Man kills 6 family members, was heading to grandparents' house when police caught him. (Houston, TX) - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rubs10;45352412]You're not qualified to be the judge of that[/QUOTE] Probably not, but I'm simply guessing that killing 6 members of your own family would be the result of a mental issue that cannot be fixed by science today, and if it could would altering somones mind to be someone different than who they are not be killing them? But that's a conversation for another day. [QUOTE=Rubs10;45352412]and you aren't doing the exact same thing?[/QUOTE] Nope, or I hope not atleast, I'm trying to describe why I think the family should be in control of what happens to the criminal and backing it up by what I think I would feel in their shoes, along with as much tangible evidence as I can find. I don't care if he lives or dies (I would want him dead though in their shoes), I just want the family to be able to have a say in what should happen since in my opinion his life isn't useful for much else. [QUOTE]And what does "further society" mean? Make everyone happier? Advance science? Spread the word of God? Everyone thinks they're furthering society somehow.[/QUOTE] You should know what I mean, further society means benefit and push forward society as a whole, even my small amounts such as helping a devastated family feel some sort of satisfaction from deciding what happens to the criminal. The justice system is (or should be) to protect and serve society, rehabilitating when possible or helping families when not, and protecting the people in the process.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45352478]I'm sure a man that manages to kill half his family and planned to kill the rest will do extremely well and become a better person once he leaves prison, if he ever leaves at all, after spending time with other murderers, rapists and robbers. But who am I to judge, right? That poor girl is going to have to live the rest of her life with this experience, what kind of human does this?[/QUOTE] A pretty broken human to say the least. But at least.if they're locked up they're out of the way and we can try and work out what caused them to suddenly go and kill so many. This could help prevent future disasters if we can profile certain behaviours well enough. It might not, but the chance is there. This is also why I'm annoyed a lot of spree shooters off themselves before capture, it'd be interesting to hear from them directly what the fuck they were thinking. Rehabilitation isn't always possible. But we should at least try, we could get some interesting information from it even if it fails. [editline]11th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=zombays;45352505]That's assuming the thread isn't immediately going to be shat on by two opposite ends of opinions[/QUOTE] That doesn't give you free reign to shitpost. If the thread is so shit, why did you even come here and post?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;45352547]A pretty broken human to say the least. But at least.if they're locked up they're out of the way and we can try and work out what caused them to suddenly go and kill so many. This could help prevent future disasters if we can profile certain behaviours well enough. It might not, but the chance is there. This is also why I'm annoyed a lot of spree shooters off themselves before capture, it'd be interesting to hear from them directly what the fuck they were thinking. Rehabilitation isn't always possible. But we should at least try, we could get some interesting information from it even if it fails. [editline]11th July 2014[/editline] That doesn't give you free reign to shitpost. If the thread is so shit, why did you even come here and post?[/QUOTE] And I wouldn't be surprised that instead of using that information for improvement and progress, they just call him mentally insane and fill him with medication that breaks his humanity into nothing but a walking corpse. But maybe I'm just dramatizing too much.

All of the arguments are irrelevant. You cannot guarantee 100 percent accuracy in convictions, therefore you can't execute people. There is no margin for error and it is impossible to achieve perfection in determining guilt. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't shed any tears if this guy fell down some stairs and died, but I'm also not okay with a government killing him. There are other arguments to be made as well, like the morality of a government executing its own citizens and making jurors effectively executioners (I would *never* convict on a death penalty case) but the largest argument remains the inability to guarantee perfection.

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;45352176]Nice how you conveniently leave out what you think should be done with this man, since he obviously cannot be rehabilitated, what he's done has completely forfeited his life many times over, and what little that can be done should be done to help the ones close to the victims of this family. Sure we could leave him as life in prison, an arguably more cruel crime since his life will uselessly waste away in a prison until the day he dies, or we could speed it up and help the family members if the consensus is to have him dead. His life is absolutely useless and should be used towards helping the remaining members of the family, their opinion should absolutely be considered on what happens to him whether they want life in prison, or death penalty.[/QUOTE] Convenient? or maybe I just don't choose to put myself as a judge jury and executioner on principle. Throw him in jail, take care of him as a ward of the state, let him die naturally. We have no business doing the business he does. We have no right to be that person that we condemn him for being. Yeah, our violence is a function of "justice" but, that's highly debatable as to whether it does anything what so ever. No, their opinion should not. They're emotionally shaken, battered, and undoubtedly in a dangerous mental state to be making decisions over another mans life, no matter that mans crimes. I don't think it's so obvious that they should have input. I don't see why they should. That's retribution, punishment, zealotry, bloodlust, everything we've made to be wrong things, but yet we're happy to do it to those who impinge on us. That's not a good sign for a source of justice if it can't keep it's hot headed, full tempered and emotionally broken from the rights of other people. [QUOTE]You're right, the justice system is meant to help members of society and keep them safe. It should be focused on rehabilitation when possible and meant to further society as a whole. This particular criminal has a worthless life that should be used to further society, by helping the remaining family members feel as good as possible so they can further society, since there is no other way for him to help society. Saying vengeance shouldn't ever be applied is obnoxious at best, yes vengeance shouldn't be used if for example someone stole your car and trashed it and you wanted life in prison for the perpetrator since that wont further society as he can obviously be rehabilitated, but in this particular case nothing can be done for perpetrator so vengeance should most certainly be applied if the family desires.[/QUOTE] People feeling good because someone else is dead hardly seems like a good thing for anyone in the society. The simple fact you feel that your anger, and personal hatred is enough to justify acts of vengeance shows that you have no concept of how dangerous that is and how anti just that is. The families desires and emotional state SHOULD NOT be applied to the case. You really need to back that statement up, but all you're going to do is give me overly emotional appeals to anguish and pain. And those just aren't good enough for anyones rights to be violated over. It makes you more like the men you condemn than you'll ever care to recognize. [QUOTE]What does this even mean. I don't think you are one to speak for the family at all, you have no idea what killing a murderer will do for that families pain. If they take solace in it that is helping their pain, yet nothing can relieve their pain according to you? Okay. And yes the same thing [I]could[/I] be done by not asking for blood, since the family consensus on what to do with the criminal might be to spare his life if that makes them feel better, but assuming that's what they want is putting words in their mouth. [/QUOTE] You have something backwards here son. I'm not putting any words in anyones mouth. I'm saying quite clearly that there feelings are irrelevant to the legal system and should be irrelevant. They have to greive and get through an emotional trauma. In that time period, they're not in the right state of mind to state accurately what they might want, and it doesn't really matter at all if they do want the guy dead. They have no right to that just because of their emotional trauma and anguish. Their rights were trodden on, we don't let them trod all over someone elses rights as retribution. That's not how legal systems and justice systems should work. [QUOTE]I find it [I]so[/I] difficult to see why people like to empathize more with the criminal rather than the victims, yes a human life is of course the most valuable thing in the world untarnished, yet you will decrease that value if you do things like say, I don't know, [I]murder 6 people in cold blood[/I]. Whatever worth you are putting on the criminal is a lost cause, and telling yourself at night you would be completely fine with having no say in what happens to the criminal if you lost 6 members of your family is very irresponsible.[/QUOTE] Do you really want to just insult me after have just appealed to emotion so you could wish death upon someone else as if you actually can take a moral high road while actively wishing death upon someone? Do you realize how much of a joke that is? I don't empathize with him. I feel terrible for those victims. I feel horrible for them. But I know that as emotionally detached from the issue as I am by geography and happenstance, I can't under good conscience say that emotional rage should be used in a case. Maybe i'm just not as blood lust driven as you, but I can't understand why you'd call out for the death of a man you don't know. Yeah, he did terrible things, let's make sure he can never do those things again. But by no means does that mean we need to use our anger, and our emotion to exact vengeance on him. You know what's irresponsible? Advocating that people who have JUST GONE THROUGH TRAUMA are responsible for someone elses life because through your logic, whatever decision they make is worth it for their emotional catharsis. Maybe I was raised differently from you, but I was raised to believe that the justice system was blind and did not take anger and emotion into account when it did it's job. That it was a concept above petty human emotions that we literally do kill each other over, and yet, here's you, advocating that the best thing to improve the justice system is to make it as hot tempered, as blood lust driven as humanely possible. [editline]10th July 2014[/editline] when I read shit like you just spewed, I can't help but fear that right here we have another person who can justify the death of people at the drop of a hat

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;45352542]if it could would altering somones mind to be someone different than who they are not be killing them?[/QUOTE] No? You're not saying therapy is akin to killing someone are you? What? There's more to a murderer than just their crimes. They've got hobbies and loved ones and opinions like everyone else. [QUOTE=supersoldier58;45352542]in my opinion his life isn't useful for much else.[/QUOTE] Everyone is going to have a different opinion as to what extent people deserve their rights. And your opinion is, because he can't be let into society to work and contribute, he should die?

Let's make him work 12-15 hours a day for the rest of his life to pay for the surviving girls' cost of living.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45352700]advocating that the best thing to improve the justice system is to make it as hot tempered, as blood lust driven as humanely possible.[/QUOTE] I find you grossly misunderstanding what I'm saying here, no I am not trying to make the justice system as "hot tempered and blood lust driven as humanely possible", I'm saying the justice system is meant to be a help to society in the best way it can. The best way it can here is to let the family have some say in what should be done to the criminal. The criminal can't be rehabilitated (I'm firm on my stance here, anyone who kills 6 people of his own family and tries to kill 3 more has something really wrong with him and I don't know if I would trust him out on the streets if he ever appeared to be "rehabilitated, but obviously he needs a psych evaluation), throwing him in jail and throwing away the key is so hilariously useless for any reason unless it's the families desire, and could be arguably as bad as the death sentence you are so clearly against. Can you give a really good reason as to why he should be kept around, when his life is of value so the family can decide to do with the person who caused them so much pain? Feelings should be used in the justice system [B]when applicable[/B], which is very, very rare like this very case. Since his life is worthless as of now, helping the feelings of the remaining family with it is the only way I can see he can be of help, which is what the justice system is meant to do, unless you have another idea? [QUOTE]when I read shit like you just spewed, I can't help but fear that right here we have another person who can justify the death of people at the drop of a hat[/QUOTE] You really think that killing 6 people and attempting murder of 2 others is "the drop of a hat". That is quite the understatement you have on your hands. [editline]10th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Rubs10;45352721]No? You're not saying therapy is akin to killing someone are you? What?[/QUOTE] I don't know if someone who kills 6 family members and attempts murder on 3 others has a mental issue that cannot be fixed by mental therapy. I was referring to the possibility of it only being fixed with more invasive treatments that we cannot preform today with our current technology, though this is stepping out side what the conversation is about. [QUOTE=Rubs10;45352721] There's more to a murderer than just their crimes. They've got hobbies and loved ones and opinions like everyone else. [/QUOTE] In this case murder and attempted murder was done to their loved ones, allowing a consensus decision by the victim members is actually more valid because of this.

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;45352821]I find you grossly misunderstanding what I'm saying here, no I am not trying to make the justice system as "hot tempered and blood lust driven as humanely possible", I'm saying the justice system is meant to be a help to society in the best way it can. The best way it can here is to let the family have some say in what should be done to the criminal. Can you give a really good reason as to why he should be kept around, when his life is of value so the family can decide to do with the person who caused them so much pain?[/QUOTE] No. I got that's what you meant. I disagree vehemently. I think what you want is what I said you want, to make a hot tempered emotional form of justice. Because that's what you're saying, even if you think you're saying something else. What if the family regrets their actions one day? What then? Too late, you killed a man, you've got blood on your hands forever now and for some reason, it's fine, it's sanctioned, it's all good. No, it's pretty abominable actually. Keep him around because like I said, we don't have a right to kill him unless we want to put ourselves in his shoes. Which you keep seeming to advocate. [QUOTE]Feelings should be used in the justice system [B]when applicable[/B], which is very, very rare like this very case. Since his life is worthless as of now, helping the feelings of the remaining family with it is the only way I can see he can be of help, which is what the justice system is meant to do, unless you have another idea?[/QUOTE] Why? I asked for your reasoning, and like I said, all you'd give me was overly emotional pandering. That's what you gave me. Thanks, you don't have an argument. Just emotions. His death being of help or not is stupid. They can recover from that event without bloodshed and if it really does require blood shed for them to ever feel okay again, that's too bad, we don't have any rights that entitle us to murder those who wrong us. [QUOTE]You really think that killing 6 people and attempting murder of 2 others is "the drop of a hat". That is quite the understatement you have on your hands.[/QUOTE] no. The "drop of the hat" bit is you justifying it over people being emotionally broken. Where is the line that this stops being okay to murder the killers for? Where's the line? How much? How little? You can't answer. You'll again, just give me some emotional crap. [editline]10th July 2014[/editline] What is "when applicable" if not the exact description of an arbitrary line [editline]10th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=supersoldier58;45352821] In this case murder and attempted murder was done to their loved ones, allowing a consensus decision by the victim members is actually more valid because of this.[/QUOTE] Rather than repeat this one point, can you give me some non emotional arguments as to why this is true

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;45352821]Since his life is worthless as of now, helping the feelings of the remaining family with it is the only way I can see he can be of help, which is what the justice system is meant to do, unless you have another idea?[/QUOTE] There are a lot of people without loved ones or friends, who are too crippled or weak to contribute to anything, and some of them only drain resources. If they were killed off today, they probably wouldn't be missed. How do they fit into this?

-snip im done arguing-

Oh well that's dignified of you

Yeah, this argument could go back and forth all night since clearly none of us wants to give up our stance, good chat though!

If you gave me arguments that hold water, I'd change my opinion in a heartbeat. Emotional arguments are not watertight though.

wow i've never seen empathy being used as a pro-prison-murder argument lol

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;45351137]I often wonder if the people who post these kind of posts have little to no empathy, if you put yourself in one of the families members or someone else close to the victims shoes who remain alive, would you not wish the same? I guess it's easier to take the moral high ground, not necessarily a bad thing though since you can make more rational decisions about what kind of crime the perpetrator should receive. Though in this case when such a heinous crime has been committed, it's clear rehabilitation is not an option so perhaps the people close to the family should have a better say in what happens to the criminal since he has forfeited most if not all of his rights and should receive what ever punishment they see fit, so long as it's not torture.[/QUOTE] I don't empathize with people in compromised emotional states. If you think I should empathize with the family right now, then why aren't you also empathizing with the murderer?

besides, empathizing with the family means you sure can understand if they'd WANT something to happen to this dude (which i can), but that just means you understand their feelings not that you'd indulge them