Prisoner calmly and logically explains why he had to murder his cellmate

Remove all ads!

I didn't think it would be appropriate to put this in the "Whatnots" video thread. On one hand I am not sure I have a problem with what he did. On the other hand I'm hoping this guy never gets out.

 

Why would the other guy go bragging about his child-molesting crimes in a prison? I thought it was a widely accepted fact that child molesters are disliked even among criminals. Was he looking for a quick way out? Did he have an intellectual disability (it's not uncommon among pedophiles)?

Personally, I don't have a problem with murder. I understand why it's illegal, but I don't see it as (morally) wrong if there is sufficient justification

 

I don't think murdering child molesters is a thing that is necessary. Castration? Sure, but murder? On a side note, murder is by it's very definition never justified. When taking a life has justification, we call it something else.

 

Murder is always unlawful, it is not always unjust. But how the law defines the word murder is largely irrelevant to my point. I would call it killing, but murder more specifically applies to the killing of another human being (although I'm sure animal rights activists would prefer everyone to think of animal killing as murder).

Also, how do you define a "necessary" punishment? I don't think any particular form of punishment is necessary one way or another. Some are simply more effective at remedying the situation.

 

I don't think I really brought necessity into the picture. We don't punish based on some arbitrary measure of how 'necessary' something is. We do it based on the need to provide a penalty for failure to adhere to those cultural norms we consider to be so important that we have codified them into law. The idea, of course, is that greater punishments provide a greater deterrent effect, but there is for all crimes a requisite point of diminished returns. Virtually no one would speed if we implemented the death penalty for it, but the vast majority of us would also stop speeding if it led to automatic forfeiture of one's license for a period of several years. Of course, both of those punishments I've outlined are too heavy handed to be sensible in western society. No one would stand for it.

Regarding animal rights activists and their stance on murder, it varies from person to person. As an animal rights activist and vegan, I can assure you that I don't like the concept of killing animals for food because it isn't necessary and causes unnecessary suffering, but I stop short of referring to slaughter as murder.

 

The italians are going a long way toward harsher penalties. Since a few years they may confiscate and *auction off* cars of traffic offenders who had more than 1,5 promille alcohol
in german:
http://www.heise.de/autos/artikel/I...n-droht-Beschlagnahme-ihres-Autos-476005.html

I´ve got a colleague at work who refers to her two cats as "her children" and doesn´t restrain herself like that

Perhaps a stupid question but when vegans (or vegetarians) would get the law to forbid using animals for food, would they then be responsible for the death of millions of animals as farmers would stop holding animals and had to do away with them?