Skip Navigation

BOYCOTT ALL TRAVEL TO SINGAPORE

Travel Forums Off Topic BOYCOTT ALL TRAVEL TO SINGAPORE

Page 1 ...

Last Post

111. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

I am not saying that people should not be held accountable for their actions. My point is that by taking revenge upon someone - it is not justice.

Let's take a look at Oxford Dictionary for a second:

Justice - The quality of being fair and reasonable. Just behavior or treatment. ..a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people. ORIGIN: Late Old English "iustise" - administration of law

Revenge - The action of inflictin hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands. The desire to inflict such retribution: it was difficult not to be overwhelmed with feelings of hate and revenge. ORIGIN: Late Middle English, From Old French 'revencher', from Latin 'revindicare', from re- (expressing intensive force). + Vindicare 'claim, avenge'.

They are very different. They are not synonymous with one another. Let us certainly find justice, but not revenge. And please read the article, it is a speech by the Govenor telling of his convictions for capital punishment prior being voted into office, however over the course of his term he came to see more injustice than justice being served.

112. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

I disagree - these laws do not "work", if they did why are we still having people killed? Clearly there is something wrong with the system.

Because that's not what the laws were intended to do and was never something I claimed. I ask you again. How do you "fix" a person's desire to kill ? You can't be afraid to act if the solution isn't perfect.

113. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 10y

Quoting tway

Watching all those Law & Order shows, I was under the impression that you were suppoed to put aside such feelings and look at the facts - the law. The "what if it were your child" route seems like something a lawyer would say to pursuade the powers that be to his or her side. Laws are made to be rational, not emotional.

Likewise, people who flew with their own engines were being rational - they made something they believed worked, and put only themselves at risk. I meant something more along the lines of, say, a police officer having to arrest their spouse/child/parent for drunk driving. The laws are clear, but the emotional implications can too easily circumvent the law. In that case, someone with a more level head and no involvement should take over.

I don't think I said it clearly. I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out the wonderful complexities of life. All the levels of grey and all the different points of view.

114. Posted by james (Travel Guru 4136 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

I am not saying that people should not be held accountable for their actions. My point is that by taking revenge upon someone - it is not justice.

Let's take a look at Oxford Dictionary for a second:

Justice - The quality of being fair and reasonable. Just behavior or treatment. ..a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people. ORIGIN: Late Old English "iustise" - administration of law

Revenge - The action of inflictin hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands. The desire to inflict such retribution: it was difficult not to be overwhelmed with feelings of hate and revenge. ORIGIN: Late Middle English, From Old French 'revencher', from Latin 'revindicare', from re- (expressing intensive force). + Vindicare 'claim, avenge'.

They are very different. They are not synonymous with one another. Let us certainly find justice, but not revenge. And please read the article, it is a speech by the Govenor telling of his convictions for capital punishment prior being voted into office, however over the course of his term he came to see more injustice than justice being served.

I don't care what the Oxford Dictionary says, as I'm only expressing my opinion (and CupCake's - have to buy her a chocolate one of these days).

But now you mention it, it is all about inflicting hurt or harm for an injury (revenge) in a fair and reasonable manner (justice)

115. Posted by Isadora (Travel Guru 13926 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

Did you read the speech of the gov. of Illinois?

This is the same (now) ex-governor who has been sitting in a courtroom for the past 3 months, charged with 18 counts of federal racketeering, fraud and conspiracy. If convicted on all 18 allegations, he faces a maximum of 95 years in jail.

Ryan Trial

In 1972, the US Supreme Court voided out Illinois' death penalty laws on the grounds they were too haphazard and racially discriminatory. In 1973, new DP laws were signed into being, only to be voided in 1975 by the Illinois Supreme Court. After further revisions, the Illinois DP was once again signed into law in 1977. The State Representative responsible for the majority of those revisions, and it's key supporter - George Ryan.

30 Years of the Death Penalty

Just a bit of history on the man who ultimately placed a moratorium on the DP - 26 years after it's institution in it's present form.

116. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 10y

Quoting Q_Zhang

I don't think I said it clearly. I totally agree with you. I'm just pointing out the wonderful complexities of life. All the levels of grey and all the different points of view.

Hmmm. I must have... misinterpreted what you wrote. ;)

117. Posted by SeeTheSky (Respected Member 558 posts) 10y

its too easy to talk. death is too casual on paper. what if i died by that law, quan? tina? you know me. i cant kill an ant without wanting to cry. im vegetarian for god's sakes. what if i was attacked, and someone held a gun to my brothers head. what if i picked up a gun, and in my imperfect humanity, im my fit of confusion, in the moment, accidentally shot the man that meant to kill my brother. would you be able to watch me die? stand next to me? watch me cry as i looked up into your eyes, the siringe drawing me into my cold sleep? no.. its all too easy now, just talking. we are not perfect. the world is not perfect. it does not help to lash out in retort.

i did not kill becuase i wanted to, i made a choice, one bad choice. does your life rest on one bad choice? no second chances? if i had not shot the man, and he killed my brother, i would not want him dead. no.. what would that do? would my dead brother feel better in whatever afterlife there is? no, revenge is not for them, its for us. becuase we are selfish. so i would rather let that man never have the oppurtunity to change, become a better human, have a second chance that all imperfect humans deserve to become a better person, to fix what they have done wrong. if that is not true, what the hell are we alive for? why are humans here if they cannot change, cannot make mistakes? by this method of thinking, we should exterminate ourselves, wipe out our own race, becuase we kill more than we create. plants, animals, each other, this planet, we have done more harm then good. so we are ultimatley destructive, as of now. do you believe we can change? if not, kill every human right now, becuase we have no right to be alive by that thought process.

i appreciate it if you read that. i know its just an opinoin, but it is basically what i base my life, my entire beliefs on.
thank you everybody, just for sharing how you feel.
Evan

118. Posted by vegasmike6 (Travel Guru 3562 posts) 10y

One of the qualities that makes us human is the ability to reason and change behavior. In Calif, Gov. Schwarznegger has before him the case of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams. Founder of the 'Crips' gang in LA and convicted of murdering 4 people in 1979. He is the perfect example for both sides of the DP debate. The pro DP lobby can point out what an animal he was and argue that if anyone deserves the DP, Tookie cxertainly does. The anti DP lobby can argue that he has rehabilitated himself in prison and is now making a positive impact on society. Tookie has written books aimed at keeping teenagers out of gangs and making something out of their lives. An eloquent voice for staying out of the gang lifestyle. I think he serves society better by letting him stay in prison and continue to speak out on many issues than to put him to death.

119. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 10y

Quoting SeeTheSky

its too easy to talk. death is too casual on paper. what if i died by that law, quan? tina? you know me.

What if the murderer never changes ? There's as much chance that they'll change as they will not. Who are we to let a murderer kill again ?

And you're right, if your brother is dead, then it's too late. That's why the consequence of murder must be so harsh that any person will think very very very very very hard not to killbefore he tries to kill your brother or anybody else. I believe the concept of revenge evolved for this reason.

As Tina has said before, the law must be blind. Emotionally, it may seem horrible to take someone's life as a consequence of murder, but in some cases our own emotions must be put aside for more important reasons. Like preventing more death.

120. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

STS (Evan) - you can always say exactly what I mean. We should just share an account.

Quoting Q_Zhang

Who are we to let a murderer kill again ?

in some cases our own emotions must be put aside for more important reasons. Like preventing more death.

Q, really to me your posts make no sense. You are clearly saying that to prevent death we must detach ourselves and kill. It takes it beyond the killing of one wo/man to save others; this is the mentality that dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan. The same mentality that started concentration camps around the world. It drives the war machine.

I do not think that "justice" should be blind & emotionless. Like you have sayed, we live in a world of greys and vibrant colours. There is emotion in every action we take and every decision we make. Emotions are what tells us we are alive.

Page 1 ...

Last Post

This thread is closed