The fish Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) It's in the original constitution, so changing it is pretty impossible without a totalitarian regime. Actually it's an amendment, in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments). One amendment, the 18th, has been repealed by the 21st amendment - the banning and and then lifting of the ban on 'intoxicating liquors'. If the model of the 21st was to be followed in repealing the 2nd, it would be up to each individual county (yes, county) to decide whether to implement the repeal or not, and I dare say many would want to keep things as they are. This, by the way, is the reason some counties are still legally dry - including, funnily enough, Moore County, Kentucky, which includes the town of Lynchburg, of Jack Daniel's Distillery fame. Personally, I think they should have the right to bare arms, but only those the framers of the constitution had access to - the best trained people in the world (the Prussian army, if anyone cares) could just about fire 4 rounds a minute. An individual lunatic can't do too much damage with a smooth-bore musket, partly because once you've fired, everyone else will rush you, and partly because it requires luck more than judgement to hit a barn door, let alone a person, at more than 30 metres. Edited January 27, 2011 by The fish
Beast Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 At his age, they're more award of what they're doing and so I think he knew what he was doing. The question is, why on earth would he do such a thing like that? Was there a reason behind it? I mean, was she abusive to him or something?
The fish Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 At his age, they're more award of what they're doing and so I think he knew what he was doing. The question is, why on earth would he do such a thing like that? Was there a reason behind it? I mean, was she abusive to him or something? As several people and I have said, the main thing he needs is a shit load* of mental health work. *My father works in the field, and assures me this is the correct medical terminology.
Beast Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I think he should have the death penalty, he's never going to have a normal life ever again no matter what happens. It's always going to be difficult for him and I'm sure it would be even more difficult for the victim's family and friends. Though there would be people saying that that would be an easy way out and that he wouldn't have suffered...
The fish Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I think he should have the death penalty. Well aren't you a bit of a bastard? This isn't really something that can be reasonably discussed, as, personally, I feel that one of the key hallmarks of civilisation is that the ending of life against the their wishes, outside of the immediate defence of oneself or others, is always wrong. Similarly, the notion of using like to punish like is primitive and barbaric. I believe the intended meaning of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that punishment should be proportional to the crime, and not the common misconception that it means mirror punishment.
nightwolf Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Well aren't you a bit of a bastard? This isn't really something that can be reasonably discussed, as, personally, I feel that one of the key hallmarks of civilisation is that the ending of life against the their wishes, outside of the immediate defence of oneself or others, is always wrong. Similarly, the notion of using like to punish like is primitive and barbaric. I believe the intended meaning of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that punishment should be proportional to the crime, and not the common misconception that it means mirror punishment. I can see where Dazz is coming from though, he's going to spend his life behind bars, he might as well be dead. Which is why I mentioned it to link before. Although it seems to me an eye for an eye isn't a good thing, if you were stuck behind bars from 13 years of age for the rest of your life, you'd probably wish for it, right? I know I would.
Beast Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I can see where Dazz is coming from though, he's going to spend his life behind bars, he might as well be dead. Which is why I mentioned it to link before. Although it seems to me an eye for an eye isn't a good thing, if you were stuck behind bars from 13 years of age for the rest of your life, you'd probably wish for it, right? I know I would. That's exactly what I was thinking when I typed that. Come on, would you really want to go on living being scared for your entire life, knowing that people wouldn't like you on the outside or the inside? You're never going to live properly, you're never going to have a proper family life and you're always having to fear what nutter will come along inside and try to batter you or kill you. You would wish for death anyway and you may be too scared to do it yourself and so you'll live the rest of your life, tortured. Just like Nightwolf has said, I would rather die if I was in that boy's shoes.
Jonnas Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Personally, I think they should have the right to bare arms (...) Well, so do I, but that's going a bit off-topic... In seriousness, I am against the right to bear arms mainly due to how unregulated it is. A few enforced restrictions would be the best amendment, but, like it was mentioned, no way most Americans would comply.
Cube Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 It's in the original constitution, so changing it is pretty impossible without a totalitarian regime. Technically, it wouldn't be preventing people from their right to bear arms (there's loads in the forest...bad-dum-tish). They'd just be limiting what people can choose as their arms. I'm pretty sure they already have a limit (for example, I'm pretty sure you can't have nuclear arms), so they would just be changing the limit.
Diageo Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Telling someone it's wrong to kill people and then killing them seems like incredible hypocrisy to me. Also, it's not like prison is the worst thing in the world. Or a mental institution if he went to that. And if he ever got out, he could move to a different country, it's not like everyone knows who he is. He can change his name. He can be rehabilitated and live an all right life.
Pit-Jr Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 . He can be rehabilitated and live an all right life. ...unlike the 2 people he slaughtered.
Diageo Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 ...unlike the 2 people he slaughtered. Which will not be brought back to life because he was killed.If you kill him that's 3 people dead. If you rehabilitate him, that's 2 people dead. Seems pretty simple to me.
Jon Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Which will not be brought back to life because he was killed.If you kill him that's 3 people dead. If you rehabilitate him, that's 2 people dead. Seems pretty simple to me. Yes but is that punishment enough for what he did? Re-packaging him and sending him back out into the world. He could quite easily be cured so to speak but i'd be damned well pissed off I was the victims family and I saw that happen. Edited January 27, 2011 by Jon
Diageo Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Yes but I=is that punishment enough for what he did? Re-packaging him and sending him back out into the world. He could quite easily be cured so to speak but i'd be damned well pissed off I was the victims family and I saw that happen. I think it is. If I was family of the victim, I wouldn't be happier he got killed, or got released. I don't care about him, because what he did is done and I can't change that. I would be sad for my family.
Pit-Jr Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I think it is. If I was family of the victim, I wouldn't be happier he got killed, or got released. I don't care about him, because what he did is done and I can't change that. I would be sad for my family. Really? You are an exceptional being then. Id want that kid's head on a platter myself if it was my family he killed, and judging by the grandma's comments in the article, she cares plenty.
Jon Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I think it is. If I was family of the victim, I wouldn't be happier he got killed, or got released. I don't care about him, because what he did is done and I can't change that. I would be sad for my family. That's fair enough and it's quite big of you to be able to do that. I couldn't. I'd have to care, i'd be linked to that guy for the rest of my life. I'd love to be able to forget about him but I couldn't and I just couldn't stomach knowing he was living as free a life as I was.
Diageo Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I couldn't. I'd have to care, i'd be linked to that guy for the rest of my life. I'd love to be able to forget about him but I couldn't and I just couldn't stomach knowing he was living as free a life as I was. Should we base our justice system around that though?
Jon Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Should we base our justice system around that though? Not at all, it's just my view. I just don't see the rehabilitation route as Justice.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 But would it be enough for the family to have the murderer killed? If they felt he needed to be tortured as well, should we do that? And honestly, would they ever be satisfied? Nothing would ever bring the victim back. We simply can't base a legal system on revenge. Revenge ≠ justice.
Diageo Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Not at all, it's just my view. I just don't see the rehabilitation route as Justice. What would you see as justice?
Eenuh Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 It scares me how many people here see the death penalty as a just punishment... especially for a kid. =/
Jon Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 What would you see as justice? I'm not sure to be honest, it's a hard one. I see both sides of the argument. Perhaps life in prison? as in solitary confinement, no perks, no parole, basically no existence. Is there such a thing as a punishment that is too harsh for taking someone else's life?
Diageo Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I'm not sure to be honest, it's a hard one. I see both sides of the argument. Perhaps life in prison? as in solitary confinement, no perks, no parole, basically no existence. Is there such a thing as a punishment that is too harsh for taking someone else's life? I would say there is. Solitary confinement for life. That's basically torture.
Charlie Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Yes but is that punishment enough for what he did? Re-packaging him and sending him back out into the world. He could quite easily be cured so to speak but i'd be damned well pissed off I was the victims family and I saw that happen. I know you're not a fan of rehab but for people who are; look at th case of James Bulger and his killers. Let back out into the world after murdering a small child and then very quickly one of them at least is back in prison. This child has some serious mental issues if he managed to carry on his daily life after killing his step-mum and unborn half-brother. It's a horrible thought that he'll be in prison for the rest of the life but look at it the other way - do you really want him back out on the streets? What's to say he won't do it again. It's a proven fact that criminals released from prison are far more likely to commit a crime than anyone else. We can't tell too much from this one article but the boy needs pyschological help. Once they have done that it should be decided what the boys punishment should be. All the 11 year olds I know, and considering I'm a swimming teacher / sports coach, that's a lot, know exactly what they're doing.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I know you're not a fan of rehab but for people who are; look at th case of James Bulger and his killers. Let back out into the world after murdering a small child and then very quickly one of them at least is back in prison. This child has some serious mental issues if he managed to carry on his daily life after killing his step-mum and unborn half-brother. It's a horrible thought that he'll be in prison for the rest of the life but look at it the other way - do you really want him back out on the streets? What's to say he won't do it again. It's a proven fact that criminals released from prison are far more likely to commit a crime than anyone else. We can't tell too much from this one article but the boy needs pyschological help. Once they have done that it should be decided what the boys punishment should be. All the 11 year olds I know, and considering I'm a swimming teacher / sports coach, that's a lot, know exactly what they're doing. I don't think anyone is refuting the fact that both psychological help and punishment for his crime is in order before we even consider letting him out into society again. There are just widely differing opinions on what a fair punishment is, and that'll always be entirely dependent on your world view and thus impossible for everyone to agree upon.
Recommended Posts