 |
|
yavoon
|
|
if i was whoever she was going to run off w/ I would have killed the father. course there's the whole jail thing. but i would have definitely wanted to.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Verres
I cant believe that question even needs asking! |
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Truth is, moral relativists throw away not only the moral rules ( morality as in a customary code of behavior in societies, not based on logical conclusions ) but also the ethical ones (based on logical conclusions in philosophy). according to this theory, you can't judge any action made by anyone. Planting flowers in the garden, and masterminding a genocidal warmachine the goals of which will be to enslave the human race, have equal ethical value: ZERO.
You can't judge a person's actions, if his actions are part of the customary code he's accustomed to. 
Elijah, I am once again terribly sorry that my anti moral relativist posts seem to target you. Otherwise, I hold you in great respect, and as generally, an interesting poster. It's just you're the one that most often defends that p.o.v. .
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SnowFire
How is it "moral" to worry about the innocence or guilt of a capital defendant, while not concerning yourself equally with the guilt or innocence of a non-capital defendant nevertheless sentenced to die behind bars, just a bit more slowly?
I happen to be in favor of the death penalty in rare situations, but this is a specious argument. If you're worried about innocence/guilt, then putting somebody in prison for life gives more time to make sure that was the correct decision. If somebody confesses to the crime a year after somebody was executed for it, all the State can say is "Oops." If they put them in jail for life, they would at least be able to give them the rest of their life back.
Now, if the truth is found out a hundred years later? Sure, they were both death sentences. But the "ten years later" case is more relevant for what people are worried about. |
Actually, it's not a specious argument if you come to accept that those B&W Perry Mason reruns don't reflect the realities of the American criminal justice system. How many provable confessions (not just attention starved nutbags) have come out to exonerate an already executed capital convict in say, the last 50 years? How many provable confessions have exonerated life, term to life, or LWOP convicts in a similar period?
The simple fact is that LWOP convicts have no mandatory appeal rights in almost all (maybe all) states, and without lawyers, clerks and investigators taking apart a case file and trying to work it for years, "new evidence" adequate to convince an appellate court to vacate and order a new trial just doesn't come out of the woodwork. DNA testing is expensive, investigators are expensive, and if you're not about to fry, you don't get the attention.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of LWOP convicts just disappear into the maw of the prison system and are then essentially forgotten by the legal system. Presumably, serious prosecutorial error (and/or misfeasance or malfeasance by prosecutors, police, or witnesses) are at least as common in these cases than they are in capital cases, or more so (one would hazard a guess that prosecutors try a bit harder in capital cases, and/or they select favorable cases for capital prosecution due to the higher profile of a capital trial.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001 time: 05:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Azazel
that's not the way to do it. 
what you should write is
code:
* Azazel raises middle finger... moderators have it pixelated
and a bit more on-topic, though I understand your uncomfort, I have no other choice but to remind you that your point of view is because in the belief system of their culture, this is acceptable, that action cannot be judged.
come on, you're a moral relativist, aren't you? The father was commiting something customary to his culture. Why all of a sudden you consider it a bad thing?
you can get frustrated and upset all you want, this is the truth, and if you have any consistency, you should demand that this man would be set free. |
Has it occured to you that it is because morality is relative that one can find this immoral, when the man who did it (and others from the same school of thought) obviously do not?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Theben
|
 |
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Jan 1970 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Azazel
I am just looking at the way I saw kids in Britain and France. I don't know how it is in the US. |
AFAIK America is the only country (maybe Canada as well) where newly arrived immgrants can become nationalized very quickly. FE, arabs in Britain aren't Brits, they're arabs living in Britain. In America, those same people, once they've passed all the necessary legalities, are americans. They're labeled arab-americans, to be sure, but to the mindset of all but extremists they're american 1st and arab second. The same for koreans, jews, italians, africans, mexicans, etc.
The point being second generation immigrants walk, talk, think, and look like everybody else, and are accepted into society as equals (again, except for nutcases). Our class structure is also a bit more fluid than most nations.
So not only is it seductive, but fairly easy to gain access to. For all the things I can ***** about going wrong here, I'd say that this is one of America's biggest strengths.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
aneeshm
|
 |
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001 time: 11:01
|
|
Three points
1)Even by accepted Islamic law , a person has to be tried in (Islamic) court to be punished , not summarily executed .
2)If you cannot realise that your children will behave as the country to which they have become accustomed asks them to , than you are not fit to raise said children . He should have known this would happen .
3)This is not an issue of juat religion , ethics , or beliefs . Thius is also a question of the law . You have acted against the law , full well knowing the consequences . Thus , the law is perfectly justified in treating you as it so decrees . Irrespective of his own beliefs , he knows what will happen if he does this . Therefore , there is no need to spare him any leeway on account of his background . He should know the legal punishment for such acts .
This is one of the reasons why I support the death penalty . Your beliefs are irrelevant to the law . If you so wish , you can move to a nation where there is either lawlessness (for you to do something like this) , or you can live in a nation where the law is symp[athetic to you and your beliefs . If this is not acceptable , then obey the law of the country which you choose to reside in , even if grudgingly .
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|