The Effect of Childhood

[billy]

no one would be forced to go the deed, many would gladly volunteer. i would gladly make brady hurt so much. i wouldn't let him die.
and people demand all the time, sadly we don't do it as often as we should. but if we did, politicians would pay more heed because they'd do anything to take charge. i think most don't want the death sentence, of those who have had kids and loved ones raped, tortured or murdered, the majority would wish for death, even torture.

[heslopian]

No, some people wouldn't need forcing to do it, and that's what terrifies me Billy. There are those who'd happily take up the scalpel and power drill in the name of what they perceive as "justice". Forgive me, but I don't think you're such a person Billy. I think you could kill someone in the heat of the moment, just like anybody could, myself included, but to strap another human being - monster or not - down and subject them to the most appalling, horrific torture? Scalp them, degrade them, grow bamboo in their wounds etc. etc.? No. I just don't think you're capable of it. Which is what makes you better than Brady and Manson and Hindley and the rest.

[billy]

what makes me better than them is i don't torture and kill innocent people, though i know i could weigh them in.the punishment though is a side issue. the main cruz is whether or not the childhood abuse should play a part in their sentence, in heinous cases like the one mentioned i don't think it should.

[heslopian]

No, but if a society such as the one you envision was put in place, you might still torture and kill. You'd do what they did. Which would make you like them in that regard. And the question wasn't whether childhood trauma should play a part in their sentence, again you're twisting my words, the question was do we pity those monsters whose evil can be traced back to past abuse.

[billy]

no matter how you say it, killing someone or even torturing someone guilty of such a heinous crime isn't the same as killing innocent men women and children.

and no jack i'm not twisting your words. if we pity them do we not go easier on them? with lesser sentences for lesser crimes this is often the case. it's called a mitigating circumstance. for heinous crimes however i don't think is should be used in mitigation and as such we should have no pity.

[heslopian]

And no matter how you say it, torture and killing is still torture and killing. Brady no doubt does deserve such treatment, but nobody in my opinion has the right to dish it out. Maybe I don't have the same faith in humanity as you do, but I can't see how giving a man the right to torment wouldn't change him for the worse in some way.
And yes, you are twisting my words. By incorrectly quoting my original question you are twisting my words. I believe certain crimes should have certain punishments regardless who committed them. The point of justice is consistency. But that doesn't mean we can't pity. For instance, I believe John Lennon's killer should remain locked away or else heavily monitored for the rest of his life, but that doesn't mean I don't pity him. He's sick. I pity the sick.

[billy]

while torturing them would be barbaric, it could never be on par with the crime.

and again i say i'm not twisting your words. if their insane then it's a psych ward and some poity.
if they're classed as sane then no pity. brady knew what he was doing was wrong. has he killed anyone in prison? no...why...because he's shit scared too. if he were sick he'd have committed more murders despite where he was. see what you're doing is saying you pity the sick as though you pity the non sick..of course i don't know if that's what you say or not. but i cannot and will not pity the sane when they commit heinous crimes. an abusive childhood is no reason to murder. if used in mitigation it becomes worthless and pity would be the last thing shown if at all. i do not pity evil men who as kids were abused. i admire the good man who came through his abuse without continuing the circle. lennon isn't brady and the crimes are totally different

[heslopian]

No, it wouldn't be on a par with the original crime, but it would still be wrong. In my opinion anyway.
Yes. I agree the crimes are totally different. I don't pity Brady. I never said I did. Of course I don't spend my time feeling sorry for everyone who's ever murdered a child or made a pinata of a pregnant actress. You don't need to tell me that Brady is simply human garbage. I know that. What I'm saying is what you just said, that not every crime, and thus not every criminal, is the same. I pity Lennon's killer. I pity Ed Gein. I do not pity Ian Brady. I do not pity Ian Huntley. However, despite these varying degrees of feeling I believe that each of the killers I mentioned should be (and as for Ed Gein should have been, like he was) locked away for the rest of their lives.

[kath3]

The both of you have presented good argument for and against.
Jack, I would prefer to side with you, but I have children and grandchildren and if someone were to hurt them in such a way ... well I pray that will never happen.
Mad dogs (and these types of people are no better) need to be put down. No amount of rehabilitation could restore the public's trust in these individuals ever again, and by keeping them locked away, fed, clothed, medical needs taken care of, along with whatever else they need, all at the taxpayers expense is a further injustice to the victims and their families imo.
A quick needle in the arm and the deed would be over and done. No need to torture the mad dogs, as it would put us on the same level.
I'm sure there would be plenty of individuals willing to do the deed, and seeing it as a means of ending the suffering of the inflicted. That doesn't, imo put them on the same level. I don't see it as being the same kind of wrong doing as the perpetrator ... more like a mercy killing.

[heslopian]

Keeping them fed, clothed and medically cared for in a dingy prison cell where they spend 99% of their time each day isn't exactly the royal treatment though. I don't have children but I do have a family I love dearly so I can grasp the need for revenge that victims' families have. However, depriving someone of their freedom for the rest of their natural life is I believe vengence enough. There is no such thing as a civilised, justified killing. Murder is murder is murder, regardless of the who, how, where and why. You've forcibly taken someone's life. Whether it be with needle or clawhammer, you've decided you have the right to end another human being's existence.

[kath3]

Keeping them fed, clothed and medically cared for in a dingy prison cell where they spend 99% of their time each day isn't exactly the royal treatment though. I don't have children but I do have a family I love dearly so I can grasp the need for revenge that victims' families have. However, depriving someone of their freedom for the rest of their natural life is I believe vengence enough. There is no such thing as a civilised, justified killing. Murder is murder is murder, regardless of the who, how, where and why. You've forcibly taken someone's life. Whether it be with needle or clawhammer, you've decided you have the right to end another human being's existence.

Exactly ... which is why I see putting them to rest as mercy.
Murder, is murder, is murder and I agree with you. I just happen to feel at this point that it is justified.

[heslopian]

So now you're saying it's about mercy? In your previous comment you seemed to imply that the punishment should be exacted for revenge, as it isn't fair on the victims' survivors that such criminals should be cared for using tax-payer money. I don't believe that the taking of a life is ever justified. Never. Not a single variation on it at any time for any reason. If murder is murder is murder, then it can never be made morally okay. JMHO.

[billy]

Keeping them fed, clothed and medically cared for in a dingy prison cell where they spend 99% of their time each day isn't exactly the royal treatment though. I don't have children but I do have a family I love dearly so I can grasp the need for revenge that victims' families have. However, depriving someone of their freedom for the rest of their natural life is I believe vengence enough. There is no such thing as a civilised, justified killing. Murder is murder is murder, regardless of the who, how, where and why. You've forcibly taken someone's life. Whether it be with needle or clawhammer, you've decided you have the right to end another human being's existence.

and you're entitled to your opinion. one many people in many countries including governments disagree with. you told me before i was going off topic or ignoring the op the thread isn't about sentencing it's about pity. i have none for them.

[heslopian]

Yes, and many others in those same countries agree with me. If someone raises a question on my thread I answer it Billy. The only thing I object to is when my words are twisted to suit another person's ends.

[billy]

i haven't twisted them. i don't think child molesters and nasty killers like brady should be pitied. everything else is i said is superfluous as is what you said apart for the fact you said you pitied them.

as an added thought, if you're words are capable of being twisted so easily then they deserve to be, after all this is a serious debate. where statements stand and fall depending on how strong they are. so if i did twist them it was only show how weak they were

[heslopian]

For the last time: I don't pity Brady. Once again you're twisting my words, and doing so doesn't strengthen your own. You're basically lying, and if you have to lie to win an argument I think that shows how weak your points are. All words are capable of being easily twisted, in the same way it's easy to lie. The moon is made of cheese. I can talk to aliens who teach me how to love while re-programming Jude Law. Willam Marsland thinks we shouldn't have a prison system. You see how easy it is?

[billy]

you asked;

are we more sympathetic (not forgiving) towards monsters

i said no i'm not.

you said, and this is verbatum;

The point of justice is consistency. But that doesn't mean we can't pity. For instance, I believe John Lennon's killer should remain locked away or else heavily monitored for the rest of his life, but that doesn't mean I don't pity him. He's sick. I pity the sick.

so my question to you is this...do you class people like manson and brady and hindley, sick.

you said you don't pity brady, which if true is enough of an answer for me
neither of us pity monsters who kill in such away. no words have been twisted in the making of this post. (btw, it's not net etiquette to use a persons real full name in a post but i don't mind)

the word you used in the op was sympathy. i have non of that either, how can i sympathise with a mans upbringing after he's killed and tortured innocent people while knowing that his actions were wrong.

me wanting to give such people a taste of their own medicine is just a bonus i threw into the discussion in order to back up how far my lack of sympathy goes.

[heslopian]

I believe everyone is an individual, including monsters. You and I aren't exactly alike. Lennon's killer and Brady aren't exactly alike. I class the former as sick in the way that people with cancer are sick. I regard the latter as sick in the way human garbage such as him are sick. You keep implying I have sympathy for Brady, which is twisting my words. You're trying to make me seem like a psychopath sympathiser and you know it. I'm not. I just don't see crime and punishment in as black and white a manner as you do. Furthermore, I find it a bit rich that you're criticising me for going off topic when you were the one who brought up the whole eye for an eye thing. I just answered it. Maybe I shouldn't have. I'm sorry.

[billy]

the off topic thing was a while ago, but lets be fair, this post is not about law and order something which i've come to accept. have you?

i said ;

you said you don't pity brady, which if true is enough of an answer for me

as for classing brady as somehow similar to being sick like a cancer patient is something i can't see.

you said;

You keep implying I have sympathy for Brady, which is twisting my words. You're trying to make me seem like a psychopath sympathiser and you know it. I'm not.

how can a question such as, do you have sympathy for brady twist your words. i'm not trying to make you seem like anything, and personally i couldn't care less if you have sympathy for brady. you said you didn't and i accept that that i'm merely debating the points you bring up

if there's any twisting being done it isn't being done by me.

[heslopian]

Oh come on Billy you know FULL WELL I wasn't comparing Brady to a cancer patient. I meant Lennon's killer, and I wasn't equating murder with disease, I was simply trying to illustrate the different meanings "sick" can have. Frankly I'm really offended you'd pull such a nasty trick and I don't see why I should read the rest of your post after that. I think you do care what I think about Brady, not because you regard me as important but because the idea that someone would hold such views as mine offends you.