What, us beat a dead horse? Perish the thought!
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.If I don't feel bad for making the joke, you shouldn't feel bad for laughing at it.
The nice thing about Barkey is that I can play along with him like that for the sake of a stupid joke, and I don't have to worry that he's going to turn it around on me. OTC has seen its share of people I wouldn't dare agree with in the slightest measure, even in jest.
I just laughed. Then chuckled a little more.
Anyhow, yeah, I can concede the point that the victims shouldn't be the ones to enforce the punishment. I've seen how that worked in Afghanistan first hand, and while some situations are perfect for it, many aren't. And first world governments don't mix and match their systems of law, and rightly so.
It is tempting though, in Afghanistan they would have had the leader of each victims family unit all get together and decide on if they should execute him, or forgive him and let him go. Majority rules. There's a nice simplicity there. Essentially the grandfather of each family unit would all discuss which option they felt was right and when a group consensus was reached, they would choose. Then they would argue about who got to be the one to execute him, since normally it's the father of the victim who deals the killing blow.
I concede that I may have gone just a little bit native when it comes to my opinions on justice. Spending your formative adult years in a warzone can do that to you.
Don't regret a damn thing though.
edited 22nd Apr '12 1:25:15 PM by Barkey
Yeah: I've read of similar situations playing out in Africa... And, also noted the odds of being fitted up for a crime by the very people who would decide your fate. Ain't pretty.
Second favourite way to vendetta (or consolidate the inheritance), minus witch-hunt trials. <shudders>
Um... </derail>
And, another shudder, 'cos my blood just turned to ice.
Heeee, that's why I pointed out it being Africa. Huge revenge-culture there. A daughter or son's first duty is to avenge their bloodline, if revenge is needed. And, oh, boy, can it get petty? And, disproportionate? I know Islam, when practised with a conscience, is actually quite a forgiving religion. (Hard-liners not withstanding.)
edited 22nd Apr '12 1:38:38 PM by Euodiachloris
It's kind of appropriate sometimes, to be honest. If there's not a single doubt that I killed your son, I think it's rather appropriate that you get to decide my punishment.
Ironically enough, regular, non-radicalized Afghans are very forgiving sometimes. It isn't as black and white as you might think. Sometimes they're crying when they pull the trigger, sometimes they're crying as they forgive, sometimes they're doing either completely stonefaced.
Western culture isn't right for that though, we don't deal with death as well as the middle east does. It's much more casual for them.
I simply don't agree that personal feelings make a good basis for a penal code. Even ignoring all the other problems, there needs to be some standardization. Considering how bloodthirsty you've been in this thread, Barkey, I am surprised that you would approve of a system where murderers go free as long as they are careful only to kill people with soft-hearted relatives.
Like I said before, I can't choose for Norway, same as I can't choose for a victims father.
Not saying I agree with that decision, I can be a bloodthirsty prick sometimes, but I still obey the law more or less. I just question it regularly.
Forgiveness is not immunity. It doesn't protect you from being murdered by someone else in a place like Afghanistan. If a father forgave a killer and I turned around and killed the guy on his way home, that could start a war between my family and his, unless his father forgave me and understood my reasons. But that's only if I got caught. You also risk the anger of the first victims family for undermining their elder.
edited 22nd Apr '12 1:41:44 PM by Barkey
There's a very stark contrast to killing a mass murderer and killing a crowd of innocent people who didn't harm anyone.
Different grade of "people", to use the term very loosely in the first category. You're splitting hairs. In my opinion, not all lives are of equal value.
edited 22nd Apr '12 1:56:33 PM by Barkey
It's fine to let that stuff piss you off, and to be honest I think it's a serious problem that more people in Europe need to be aware of, but not something to murder people over. Propaganda is hearsay, it isn't proven. What Breivik did was proven, we know it happened. His reasons for doing it don't matter, his actions do. He murdered innocent people.
edited 22nd Apr '12 2:00:20 PM by Barkey
![]()
That's moral relativism. Breivik was wrong, no matter how much he thought he was right. Killing him would absolutely not be the same as the crime he committed.
edited 22nd Apr '12 1:58:47 PM by Octo
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficNo. Not every judgement is the same. This is nothing but low moral relativism.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficAll I can really say is that when we're talking about judging and executing a mass murderer, I disagree. I think you're wrong. All lives are not created equal. "Murder is murder" is bullshit. Not all human lives are equal.
edited 22nd Apr '12 2:06:52 PM by Barkey
I think Breivik holds that same opinion. Some people are just so heinous that they don't deserve to live. So let's see...
- Breivik decides that being the child of a politician who disagrees with him is a heinous crime deserving of death. So he kills them.
- Barkey (let's pretend it's Barkey's decision to make) decides that killing the children of politicians who disagree with you is a heinous crime deserving of death. So he kills Breivik.
- Is there any consistent, objective standard by which Barkey can claim he should not be killed?
edited 22nd Apr '12 2:10:06 PM by Karalora
Fair enough...although then you still run into the problem of moral relativism, just on a society-wide basis rather than an individual one. I.e., if Breivik lived in a society that agreed with him, then he would be blameless. I don't think you would agree that killing children is only wrong if the society you live in frowns on it. I think you would say that any society which doesn't frown on killing children is morally reprehensible.
Of course, you also think that any society that does frown on killing certain people is morally reprehensible, or at least criminally foolish. So it's hard to tell where you stand vis-a-vis the morality of killing people and the value of social consent.
edited 22nd Apr '12 2:22:59 PM by Karalora
That's just kind of how humanity works. Right and wrong are based on the thoughts of the populace, which is a shifting issue. While I would think it was wrong, you either sit by and let them do something you think is wrong, or you consider a method to stop the action from happening. This can be through force, guile, or coercion.
I do see what you're saying about moral relativism though. But I guess my only real feeling on the issue is "That's just how it is."
@Michael
If I felt I could get away with it and I were a lead figure in Norways government, yeah, I'd see about arranging his death. That'd be killing him without social consent. So lets put it this way, I'd have him killed in a way that didn't yield personal consequences. You'll think that's abhorrent and wrong and such, and I'll say I don't think so, so lets just skip that whole part. I don't really feel like talking about it.
But I'm not the Prime Minister of Norway, and because I don't have that sort of pull, I'll just sit on the sidelines and basically say that I think they should kill him.
edited 22nd Apr '12 2:27:09 PM by Barkey
I hope that the prime minister of Norway doesn't go looking for a way to murder him in prison any more than the prime minister of Britain went looking for a way to murder Ian Brady, who has been in prison for 47 years now for his crimes, or Myra Hindley who died after 37 years inside. People like that aren't worth the risk of what would happen if it went wrong.

21 years as max...wow. he killed almost 80 people and only 21 years? Bogus.
I believe in the death penalty for special cases. I would consider it for this man.
The guy will only be released when he is deemed rehabilitated and no longer a danger to society. IE never.
You have now been filled in on about 80% of this discussion.