Further evidence that we're headed for the end

[ethsnafu]

Such wonderful views expressed by all so I hope my thoughts will not ruin the spirit of the converstation established by the last few posts.

Unfortunately our world isn't blessed with the application of universal truths. The sooner the world realises it, perhaps the better chance we can find rational and caring answers to our problems that don't involve blowing things up.

I agree wholeheartedly and have had this conversation with chums ad infinitum. It was once considered acceptable and appropriate for women who in the ravages of the catastrophic breakdown of cognition caused by post natal depression be removed of their children and lobotomised as it was also once considered acceptable that homosexuals should be imprisoned, stoned or drowned for the heinous crime of loving. This country so audacious of its sense of honour once saw nothing alarming in adopting a position of false and insidious philanthropy by chastising the poor as vile and sanguinary assassins who murdered their own children in order that the Welfare state never come into existence and a superb evening was had by all who gathered to hurl obscenities at the swinging corpse who had committed the once capital offence of "being in the company of Gypsies for one month."

Whilst I view the historical bearing of my ancestors with mirthful disbelief: never let it be asserted that my own 'enlightened' generation has not simply shed these aberrant stances in order that it might adopt new ones. I believe that one day a lone poster will record how incredulous it once was that I believed the truths I subscribe to and it is this recognition of evolution, this respect for the ever-deluge of new information that demands we continue to shape and change how society appraises and accommodates our 'undesirables'.

With recent cases allowing the media to once more inflame the ardour of weary citizens by giving undue coverage to the scant calls for a return to the death penalty one wonders how a society so advanced in its understanding of criminality can think that the solution to our ills is to be found in the rack and thumb-screw punishments of the 5th century and let it not be misunderstood - those seeking the death penalty in this instance do not do so from a vantage point of calm, considered critique but from the understandable blood-lust and psychological torment caused by the atrocities they have endured. In these circumstances society should hastily employ every method of clinical, social, financial, judicial and pastoral support at its disposal in an effort to ensure these poor individuals are given every viable opportunity to reconcile, heal and seek justice but it should not begin killing in the mistaken belief that the eradication of life is an acceptable means of satiating the pain and torment these people endure.

I cannot help but be in mind of the old rabble-rouser chorused in the music halls 'Fings aint wot they used to be' and in many cases thankfully so. Our understanding of 'Evil' whatever its true etymology no longer means that we exorcise paranoid-schizophrenics and imprison women with macho aplomb for adultery. We now understand cognitive behaviour, Merton's ‘strain' theory, sub-cultural theories, the role of the low 'n' of physiological arousal and on and on and on.

If we are afforded these insights we have a duty to act upon them and that is to advance our concept of justice in its criminal, social and psychological sense and not regress it.

Peace also :)

[Raven Wolf]

Wow! That's all I can say to that at this time.

Just..... WOW!

Who wants Ethie for President???

[hippyroo]

What a nice discussion! I will have to wait til the weekend to respond in more depth, but I must nit-pick a bit tonight.

"However, its the progressives, not the traditionalists which brought gender equality, racial equality and - hopefully - equality for sexual orientation"

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have the understanding that racial equality was brought about by abolitionists and that most of them were motivated by their Christian convictions. In England and the US much of the early fight for equal rights came form the Quakers. Clearly Wilberforce, the spearhead to end slavery in England, was motivated by his conversion to Christianity.

In the US, Susan B. Anthony was a Quaker and an abolitionist before helping to lead the womens' rights movement. I do believe there were more leaders of the womens movement that had rejected Christianity. Yet, I don't believe it is fair to say that the movement came totaly from outside of Christianity or traditionalists.

I concur that the post-modern concept of "sexual orientation" is promoted by progressives and not traditionalist.

also:

While it is true that Jesus had great compassion and wanted us to love our neighbors, He also had great anger and judged many not able to join in His kingdom. There are numerous examples of Him telling people to "take a hike."

[Guest Laurent.]

While it is true that Jesus had great compassion and wanted us to love our neighbors, He also had great anger and judged many not able to join in His kingdom. There are numerous examples of Him telling people to "take a hike."

Hahaha right. I believe those were his exact words.

Mark 6:8-9

These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic.

You got to love hiking.

[HighPlainsDrifter]

The Death Penalty for these animals isnt good enough for me. Whether their behavior was learned or inherited...these where acts of depravity. After being in the Dept. of Social Services for five years i have come across victims that have gone through hell and dealt with the court system regarding what people have done to their own children. I really tend to think children that are brought up and raised in an enviroment of anger, abuse and seeing too much adult things, become desensitized. They acted out agression in such a way that it demeaned their victims. Like Richard Allan Hance(The Thin White Line), they view others as meat. They dont value life, these kind of perps think nothing of prison. Returning to prison for them is much better than being on the outside. In prison they know they will have meals, shelter and attention. The outside world doesnt provide these services for them. They depend on the system, in which they have all their lives. They need to see what they have done, show them the mayhem they imposed on others and then send them to the electric Chair

[Guest Jim McLean]

The Death Penalty for these animals isnt good enough for me. Whether their behavior was learned or inherited...these where acts of depravity. After being in the Dept. of Social Services for five years i have come across victims that have gone through hell and dealt with the court system regarding what people have done to their own children. I really tend to think children that are brought up and raised in an enviroment of anger, abuse and seeing too much adult things, become desensitized. They acted out agression in such a way that it demeaned their victims. Like Richard Allan Hance(The Thin White Line), they view others as meat. They dont value life, these kind of perps think nothing of prison. Returning to prison for them is much better than being on the outside. In prison they know they will have meals, shelter and attention. The outside world doesnt provide these services for them. They depend on the system, in which they have all their lives. They need to see what they have done, show them the mayhem they imposed on others and then send them to the electric Chair

The point I was making that - as you put it - these problems often beget themselves, handed down through generations of abuse, some of which are too feral, anti-social or simply dangerous to exist within our ideological society. But given they are still the output of that society, the society needs to decide just how much of the bad it will take ownership for.

We so often sing the credit of our individual nations successes, virtues and - to coin my popular word - enlightened thinking. Of course, while we celebrate how our social groups have nurtured such amazing people who invent, enlighten and look to benefit our cultures, we wash our hands of the ones our social groups fail with; the problems we can't fix or get side lined. We look at the people who are a bi-product of social failings as alien, not grouped with our system, but against it.

Bottomline is no matter how depraved and abhorant, like us all, they are a product of our social system. They are an example of its problems as Stephen Hawkings, Conan Doyle or Stephen Fry ;) our examples of its successes.

I don't doubt your observations into how many of those unfit for civil obedience act. I've heard enough stories from those in the field, and read some horrendous ones in factual accounts to know how terrible and unrepentant some predators can be. But I think we have to accept them as OUR problem, not a problem outside the system. We need to deal with these people in a way that is best for civillian protection and that is humane to those we are isolating out. Again, if execution is the preferred method of dealing with these people, I won't argue with your conclusion, where I think we do part company is in the need to exact punishment on them, to quote you "they need to see what they have done, show them the mayhem they imposed on others", when I'm sure you appreciate that some mindsets of predators are so righteous and validated, you never will be able to show them what they've done, they'll never understand. Its often the core nature of the sociopath and psychopath. You might make them fear for their own life, but it doesn't bring honest repentance or understanding, merely an animal desire for safety.

This is why I think as people we need to take a step back, concede to the nature of the beasts; that some won't conform, some won't repent, and some will remain righteousness, and there is nothing we can do about that. If they don't see the horror they've done - does that really matter? As long as they can't exact the horror, I think they can believe whatever they like.

So yes, incarcerate or humanely execute - if the latter is your poison, either way, its about time the tax payer appreciates this is a bill that he has to accept; that the tree of society doesn't always bare good fruits, and that even the bad ones are nurtured by the very same tree.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have the understanding that racial equality was brought about by abolitionists and that most of them were motivated by their Christian convictions. In England and the US much of the early fight for equal rights came form the Quakers. Clearly Wilberforce, the spearhead to end slavery in England, was motivated by his conversion to Christianity.

I'd say we're dangerously to the point of splitting hairs. As a simple partition of progressive and traditionalist, common sense informs that if one is informed and embraces long term values, they are going to be reluctant to alter them. A progressive will be looking to find new ways to do things beyond the lore set from long term values. Those are the basic distinctions, and they hold up fairly well.

As a man who has already said he doesn't believe in absolutes, you shouldn't be too surprised that I don't believe there are exceptions to the rule.

If I may humbly say so, the mistake I'd say you are making is that anyone who follows tradition cannot be progressive, or vise versa. As I said earlier, the answer comes somewhere in the middle. Quakers do have a long history of faith, allbeit slightly unorthodox to the larger Christian groups, but they pushed for something the majority didn't. They used their personal traditional philosophy on equality to push forward what was then progressive thinking to a social whole.

Its murky waters, but as with all issues in history and culture, grey presides. For the sake of debate, conservatism and progressive ideologies are fairly easy to define, while not everyone fits into them. However, you'll generally find those who embrace firm tradition are the ones more reluctant to change than those who live in places where change is constant. If you look at the distance between farm and city life, the former rarely changes and carries a generally more traditional philosophy, the city life tend to be more progressive due to a fast changing environments. Basic distinctions, but for the sake of this fascinating debate, they carry well.

I'm very eager that as a people we get away from black and white; that we are either good or evil, conservative or progressive etc, and see a bigger murkier picture.

And lovely words E. Beautifully put.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Jim McLean

[4th Horseman]

The point I was making that - as you put it - these problems often beget themselves, handed down through generations of abuse, some of which are too feral, anti-social or simply dangerous to exist within our ideological society. But given they are still the output of that society, the society needs to decide just how much of the bad it will take ownership for.

We so often sing the credit of our individual nations successes, virtues and - to coin my popular word - enlightened thinking. Of course, while we celebrate how our social groups have nurtured such amazing people who invent, enlighten and look to benefit our cultures, we wash our hands of the ones our social groups fail with; the problems we can't fix or get side lined. We look at the people who are a bi-product of social failings as alien, not grouped with our system, but against it.

Bottomline is no matter how depraved and abhorant, like us all, they are a product of our social system. They are an example of its problems as Stephen Hawkings, Conan Doyle or Stephen Fry ;) our examples of its successes.

I don't doubt your observations into how many of those unfit for civil obedience act. I've heard enough stories from those in the field, and read some horrendous ones in factual accounts to know how terrible and unrepentant some predators can be. But I think we have to accept them as OUR problem, not a problem outside the system. We need to deal with these people in a way that is best for civillian protection and that is humane to those we are isolating out. Again, if execution is the preferred method of dealing with these people, I won't argue with your conclusion, where I think we do part company is in the need to exact punishment on them, to quote you "they need to see what they have done, show them the mayhem they imposed on others", when I'm sure you appreciate that some mindsets of predators are so righteous and validated, you never will be able to show them what they've done, they'll never understand. Its often the core nature of the sociopath and psychopath. You might make them fear for their own life, but it doesn't bring honest repentance or understanding, merely an animal desire for safety.

This is why I think as people we need to take a step back, concede to the nature of the beasts; that some won't conform, some won't repent, and some will remain righteousness, and there is nothing we can do about that. If they don't see the horror they've done - does that really matter? As long as they can't exact the horror, I think they can believe whatever they like.

So yes, incarcerate or humanely execute - if the latter is your poison, either way, its about time the tax payer appreciates this is a bill that he has to accept; that the tree of society doesn't always bare good fruits, and that even the bad ones are nurtured by the very same tree.

I'd say we're dangerously to the point of splitting hairs. As a simple partition of progressive and traditionalist, common sense informs that if one is informed and embraces long term values, they are going to be reluctant to alter them. A progressive will be looking to find new ways to do things beyond the lore set from long term values. Those are the basic distinctions, and they hold up fairly well.

As a man who has already said he doesn't believe in absolutes, you shouldn't be too surprised that I don't believe there are exceptions to the rule.

If I may humbly say so, the mistake I'd say you are making is that anyone who follows tradition cannot be progressive, or vise versa. As I said earlier, the answer comes somewhere in the middle. Quakers do have a long history of faith, allbeit slightly unorthodox to the larger Christian groups, but they pushed for something the majority didn't. They used their personal traditional philosophy on equality to push forward what was then progressive thinking to a social whole.

Its murky waters, but as with all issues in history and culture, grey presides. For the sake of debate, conservatism and progressive ideologies are fairly easy to define, while not everyone fits into them. However, you'll generally find those who embrace firm tradition are the ones more reluctant to change than those who live in places where change is constant. If you look at the distance between farm and city life, the former rarely changes and carries a generally more traditional philosophy, the city life tend to be more progressive due to a fast changing environments. Basic distinctions, but for the sake of this fascinating debate, they carry well.

I'm very eager that as a people we get away from black and white; that we are either good or evil, conservative or progressive etc, and see a bigger murkier picture.

And lovely words E. Beautifully put.

you never will be able to show them what they've done, they'll never understand. Its often the core nature of the sociopath and psychopath. You might make them fear for their own life, but it doesn't bring honest repentance or understanding, merely an animal desire for safety.

I concur in the absolute. First off, are we referring to individuals along the lines of Berkowitz, Dahmer, Gacy, Dennis Rader (BTK), or Bundy? Or are we talking about someone who commits murder in the act of another crime (robbery, etc)? A clear distinction is needed if we are to discuss this with a modicum of responsibility.

I find quite vexing the idea of lumping all criminals together under the Sword of Damoceles, with no hope of salvation or rehabiliation. The attitude of "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" reeks of 1800 western posse justice. I would think we should have progressed since then. Perhaps not...but remember, whether we choose to believe or not, (and who are we to judge), of the infamous mentioned above, i know that at least Dahmer expressed a conversion to Christianity before his death at the hands of another prisoner. You can doubt all you want to, deny its validity. But are you sure??? Why is it impossible to conceive?? As the saying goes "there are no atheists in foxholes", alas, many in prison, under similar circumstances have professed conversions, most notably Tex Watson of the Manson Clan. If so, then who are we to judge whether it is true or bogus? We act as judge, jury, and executioner and yet we dont know the HEART of the individual.

No one get their underwear in a wedgie over this. I am just presenting a POV for discussion. As for myself, its not up to me to say if such stories of conversion carry any merit. I simply need to inspect my own life, before casting judgement on others..

did i make any sense or is it inane dribbling?? I just got home from work and perhaps i should have surrendered to Morphius....

4th Horseman...

[HighPlainsDrifter]

i guess i wasnt clear on my point. i know showing them doesnt necessarily mean that this will help them or punich them but it helps the victims.

[Guest Jim McLean]

you never will be able to show them what they've done, they'll never understand. Its often the core nature of the sociopath and psychopath. You might make them fear for their own life, but it doesn't bring honest repentance or understanding, merely an animal desire for safety.

Absolutely. Again, this isn't - as you say - an absolute, but there are certain archetypes who will not repent, change or even understand what's wrong in what they do, some who wouldn't care if they did.

I concur in the absolute. First off, are we referring to individuals along the lines of Berkowitz, Dahmer, Gacy, Dennis Rader (BTK), or Bundy? Or are we talking about someone who commits murder in the act of another crime (robbery, etc)? A clear distinction is needed if we are to discuss this with a modicum of responsibility.

Great way of putting it.

I find quite vexing the idea of lumping all criminals together under the Sword of Damoceles, with no hope of salvation or rehabiliation. The attitude of "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" reeks of 1800 western posse justice. I would think we should have progressed since then. Perhaps not...but remember, whether we choose to believe or not, (and who are we to judge), of the infamous mentioned above, i know that at least Dahmer expressed a conversion to Christianity before his death at the hands of another prisoner. You can doubt all you want to, deny its validity. But are you sure??? Why is it impossible to conceive?? As the saying goes "there are no atheists in foxholes", alas, many in prison, under similar circumstances have professed conversions, most notably Tex Watson of the Manson Clan. If so, then who are we to judge whether it is true or bogus? We act as judge, jury, and executioner and yet we dont know the HEART of the individual.

Absolutely. Christian or not, I think our "judgment" should be as minimal and as practical as possible. We need bad people away from where they can do harm or in lighter circumstances places where they can be rehabilitated. Beyond that, who needs to be "punished" should be down to a higher power. All we need to concern ourselves is keeping bad people away from good people. I don't think revenge is either healthy or an acceptable mindset. It doesn't fill a hole, it doesn't change the past. We need to encourage people to come to terms with their pain without looking for the simple focus of causing pain to others. It helps no one and simply holds the system back from being practical, relevant and humane. Just because one person is inhumane, I don't think that gives the right for the rest to do back. We should be beyond tit for tat - or as Jesus might say, if the eye offends..

No one get their underwear in a wedgie over this. I am just presenting a POV for discussion. As for myself, its not up to me to say if such stories of conversion carry any merit. I simply need to inspect my own life, before casting judgement on others..

Totally. It's as much as putting into words what's going on in my head than anything else. Less lecturing, more self discovery.

HPD: I appreciate your point, I don't agree that punishing the wicked is necessarily conducive to the healing process. If people had done wicked things to cause grief, I don't think there is a punishment in existence that can help heal that wound. Keep the person away from the victim, by whatever means, but I don't think punishment in terms of revenge is useful/practical for seculars or - in our predominantly Christian nations, within the teachings of Jesus. Either way, I don't see the benefit personally.

[HighPlainsDrifter]

i have witness "victim impact statements" before in which the victim or the family of the dead is able to give statement to the guilty offender. its powerful stuff. There also use to be a show on A&E i believe when the victims of rape-burglary or assault confront the offender. i remember the disscussion that follows is described as relief and closure