4 ms·

How is that we have a system where we have an assistant district attorney (now running for DA) who not only openly believes we need to kill more people, but thi

by eghad 11y ago

How is that we have a system where we have an assistant district attorney (now running for DA) who not only openly believes we need to kill more people, but thinks they deserve to suffer as much physical pain as "humanly possible"? I mean his own colleagues question his mental instability, and nothing happens. When no one is willing to actually disbar someone like this, where are the effective checks on power?

Jtsummers 11y ago
> I mean his own colleagues question his mental instability, and nothing happens. From my reading it seemed the colleagues questioning his stability were colleagues by profession, not employer. Or they'd worked together many years earlier. Some suspected that he'd become inundated with the culture in the local DA's office, in which case he might not be so unstable compared to the rest (where they put up pictures of KKK founders). The checks, in this case, are with the voters of the parish, which seems unfortunate because they also elected his predecessor who was obviously satisfied with Cox's work to keep him on for so long.
kazinator 11y ago
That is clearly wrong; they only deserve to suffer as much pain as they inflicted, not as much as possible. Ideally, offenders eligible for the death penalty should perish in exactly the same circumstances as what they inflicted. Someone who starved an infant to death should be starved; someone who strangled ought to be strangled and so on. (By and large it's good enough to have them permanently gone by any means. That's the important thing: erasing the mistake.)
- carlob 11y ago
  are you trolling?
  - kazinator 11y ago
    You mean, am I misrepresenting my real life beliefs for the purpose of online entertainment? Certainly not. Moreover, this isn't a throwaway account; you can deduce my identity without much effort. People who disagree with your views on crime and punishment, or anything else, aren't necessarily trolls.
    - selimthegrim 11y ago
      Have you thought about the effects this might have on the executioner? Take the case of the serial killer in Lahore who would cut up little boys and dissolve them in barrels of acid. The sessions court judge at his first trial was inspired to pass the same sentence on him until cooler heads prevailed in higher courts on appeal.
- jkyle 11y ago
  Would you consider the guaranteed percentage of innocently convicted being starved, strangled, or any number of unimaginable torturous horrors committed to them at great pain and distress acceptable collateral damage in a quest to exact sadistic justice?
  - kazinator 11y ago
    I only described what I think is just, not arguing that it should actually be implemented. There are numerous problems with actually implementing the concept, not the least of which is that it is being barbaric, and requires psychopathic executioners that only differ from the convict in that what they are doing is legal in its context.
aaronem 11y ago
> How is that we have a system where we have an assistant district attorney (now running for DA) who not only openly believes we need to kill more people, but thinks they deserve to suffer as much physical pain as "humanly possible"? Democracy's a bitch, ain't it?

by eghad 11y ago

Jtsummers 11y ago

> I mean his own colleagues question his mental instability, and nothing happens. From my reading it seemed the colleagues questioning his stability were colleagues by profession, not employer. Or they'd worked together many years earlier. Some suspected that he'd become inundated with the culture in the local DA's office, in which case he might not be so unstable compared to the rest (where they put up pictures of KKK founders). The checks, in this case, are with the voters of the parish, which seems unfortunate because they also elected his predecessor who was obviously satisfied with Cox's work to keep him on for so long.

kazinator 11y ago

That is clearly wrong; they only deserve to suffer as much pain as they inflicted, not as much as possible. Ideally, offenders eligible for the death penalty should perish in exactly the same circumstances as what they inflicted. Someone who starved an infant to death should be starved; someone who strangled ought to be strangled and so on. (By and large it's good enough to have them permanently gone by any means. That's the important thing: erasing the mistake.)

carlob 11y ago
are you trolling?
- kazinator 11y ago
  You mean, am I misrepresenting my real life beliefs for the purpose of online entertainment? Certainly not. Moreover, this isn't a throwaway account; you can deduce my identity without much effort. People who disagree with your views on crime and punishment, or anything else, aren't necessarily trolls.
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    Have you thought about the effects this might have on the executioner? Take the case of the serial killer in Lahore who would cut up little boys and dissolve them in barrels of acid. The sessions court judge at his first trial was inspired to pass the same sentence on him until cooler heads prevailed in higher courts on appeal.
jkyle 11y ago
Would you consider the guaranteed percentage of innocently convicted being starved, strangled, or any number of unimaginable torturous horrors committed to them at great pain and distress acceptable collateral damage in a quest to exact sadistic justice?
- kazinator 11y ago
  I only described what I think is just, not arguing that it should actually be implemented. There are numerous problems with actually implementing the concept, not the least of which is that it is being barbaric, and requires psychopathic executioners that only differ from the convict in that what they are doing is legal in its context.

aaronem 11y ago

> How is that we have a system where we have an assistant district attorney (now running for DA) who not only openly believes we need to kill more people, but thinks they deserve to suffer as much physical pain as "humanly possible"? Democracy's a bitch, ain't it?