4 ms·

I have one opinion and it's not mixed. I have no remorse for the killers. They want their name removed? Well, maybe they shouldn't have killed someone. I'm not

by dbz 17y ago

I have one opinion and it's not mixed. I have no remorse for the killers. They want their name removed? Well, maybe they shouldn't have killed someone. I'm not trying to troll or flame or anything, I just feel that the punishment fits the crime. -> You kill an actor, you get fame. You don't like the fame? Don't kill the actor. And I feel the first amendment should have priority over anyone's personal feelings anyways. =/

ugh 17y ago
Wouldn’t a more rational approach to punishment to be one that puts (with certain constraints – freedom, privacy, cost and maybe a few others) minimizing crime above everything else? I don’t care how I feel about a certain punishment as long as it gets its job done. There are the least murders if you legalize murder (unlikely)? Fine, legalize it. Sure, you might want to minimize or maximize other things. The happiness of the victims (or their family and friends). The happiness of the people reading or hearing about the punishments. But that feels rather superficial to me. I guess that’s a judgment call. Now, we don’t really know whether this law actually gets the job done (and insofar, I am pretty split on this case) but at the very least, I have become quite careful when evaluating punishments (stripping certain rights to privacy away would be a punishment) with my feelings. Man, I’m rambling :)
- dbz 17y ago
  I see how what I said comes off rather emotional vs. rational(/logical). I agree that they should get a punishment that fits the crime. In fact I feel that so much that I think that each time a crime is committed, the person should get an individualized punishment regardless of what other punishments have been in the past. The punishment should fit the person and the crime. (Of course there should be guidelines w/e we don't want to hear me ramble =p) However, I found it oddly ironic that the punishment they got for killing an actor was fame, and they didn't want the fame, which I personally believe they deserved for murder. And I was expressing that they got what they deserved, imho. (I view murder as rarely forgivable.)
  - lucumo 17y ago
    > However, I found it oddly ironic that the punishment they got for killing an actor was fame, That's not the punishment they got. They were given a prison sentence which lasted approx. 15 years. That's the punishment they got. The fame is a side effect.
    - dbz 17y ago
      You are correct. I should have said "a punishment"; however, even that would be technically incorrect. But I guess what I mean is that the fame is pure karma which they shouldn't be allowed to rid themselves of because they committed murder. (I assume murder because "they were sentenced to life in prison.")
      - lucumo 17y ago
        Apparently the dominant legal view in Germany (and I guess in more parts of Europe) is that once a sentence is served, the crime is dealt with. If society believes that the sentences are too light, it can change the law, but once a judge has pronounced a sentence, and it's served in the proper way, that's it. "Fame" is a way of society to hand out punishments outside of the courts of law. Such an extrajudicial punishment is especially annoying when there are mitigating circumstances. Usually those are details that courts bother with, but public opinion doesn't. (Now, that doesn't mean this particular case is easy. Wikipedia also records history. History records the identity of many killers and I believe in a lot of cases that can be an important historical fact. Balancing rights rarely is easy, so I'm happy that we have independent professionals that spent a lot of time thinking about these issues.)
radu_floricica 17y ago
It's a very bad idea to judge/make law based on a single case. In US for example the law is broken in the opposite direction: one a sexual offender in any way, forever a sexual offender. It's not just about murders, it can be a simple bar fight in your 20's that can follow you forever. Or any other stupid act or decision. That's a defense of the spirit of the law, btw. In this case there's no doubt wikipedia should not be censored.
henrikschroder 17y ago
There's a notable difference in the view on punishment between Europe and the US. (Probably between common law and case law? I'm not really sure) Basically, over here, when you've done your time in jail, you're done. Your debt to society is paid. Your status as a regular citizen is restored. And as such, you have some sort of right to be forgotten, you shouldn't have to be treated as an ex-con for the rest of your life. In reality though, people do care about it, people are curious, people do treat ex-cons differently, there is a value attached to knowing if someone committed a crime or not. What these guys should have done is to ask to be removed quietly, and if it was denied, just forget about it and hope everyone else does it too. Bringing attention to it is the exact opposite of what they wanted.

by dbz 17y ago

ugh 17y ago

Wouldn’t a more rational approach to punishment to be one that puts (with certain constraints – freedom, privacy, cost and maybe a few others) minimizing crime above everything else? I don’t care how I feel about a certain punishment as long as it gets its job done. There are the least murders if you legalize murder (unlikely)? Fine, legalize it. Sure, you might want to minimize or maximize other things. The happiness of the victims (or their family and friends). The happiness of the people reading or hearing about the punishments. But that feels rather superficial to me. I guess that’s a judgment call. Now, we don’t really know whether this law actually gets the job done (and insofar, I am pretty split on this case) but at the very least, I have become quite careful when evaluating punishments (stripping certain rights to privacy away would be a punishment) with my feelings. Man, I’m rambling :)

dbz 17y ago
I see how what I said comes off rather emotional vs. rational(/logical). I agree that they should get a punishment that fits the crime. In fact I feel that so much that I think that each time a crime is committed, the person should get an individualized punishment regardless of what other punishments have been in the past. The punishment should fit the person and the crime. (Of course there should be guidelines w/e we don't want to hear me ramble =p) However, I found it oddly ironic that the punishment they got for killing an actor was fame, and they didn't want the fame, which I personally believe they deserved for murder. And I was expressing that they got what they deserved, imho. (I view murder as rarely forgivable.)
- lucumo 17y ago
  > However, I found it oddly ironic that the punishment they got for killing an actor was fame, That's not the punishment they got. They were given a prison sentence which lasted approx. 15 years. That's the punishment they got. The fame is a side effect.
  - dbz 17y ago
    You are correct. I should have said "a punishment"; however, even that would be technically incorrect. But I guess what I mean is that the fame is pure karma which they shouldn't be allowed to rid themselves of because they committed murder. (I assume murder because "they were sentenced to life in prison.")
    - lucumo 17y ago
      Apparently the dominant legal view in Germany (and I guess in more parts of Europe) is that once a sentence is served, the crime is dealt with. If society believes that the sentences are too light, it can change the law, but once a judge has pronounced a sentence, and it's served in the proper way, that's it. "Fame" is a way of society to hand out punishments outside of the courts of law. Such an extrajudicial punishment is especially annoying when there are mitigating circumstances. Usually those are details that courts bother with, but public opinion doesn't. (Now, that doesn't mean this particular case is easy. Wikipedia also records history. History records the identity of many killers and I believe in a lot of cases that can be an important historical fact. Balancing rights rarely is easy, so I'm happy that we have independent professionals that spent a lot of time thinking about these issues.)

radu_floricica 17y ago

It's a very bad idea to judge/make law based on a single case. In US for example the law is broken in the opposite direction: one a sexual offender in any way, forever a sexual offender. It's not just about murders, it can be a simple bar fight in your 20's that can follow you forever. Or any other stupid act or decision. That's a defense of the spirit of the law, btw. In this case there's no doubt wikipedia should not be censored.

henrikschroder 17y ago

There's a notable difference in the view on punishment between Europe and the US. (Probably between common law and case law? I'm not really sure) Basically, over here, when you've done your time in jail, you're done. Your debt to society is paid. Your status as a regular citizen is restored. And as such, you have some sort of right to be forgotten, you shouldn't have to be treated as an ex-con for the rest of your life. In reality though, people do care about it, people are curious, people do treat ex-cons differently, there is a value attached to knowing if someone committed a crime or not. What these guys should have done is to ask to be removed quietly, and if it was denied, just forget about it and hope everyone else does it too. Bringing attention to it is the exact opposite of what they wanted.