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.
Ha ha ha that halrious. Because I want people like btk dead, I'm a murderer in waiting, how'd you figure that scooter?
Normal people don't want to kill innocent people just to kill some people they think deserve death.
Just so you know, I am that first guy. not the actual person but, what he embodies retributivism.
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.