Baltimore CEO, 26, was killed by a repeat offender who should have never been on the street, officials allege
Baltimore CEO, 26, was killed by a repeat offender who should have never been on the street, officials allege
Pava LaPere, the founder of EcoMap Technologies, was found dead in an apartment Monday. Police say they are looking for a suspect considered armed and dangerous.
In 2015, Billingsley was sentenced to 30 years in prison, with 16 years suspended, after he pleaded guilty to a first-degree sex offense, court records show.
The Maryland sex offender registry shows he was released from prison in October. The registry classified him in "tier 3," which includes the most serious charges and requires offenders to register for life.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Please just look at this it a debate. https://youtu.be/XltuOU1A8Sk?si=HgX4ZyMDXvSB1WZi
Not interested, thank you.
retributivist, just find out what that means.
I know what retributivism is, and it perfectly fits into what you've written so far. Now explain to me: why shouldn't we be preemptively retributive with people like you?
Pre-emptily retributitve?
You want to equate my belief, that the punishment should fit the crime by saying "a killer deserves to face death to right the wrong" to being a killer my self? Then explain to you why you shouldn't have that view point? Pre-emptively?
Just making sure I understand you properly.
You want to equate my belief, that the punishment should fit the crime by saying "a killer deserves to face death to right the wrong" to being a killer my self?
Everyone wants a punishment that fits the crime, but we disagree what punishment fits what crime. You want the state to kill people who you think deserve to be killed, but you also know that this will lead to innocent people being killed by the state, which is acceptable to you. How does that not make you complicit in the murder of innocents?
Then explain to you why you shouldn't have that view point? Pre-emptively?
Why you shouldn't have what view point? The one that leads to innocent people being killed? Because it leads to innocent people being killed. Generally, any view point that leads to innocent people being killed is one you shouldn't have.
You know, if you just watched that video. You'd understand my view point and it also has the opposite opinion, its both arguments give by two people who are more able to explain it better than me. Im basically trying to understand it myself and I try to explain it with some confidence with every other person on lemmy.
The crime is? He kills his 3 kids. The punishment? Death, in this case. deserved and proportional, in my opinion, in this case!
Btk, same opinion. Greene River, same opinion.
You keep saying innocent people will be killed and you believe i want that to happen. I do not. you say "its inevitable" and I will say, that if you kill someone on false charges, it is wrong and it should only be applied to the cases I have stated previously, not a power just given out willy nilly.
I'm not actively calling for an extremely low bar death penalty justice system, I say, eye for an eye. Killed his kids, delete him from life and this other guy from OPs post the guy rapes and kills a woman, 26, no remorse, killing is like brushing teeth, delete him from our society, and because I belive that I'm a potential murderer? Geeze man, thats depression as a conclusion. mountains, mole hills or something something.
But the part that you don't seem to comprehend is simply that no matter how high you set the standards, you will kill innocent people. What if somehow evidence comes out that shows you got the wrong guy instead of the one who kills 3 kids? You're going to say "you just have to be sure", but there is literally no way. Nobody in the history of humanity has figured out how to do what you're proposing without killing innocent people, and I'm pretty sure nobody ever will.
So there are invariably only two options:
- kill people and innocents
- don't kill people and don't kill innocents
Unless you've found a magic solution that 100% ensures infallibility in the justice system, there is no third option. Understand now?
The guy is on video, he confessed to the police that it was premeditated, there were multiple witnesses. Where is this innocent person you keeping talking about being killed? I would argue its the fucking kids. I know you are talking over the whole judicial system but im arguing its these cases specifically.
I think you really enjoy telling other who they are, incorrectly I might add, think im a murderer in waiting? I would say you like to feel your superiority of the moral standard that retribution is equal to being a murderer yourself. Thats what I call delusional.
You be out here defending the lifes of the most disgusting humans on this planet and you think I'm the murderer? I call you an enabler, you would allow them to become "rehabilitated" in a system that relies on recidivism and just go on to kill again. Maybe you should think about all the people who left the prison just to kill again, their victim lay at your feet because you, obviously that is not true, but its your stupid logic.
The guy is on video, he confessed to the police that it was premeditated, there were multiple witnesses. Where is this innocent person you keeping talking about being killed? I would argue its the fucking kids. I know you are talking over the whole judicial system but im arguing its these cases specifically.
And even in cases like this mistakes have been made before. But you obviously can't accept that, as your whole position would fall apart, so you instead talk about this way that will surely work that somehow nobody else came up with.
Also, don't act like killing a murderer somehow brings back the people he murdered. The only difference between locking them up for life and killing them is that the earlier leaves you the option of freeing them if it's proven your innocent, whereas the latter fulfills your bloodlust.
I think you really enjoy telling other who they are, incorrectly I might add, think im a murderer in waiting? I would say you like to feel your superiority of the moral standard that retribution is equal to being a murderer yourself. Thats what I call delusional.
Mate, have fun calling me delusional, I don't care. It's pretty obvious you're a young kid stumbling upon these philosophical ideas for the first time, and you simply can't accept that the "simple and obvious" solution you're proposing is flawed. But since it feels right to you, it can't be wrong! And that's what I call bloodlust.
You be out here defending the lifes of the most disgusting humans on this planet and you think I'm the murderer? I call you an enabler, you would allow them to become "rehabilitated" in a system that relies on recidivism and just go on to kill again. Maybe you should think about all the people who left the prison just to kill again, their victim lay at your feet because you, obviously that is not true, but its your stupid logic.
See, perfect example. I'm not "defending the lives of the most disgusting humans on the planet", I'm defending the lives of the innocent people your quest for revenge will kill as collateral damage. Because, spoiler alert, locking up a terrible murderer for the rest of their life will not allow them to murder. But you don't care that innocent people will die.
Show me the mistake in such a case as that? Please id love to see your fictitious case because if you show me cases where the person had a shit lawyer and died because of insufficient council or evidence that had been withheld by the prosecution or bias by the judge or jury based of false information then I would argue that that is a failure of the system through courrupt individual that uses it in inappropriate ways its not intended to be used and not proportional justice that i seek.
Yet again you make a stupid claim "like its gonna bring them back" are you dense? Are you purposely being obtuse? Not sure if you are or not.
Blood lust? Someone call the hyperbole police on this person and yes you are delusion equating my belief in proportional justice as a blood lust for the innocence imma bout to slay? That i would argue is simplistic. Oh so just because I found out what the idea behind my belief is all of a sudden im a petulant immature child?
You are the child in this point, labeling people casting your ideals on them without a serious conversation? Thats your immaturity, not understanding why a person would prefer their child murderer to not exist (and again specific to this case) is a perfectly rational response.
You literally are defending their ability to avoid proportional justice so they can either be "rehabilitated" to leave and possibly commit a much worse crime or spend vasts amounts of money to keep housing the worst people like some macabre collection to leer at.
I seek retribution not revenge. I seek a proportional sentence for the crime convicted of.
This bit got me the most lol Because, spoiler alert, locking up a terrible murderer for the rest of their life will not allow them to murder. But you don't care that innocent people will die.
Ahh yeah they do, people with life sentences don't care if they get time added, they gonna die there any way.... very very simple view there
And if you were paying any attention before you would understand that NO I DO care if innocent people die.