Louisiana child rapist on death row.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not sure a 9 year old is any more or less vulnerable than a 34 year old woman with a gun pressed against her head. But, I understand what you're getting at. I simply don't agree with it.

And if the father waks in to the house 3 minutes after the rape has ended and the child is on the floor crying while the rapist is zipping up his pants?

No, this isn't a matter of the criminal having more rights than the victim, it's about equal rights and retribution for everyone. I understand the inclination to afford less rights to the criminal becuase his crime was committed against a child, I just don't agree with it. Look at it this way, when we read about a 9 year old getting raped, we call for the death penalty; when we hear about a 45 year old woman geting raped while she was jogging in the park at 9 pm, we turn to the comics to see what Garfeild is up to today.

Arguable, the woman is still less vulnerable, simply because she is an adult. Also, a 9 year old would most likely be harmed more both physically and mentally from being raped than an adult.

That's when you get into intent, intent is all important. It often separates manslaughter from a murder, even though both produce a dead body.

Well I agree there, I don't think capital should be handed out for rape, life in prison, maybe.

The very distinction between murder and manslaughter is intent, though. What's the extra intent here? More psychological scarring?

On another note, I do enjoy the way people who want to kill in reply to rape are the normal ones.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
1. Children scream hard when you get it inside them.
2. They scream harder when you start thrusting.
3. Wiping my bloody dick on the kid's teddybear makes me feel like a man.

Those are just the ones that I feel comfortable posting. If you'd like me to PM you some more, I'll gladly oblige.

k

....

(Oh, yeah, you're joking....ha-ha-ha)

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
On another note, I do enjoy the way people who want to kill in reply to rape are the normal ones.

You're saying that those who don't are abnormal?

Yes, that's exactly it.

Originally posted by BackFire
These theoretical questions really can't be taken seriously. They're meaningless. For one, they're difficult (and impossible, for some) to answer because you can't just tansport yourself to that situation with ease. I couldn't give an answer because I wouldn't know what I'd do, it would have to actually happen. I can't imagine the rage and fear and sadness and confusion that would inherently fill me should I walk in on something like this, so to say "well, I'd do this" would be wholly dishonest for me.

Obviously, I disagree. The question is to illustrate the voting power of these so called irrational sympathetics. My point was proven as there are posters here who would literally beat the pervert TO DEATH. Hence, my point was illustrated and legitimized.

Originally posted by BackFire
Also, this talk is about justice, which exists in order to keep these kinds of subjective feelings OUT of the decision. Justice must be cold and calculated, it can't start taking into account the emotions involved, its purpose is to be fair and logical. Speaking of something as subjective as what YOU would do if your child was being raped is irrelevant.

But justice is based on a set of morals. These morals are defined by the culture. What is deemed as "fair justice" is based on those same morals. You may have an idea of what justice SHOULD be, but as long as humans are the ones delivering the justice, there will be no such thing as "perfect" justice or perfectly "fair" justice.

Maybe when we can get syncordings or complete AV recordings like seen on 7 days or Final Cut, we can get this "perfect" system than can have virtually equal justice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, I disagree. The question is to illustrate the voting power of these so called irrational sympathetics. My point was proven as there are posters here who would literally [B]beat the pervert TO DEATH . Hence, my point was illustrated and legitimized.

What was your point?

Also, and the problem is? (the bold portion)

But justice is based on a set of morals. These morals are defined by the culture. What is deemed as "fair justice" is based on those same morals. You may have an idea of what justice SHOULD be, but as long as humans are the ones delivering the justice, there will be no such thing as "perfect" justice or perfectly "fair" justice.

As I said before, justice needs to change, as it does not represent the will of the people anymore. (at least from my experience)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, I disagree. The question is to illustrate the voting power of these so called irrational sympathetics. My point was proven as there are posters here who would literally beat the pervert TO DEATH. Hence, my point was illustrated and legitimized.

The anger and rage that one would feel upon walking in on a loved one being raped has no place being the basis for the justice system. It must be as objective as possible, and it is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But justice is based on a set of morals. These morals are defined by the culture. What is deemed as "fair justice" is based on those same morals. You may have an idea of what justice SHOULD be, but as long as humans are the ones delivering the justice, there will be no such thing as "perfect" justice or perfectly "fair" justice.

Maybe when we can get syncordings or complete AV recordings like seen on 7 days or Final Cut, we can get this "perfect" system than can have virtually equal justice.

I didn't say anything about morals. And you're right, there is no perfect justice. But one way to ensure that is to take into account your own anger and attempt to project that as justice, when it is, according to definition, vengeance.

Originally posted by Kelmech_Ra
What was your point?

Also, and the problem is? (the bold portion)

As I said before, justice needs to change, as it does not represent the will of the people anymore. (at least from my experience)

See below: you may find your answer.

Originally posted by BackFire
The anger and rage that one would feel upon walking in on a loved one being raped has no place being the basis for the justice system. It must be as objective as possible, and it is.

I didn't say anything about morals. And you're right, there is no perfect justice. But one way to ensure that is to take into account your own anger and attempt to project that as justice, when it is, according to definition, vengeance.

Seriously. I don't disagree about anything you have posted except for being "as objective as possible". We really do agree.

I know you didn't mention morals. One could misinterpret what I am doing as a red herring: that is not the case. Justice is inexorably tied to morals. When you speak of justice, you indirectly reference the morals of the people who created "justice'. If you say "perfect justice" then you are referencing your concept of perfect morals. That would be relative.

Ergo, some parents demand execution, others do not. Everyone has different sets of moral expectations from the Justice System, thought they largely overlap. That was my fundamental point in my question.

No, when I say perfect justice that means that the system isn't flawless, and problems and mistakes are made. Nothing to do with morals at all. And when you start bringing in your own emotions and how YOU would feel, that creates a larger possibility of making an error by not using pure logic and fairness and yes, objectivity, at least as much as possible.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, when I say perfect justice that means that the system isn't flawless, and problems and mistakes are made.

That doesn't make sense to me. If it is perfect, then there would be no problems. Maybe I am not thinking of it the way you are.

I am speaking of 100% conviction of criminals with perfect and fair "punishments" and 100% of the charged innocent go free

Originally posted by BackFire
Nothing to do with morals at all. And when you start bringing in your own emotions and how YOU would feel, that creates a larger possibility of making an error by not using pure logic and fairness and yes, objectivity, at least as much as possible.

I agree. There is nothing wrong with what you are saying. However,

"Justice is inexorably tied to morals."

As of right now, there isn't a cold hard logical super computer that is much more intelligent than any human, doling out the judgments and making the judicial laws.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That doesn't make sense to me. If it is perfect, then there would be no problems.

That is what I said. There are problems, which is why it isn't perfect.

And again, I'm not denying anything about morals being part of the decision. I'm talking about emotions, not morals. You are quoting me, and then responding to things that I never said or implied. If you want to take the discussion into the realm of morals, then you should do so without quoting me as if I mentioned them in some way.

Originally posted by BackFire
That is what I said. There are problems, which is why it isn't perfect.

And again, I'm not denying anything about morals being part of the decision. I'm talking about emotions, not morals. You are quoting me, and then responding to things that I never said or implied. If you want to take the discussion into the realm of morals, then you should do so without quoting me as if I mentioned them in some way.

Take me on a tour. Bring me to your realm of thought; quite literally, I don't understand how you are missing my point.

Let me define why I think you don't understand me:

You don't HAVE to be aware of justice being tied to the morals of the people in order for me to point out that you are referencing the morals of the people in their version of justice. Justice is dictated by laws. Laws are dictated by the people. The people's idea of justice are dictated by their own morals.

Therefore, Justice is dictated by the morals of the people.

And this brings me to my point.

Morals vary from person to person...but to count out a seemingly "irrational" and/or distraught parent from the justice process would be naive. Of COURSE the perspectives of parents such as Imp. and Robtard count. Regardless of whether or not you agree with their perspectives, they still have just as much of a say as you do.

Who's to say that your idea of logical and rational justice is not immoral or unjust to another? Hence the reason for this thread.

I know justice is based on morals. Why are you acting like I said otherwise?

I was saying justice shouldn't be based on rage and emotion; particularly, the emotion from those who have been victimized. That can't be the basis of justice. That's all that I'm saying. I'm missing no point that you're making. The point your making is incredibly basic.

Originally posted by Robtard
Arguable, the woman is still less vulnerable, simply because she is an adult.

I woud agrue that vulnerability has nothing to do with it. We're all vulnerable to something at some point. And the 9 year old is physically and mentally the easier target. That's why most child molestation cases don't involve a weapon of some sort. My point has more to do with the idea that there is something sacred about a nine year old v. a forty-nine year old. In fact, what majority of the people who read the story about the forty year old raped in the park at 9pm, somewhere in the back of their mind, think that the dumb broad had it coming because she was stupid enough to dare to go jogging in a public place after dark?

The rest of my argument is nicely summed up by backfire. A justice system might be based on morals, but mistakes are made by moral outrage and the desire for revenge. So while so many people think that the justice system often represents a surplus of rights for the criminal and a lack of rights for a victim, the fact remains that the victim is just that. They're the victim of the actions of the criminal, and the process must be more methodical and morally superior than the criminal's if any true justice is to be served; if the criminal is not to become a victim himself. To have a justice system that reacts out of a desire for revenge on another citizen, rather than from a more rational standardized process, would imply that the justice system is little better, in intent and implementation, than the criminal himself.

And as I've seen stated here in this thread, one poster seems to think that the mob mentality of busting down the criminal's door, cutting his balls off and then burning him alive is a reasonable position to take, simply because the majority of the mob agrees with that idea. God forbid he ever be wrongfully accused of a crime and left to defend himself in the face of a mob that just wants to sate their fake sense of moral outrage. Moral outrage, I might add, that is the result of the victim and not the crime.

EDIT- One example I would cite is the ravenous call for revenge and punishment that every male teacher faces when he is accused of molesting a female student v a female teacher who takes advantage of her position of authority over a male student. The female victim is coddled by the public and boo-hoo'd for, while the male student, every bit as much molested and the victim of a crime, is treated like he's lucky and is seen as some sort of hero/winner because he got laid at 14.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
1. Children scream hard when you get it inside them.
2. They scream harder when you start thrusting.
3. Wiping my bloody dick on the kid's teddybear makes me feel like a man.

Those are just the ones that I feel comfortable posting. If you'd like me to PM you some more, I'll gladly oblige.

I don't see why it's okay to make a joke like this, but if someone makes a joke thread called "Why raping virgins is cool" in the OTF, they get banned. I personally find both to be sick, but I'm just sayin'.

Originally posted by Kelmech_Ra
Those aren't funny. And you know it.

The dead baby jokes were funny in what, 8th-9th grade? (i'm assuming thats why you find child rape funny)

Grow out of it.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I don't see why it's okay to make a joke like this, but if someone makes a joke thread called "Why raping virgins is cool" in the OTF, they get banned. I personally find both to be sick, but I'm just sayin'.

Good point.

death sentence for child rapists = less reporting of child rape, especially incest

you think women act irrationally to protect their boyfriends who have raped them? imagine a father and step-daughter when the step-daughter knows the father might be KILLED

Originally posted by inimalist
death sentence for child rapists = less reporting of child rape, especially incest

you think women act irrationally to protect their boyfriends who have raped them? imagine a father and step-daughter when the step-daughter knows the father might be KILLED

That's just rediculous.