Lisa Montgomery

[Sean Hayden]

Cunt, I don't think the question lends itself well to an analysis of purely practical considerations. We are asking if someone should be killed. On the one hand we can consider things like what you mentioned: who should do the killing, is the state a good choice, etc. But there could be another set of intuitions to rely on. Maybe that's why you're willing to let the family kill, but not the state, you can't avoid the nagging feeling that a neat ban is wholly lacking....

[Sean Hayden]

Put yourself in the victim and their family's position then. Now try to come up with something more meaningful than a utilitarian argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to see their loved one's killer killed.

If they don't pay the wergilt you're allowed to hunt them down and blood eagle their scumbag asses.

You would know about some shit like that. Wouldn't you prefer to feed'em to the gators though?

[JimC]

One of the things that allows some form of civilised community is taking the operation of most forms of justice (except personal litigation) away from individuals, and delegating it to agents of the state. That does away with emotional decisions based on vengeance alone, escalating feuds and barbaric vigilante justice. In the past, this included state controlled capital punishment, but the zeitgeist has changed, and many places are rightly moving away from that. Of course, authoritarian governments can use the agents of state law enforcement to oppress the population, which is why some form of democracy, and the rule of law being in the hands of separate powers (the judiciary) is also vital.

Otherwise, we simply have the war of all on all...

[Svartalf]

Put yourself in the victim and their family's position then. Now try to come up with something more meaningful than a utilitarian argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to see their loved one's killer killed.

If they don't pay the wergilt you're allowed to hunt them down and blood eagle their scumbag asses.

You know that if you actually bloodeagle your foe, its clan might feel the dishonour of their kin so acutely they just might pursue the feud out of spite? The sons of Ragnar knew that, and efficiently destroyed all of Aella's kinfolk, also made it easier to take the place over since there were no more heirs to Aellas's line to file counterclaims.

[Svartalf]

da fuq

Where did I say something so unexpected you did not know wwhat was up?

[Sean Hayden]

I think he was talking about his comment showing up several times.

[Hermit]

Yes, indeed. Trump has the power to commute death sentences. Also, despite there being a death row, nobody has been executed for 17 years. In the seven months since July 14, 2020 Trump has ordered eleven executions.

Yup. People disagree on whether death penalties should happen at all. I think they shouldn't ever be 'state-killings'.

If the state does kill, it's hard for me to wrap my head around who they should, and who they should not, because of such a strong preference hat the state should not.

Something we agree on then.

Unfortunately, you have once again inexplicably quoted a post without saying anything at all that relates to it.

In a state which DOES use the death penalty, who should be killed, if not a killer who cut a baby out of a victim, and ran off with it?

You just jumped from "Trump is not responsible for the executions - judges are" to "Trump made the right decision".

Right or wrong, the executions are his decision. All eleven he gave his "go ahead" for in the past seven months.

Why don't you have a go at 'who should be killed' in the US system.

You can read about it in a thread titled The Death Penalty is a Good Thing. 22 of the 387 posts are mine. What I think about capital punishment generally is identical to what I think about "who should be killed' in the US system".

[Cunt]

Cunt, I don't think the question lends itself well to an analysis of purely practical considerations. We are asking if someone should be killed. On the one hand we can consider things like what you mentioned: who should do the killing, is the state a good choice, etc. But there could be another set of intuitions to rely on. Maybe that's why you're willing to let the family kill, but not the state, you can't avoid the nagging feeling that a neat ban is wholly lacking....

All mammals, as far as I know, have the 'natural right' to kill you if you frighten them.

That cancels any 'neat ban' idea...at least I think so. Any blurring beyond that, is stupidly hard for me to generalize about. But I'll blame Trump with you, if you blame a few other assholes up the chain along with me.

Social workers who didn't do anything about it, is high up on my list. Almost like being betrayed by the one person who IS paid to not betray her childhood self. There were likely several in between, as well.

Hermit, I don't remember saying what you put quotes around, but you do you.

[Sean Hayden]

I don't blame Trump. At least it didn't occur to me to do so.

I'm also not always ready to blame the system, keeping in mind the system is, well, in the system too. And while forgetting blame to focus on solutions sounds like the next best thing to run to, I'm not sure it works either. Does anyone have a way to ensure nobody ever loses their mind and kills?

Anyway, I was really interested in getting at the unsatisfactory nature of our arguments against capital punishment from a certain perspective.

[Hermit]

Hermit, I don't remember saying what you put quotes around

That's because you employed your usual sarcasm to say what I put in quotes.

So two - count 'em TWO rounds of judges found her guilty and sentenced her to death, and Trump murdered her.

Ya, sounds reasonable.

means "Trump is not responsible for the executions - judges are."

Then you made the somewhat convoluted statement disguised as "Just Asking a Question"

In a state which DOES use the death penalty, who should be killed, if not a killer who cut a baby out of a victim, and ran off with it?

that implied "Trump made the right decision". It's also called "moving the goal posts".

Circumlocutory statements with inbuilt plausible deniability do not work on me. They are sly, cowardly and it doesn't take much to uncover their underlying meanings. I don't mind calling you up on them every now and again. You will probably try to squirm out of these ones with more rhetorical questions, deviation from the topic and brazen denials. Don't bother. The attempt will just make your reprehensible debating style more obvious.

[Svartalf]

I don't blame Trump. At least it didn't occur to me to do so.

I'm also not always ready to blame the system, keeping in mind the system is, well, in the system too. And while forgetting blame to focus on solutions sounds like the next best thing to run to, I'm not sure it works either. Does anyone have a way to ensure nobody ever loses their mind and kills?

Anyway, I was really interested in getting at the unsatisfactory nature of our arguments against capital punishment from a certain perspective.

Well, he's not the ONLY villain in this sorry miscarriage of justice, but he's certainly the one to blame for it reaching its heart stopping climax.

As for blaming the system, it sure looks like any number of pieces and steps went awfully awry, but of course, the fault is less in the system itself than in the people who, through incompetence, ideological fanaticism or sheer malice, failed to properly carry out their role in the machinery

My problem in this matter is the odious miscarriage of a law used in a way it never should have, and the merciless killing of a killer who did not fill the requisites of damnable guilt.

In a way, I feel poor Lisa filled the same role as did the sow who, in the 1200s, was tried and hanged for willfully and maliciously running into a horse, startling the animal and causing the rider to fall and break his neck..

[laklak]

da fuq

Where did I say something so unexpected you did not know wwhat was up?

Wasn't you, it was that I managed to hit "quote" instead of "edit" two times in a row.

[Sean Hayden]

I don't blame Trump. At least it didn't occur to me to do so.

I'm also not always ready to blame the system, keeping in mind the system is, well, in the system too. And while forgetting blame to focus on solutions sounds like the next best thing to run to, I'm not sure it works either. Does anyone have a way to ensure nobody ever loses their mind and kills?

Anyway, I was really interested in getting at the unsatisfactory nature of our arguments against capital punishment from a certain perspective.

Well, he's not the ONLY villain in this sorry miscarriage of justice, but he's certainly the one to blame for it reaching its heart stopping climax.

As for blaming the system, it sure looks like any number of pieces and steps went awfully awry, but of course, the fault is less in the system itself than in the people who, through incompetence, ideological fanaticism or sheer malice, failed to properly carry out their role in the machinery

My problem in this matter is the odious miscarriage of a law used in a way it never should have, and the merciless killing of a killer who did not fill the requisites of damnable guilt.

In a way, I feel poor Lisa filled the same role as did the sow who, in the 1200s, was tried and hanged for willfully and maliciously running into a horse, startling the animal and causing the rider to fall and break his neck..

Your anger about this miscarriage of justice is unlikely to compare to what the victim's husband feels about his wife's death. A death, which, were it up to you, he'd be convinced was the result of nothing more sinister than a mindless disaster.

But the woman murdered his wife, cut her open, and took out her baby. What does the victim's husband feel*, and how does your solution address it?

*It may be worth finding out, as some victims don't want the death penalty.

[Cunt]

*It may be worth finding out, as some victims don't want the death penalty.

A moderate version of my real position, would be that the death penalty is ONLY ever under consideration by the state, if the victim or victims family requests it.

I don't always understand not wanting vengeance (this one sounds especially heinous) but I would still try to respect that. Some people really think killing isn't ok, even if their family is killed before them.

My real position is that it's fine leaving death sentences 'off the table', and if some individual feels strongly enough to kill a murderer anyway, they can face justice themselves.

[laklak]

I am a vengeful person, I would want to pull the trigger myself. Not nice, but I'm too old to pretend to be something I'm not. I don't really understand people who forgive the asshole who murdered their loved one, it's simply not something I would be able to do.

Mrs. Lak says it's because I need to raise my vibrational level, but I'm happy being a low vibin' motherfucker.