[Chumbaniya]

(Original post by Hopple)
The killers are going to die behind bars anyway, do you have compassion for them? I was just continuing on from the first sentence that you omitted, in reply to the statement that no compassion for the rapist puts us on a par with him.

Why would the fact that a person is going to die in jail affect by beliefs about their humanity? I believe that both the rapist and the killers have committed terrible wrongs, but I don't believe that affects their right to have their fundamental rights respected. Indeed, it's actually quite amusing that people would tolerate the rapist being killed in this manner (that is to say, tolerating him being treated as outside of justice) despite the fact that it is the justice system that is already punishing him by convicting and sentencing him in the first place. I don't have much time for the idea that justice should be dispensed selectively.

Do unto the child rapist as you would have him do to you would mean leaving him alone. The presence of the latter attitude you state promotes the former's behaviour.

I don't understand the second sentence so you might have to rephrase that. I think you might be saying that my formulation of the reversed Golden Rule implies my initial statement of the actual Golden Rule? If that's the case it's just a matter of formal logic and your assertion is false.

What I would have a person do to me is respect my rights, do no unnecessary harm to me, and uphold the rule of law both in relation to myself and the wider community in general. I would consider it fitting if I committed a crime of the magnitude of child rape for me to face a lengthy prison sentence, and for that reason I consider it appropriate that this is what the child rapist was sentenced to. I wouldn't consider it fitting for me to be disembowelled in any circumstances.

[Hopple]

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
Why would the fact that a person is going to die in jail affect by beliefs about their humanity? I believe that both the rapist and the killers have committed terrible wrongs, but I don't believe that affects their right to have their fundamental rights respected. Indeed, it's actually quite amusing that people would tolerate the rapist being killed in this manner (that is to say, tolerating him being treated as outside of justice) despite the fact that it is the justice system that is already punishing him by convicting and sentencing him in the first place. I don't have much time for the idea that justice should be dispensed selectively.

Dying in prison is the same as an execution, unless you make the distinction that an execution is irreversible, but then you aren't opposing it on 'civilised' grounds.

I don't understand the second sentence so you might have to rephrase that. I think you might be saying that my formulation of the reversed Golden Rule implies my initial statement of the actual Golden Rule? If that's the case it's just a matter of formal logic and your assertion is false.

What I'm saying is that the threat of undesirable consequences makes people treat each other as they'd wish to be treated, and having people who treat others as they have been treated creates that threat.

What I would have a person do to me is respect my rights, do no unnecessary harm to me, and uphold the rule of law both in relation to myself and the wider community in general. I would consider it fitting if I committed a crime of the magnitude of child rape for me to face a lengthy prison sentence, and for that reason I consider it appropriate that this is what the child rapist was sentenced to. I wouldn't consider it fitting for me to be disembowelled in any circumstances.

Ah, I'd assumed you were heading down the 'turn the other cheek' road. Perhaps I just feel a prison sentence is too soft, but I wouldn't feel I deserved that level of treatment if I had raped someone.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by TheEssence)
Imply what you wish, but this attitude of an eye for an eye, or capital punishment, be it from the state of taken into the hands of prisoners in my opinion is wrong. Even with executions in other countries, they are at least given the dignity of a last meal, saying goodbye etc, this wasn't in any way justice, just a barbaric and animalistic act

That has nothing to do with what I boldfaced. You implied that not having compassion puts you on the same level as those who commit the act. Clearly an exaggeration beyond sense.

[im TSR]

The golden rule cannot exist within the justice system.
Imprisoning people who do wrong actually breaks the golden rule :-)

Is it civilised to imprison people who do wrong? (rhetorical question)

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
I see this sort of thinking a lot and it comes down to getting the Golden Rule backwards. There is a difference between "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Do unto other as they have done unto you". Not that I have any religious basis for my ideas about morality, but this is a rather handy expression of a pretty key underpinning belief in the idea of how to act in our society.

[Chumbaniya]

(Original post by Hopple)
Dying in prison is the same as an execution, unless you make the distinction that an execution is irreversible, but then you aren't opposing it on 'civilised' grounds.

Dying in prison is quite demonstrably not the same as an execution. Things that are different are not the same. This is pretty basic stuff.

I think it's pretty damn civilised for a justice system to be capable of righting the (inevitable) incorrect judgements it makes. That's quite aside from any other concerns over the death penalty.

What I'm saying is that the threat of undesirable consequences makes people treat each other as they'd wish to be treated, and having people who treat others as they have been treated creates that threat.

Still not with you on this one. I feel like there must be one or two levels of assumptions which aren't being made clear.

Ah, I'd assumed you were heading down the 'turn the other cheek' road. Perhaps I just feel a prison sentence is too soft, but I wouldn't feel I deserved that level of treatment if I had raped someone.

As I'd said, I wanted to bring up the Golden Rule because it felt relevant, but I have no religious motivation here. Forgiveness is something which I feel is quite different to justice, and indeed I think it's consistent in some cases for a person to be both forgiven by their victim and punished by the justice system, because the justice system is also concerned with prevention and reform.

(Original post by im TSR)
The golden rule cannot exist within the justice system.
Imprisoning people who do wrong actually breaks the golden rule :-)

I think I made it quite clear that it is. I can only assume that you think that being imprisoned is not something a person could accept for themselves, but personally I'd consider it quite appropriate for me to be imprisoned if I committed certain serious crimes, so I have no problem seeing others treated similarly.

Is it civilised to imprison people who do wrong? (rhetorical question)

Doesn't seem like a rhetorical question (and if it is, it serves no purpose as far as your point is concerned). I'd go with 'sure it is'. I have my problems with the justice system and I'd like to see it do much better on the subject of reforming criminals than it currently does, but it seems an eminently sensible way to remove a danger to society, punish an illegal action and create an opportunity for reform without doing anything of great cruelty.

[TheEssence]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
That has nothing to do with what I boldfaced. You implied that not having compassion puts you on the same level as those who commit the act. Clearly an exaggeration beyond sense.

Each to their own, but in my opinion, compassion and a sense of respect for human life is what makes sure we don't descend into a vicious whirlwind of hatred

(Original post by Hopple)
I am saying your sweeping statement about being civilised is wrong. Even above, you've mentioned one of the biggest reasons why we don't have the death penalty, its impracticality/unreliability. Being civilised doesn't really come into it if your country has an army.


What I said was the rape of an innocent child is worse than the murder of that rapist. I'm not defending the cannibalism, nor the murder, but I'm not going to lament the loss of the rapist's life just so I can claim to be 'civilised'.

The purpose is not to claim to be civilised, but you have made your point clear. Both are extremely heinous acts, and whilst one may bee worse because the victim had committed his fair share of bad deeds, just as it takes a sick person to forcibly penetrate a person despite their tears and cries for help, it takes a very cold person to deprive someone of their place in this plane of existence.

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
To some degree, murder can be considered a merciful crime, if I was to meet someone I knew as A CHILD RAPIST or A MURDERER, I'd prefer to meet the murderer.

Yeah i agree it can, what may be euthanasia to some would be murder in the eyes of the law. But there are so many technicalities in the law that for you to make such a sweeping statement may be incorrect. What if the rappist was in a Julian Assange situation, whilst the murderer had decapitated someone and had premeditated it?

[Snagprophet]

Urgh, criminals thinking they're somehow morally higher than others. This makes me sick. I don't quite know why they're putting physical abusers in with murderers. I hate this pair.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by TheEssence)
Each to their own, but in my opinion, compassion and a sense of respect for human life is what makes sure we don't descend into a vicious whirlwind of hatred


The purpose is not to claim to be civilised, but you have made your point clear. Both are extremely heinous acts, and whilst one may bee worse because the victim had committed his fair share of bad deeds, just as it takes a sick person to forcibly penetrate a person despite their tears and cries for help, it takes a very cold person to deprive someone of their place in this plane of existence.



Yeah i agree it can, what may be euthanasia to some would be murder in the eyes of the law. But there are so many technicalities in the law that for you to make such a sweeping statement may be incorrect. What if the rappist was in a Julian Assange situation, whilst the murderer had decapitated someone and had premeditated it?

Not to deny that there are extremes on both sides, but on average I'd imagine the child rapist would be worse

[Mr Dangermouse]

I don't have sympathy for the dead guy but of course the book should be thrown at the 2 killers.

[SpicyStrawberry]

I feel gutted for him.

In all seriousness it's not right but I haven't got any sympathy for him.

[JessaminePoppy]

It's a weird scenario. Doubly tragic for the rapist's family, but I wonder how the 13 year old's family feels about.

As for the psychopath, not much can be done. To really punish that kind of person, isolation might be the only thing that would truly get through to them, but even then it's pretty inhumane and wouldn't actually improve their mental condition. I guess.

[TheEssence]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Not to deny that there are extremes on both sides, but on average I'd imagine the child rapist would be worse

depends on ones view. To many people child rape is utterly disgusting and the worst of crimes, but there would also be many that feel depriving someone of their place in this world is just as bad if not worse. Each to their own i say.

[Negaduck]

When you put the country's most dangerous people all in one place, this sort of **** happens. As much as I am against killing, I would rather that these sick people were murdering a child rapist in a prison than an innocent citizen in the outside world.

[2ndClass]

Michael Parr, 32, and Nathan Mann, 23, cut his neck with a scalpel made from plastic cutlery and a razor blade.

Newcastle Crown Court heard they cut the dead victim's stomach and planned to eat his liver, but did not do so.

Hmmm, where they out of fava beans and a bottle of Kanti?

[thisisnew]

Wonder if those taking the "must respect all human life" stance would retain such a stance if it was their own son/daughter that had been raped or whatever. I'm sure some of you would and I applaud that because I certainly wouldn't but I reckon the vast majority of you would change your tune if it was. It's easy to take such a moral high ground when you're completely detached from the situation.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Fusion)
Apparently criminals are more patriotic than most...

When it comes to anything involving children they are. Not even the lowest of the low in prison tolerate pedophiles, pedophiles are universally hated by everyone inside and outside the prison system.

[Michaelj]

Not like I condone murdering but am I the only person here who feels that the child rapist had it coming? Wouldn't you want something bad to him if he harmed your children or your friend or families children? I for one feel that the murderers murdered the rapist because they have children themselves and thought he was a sick ****. Look at Ian Huntley, he's one of the most protected criminals because half of the crime world want him dead.

[KasanDude]

Not to condone murder, but if I was in a confined space with a person I knew to be child-rapist, I would probably like to do some damage to them as well...

[L i b]

(Original post by thisisnew)
Wonder if those taking the "must respect all human life" stance would retain such a stance if it was their own son/daughter that had been raped or whatever. I'm sure some of you would and I applaud that because I certainly wouldn't but I reckon the vast majority of you would change your tune if it was. It's easy to take such a moral high ground when you're completely detached from the situation.

Well, duh.

Sure, if someone did something bad to my child I would want to tear them to pieces. I'd also realise that this is wrong and I would deserved to be condemned as a murderer for it.

This is precisely the reason we don't give victim's families a role in the justice system: justice is only fair if administered dispassionately. They are the last people who would be capable of coming to a dispassionate judgement.

[thisisnew]

(Original post by L i b)
Sure, if someone did something bad to my child I would want to tear them to pieces. I'd also realise that this is wrong and I would deserved to be condemned as a murderer for it.

Obviously. I was more gearing my point towards those people that talk as if their stance on human rights & the notion that we're all equal would prevent them from thinking or acting irrationally should somebody do something terrible to their own child.