Dunno since Christmas there have been a few that have shown how unmoderated most adults can manage a discussion without taking any major blood.
It's been a good thread. Nothing wrong with a beefy discussion. There have been some 'uncomfortable' comments that's true - but that isn't grounds for closing the thread. I say - keep going!
It will be closed if it gets out of hand. Thus far it hasn't. There's been some questionable comments made, but it's still civil and hasn't crossed the line. As for topic, it's migrated a little from the original topic, but it's still in the same vein, so I'm happy to allow it for now.
Feelings of revenge are normal and part of human nature as you pointed out in this post. What does that have to do with law, though? Why would we form the laws according to something we feel or think in an impulse?
The sociological theory of law states that law will adapt to the needs and interests of the people, even in a moral context. The civil rights movement is a good example of this, as it is based off a moral standpoint. Even the persecution of Christians was a moral statement under Diocletian, transposed into law. Nowadays, we would consider such morals to be disgusting, but back then the law was justifiable. So law is really only dependent on the people who support and practice it. Here, poptarts' morals are irrelevant, because we aren't all shouting in approval. But if we were, political leaders might consider torture in punishment. Not to say that it doesn't happen... but that's a whole new field outside of the law.
Oh yes, of course are laws partially based on the (moral) consensus of the time - well, at least in a democracy. But I said that laws can't be based on emotional impulses. In this matter, poptarts wants to torture serial killers because she hates them. There might be a big cohorte of people who agree with her. I'm saying it's normal to feel that way, considering the awful things these persons may have done, but is that enough reason to change the system? She also mentions she doesn't care about morals, so she doesn't think it would be morally right to torture serial killers, she just wants serial killers to be tortured. An important distinction.
Well there are laws about emotions. Things like excited utterances can be used as evidence, intentional emotional harm can be penalized (which is why I disagree w/Supreme Court in the WBC case), and even murders made in a rage of vengeance (for example, husband comes home to see wife cheating, shoots the guy in his bed) can be ruled as voluntary manslaughter, a lesser crime than pre-meditated murder. Emotions are an essential part to being human, and humans compose a system of law. If the vast majority are swayed by their emotions, a system could very well change based upon that emotion, as shown by these laws. If there were 20 poptarts and only 5 punks, I would be outnumbered and intentional torture of serial killers would be legal. Of course, I could just eat all the poptarts...
The examples you have given are examples of escape clauses based on emotions, which lead to a change in enactment of the law, not an actual change of the law. This is a logical development because real life isn't black and white; laws are. You make a good point though. Emotions are part of human nature and do have an impact on laws, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It IS a bad thing when we're talking about negative emotions or emotions that lead to irrational or immoral decisions. Luckily, most political systems these days are secured against "the fickleness and passion" of human nature, and institutions are generally very hard to change due to bureaucracy and safety measures by the founders of the system. For example, your senate was created to counter the emotions of the members of congress that would lead to impulsive and bad decisions. This enlightened reasoning is behind all formulas of bicameralism.
I've written to many people on death row. I've kept all of their letters and artwork they sent me. I don't do it much anymore since I'm not so much interested in serial killers, but I still communicate with the people whose cases interest me. My particular fascinations are Ed Gein and Armin Miewes, the latter of whom is an extremely interesting person. Notable people I've communicated with are Danny Rolling, Harold Shipman, Richard Ramirez (unbelievably dull), the Yorkshire Ripper, and a few others. Not sure if the taboo subject of murderabilia has been mentioned (true crime artifacts) but I have quite a few pieces of it. I've got about 300 letters and about 40 pieces of artwork altogether. Didn't realise how much I had until the other day. I do plan on selling most of it eventually.
^^^ Armin Meiwes is one of the most amazing things on planet Earth. There are thousands of people who want to eat humans or to be eaten by them.
Continuing Joanna and Punk's discussion, I had a debate over laws, crime, and punishment some time ago with some peers and we spoke for some time about how the law is used as a mitigation against impulsive, emotional responses/punishments to crimes. Example: Steve kills John, so John's son kills Steve, then Steve's son kills John's son, and suddenly you've got a family feud with no easy end. The legal system (speaking from a US perspective) stops revenge from becoming the law by providing a strict set of punishments depending on what the crime is and, while the plaintive might not feel 100% satisfied with the results, he/she gets some sort of "revenge" without his/her emotions causing the situation to get out of hands. The same applies to why you don't see posies and Western-style, Dodge City justice anymore. The Law provides a safe (albeit cumbersome and expensive) way for the criminal to be dealt with so that society can continue to run without bad blood and power-abusing sheriffs dictating justice in the community.
Want to be eaten by humans? Seriously? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, or start trouble or anything, but really?
You couldn't imagine how many people possess the urge to eat humans and actually be eaten themselves. The only difference between Armin Miewes and the rest of them is that Armin had the courage/stupidity to actually carry it out. He had something like two hundred responses to his cannibal advertisement, and he told me in a letter once he had about twenty people visit his deathroom, but nineteen of them backed out.
I'm not too familiar with the cannibal underground but I can only imagine so. The particular website which Armin and Brandes used was taken down, but I assume more exist. As far as I know, to most people vorarephilia/cannibalism exists only as a fantasy. But then there's the special cases where the mixture of loneliness, boredom and extreme lust culminate in horrific results. Fascinating person. Fascinating case. Unfair prison sentence in my opinion. Very extreme euthanasia shouldn't mean life imprisonment. Off topic much?
LOL..Umm. No? I'm not trying it. Sorry. I'm not saying it's not facinating, most things are, but it creeps me out. That's all. If I'm in the minority, so be it. I had just never heard of people volunteering.
I'm not sure how I feel about the death penalty. On one hand, I tend to lean against state-based control and fear, and half of the things that are currently illegal are things that should not be. I don't think the government should be able to do things that ordinary citizens cannot do, thus it's a bit disturbing to think that the state can kill someone. On the flip side, once you become a sadist who acts on your harmful desires, my respect for you is gone. I realize someone might have a heat-of-the-moment outburst when he, say, shoots his wife and her secret boyfriend upon catching them in bed together. But to deliberately, and with a plan made beforehand, torture and kill someone and even do it multiple times? Or to become a serial rapist? I'm sorry, but no one should have the right to take another person's body or rights away from someone else. I've heard the tragic childhood argument so many times. Sorry but I know several people who've dealt with severe childhood abuse, other people who've been bullied badly as kids, or raped, etc. They chose to do something constructive with their lives, seek help and move on. What happens to you to "make" you a killer might have been beyond your control, but that abusive parent or bully or rapist didn't put the knife in your hand and force you to rape/torture/kill others. You chose that yourself. So, due to that, I wouldn't be writing to that killer. However I have studied the psychology of rapists in-depth and wrote a research project on it several years ago. Link the Writer -- to answer your question, Charlie Sheen is the guy from the sitcom "Two and a Half Men," but he's earned some notoriety for being a douchebag to women, drug scandals etc.
I wrote to the man who killed my sister who is serving two life terms in michigan. They don't have the death penalty there. I never got a response, and I think that maybe that was for the best. If it wasn't personal then I would have never considered writing...I'm not really sure why I did in the first place...
