[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
I assume this is not really directed at me…
[/QUOTE]
It was directed at the thread in general, but was also in answer to your question.
When someone fellates themselves with self-congratulatory triteness such as, “Who cares about prisoners’ rights? I do. And that’s because I’m a decent person,” you have to understand that they might not be interested in understanding what someone on the other side of the argument is actually saying.
[QUOTE=holmes]
What I’m questioning is the concept that’s been put forth, that “justice” should trump the law. Not the specific acts, but the motivation being the act…i.e doing what the law should’ve done. Whether it’s a tattoo, smashing a window or murder, is merely a matter of degree; but the motivation is the same.
[/QUOTE]
Apply the same logic then your advocating laws are absolute; justice be dammed. If a laws says that all left handed people be dragged out and shot for being ‘sinister’ then it’s the law and that trumps justice. If your not happy with left handed people being shot then go complain to your congressman. Cause hey thats the law.
The law is a harsh and fickle mistress. I’d rather see justice done than the letter of the law. The law after all is supposedly to serve the interests of justice. Hence the ‘Justice system’. If the law doesn’t serve justice then it’s little more than the legitimisation of state force.
[QUOTE=Firebringer]
Apply the same logic then your advocating laws are absolute; justice be dammed. If a laws says that all left handed people be dragged out and shot for being ‘sinister’ then it’s the law and that trumps justice. If your not happy with left handed people being shot then go complain to your congressman. Cause hey thats the law.
The law is a harsh and fickle mistress. I’d rather see justice done than the letter of the law. The law after all is supposedly to serve the interests of justice. Hence the ‘Justice system’. If the law doesn’t serve justice then it’s little more than the legitimisation of state force.
[/QUOTE]
..and your point is? Who decides what justice is? We can look at the history of law in this country and point to instances where justice was not served. Why wasn’t it? Was it the law that was wrong, or was it our decision of what justice should be?
All men are created equal. Seems straight forward doesn’t it? So what happened? Was it the words that were flawed or our sense of justice? Even after the laws were changed, justice wasn’t served…yet at the same time, people who believed the law was wrong, were still just; because they believed in the rule of law and the results were justice.
Who was right? Those that thought it was justice that no white man should be convicted for the killing of a black man, or those that believed that the Law, should be followed even though they personally believed it was unjust?
Justice is only served when we agree with the results?
I wouldn’t say the law was absolute, nor should it be. However as much as it pains me, I would rather have the law voted on for good or ill, than have some guys in room grab the first slob they see based on a weak ID and beat the crap out of him…because quite frankly the chances are, they would grab the wrong guy.
If I had to choose between the Klan and the Supreme court, I chose the Supreme Court, even though for a long time, the results may have been same; the Klan would see some hanging like strange fruit, while the law would eventually see them free.
Slow moving and plodding thought it may be.
Am I sad this rapsit got tattooed? Nope, but I also realize that by applauding that act, I also allow for the wrong guy to get tattooed next time, under the same guise of “justice”.
YMMV, of course.
But can you be a true man unless you bull-stomp your way to the head of the herd to roar your self-righteous indignation at these untermenschen and anyone who supports them by contending that you can’t defeat atrocity with atrocity?
Because God knows there’s something special about you that would allow you to weather possible brain abnormality, social stigma, beatings, poverty, starvation, hatred, drug addiction or maybe even a nice, healthy dose of sexual abuse yourself and come out of it with your morals all nicely stacked, packed and labelled. Right? Damn right.
Maybe they should be killed, maybe the brain-sickness they have is incurable, but you’re not talking justice and you never were. You’re talking about vengeance, and unless - God-fucking-forbid - you have a child who’s suffered through something that horrific, I don’t see where you’re getting the ethical right nor the God-like understanding of the situation to start expressing a warm sense of satisfaction that ‘justice’ has been done.
[QUOTE=Arac]
Maybe they should be killed, maybe the brain-sickness they have is incurable, but you’re not talking justice and you never were. You’re talking about vengeance, and unless - God-fucking-forbid - you have a child who’s suffered through something that horrific, I don’t see where you’re getting the ethical right nor the God-like understanding of the situation to start expressing a warm sense of satisfaction that ‘justice’ has been done.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, maybe the guy had something so bad happen to him. Maybe he had a bad childhood that messed him up and ‘forced’ him get addicted to meth, do whatever evils he did. Who cares?
By the way, the only posts you have on SDMB is on this thread. Perhaps you have something to share, Mr. Stockelman?
The link I posted above does show honest debating. The violent felon who will now spend the rest of his life in jail for dispensing vigilante justice did exactly what those who think the “tattooist” did is right: he dispensed vigilante “justice.” BTW, there was no “right guy” to kill in the case in the link. The accusation was false. The woman made up the whole thing.
The prison has a responsibility to protect all if its charges to ensure the sentence of the court is carried out. Obviously, not every means was taken to protect the one who got tattooed. He just as easily could have been murdered.
Now, for those of you who think this prison vigilante stuff is peachy keen, try to do the following:
[ol][li]Assume you’ve been falsely accused of a heinous crime.[/li][li]Assume you’ve been tried, convicted, and sentenced for the crime.[/li][li]Assume you’ve taken the case to appeal.[/li][li]Assume the judge has ordered that you be incarcerated pending the outcome of the appeal.[/li][li]Assume the other prisoners dispensed some nifty “justice” because they disagreed with the court’s sentence in your case.[/li][li]Assume you win the appeal.[/ol][/li]
You should have no problem with that. After all, it’s not the sentence of the court, but it is justice. At least, it’s justice according to you.
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
Yes, maybe the guy had something so bad happen to him. Maybe he had a bad childhood that messed him up and ‘forced’ him get addicted to meth, do whatever evils he did. Who cares?
[/QUOTE]
When you’re presuming to judge, I do.
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
By the way, the only posts you have on SDMB is on this thread. Perhaps you have something to share, Mr. Stockelman?
[/QUOTE]
By the way, do you have anything even remotely approaching a point?
[QUOTE=Waverly]
When someone fellates themselves with self-congratulatory triteness such as, “Who cares about prisoners’ rights? I do. And that’s because I’m a decent person,” you have to understand that they might not be interested in understanding what someone on the other side of the argument is actually saying.
[/QUOTE]
That is not fellating myself. Nor is it self-congratulatory. It is putting into practice what my parents taught me as to what is right and wrong, what is decent and what is not decent.
I understand exactly what the other side of the argument is saying:
“Let’s have the prisoners do the dirty work; let’s have violent felons whom we don’t trust to be part of society at the moment satisfy their bloodlust and ours without the benefit of actually following the laws we pretend to hold dear.”
I understand all too well that your veneer of civilization is a pretense and that you are morally no better than the violent felons.
You really should have no problem with that last sentence as you’re supporting his action, right?
[QUOTE=Arac]
When you’re presuming to judge, I do.
By the way, do you have anything even remotely approaching a point?
[/QUOTE]
I do not see myself as presuming to judge. I see myself as someone who is not feeling bad for this guy.
No point besides that, though.
Monty, I see what you are trying to say. I believe that YOU believe you are having a good ol’ debate, but you are only seeing one side of it. Most people on this board concede that there are laws, and a system of laws. I personally do not support vigilantism (in most cases).
However, the case you are using to support your argument does not pertain to the case we are discussing in this thread. Your guy (the Marine who was friends with my brother) that was killed admitted no guilt, was not tried by a court of law and found guilty, and was killed in basic cold blood. The guy in this thread admitted guilt, was tried by a court of law and found guilty, and was not killed.
No, he was maimed. And why wasn’t he murdered? Because the violent felon–you know, the fine, upstanding, productive hero of the other side–didn’t want to kill him; just maim him.
So, in what cases would you support vigilantism?
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
Monty, I see what you are trying to say. I believe that YOU believe you are having a good ol’ debate, but you are only seeing one side of it. Most people on this board concede that there are laws, and a system of laws. I personally do not support vigilantism (in most cases).
However, the case you are using to support your argument does not pertain to the case we are discussing in this thread. Your guy (the Marine who was friends with my brother) that was killed admitted no guilt, was not tried by a court of law and found guilty, and was killed in basic cold blood. The guy in this thread admitted guilt, was tried by a court of law and found guilty, and was not killed.
[/QUOTE]
I have a question. Granted it’s a hypothetical, please bare with me.
If in the Marine case, that Monty is referring to, had the Marine really raped the woman, would you consider what the Marine that killed him justice?
Everything happened exactly the same way, but in this case he was guilty.
Ok with the result?
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
By the way, the only posts you have on SDMB is on this thread. Perhaps you have something to share, Mr. Stockelman?
[/QUOTE]
Did you really just accuse a guy of child rape because he disagrees with you on a message board?
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
The guy in this thread admitted guilt, was tried by a court of law and found guilty, and was not killed.
[/QUOTE]
of course, his sentence for his crime didn’t include physical assault. but I guess that doesn’t matter.
Have you ever seen the movie A Time to Kill? Perfectly justified in my mind. I would support it if something happened to my son or daughter, or my wife or sister, or my mother or grandmother. Shall I keep going? This case we have been talking about so far does not effect me personally, but if it did…
Answer your question?
Not once did I say that he was sentenced to it, nor that I supported it. I do not feel for him in any way, though. I do not care what his sentence is or was. I am sure if he is taking out of protective custody while in prison more negative things will happen to him, and I hope that it does. I hope the rest of his life behind bars is full of misery, pain, and torment.
No. No. No. I never said justice was served in any scenario I have given or in any post I have posted. But if he had raped the woman and he admitted to the rape, I would not feel bad for him if he was gang raped by a bunch of former military men in Leavenworth.
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
Have you ever seen the movie A Time to Kill?
[/quote]
No, I haven’t. It’s been a few years since I’ve watched R-rated movies. I did look it up just now on the IMDB.
I guess you’re referring to the movie’s “protaganist” murdering the men accused of raping his daughter. How is that justified? What’s wrong with going through the legal system?
So you support anarchy?
So if it doesn’t affect you, you like a society of laws and fairness. If it does affect you, you want a society lacking those. No need for you to keep going. I understand your position very clearly now.
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
Not once did I say that he was sentenced to it, nor that I supported it. I do not feel for him in any way, though. I do not care what his sentence is or was. I am sure if he is taking out of protective custody while in prison more negative things will happen to him, and I hope that it does. I hope the rest of his life behind bars is full of misery, pain, and torment.
.
[/QUOTE]
your paragraph here is inconsistent. You claim you ‘don’t support (the assault)’, but go on to state that you hope the rest of his life behind bars is full of misery, pain and torment. Sounds suspiciously like you support (hope) that abuse, torment, pain, assaults etc continue to occur.
can you reconcile this?
wrt: your comment about Time to Kill, the act was “justified”. I see a gulf of a difference between an act which one can “understand the motivation” and ‘justification’ for the act.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Did you really just accuse a guy of child rape because he disagrees with you on a message board?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, is that what that was?
Wow. Classy.
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
Not once did I say that he was sentenced to it, nor that I supported it. I do not feel for him in any way, though. I do not care what his sentence is or was. I am sure if he is taking out of protective custody while in prison more negative things will happen to him, and I hope that it does. I hope the rest of his life behind bars is full of misery, pain, and torment.
[/QUOTE]
You have no feelings on the matter, but you hope he suffers for the rest of his life? You don’t support it, but you hope it happens? What the hell?
[QUOTE=Waverly]
When someone fellates themselves with self-congratulatory triteness such as, “Who cares about prisoners’ rights? I do. And that’s because I’m a decent person,” you have to understand that they might not be interested in understanding what someone on the other side of the argument is actually saying.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what you are saying just as clearly as you understand what I am saying.
[QUOTE=FormerMarineGuy]
But if he had raped the woman and he admitted to the rape, I would not feel bad for him if he was gang raped by a bunch of former military men in Leavenworth.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t get this. You want rapists to be able to continue raping? If some prisoners get to prey on other prisoners, get to satisfy whatever impulses they have, where’s the punishment there? It’s like sticking Hannibal Lector in a crowd and telling him to chow down.
[QUOTE=Monty]
No, I haven’t. It’s been a few years since I’ve watched R-rated movies. I did look it up just now on the IMDB.
I guess you’re referring to the movie’s “protaganist” murdering the men accused of raping his daughter. How is that justified? What’s wrong with going through the legal system?
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you need to watch the movie
And you got that how? Because I am giving my point of view that you do not agree with?
Not that easy. Someone does not agree with your position, your position is 100% correct, and mine is 100% incorrect. Bullshit. Because I stated what I support and do not support, and that I think that some fuckface who raped a kid deserved to be tattooed on his forehead, I want a society lacking laws and fairness? You think our society is 100% fair? You can take your point of views that you so highly believe in and shove them up your ass.
Other than that, I respect anyones opinions, whether I agree with them or not. Just because I do not side at all with you, does not mean that I can’t listen to you. What makes you so freaking special?