SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-many-wrongs-does-it-take-to-make-a-right dept.
Common Dreams reports
In a much-hailed, if modestly problematic, act of righteous revenge, [on Thursday August 4,] an African-American inmate allegedly sucker-punched [...] Dylann Roof--an act that sparked much online praise for the "vigilante hero", a fundraiser for donations to his commissary account, and, finally, the posting of his $100,000 bond by a supporter.
Roof is in protective custody at the Charleston County Detention Center for killing nine African-American churchgoers in South Carolina in 2015. He was in the shower when Dwayne Stafford, a 26-year-old inmate reportedly doing time for either weed violations or strong arm burglary, allegedly got out of his cell, reached Roof, and landed a couple of punches to his face. The sheriff said Roof was attacked "for no reason", which many would argue was less than accurate.
Roof suffered only minor injuries, and his lawyer declined to press charges.
[...] The next day, 18 months after he'd originally been arrested, an anonymous supporter posted [Stafford's] bond, and on Friday he was reportedly freed.
I find that heavy.com typically has the facts quickly on violent crimes.
Previous: [Racially-Motivated Mass Murder in] Charleston, SC
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:45PM
Motherfuckin' A. #MakeRacistsAfraidAgain
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:50PM
> In a much-hailed, if modestly problematic, act of righteous revenge,
Modestly...
Regardless of what they're in jail for, nobody should ever get assaulted, especially in the shower, let alone see the offender be praised or freed as (an indirect) result.
Trump is not an accident...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:55PM
You're defending a man who massacred nine people to trigger a white supremacist race war. And you claim Stafford's incentive was somehow inspired by Trump? You're a fucking idiot.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:11PM
Learn to read.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:45PM
He needs to do more than learn to read. He needs to learn to think. I think most Americans have no idea how to do that.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @12:38AM
Reading is without doubt the first step.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:12PM
Reading comprehension shows you to be the idiot. I'm not the OP if that helps chill your rage...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:30PM
Oh, fuck it. Why even have due process at all? Due process is just fag talk for letting murderers off easy. Let's just lynch him and call it good. Let the whole rest of the prison loose on his ass. Have that guy over there sit on him. Only fags need chemicals for capital punishment. I don't see anything cruel or unusual about that! Monday Night Rehabilation is too guy for him!
This is what Trump needs finally have a break through with blacks! Trump 2016!
/s
(Score: 2) by dingus on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:55PM
Regardless of what they're in jail for, nobody should ever get assaulted, especially in the shower, let alone see the offender be praised or freed as (an indirect) result.
why not? It seems to me that being punched in the face is the least that a neo-nazi mass murderer like Roof deserves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:07PM
Two separate issues here.
1. What does Roof deserve?
2. How should a prison be run?
The fact that prisoners can find time and opportunity to attack each other is a strong indicator that our prison systems are broken. It seems to me that GP was addressing that issue, and NOT the question of what Roof deserves.
IMHO, Roof deserves to be handed over to the relatives of those people he killed. He deserves to be drawn and quartered, hacked apart, hung in a gibbet, or anything else that the grieving relatives can dream up. But, Roof won't get what he deserves. He will languish in prison for a few decades, then released. Unless a fellow prisoner kills him.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:18PM
Well, they can't kill him 9 times, but they can try to make that single time count ... but AFTER, and ONLY AFTER, a proper trial/sentencing/appeals process.
Because we're fucking civilized, so we handle garbage correctly, lest we all get soiled and stinky in the process.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:46PM
they can try to make that single time count ... but AFTER, and ONLY AFTER, a proper trial/sentencing/appeals
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you agreeing with Runaway's suggestion that the government should hand the convicted murderer over to the families of the deceased so that they can torture him to death? If so, I seriously misread your original post. I could also be missing sarcasm in this post, or you could mean your words differently than I'm taking them. If you are agreeing with Runaway here, would you be okay with people getting beaten in the shower of a prison if that was part of their intended punishment? I originally took your initial post to be making a statement that was general to both prisons and jails, with a jail merely being the example at hand.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:12PM
Just agreeing that guys like this are the only examples for which it's hard to argue for the end the death penalty (by contrast with near-the-murder random black Joe convicted by one drunk eye witness). My wording wasn't the best.
But we still do need to take the trash out cleanly, or we lose the moral high ground when we ask people to please stop stoning and dull-knife-beheading their own convicts.
The states make a show of the executions, and almost always deny wrongdoings when things don't work well, so as to please the victims' families (no empathy for murderers, you weakling). Taking the guy to a guillotine in the back shed would cleanly produce the intended result without all the publicity, which isn't a deterrent anyway.
We still have a long way to go to recover from W's tenure, so we need to keep an eye on cowboy attitudes of revenge instead of justice (still annoyed that Obama called Osama's execution "justice").
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:15PM
Thanks for the clarification!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:23PM
The colors of the victim and the assailant were swapped at a Trump rally in March. [google.com]
The peaceful protester was, as in TFA, in police custody when attacked by a non-cop.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:26AM
I like the deterrent of the death penalty, do some evil and you get put down. However, there are quite a few innocents who have gone to prison only to be exonerated after decades and I just can't stomach the "greater good" argument. Languishing in prison also give them lots of time to think and torture themselves mentally, whether with thoughts of things they can no longer do or possibly remorse and realization that what they did was wrong.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:46AM
I don't think the death penalty as applied is actually a deterrent though. Most of the crimes it's handed down for are crimes of passion, and in any case anyone who commits what they know to be a capital offense with premeditated intent doesn't think he's going to get caught.
There is one circumstance, and only one, I support it in: massive white-collar crime. Those are the only people who would be deterred because the point of their crime is to continue to live, and that in splendor. Though even in their case, it might be a more effective punishment to let them sit around in prison, constantly reminded that they lost it all...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:32PM
There is one circumstance, and only one, I support it in: massive white-collar crime. Those are the only people who would be deterred because the point of their crime is to continue to live, and that in splendor. Though even in their case, it might be a more effective punishment to let them sit around in prison, constantly reminded that they lost it all...
They are not violent people. A violent punishment will simply not be understood. Better to strip them and their families of their assets and force them to live on minimum wage for a court determined period of time. That they would understand. What? You say their innocent families should not be punished as well? Tell that to the families of those that were victimized by them.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:08PM
Sorry, I don't agree with this one at all, unless you mean their immediate families (by which I mean spouse and children). There's plenty of cases of parents who have to cut off contact with their own kids because the kids are so horrible (I used to know a lady who had to cut off contact with her 20-something son because he was always trying to swindle her, and she was living on disability assistance). There's probably far more cases of people who cut off contact with one of their siblings because that sibling is such a problem. I'm sorry, but if my older brother who I haven't talked to in 20 years rips off someone, that's not my fault. A law like this would basically encourage people to knock off their relatives if they're afraid they're going to get in legal trouble.
Now, if you're talking about stripping the assets from the wife and children of someone like Bernie Madoff, I can see an argument for that being valid, after all they got to their position because of him, and likely are living large because of his ill-gotten gains, and while he may not be enjoying them much in prison, they still are.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday August 13 2016, @09:39PM
I did mean immediate for the most part. Any such thing would have to have a pretty clear due process setup, and there would have to be allowances for judges to determine the proper justice for any given case.
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:58AM
I like the deterrent of the death penalty
I like the deterrent effect of the herd of invisible unicorns that prevents bank robberies. It is supported by precisely the same amount of evidence.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:59AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:44AM
Better yet, "poison" them with 100% nitrogen gas, which is also the easiest, most painless way to suicide.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:37PM
The term you're looking for is Inert gas asphyxiation [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:03PM
okay, run-run-run-runaway, so you are CONFIRMING roof's behavior as desirable ?
(apparently HE 'felt' it was okay to punish *those* people how HE saw fit, and how did *that* work out ? you are BOTH THE SAME!)
...OR, you DON'T believe in the rule of law, OR, you believe psychopathy is okey-dokey (you know, as long as its 'justifiable' psychopathy), OR, you just got to go all macho in an 'approved' manner ?
cause it is 'okay' to hate on haters; it is 'okay' to kill killers, it is 'okay' to do THE EXACT SAME THING THE HORRIBLE PERSON YOU WANT TO DO THAT TO DID TO SOMEONE ELSE...
um, do you see any problems with this 'thinking' ? ? ?
REGARDLESS of ANYONE'S personal feelings or blood-lust for revenge, that is EXACTLY why we are *supposed* to be a nation of laws, NOT raging men/women...
we do NOT depend on runaway's prodigious wisdom and empathy to set sentences for criminals, and we should not...
punishment was lawfully meted out, anything beyond that is vigilantes outside of the law...
but runaway just wants his pound of flesh, the OPPOSITE of justice...
(Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:25AM
At a college near you, is a course availabe in reading comprehension.
What a man deserves and what the law provides for punishment are completely different. In the future, I'll try to remember to type slowly, so that you can keep up.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:49AM
And the point of the law is so that an unbiased third party can decide without bias or lust for revenge what they actually deserve, dipshit. Deciding that "The law wasn't strict enough, this guy deserves more punishment!" is vigilantism, full stop, and preventing that from happening is why we have laws in the first place.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:34PM
Two separate issues here, compared:
1. Roof didn't like someone and took his 'revenge'.
2. Someone didn't like Roof and took his 'revenge'
Isn't this the same issue, except for that the second 'revenge' was VERY much less than a pound of flesh, and that the second 'revenge' happened BECAUSE of what Roof did?
I look at Paul Bernardo and what's her fuck that was way smarter than Bernardo and pinned the whole thing on him while she got off scrotum free.
They had them on video: they had them in that video torturing, raping and killing these young girls.
He's doing time (where he SHOULD IMHO be GETTING IT UP HIS ASS WITHOUT LUBE EVERY DAY OF HIS LIFE as well as other things).
She's off having fun and HAVING KIDS OF HER FUCKING OWN AND PROBABLY GETTING THEM DRUNK AND RAPING THEM, JUST LIKE SHE DID WITH HER OWN SISTER!!!.
They both do not deserve 'prison terms'. They both deserve torture and pain and rape and degradation and then, maybe after the families think they have suffered enough, be put to death.
That my taxes are supporting him is SHAMEFUL. That they are both have 'rights' is SHAMEFUL.
That they both haven't been killed (in prison (him) and on the street (her)) is SHAMEFUL.
They HAVE NO RIGHTS, because THEY decided to take away these poor girls RIGHTS and did what they did to them.
I was glad to hear that one of the girls refused to do what they asked because she knew they would only kill her anyways. At least SOMEONE stood up to them and gave them what they deserved.
If the evidence is beyond contention like it was for them..... FUCK THEM: THEY HAVE NO NO NO NO NO RIGHTS.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:42PM
Toby Zeigler:
Mr. President, this next question is on capital punishment, which you oppose: If your youngest daughter Zoey was raped and murdered, would you not want to see the man responsible put to death?
[President Bartlet completely muffs the response [tripod.com] (a la Michael Dukakis).]
Toby Zeigler:
I just mentioned your daughter being murdered, and you're giving us an answer that's not only soporific, it's barely human!
Yes, you'd want to see him put to death.
You'd want it to be [both] cruel and unusual, which is why it's probably a good idea that fathers of murder victims don't have legal rights in these situations.
N.B. Aaron Sorkin is a genius.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:49PM
an appropriate punishment in that case would be to have them suspended in a sterile glass cage, skin and bones removed, feed by tubing with a fine a stream of capsaicin into the blood, the video of their acts continuously projected into their retinas, on artificial life for as long as we can keep that going
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:36AM
What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously, what the fuck? We don't win by sinking to their level and worse--and let me short-circuit any idiotic response from you along the lines of "no one's ever done anything like this to you/your family/your friends;" yes they bloody well have, and you know what? I STILL didn't call for that kind of torture.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:43PM
Between your comment and GP, this XKCD [xkcd.com] seemed tangentially oblig.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:49PM
...yeah, I hadn't seen that one but have the same reaction more or less when a doctor or nurse asks me that. Imagine someone screaming "FIVE! FIVE!" in utter agony, to the confusion of the person asking. A nurse later told me most people in that state say "ten" and ask me what in the hell *would* I consider a ten. My response was "if i can still hear you it's seven or below. If I'm still coherent it's 8 or below. If it's a 9 I'm dying of torture, and if it's a 10 the Muslims are right and I'm in Jahannam." Needless to say I got some weird looks...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spook brat on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:22PM
I can take a guess at what's wrong; they're not thinking about how such a punishment would be carried out. All of these people advocating rape and torture are advocating having state-sponsored rapists and torturers on hand to make that happen, or else they're volunteering to do the job themselves. It makes me think of the government assassins in the movie Grosse Pointe Blank who were unclear on the moral line between carrying out their kill mission and making the main character's hit for him to speed things along. [imdb.com]
I don't want rape or torture to be a part of our society AT ALL, and I'm not going to ask anyone to do something to a criminal that I wouldn't be willing to do myself with a clear conscience. The people clamoring for the application of cruel and unusual punishment for capital crimes haven't put much thought into it.
PS - for the record I'm still in favor of a humane execution; it's similar to the mercy killing of a sick animal. I like the idea of N2: effective, efficient, economical, painless, readily available. I don't think they should be a public spectacle; publicizing executions as a deterrent sounds like state terrorism to me, and in some cases (esp. serial killers) may have an effect opposite what's intended.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:16AM
The fact that prisoners can find time and opportunity to attack each other
Well, how much time and opportunity does it take? Just a few seconds within arms reach. You can design a jail to prevent that, but it requires an enormous degree of isolation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:22AM
If we can accept the fact that our prison system, as well as our justice system, is broken, we can work from there.
First question would be, why are petty offenders (dope smokers, petty thieves, and the like) serving years-long or decades-long sentences? Our prisons are overcrowded because the system is broken.
The individual who committed this assault sounds as if he didn't belong in jail or prison to start with. If he were removed from that jail, he wouldn't have had access to Roof, as is the case now that his bail has been posted.
Seriously, WTF is anyone in jail for a year or more, awaiting trial? Why was his bail set so high that he couldn't afford it, if bail was set at all?
Broken.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:02AM
IMHO, Roof deserves to be handed over to the relatives of those people he killed.
Wouldn't work out like you think. Christians. They already publicly forgave him. Gotta admit that is one heck of a demonstration of actually living the religion. Raise yer hand if you think you could pull that one off?
That sort of irrational behavior being a requirement is just one reason why I can't buy in, but gotta respect the commitment. Me, I say put his ass down as soon as possible since guilt isn't a fact in dispute in this case. If you ain't ever, under any circumstance, going to be letting somebody go there is no point feeding and housing them for the rest of their natural life. Raise your hand if you would like this asshole living near you.. even if they keep him fifty years before letting him out? Thought so, put his ass down. Arguments against? Anyone?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:49PM
I'll be perfectly honest with you - no I couldn't do that. I'll go further. Those individuals who hurt me, personally, in my lifetime the most? I learned not to hate them any longer. But, no, I've never forgiven them. Not even the ones who have assumed ground temperature. I don't have that much forgiveness in me. If anyone killed my wife, my sister, my kid, no I'd never forgive them. It's far more likely that I'd forgive someone for shooting me.
If that makes me a "bad" Christian, so be it.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:12PM
It does, as you're telling Jesus to take his teachings and shove them up his ass. Its funny how those "Christians" advocating for laws to be written straight out of the bible only want those laws to come from the Old Testament, and very selectively cherry picked at that - eating bacon and shrimp, which God expressly forbids, would of course remain legal while things like homosexuality would result in execution. Laws inspired by the New Testament, which Christians tell me made the Old Testament obsolete, would revolve around Jesus's teachings, like forgiveness and remaining passive in the face of violence.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:15PM
On the other hand there's Mt. 5:17-20, which, try as apologists might to "interpret" it away, specifically says the Old Testament laws still apply. This is especially interesting because it reflects an embryonic schism in the young religion (Matthew is agreed on by scholars to have been written no earlier than 60-70AD, possibly as late as 90AD): between, one might say, an older and more Judaic branch and some new, more Greek innovative branches.
People forget that Jesus was a Jew, and a very learned one, if the account of him impressing his elders at 12 is accurate. He knew the Law, all 613 mitzvot of it. He seems to have deliberately broken some of them when they were clearly going against the spirit of the Law (such as helping ill people on the Sabbath, which idea was NOT original to him...), as for example "is it not what goeth into a man's mouth which defileth him but what cometh out."
Besides which, he and everyone else thought the End of the World was Coming Real Soon Now (TM), evidenced by passages such as Paul's "what I mean, bretheren, is that the time is short" and "the living shall by no means prevent [go before] the dead."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:56PM
Wait, didn't you admit to being some kind of agnostic a while ago, or am I thinking of our resident divas J-Mo and Shitey Uzzard?
In any case, the Christian thing isn't reeeeeally about forgiving and forgetting; it's more like "revenge isn't yours...and the Flying Canaanite Genocide Fairy will torture eeeeeveryone you don't like forever and ever and ever and YOU GET TO WATCH! Won't that be so much fun? Aren't you already creaming yourself just thinking about it?!"
Self-righteous hypocrites. No sense of proportion either. And they don't know what forgiveness is: it's about you, not the person who hurt you. It's accepting a write-off. It's more or less admitting the other guy was/is basically q force of nature, and not worrying so much about it any longer.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:24PM
https://thejesuitpost.org/2016/04/the-privilege-of-unbelief/ [thejesuitpost.org]
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:56PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! Oh lordy let me catch my breath! Runaway, please, please, think before you link things like this. That entire article is predicated on a false premise: the idea that somehow the null hypothesis is an unduly privileged position.
If you've been paying attention at all you should know I've spent nearly a decade doing counter-apologetics, STARTING with Cornelius van Til's mind-bending presuppositionalist arguments. That is like learning to swim by bathing in BBQ sauce and jumping in the Amazon during piranha season, or learning Linux by beginning with Gentoo...which I ALSO did.
Incidentally, despite being from a Catholic group, that article comes dangerously close in spirit if not in form to presuppositionalism itself. It at least isn't outright accusing the infidel (which is ALL non-Christians here, not just atheists) of beginning the search hostile to their conclusion. This is unmitigated, ballsy bullshit. The rest of it a long series of small philosophical turds coated in chocolate; a wheedling, whiny, mock-conciliatory complaint that if those mean ol' infidels would just TRY a worldview which incorporated this conclusion they'd come to that conclusion. Naturally; it's really asking them to take it as axiomatic.
This is also committing one of the most common and dishonest bait-and-switches in the apologetic world; that is, arguing for an essentially Deist/generic-theist concept of God, and smuggling Yahweh the Genocidal Maniac in when it thinks no one is looking. There may be a God, and I think there is...but I also know that by the very definition of God Abrahamic theists use, the egomaniacal demon they worship is not and cannot be God.
I am amazed this piece of dreck was allowed to be published. Any sophomore philosophy undergrad ought to be able to shred it and fling it around like so much ticker tape.
Come back when you have an actual argument. I'm not insulted by this but only because you clearly are not competent to argue this and just posted the first thing that seemed like a good argument to you. May as well be angry at a little kid throwing a tantrum...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:22PM
To further add to this little humiliation conga: this article seems premised on the idea that the highest good is for the greatest possible number of free-willed beings to choose, freely, to worship Yahweh.
This leaves you (and them) in the unenviable and frankly unsupportable position of arguing that this is indeed the best of all possible worlds; that no possible change in this state of affairs, no matter how large or how small, could lead to more people worshiping Yahweh. That, for example, rearranging the stars to say in a dozen languages "I YHVH am God" would not affect a single infidel. That effecting the miraculous cure of an amputee (lotsa cancer patients but never an amputee, hmm...) wouldn't get the message across. That making it rain tacos every Tuesday in impoverished regions wouldn't.
That is a hard row to hoe. Only a successful ontological argument could achieve that, and the OA itself in all its forms, including Planginga's Modal OA which abuses axiom S5, is a case of bad grammar.
Oh, but it gets *even worse.* Unless you are a Calvinist, you agree that it is at least theoretically possible that ALL free-willed beings COULD come to worship Yahweh and be saved. Being an Abrahamic theist, you also believe that your God is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, time-transcendent, and absolutely-sovereign.
Therefore:
P1) The Greatest Good is for the maximum possible number of free-willed beings to worship Yahweh, freely
P2) All free-willed beings are capable of freely choosing to worship Yahweh
P3) Yahweh, being omniscient, knows exactly what state of affairs to bring about to cause all free-willed beings to worship him freely
P4) Yahweh, being omnipotent, has the power to bring about said state of affairs
P5) Yahweh, being independent of causality, eternal, and transcendent of space-time, could bring about this state of affairs at any and all conceivable loci of space and time
P6) Some free-willed beings do not worship Yahweh of their own free will
C1) Therefore: Yahweh is not God and/or it is not the Greatest Good that the maximum possible number of free-willed beings freely worship Yahweh.
Your move, Runaway...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 11 2016, @02:43AM
My move? Really? This is kinda like chess - there aren't any original moves left to make. But, I haven't really been playing the game seriously, either. The link above was more or less a random link, that touches on a central idea. The Jews have been kicking the idea around for a few thousand years, as well. Another more or less random link. Time is in short supply, or I might go to the effort of finding a more serious link.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/must-a-jew-believe-in-god/ [myjewishlearning.com]
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:35AM
What was the point of that piece of aimless claptrap? I've seen all this before; there are a number of Reform Jews on my father's side of the family and I've had discussions with some of them that brought ideas like this up. I swear to Cthulhu if you're going to chide me for being too literalistic, too hardcore, or (ye gods) "too fundamentalist" I'll be stuck in an infinite loop trying to decide whether to laugh at you or spit right in your eye.
In case this needs repeating, say, if you missed it the first time, I'm not an atheist. I simply know an evil spirit when I see one, and if this Yahweh fellow is real, that is what he is: a raging, genocidal, blaspheming demon arrogating the properties of God to itself, things it can never have and will never be. By simple logic, that makes you a devil-worshiper. And it explains so, so, SO much about the entire almost-4-billion-strong population of Abrahamic cultists.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:23AM
The Gnostic branch of Christianity came to the same conclusion, that Yahweh was an evil god that was literally imprisoning us in the material plane to keep us from being able to know the real God. Gnostic Christianity is about the only branch of Christianity I can stomach, namely because it isn't built of the blasphemous foundation of violating the first and second commandments.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:23PM
Gnosticism is bullshit too; the Gnostic conception of God has precisely the same problems Yahweh does, and perhaps more. Gnostic-God has TWO adversaries to deal with, Satan AND Yahweh, while Abrahamic theism only has the one. And Gnostic-God has an even WORSE record of dealing with the Argument from Divine Hiddenness than Yahweh does.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 11 2016, @01:47PM
What's the point? Well, I'm in several different camps. Is God real? Nahh, don't think so. Yeah I think so. Hope so. Hope not. Well, if God is so damned good, why doesn't he fix the world? AC mentioned the Gnostics. The Jews have their own questioners, who believe that if there is a God, he must hate us.
http://www.mishpacha.org/wrestling.shtml [mishpacha.org]
Back to agnosticism - I'm definitely agnostic about religion. I'm betting that NONE of our teachers has a clue about the afterlife. Heaven ain't going to be what people are expecting, if it's real at all.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:13PM
If my experiences and what my girlfriend claims to know about the afterlife (which really is a misnomer according to her) are true, no human religion gets it right, but the less-dogmatic forms of Buddhism are probably least-wrong. All the times I keep telling people like Uzzard he's going to hell? Hell is not a place, or rather, it's any place if your state of mind is hellish. There are no more illusions when you die; you understand *everything* you did, and you can't hide from yourself. People like him are going to find it very unpleasant going for I know not how long, and they will deserve it--because the OTHER thing she's told me is that somehow, something is keeping track of the evil you do, say, and believe, and it all rebounds back on you in a precise one-to-one ratio.
THIS is why I insist on the truth, and speak it fearlessly. Most all of my decisions are made in light of the above information. Does this explain anything about me now?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:16AM
> He deserves to be drawn and quartered, hacked apart, hung in a gibbet, or anything else that the grieving relatives can dream up.
So, just out of interest... what if the relatives of the victims unanimously decide to forgive him? The victims were all churchgoers after all, it's likely that their families would be christians too.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:53PM
You may have missed a post above. jmorris noted that they have already forgiven Roof. Public statement made, and all. That is their prerogative. And, it is your prerogative to forgive any who harm you, and yours. Depending on ones view of life, then you and those relatives of Roof's victims may well be better people than I am. I can accept that concept.
The state, however, is exercising it's own prerogatives, which I support.
If the state forgives Roof, I will truly be shocked.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:16PM
being punched in the face is the least that a neo-nazi mass murderer like Roof deserves.
And the whole question is, are we trying to punish people or are we trying make society happier/safer/whatever?
If we're trying to punish people, sure, hook him up to a car battery and make his life a living hell until his heart goes out. Personally, I have no interest in that. I don't get off on other peoples' suffering; I'd much rather see a man executed than tortured.
If we're trying to improve life, assaulting somebody in a shower seems counter-productive. With this goal, prison seems useful only as a means toward rehabilitation or harm-mitigation.
I can't tell you what goals to have, but if you get your jollies from seeing people suffer in prison I really hope you don't live near me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:29AM
Sadly those types are everywhere, just hope it never comes up.
(Score: 2) by dingus on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:55AM
Oh, personally, I think prisons should be for rehabilitation rather than punishment. Most of the people in them could be integrated back into society, especially if we make the conditions better.
Once you start talking about unrepentant mass murderers, I think things change. Sure, execution is the most resource-efficient way to dispose of human garbage. Makes sense to me. But if they're dead-set on keeping him imprisoned, might as well get a few punches in even if it's only symbolic.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @12:20PM
You've never truly lived until you have brutally tortured someone. The feeling of power and control is only amplified by their hysterical cries for mercy followed by screams of agonizing pain. And I don't kill them. I just make whats left of their short, pathetic, meaningless existence so unbearable that they commit suicide. I make them kill themselves indirectly. It's beautiful. BTW, I'm a Microsoft developer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:45PM
It seems to me that being punched in the face is the least that a neo-nazi mass murderer like Roof deserves.
Then why was that not part of his sentence.
"I hereby sentence you to getting sucker-punched 50 times" has just a tad too much of a "Saudi-Arabia"-ring to it, don't you think? I thought you were saying you're better than that.
(Score: 2) by dingus on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:47AM
Then why was that not part of his sentence.
because the court system is imperfect.
has just a tad too much of a "Saudi-Arabia"-ring to it, don't you think?
the difference is that Saudi Arabia cuts off people's heads because they showed some heel or something.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:38PM
Given that one prisoner can walk up and attack another: Why is this OK at all? In this particular case you justify the attack with the guilt of the victim, but what if the victim is innocent (still awaiting investigated)? What if the victim is the wrong person (that is, the attacker is mistaken in who he believes he is attacking)?
Suppose that someone on the street believes that you are the person who (insert horrible action here). Is it OK for that person to walk up and start beating you? If not, then it is equally not OK for prisoners to attack each other.
(Score: 2) by dingus on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:50PM
Given that one prisoner can walk up and attack another: Why is this OK at all?
it's not. Two wrongs made a right, as often happens in this wonderfully morally ambiguous world.
Suppose that someone on the street believes that you are the person who (insert horrible action here).
IIRC the guy pleaded guilty and there is pretty much incontrovertible evidence. If someone had seen me shoot up a church, for instance, I think I deserve every punch he throws.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:16AM
I agree 100% that the guy is heinous. But I also feel 100% that society cannot allow vigilante assault just because the target is heinous, because that opens the door to vigilante assault on anyone at random, for whatever bigoted rationale the vigilante chooses.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:33PM
Regardless of what they're in jail for, nobody should ever get assaulted, especially in the shower, let alone see the offender be praised or freed as (an indirect) result.
In theory I agree entirely. In a perfect world this sort of thing shouldn't happen and certainly shouldn't be praised. We don't live there. We live in an imperfect and crappy world and here I find it hard to get overly worked up over a lunatic that shot up a church getting his face punched in. Not sure I can go so far as support somebody bailing the guy out though, the joy of punching a mass murderer in the face should be its own reward, right? Yet again I can't get all worked up over that bit of exuberance either. Sounds like a little joy in the news cycle for a change.
Notice that I refuse to use the lunatic's name. Everyone should make a point of denying these nutjobs the biggest 'reward' they seek, to have their name remembered. The media shouldn't entirely cover it up lest the conspiracy nutters get triggered but mention it in one story when the police release it, show the picture once and then never again. Google remembers everything for anyone curious enough to go look it up. Focus on the victims, not the monster.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:12PM
Notice that I refuse to use the lunatic's name. Everyone should make a point of denying these nutjobs the biggest 'reward' they seek, to have their name remembered. The media shouldn't entirely cover it up lest the conspiracy nutters get triggered but mention it in one story when the police release it, show the picture once and then never again. Google remembers everything for anyone curious enough to go look it up. Focus on the victims, not the monster.
My thoughts exactly. When it seems like literally once a week when I go to the cafeteria there's the newspeople talking about a new shooting or bombing on TV, and you know that it'll be on for the next 3 days minimum.
"Yesterday Asshole Number 217 shot up a shopping mall for some dumb-ass reason that tries to explain how killing utterly random people who've never done anything to you helps anything. But frankly, we can't be bothered to ask what the reason was, because it was undoubtedly retarded. 17 are in critical condition, and 5 dead. Moving on, in sports..."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:12PM
Especially among criminals, there is a hierarchy of the bad from the worst. And since they are the lowest of the low, the minutia of difference of one from the other gets amplified in the extreme.
I'm reminded of the guy who killed Dahmer. He too was in prison for murder. He killed an unrelated man about a job that he wasn't hired for. He has a messiah complex.
You really don't want the inmates to run the institution.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain_nifty on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:02PM
So someone is imprisoned for 18 months after an arrest. Why???
Speedy trial... speedy trial... that sure seems like it rings a bell.
But with government actively ignoring the constitution, I guess the sixth amendment shouldn't mean anything anymore either.
Of course a discussion on the 8th would also be in order ("Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted")
I'm just waiting for them to start boarding troops in peoples homes and the supreme court explaining how it's not really your home or some other nonsense to justify it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:07PM
I don't know either, but I see that we won't bother to let any facts get in the way of a good self-righteous diatribe.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:29PM
If it were the government's fault, you can expect his PD to be all over that. But counsel for the defendant will often file one continuance after another, in which case the right to a speedy trial does not apply.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by weeds on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:35PM
A lawyer once told me that his job was do drag it out as long as possible until the other side quits.
The longer it takes to go to trial, the more people will forget.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:29PM
Also makes more money for him. Pretty messed up, ain't it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:09PM
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/judge-police-takeover-henderson-homes-not-covered-third-amendment [reviewjournal.com]
(Here's a summary of the root cause of this sort of problem. [soylentnews.org])
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday August 10 2016, @12:22PM
Just stop paying taxes and see who comes along and tells you to leave your home.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:08PM
Our lax attitude towards prisoner's rights in this county is truly disgusting.
I don't care how evil the person is; let's stick with the constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The fact that "pound-me-in-the-ass prison" is so widely accepted as OK that it's considered funny is a sad joke on all of us.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:37PM
And that we consider death-by-time to be somehow superior to death-by-execution. Being caged for decades is crueler, for at least execution has a sooner end.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:30PM
I think it's not necessary to worry about whether life imprisonment is more or less cruel than a death sentence.
With a life sentence, if the convict would rather be dead than live in prison, they can just kill themselves. Doesn't seem like people are having too much trouble with this currently.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Kell on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:40PM
That's debatable: many prisoners who are incarcerated, never to be released, nevertheless establish meaningful lives in prison. The life of the mind can be fulfilling, even when isolated from society. Prisons do not have to be hellish places of torment, even though it seems to be an emergent phenomenon of society.
Furthermore, a wrongly-convicted prisoner who is executed can never have his sentence overturned - it is final. In contrast, a person who is vindicated can have their time spent in prison duly compensated for. Until such time as we can perfectly prove beyond all doubt that a prisoner is guilty, execution should be an unacceptable outcome.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:19AM
In contrast, a person who is vindicated can have their time spent in prison duly compensated for.
No, they cannot. Find me a single ex-prisoner who believes that they were duly compensated for all that resulted from their incorrect verdict. Out of the thousands and thousands, you will never be able to find one, I guarantee you that.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:37AM
Well since we can't create/reverse time so there is no way to properly compensate these people. I was going to ask for more details and then thought a quick search might help... http://www.innocenceproject.org/compensating-wrongly-convicted/ [innocenceproject.org]
Seems like quite a few states don't even compensate, and those that do don't do a very good job. I think a mid to high tier salary covering the same number of years would be a good start, let the wronged people have financial support to get on their feet and recover from their time. With a minimum of 1 year.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:53AM
It's hypothetical that amends could be made - eg. be wrongly convicted for 10, but spend the rest of your life in multimillionaire retirement, that kind of thing. Of course, the same social impulse that makes prisons hell-holes is the same impulse that prevents the wrongfully-convicted of being properly compensated. It's not perfect or likely, but at least it could happen, as opposed to with a prisoner who has been executed.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:08AM
The primary problem with state-sanctioned executions is that the state does not own your life, therefore they do not have the right to take it. Self-sovereignty means you're free to end your own life whenever you choose, but no matter how heinous your crimes, your life remains yours, it is a violation of fundamental human rights for the state to claim ownership of any person's life for any reason. This is why executions will never be anything but an extreme violation of human rights.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:51AM
Then should we never allow our police forces to fire upon an active-shooter who is murdering civilians? Clearly there are some scenarios where the government is not just mandated to take life, but obligated to. The special sovereignty of human life is not absolute and never has been.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:36PM
No, we shouldn't. The job of police is to catch criminals so they can be brought before the courts to find out if they're guilty or not. Their job is not to act as judge, jury, and executioner no matter the circumstance. The people being shot at do have the right to self defense, up to and including using deadly force if necessary, but deadly force should never be an option for police, because thats whats known as summary execution [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:52PM
So, it's kind of like your mom's basement ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:51PM
But at least "being caged for decades" is, in many/most ways, reversible. Find out that prisoner is actually innocent, you can't unexecute them but you can let them free and rehabilitate them. Additionally, you can make imprisonment conditions better in many ways but not so much with execution.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:23AM
It's a problem of oversight. The jailers and wardens know how to make life difficult for their prisoners, and play little games with them and exploit loopholes. That's on top of the guards that may be paid off to look the other way when something like this happens.
https://freebarrettbrown.org/writings/ [freebarrettbrown.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:49AM
In fact, I won't be surprised if a guard contributed to the attacker's getting out of his cell.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Entropy on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:54AM
It's OK. Because the victim is white, and the aggressor is black. Black people can't be racist, only white people. And if they attack a white racist(of which all whites are racist) then it's because they were enslaved 150 years ago which is really the white racist's fault.
(Score: 4, Touché) by jmorris on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:14AM
Dude. You are talking about an asshole who went into a church, sat through a bible study and then committed mass murder. And the asshole says he did it because they were black. If that isn't racism I really don't want to hear your definition. If some black dude then punches him in the face in prison I really can't muster a fuck to give ya. Asshole bought that whuppin' fair and square.
Come back later when BLM has done something stupid/evil/racist, again, and we can discuss the politically correct bullshit you are on about. Mass murder is in a slightly different category than precious snowflakes being triggered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:16AM
Wow, never thought I'd mod up jmorris, especially not for saying that a racist piece of shit had it coming and deserved it.
And for the record, the idea that "Only whites can be racist" is super fucking racist. Anybody and everybody can be racist, but at the moment whites are the only ones passing laws to oppress non-whites.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:43AM
I modded him up too. Credit where credit is due; even Hitler wasn't 100% wrong about everything, else he'd have choked on his cereal at age 3. J-Mo is like a stuck clock; once in a while, he'll get it right, if even only for a second at a time. He kind of shat all over it with the latter half of his post of course, but then, he wouldn't be J-Mo if he didn't :/
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:14PM
Now you see, right here is why we need to legalize concealed carry in jails and prisons! One does not loose their natural right to self defense just because they are accused of a crime!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:53PM
Nice try at bashing the 2nd amendment, but it fails. Assuming one has had a court proceeding and due process, your constitutional rights (including the 2nd) are limited when you become a prisoner.
The corollary is that the State is now *required* to protect you from harm and provide a reasonable level of care for the prisoner, since without a firearm he now cannot defend himself as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:31PM
It already is the case. I mean, what are they gonna do, send him to prison?
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday August 10 2016, @12:14AM
This is the primary reason I support the death penalty. Rights need to be inalienable, just because we want to lock someone away for a night to teach them a lesson does not give us the right to take away their rights. Unless a human being is such a danger to society that they must at any cost be removed from it, then they deserve all of their inalienable rights at all times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:19AM
Except for self-sovereignty, apparently. Your life is yours, the state does not have the right to end it, only you do.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:49AM
Just about everyone i see making this argument turns out to be a hardcore Christian, who will instantly flip on a dime and express a near-Calvinist and frankly sickening, pig-bottom authoritarian worldview when challenged. One particularly annoying, solipsistic, self-absorbed AC (could that be you?) of this caliber was absolutely obsessed with being a "self-owned man" for example.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:23AM
Definitely not me, definitely not Christian, and I welcome my worldview being challenged. There is no greater sign of authoritarianism than supporting the death penalty. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in him saying that he thought rights should always be respected while simultaneously being in favor of violating them (executions).
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:52PM
Definitely agree with you there...it's amusing, in a very dark way, how "inalienable" rights suddenly become very alienable indeed to certain people.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:08PM
Anyone is allowed to praise this man, but anyone who donated or posted that bond needs to go to jail and the vigilante needs to get slapped with a further "profiting from a crime" charge.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:40PM
Anyone is allowed to praise this man, but anyone who donated or posted that bond needs to go to jail and the vigilante needs to get slapped with a further "profiting from a crime" charge.
On what grounds? Have you really thought through your assertions? What crime did they commit?
Expressing their opinion? That's firmly in free speech. On spending their money for something? The courts generally consider money to be analogous to speech (which I dislike, but is generally better than the alternative). The closest crime I can think of is something like "incitement to violence," but it's hard to justify that for an action taken after the violent offense.
As for the vigilante, I don't think "profiting from a crime" is a specific criminal charge. Even if it is, I assume you would need to prove that the person reasonably expected to profit from his criminal act, which would be hard to prove. Who assumes they'll earn money from strangers from doing an act of vigilante justice? You would also need to prove that the person did earn a profit (they just posted bail, none of the money went to the vigilante).
These "that should be illegal" kneejerk reactions really annoy me. How do you think we ended up with things like the TSA?
Incidentally, I assume whatever crime you would want to stick against these donators to his bail would also apply to Trump and his offering to defend the man who attacked another man at one of his rallies... By the way, did he actually follow-through on that promise? I don't see anything since March 13 saying whether he did or not.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:54PM
You cannot pay someone to commit a crime. In this the court has been very clear.
"reasonably expected to profit from his criminal act", No, you do not need to expect payment. Criminals are generally not allowed to profit from their past crimes. No criminal expected to be able to write a memoirs after their chime and make money, they are still breaking the law when they profit from their past crimes (Son of Sam laws).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:03AM
The money should go to Roof. I'm not joking either. Unintended consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:43PM
You cannot pay someone to commit a crime. In this the court has been very clear.
"reasonably expected to profit from his criminal act", No, you do not need to expect payment. Criminals are generally not allowed to profit from their past crimes. No criminal expected to be able to write a memoirs after their chime and make money, they are still breaking the law when they profit from their past crimes (Son of Sam laws).
Let's take your legal theory to its natural conclusion. You do some crime, say... jaywalking. You get a fine or whatever. I then, on my own volition, send you $100 and claim it is because you did that crime. Now the authorities can charge you with another crime of profiting from a criminal act?
Is that really what you are proposing?
(Score: 2) by korger on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:51AM
What I read from the story is that Scumbag A has been beaten up by Scumbag B. Now Scumbag B is regarded as a hero by the black community, and has been freed. And we are in a better society how?
How is Stafford beating up Roof anything but self-entitled revenge? Does justice matter anything to us any more? In a sane world, we should never let inmates deal out punishment to each other as they see fit. That's not what they are in prison for. The punishment is for the judge to decide, and the prison system should uphold that decision, making it neither better or worse. The fact that people are condoning and even supporting this crime means that this society has abandoned the democratic values we have acquired learning from the damages of centuries of bloodshed and violence.
But if this case sets any precedents, one can just commit a crime they wish, then in the prison beat up someone who is perceived even more negatively by the masses, and leave a free man as a result. Is this the world you want to live in?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:18AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:47AM
Killing churchgoers is a good thing since they are likely bigoted, however killing "African-Americans" is bigoted itself...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:46AM
Two wrongs do not make a right; and vigilante 'justice' is not justice.
One of the things about being civilised is that sometimes we make unpopular decisions because they are right.
In a civilised society, even prisoners, including mass murderers, have human rights. It is wrong to assault people, whether or not they are prisoners.
It is demonstrably cheaper, and more beneficial to society, to attempt to rehabilitate offenders. Deprivation of liberty is punishment, and while you have someone under the state's care, it makes sense to try to rehabilitate them - if nothing else it reduces the recidivism rate. Brutal prison regimes do not act as a strong disincentive to commit crime. There is plenty of academic work on this, if you care to look.
While it is understandable that people/the mob want retributive punishment, the reality is that it is not the best approach for reducing crime.
I fully expect this not to be a popular message, but I'm not aiming for popularity, merely imperfectly aiming at the truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:53PM
Two wrongs do not make a right; and vigilante 'justice' is not justice.
This is blatently false. Vigilante justice absolutely is justice. It has numerous problems (false positives, false negatives, disproportionate responses, etc), but it is justice.
In the world of fiction (keeping in mind fiction is fiction and everything can be fake there), consider if you lived in a world of Gotham City. The authorities have proven themselves incapable of handling crime, so what can you do? Clearly Bruce Wayne tries to improve society by improving civil services, but is Batman clearly a villain?
Outside of the world of fiction, think of real life failed states. If you lived in somewhere like Somalia and the local strongmen did something like kidnap your family, would you give up when the government proved unable to act (or was corrupt and complicit), or would you take matters into your own hands? Or what about the historical "Wild West" in America, when there literally was no authorities to appeal to, and a cattle rustler steals your property?
Vigilante justice has (almost) no place in a well-functioning society, but your statement fails to consider what happens when not in a well-functioning society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:48PM
By definition vigilantism cannot be justice. There is no fairness in vigilantism, no due process, no presumption of innocence, no chance for the suspect to prove their innocence (which they shouldn't have to do anyway, because proving one's innocence means you've been presumed guilty) or present evidence of their own, etc. Vigilantism is retribution, not justice.