welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Is there a God?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 44, 45, 46, 47  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fjafjan



Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
you can't claim that the familial relationship creates an opportunity to get away with murder.

would it be right not to send her to jail because she killed her only child, whether or not she is sorry? she sure can't do that again.

just spay her and send on her merry way?


First of all it wasnt murder, it was negligans, she didnt set up that bucket for the kid to drown in.

Again my point remains valid, yes it is right not to send her to jail, could you please explain why prison is more suitable then getting her a functioning life?

I am not saying that negligans is acceptable, i am just saying that prison is not a good way of dealing with it, just as i dont believe the death penalty is a good solution to REAL murder, that doesnt mean i dont think murders should be punished. '

Again why is prison the better solution than rehablitation? Do you think you should be put in prison if you are caught speeding? If you are alcoholic?
_________________
//Yepp, THE fjafjan(who's THE fjafjan?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12384
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You forget that speeding already has an attendant legal penalty of appropriate measure, and that speeding in and of itself doesn't kill somebody (while speeding and killing somebody through an accident can and does get people incarcerated for vehicular manslaughter and various forms of what boils down to "reckless endangerment"). Being an alcoholic is not a crime, though once again being an alcoholic by itself isn't killing somebody else.
In fact, I'd like you to come up with a VALID analogy, please.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7563

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i assume it would be ok to let the surgeon off the hook if the operation was a success the morning after his bender, and the patient only dies because he puked in the patient's mouth accidentally suffocating him.

he's real sorry it happened.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fjafjan



Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all i think YOU shold argue my points, WHY WHY WHY is prison better than rehabilitation?

And are you saying that negligans IS murder? what about man slaughter or the crime here called "causing of others death"? those would if anything be alot more suiting, i doubt that the woman planned to kill her baby, with her weapon of choice, bodily fluids.
A valid anology? That could only be another case of negligans then, under the influence of alcohol, i can't say i can think of a really great analogy
somewhat decent would be a drug addict robbing a store, but there he should not only be rehabilitated but serve some time aswell, the situation is different since only rehabilitation would mean it would be a loop hole for other drug addicts.

But it is a maternal instinct to sacrifise yourself before your child (more so with women than men) (that is why they have the "put the oxygen mask on you and then your child on airplanes) and thus i dont think any mother would use that 'loop hole' to kill their child, and honestly if they really wanted to kill thier child they would need some serious psychotherapy rather than prison either way.

Again the fact that there already is regret is only ONE of the factors for why prison is not a good chioce, but for the doctor i dont think prison would help much either, just strip him off his right to practise, fine heavily and some sort of therapy there aswell, depending on the reasons he puked in his patients mouth.

But again, please argue my main point, not the analogy, who profits from this woman being in prison rather than being rehabilitated, and who suffers if she is not?
_________________
//Yepp, THE fjafjan(who's THE fjafjan?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I was on your side for a while, but you're not making a whole lot of sense anymore.

First off, spelling, work on it, edit your posts, whatever.

Number two, when did we go from "Child drowns in bucket of cleaner and vomit" to "Nature of criminal rehabilitation"? You wouldn't be trying to steer the conversation away from the central theme to grind an axe, would ya?
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
fjafjan



Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

okey ill try to phrase myself more coherently, basically it all comes down to the functions punishments(legal wise) should fill(like previously mentioned)
I am not sure what you mean by "the nature of rehabilitation" though

A To prevent people from commiting crimes in the first place as a detterant

B to realise that the criminal has wronged and must change his way (generally the role of prison, or in lesser crimes a fine)

C To aid with whatever psychological difficulties might have led the criminal to crime in the first place

D which C is part of, to generally make the criminal a part of society again

Not sending this woman to prison will not remove any deterrant which prevents people from killing thier own children. so A is not a good reason for putting her in prison

She is already regrettful of her ways, like any mother anywhere near their right minds (and if she is not then she needs psychological therapy not prson)

C she needs to stop drinking and D be a more responsible person

Why prison?
Look at this indivindual case and not 'imaginary cases' which are different in fundamental ways, if you will mention what effects either way would have on society in general.

I feel like i am trying to wash a mud puddle
_________________
//Yepp, THE fjafjan(who's THE fjafjan?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trouble making question. Smile Well, those of us who subscribe to faith will of course say yes, and those of us who don't cannot honestly answer no and provide proof. There simply isn't anyway to know the answer in any empiracle way that I know.

Pascal's wager suggests that it doesn't hurt to bet on there being a god, but it doesn't provide an answer to the question.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A is neither a good reason to keep her out of prison.
B Anyone can be regretfull of their actions. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't go to jail.


And C and D can also be done in prison.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7563

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

first, yes -- you're right. it's not "murder"

it is CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMOCIDE.

second, i, myself, have inderectly refuted your muted point, in that this woman's "reform" is no different than any other criminal's regret.

do the crime, do the time.

consider the nature of the crime: she dropped the ball. she got drunk and her child dies as a direct result not only of her lapse in oversight but ALSO because of a chance occurance of events that might never have occurred had she not been drunk, namely, what came before and after an open bucket of vomit was left where the child could fall in it.

do you believe that such behavior can be magically "fixed" somehow by way of a single wake up call -- in every case that has ever occurred or might occur in the future"?

have you ever heard of recitivism?

do you believe that saying "i'm sorry" is all it takes to reform truly and for all time?

that sounds purely naive to me.

i don't accept your notion that a forced opportunity for reform is not needed in this woman's case.



one more question -- you haven't effectively spelled out why this woman should be treated differently by the law than anyone else charged with criminally negligent homocide. what the reasoning, here?


Last edited by Major Tom on Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you in principle snorri. I make the exception for psychosis. Frankly those people still need to be institionalized, but in a psychiatric facility.

As for the types, wife beaters for instance, who claim they are sick and need help. Well, they still know right from wrong, sick or not, so they can get their help in prison.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
fjafjan



Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
first, yes -- you're right. it's not "murder"

it is CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMOCIDE.

second, i, myself, have inderectly refuted your muted point, in that this woman's "reform" is no different than any other criminal's regret.

do the crime, do the time.

consider the nature of the crime: she dropped the ball. she got drunk and her child dies as a direct result not only of her lapse in oversight but ALSO because of a chance occurance of events that might never have occurred had she not been drunk, namely, what came before and after an open bucket of vomit was left where the child could fall in it.

do you believe that such behavior can be magically "fixed" somehow by way of a single wake up call -- in every case that has ever occurred or might occur in the future"?

have you ever heard of recitivism?

do you believe that saying "i'm sorry" is all it takes to reform truly and for all time?

that sounds purely naive to me.

i don't accept your notion that a forced opportunity for reform is not needed in this woman's case.



one more question -- you haven't effectively spelled out why this woman should be treated differently by the law than anyone else charged with criminally negligent homocide. what the reasoning, here?


Well simply because unlike other negligance this is something where the action itself is punishment enough. Sort of like if a bus driver is negligant while driving his family and friends and then they all die and he gets paralyzed for life.
Putting prison on that won't really make anything better, the scenario is already a punishment for him in itself.
If a doctor is negligant and a patient dies chances are he won't care much, patients might die under his watch all the time, he can deal with it.
However there is a very different relationship between a mother and a yonug child, like i said it is a maternal instict to give your life to save your childs, your child being killed, BY YOURSELF, is pretty much the ultimate cause for self loathing. then you need someone to AID you, not to remind you that what you did was bad. (assuming that it is not a psychopath, but if you should treat all criminals the same as psychopaths then the system goes crazy)

But something you need to understand is i am not saying you shuld say "i am so sorry about your baby" and then let the woman go home, since then, as you said, she would just repeat her actions.
That is what therapy/AA is for (they fill the same purpose)

And certainly she COULD be put in prison, but just think it is much too harsh, you could argue speeding could be a crime putting you in jail, afterall you would probably be alot more regrettful if you spend three months in jail after driving too fast. I just can't motivate why prison is BETTER than fining (well i suppose people wouldn't drive as fast but prison in that case IS just way too harch:roll:

"you do the crime you do the time" isn't very good arguing, "and eye for an eye" is also some legal rethorics yet i hope you do not agree with that.

anyway, i am not saying that this is a general rule for crime, but in this case, and this case only, what is better about jail than treatment?

And i suppose i should mention, i am of the opinion that people such as alcoholics and wife beaters CAN change, but not just by saying sorry, they need therapy in some form. I think AA has a better record than prison in keeping people out of the bottle aswell as other criminality
_________________
//Yepp, THE fjafjan(who's THE fjafjan?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wife beaters should not be lumped in with alcoholics (unless of course the one behavior demonstrably results from the other).

The recidivism rate for pattern abusers is better than 98%. Sorry I don't feel this justifies outpatient treatment for them. They can get their help in prison and frankly, I think they should be evaluated on the likelihood of repeating the offense.

It wouldn't be fair for them to stay in prison forever (though lord knows I have NO sympathy for them), however we have a data base for sexual offenders. Why not pattern abusers?

Of course, in fairness I need to point out that there are a great number of opinions over what constitutes a "pattern abuser".

In anycase, common sense and the safet of the victims should be taken into account.

Also, I'd have to agree that criminal intent or lack thereof makes a big differnce. If a death was caused accidentally, even through negligence, one of the major factors that needs to be evaluated is if the individual is a continued hazard to the public. It serves no one's best interest to be too heavy handed.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7563

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fjafjan wrote:

Well simply because unlike other negligance this is something where the action itself is punishment enough.


strike, the first -- we're now talking reform, not punishment.

fjafjan wrote:

If a doctor is negligant and a patient dies chances are he won't care much, patients might die under his watch all the time, he can deal with it.
However there is a very different relationship between a mother and a yonug child, like i said it is a maternal instict to give your life to save your childs, your child being killed, BY YOURSELF, is pretty much the ultimate cause for self loathing.


strike the second -- unjustified, unsupported assumptions

it is easy to believe that some doctors out there care more about their patients than some parents out there...like parents who get drunk, letting their child be exposed to all sorts of danger -- i mean, who knows what might happen.

fjafjan wrote:
But something you need to understand is i am not saying you shuld say "i am so sorry about your baby" and then let the woman go home, since then, as you said, she would just repeat her actions.
That is what therapy/AA is for (they fill the same purpose)


strike the third -- i didn't say she would repeat. i suggested that there is an open opportunity for her to fall into the same habits.

your good-hearted trust in her ability to reform of her own accord is unfounded.

additionally, it is best to take advantage of those voluntary venues of self-help before you have proven that you can be counted on not to give enough of a shit so as not to cause someone's death.

you kind of lose the 'voluntary' option after the first death or so occurs.

fjafjan wrote:
And certainly she COULD be put in prison, but just think it is much too harsh, you could argue speeding could be a crime putting you in jail, afterall you would probably be alot more regrettful if you spend three months in jail after driving too fast.


strike the fourth -- no, you might be able to argue this. when the charge is "speeding", we are not talking about anyone else being in danger. if someone else is placed in danger because of speeding, the charge is "reckless endangerment".

fjafjan wrote:
I just can't motivate why prison is BETTER than fining


how much do you charge for a dead baby in a bucket?

fjafjan wrote:
"you do the crime you do the time" isn't very good arguing,...anyway, i am not saying that this is a general rule for crime, but in this case, and this case only, what is better about jail than treatment?


strike the fifth -- forget "arguing". that's the nature of our justice system. you haven't argued against the nature of the justice system with anything but arbitary opinion and bleed-heart wishful thoughts.

and so, i ask again...
Major Tom wrote:
one more question -- you haven't effectively spelled out why this woman should be treated differently by the law than anyone else charged with criminally negligent homocide. what the reasoning, here?


honestly, there's nothing special about "this case and this case only".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fjafjan



Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
honestly, there's nothing special about "this case and this case only".

Not unique but please explain based from this case why being in a cell among other criminals is a better way of reforming than therapy
Clearly since most criminals are a danger to society the prison sentance should be combined with trying to normalize prisoners, and there the negative influence of prison has to be accepted,
I fail to see how she is much of a danger to society

Quote:
how much do you charge for a dead baby in a bucket?


impressive, totally out of context and makes me seem like a jerk. no that was in the case of SPEEDING, and why you should not put speeders in Jail.
Certainly you cannot buy your way out of negligance.




Quote:
strike the fourth -- no, you might be able to argue this. when the charge is "speeding", we are not talking about anyone else being in danger.

The person you might hit? Atleast I thought the speed limits were designed for safety and not only your own. that would be safety belts.

Quote:
strike the third -- i didn't say she would repeat. i suggested that there is an open opportunity for her to fall into the same habits.

dont think prison excludes that possibility(once she is released), i am assuming that in prison she would be forced to attend AA/therapy sessions but since those can be made mandatory outside of prison aswell.

My 'good hearted trust' is not unfounded but rather founded on the simple fact that anyone can break their abusive patterns, givven the right aid and conditions.

Quote:

additionally, it is best to take advantage of those voluntary venues of self-help before you have proven that you can be counted on not to give enough of a shit so as not to cause someone's death.


But when it comes to abusive patterns, especially when it is abusing yourself, the decision and will must be your own.

Quote:
it is easy to believe that some doctors out there care more about their patients than some parents out there...like parents who get drunk, letting their child be exposed to all sorts of danger -- i mean, who knows what might happen.


but when not under the influence of alcohol you see things differently, you might think that people dont like being abused but when alcoholics they might not mind so much. It is not well founded, i couldnt really think of a good source, yet atleast among all other creatures aswell as humans for what i have heard, the young child are fiercly protected by the mother, and certanly not rare for a mother to give up her life for her young.
Realising that you have KILLED your child must be truly cruel.
In other forms of negligance, if you were not severely punished you might do it again, and other people might be negligant themselves.
It is not based on hard fact, but i cant help believing a mother killing her child is the worst thing she could do.

Quote:

strike the fifth -- forget "arguing". that's the nature of our justice system. you haven't argued against the nature of the justice system with anything but arbitary opinion and bleed-heart wishful thoughts.


Calling me 'bleedy hearted' is about as effective as calling bush a 'cowboy', i take pride in compassion, i think it is a good quality.
_________________
//Yepp, THE fjafjan(who's THE fjafjan?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7563

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

all you have is unfounded opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 44, 45, 46, 47  Next
Page 45 of 47

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group