At the same time, I think that with the advancement of the tech (surveillance cameras everywhere, dna tests, the cell tower triangulation and/or mobile device location tracking) there are cases when the guilt can be established without any doubt, and the overall chance of wrongful conviction will drop down. Hell, have you read the website? One of those pieces of shit made his accomplice to video the murder on the phone.
    - ithkuil 7mo ago

burnt-resistor 7mo ago

The presumption and occasional assumption of justice system infallibility is breathtakingly arrogant. And then the bloodthirsty, heartless rabble that cheers on more pain and death without regard to actual guilt, incompetency, or innocence. Judge not ...