Sutcliffe launches legal challenge against 'die in jail' ruling.

[Ally]

People don' t need to make inference in what I write. If I think you are a liar, I'll call you a liar. What I think you are is smug. And I have said so. What I observed is Zodiac, making apologies for any offense her views might have caused, and you not bothering to respond except to make another sarcastic, mocking post to Dave.

I waited before I made my reply, assuming you were in the process of writing a reply to zodiac, but when I checked Who's online, found that you were in fact not doing so and made my reply, at which point, much later, you decide to respond to her.

I said you made light and you made mock, and doing so right after someone makes an aw-teary-apology is not what one expects from someone trumpeting his moral high ground and superior compassion. You ignored her post to take a jab at Dave. That is not a lie, that is exactly what you did.

Now you may say you were using the time to think of something to say to Zodiac and that's perfectly fine. But even I, who make absolutely no bones about not giving a rat's rear what anyone thinks and have no interest in professing compassion, realize that if you post something mocking after someone's deep teary post, you are going to look like a dick even if you are not responding directly to the person. So be prepared for the consequences when you go for the cheap dig rather than something more meaningful on a topic such as this.

[Fisherman]

Ally writes:

"That's irony."

Itīs slander and lies, Ally. Nothing else. But you seem quite content to debate at that level, for some reason.
I have clearly stated that I have no problem with others disagreeing with me. I do, however, have a lot of problems with people calling me names and inferring that I am not honest. It is no decent way to debate, and it is way below your normal standards, Ally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dawe writes:

"...to be irony ..."

Well, Dave, that was what it was. I think Ally caught on, at least.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Zodiac writes:

"As it has turned out, I think that, on the whole, I probably made the right descision to do it. It seems to have given everyone a chance to express their views, feelings and opinions both on Sutcliffe and on serial killers, rapists, paedophiles etc. in general."

Hi Zodiac! Out on these boards, you will find much knowledge, a good deal of compassion, bull-headed stubborness, humiliation, encouraging and a good deal more. It is anybodys choice to step forward and ask a question or state a wiew. It involves risks all the time, Iīm afraid, but it also offers great opportunities. If you feel you were right to step forward, I am happy for your sake.

"The only things I have been deeply hurt by has been your off hand treatment of Natalie, who had just taken a hugh step by speaking out for the victim, as a victim herself, and your egregious and repeated insistance on comparing the value of Sutcliffe's life with those of his victims. You have used Sonia's mother at least twice as part of your argument. Personally, I find this unforgivable without at least some kind of an apology."

I have never intended to treat Natalie in any off-hand manner. It became obvious to me through Claires post that I had somewhat misinterpreted Natalies posts, and I have stated that I am sorry for it. That stands.

I realize that you do not think that any comparison can be made inbetween the lives of Peter Sutcliffe and his victims, as well as those who have suffered from being friends of or related to those victims. Let me say that I have every form of respect for your stance on the matter, and let me add that I have had no intention to harm your feelings - or anybody elseīs for that matter - by speaking up for what I sincerely believe: that every human being, no matter what that human being has done, should be treated with some sort of dignity. I genuinely believe that it is in the best interest of everyone. If we were to throw Sutcliffe to the dogs, we would not be acting as humans, but instead we would have taken one step along the road he himself walked.
So, Zodiac, my stance is not something that makes Sutcliffe an equal of the rest of us. It is instead a precaution to stop the rest of us from becoming more like him. It is rewarding bestialism with something else than bestialism, and believing that we are a lot better off by it.

In conclusion, I have no intention of comparing Sutcliffe to the rest of us. If I had had such an intention, I would not have demanded that he stays in jail and dies there, would I? If I have come across as if I did see Sutcliffe as an equal, and if I have thus hurt you, then you have my sincere apologies for it.

This reasoning of course also stretches to my words on Wilma McCann. I have never intended to slight her or her relatives in any way. Why would I? She was subjected to something that nobody should be subjected to, is something that many people would say, me included. And that, exactly that, is why I also say that harming Peter Sutcliffe or killing him, would be to subject him too to something nobody should be subjected to. I can see no good coming from such an action.
That is not to say that I somehow put the two on an equal basis - but it is to say that just as what happened to Wilma McCann was an evil thing, so it would be evil to harm Sutcliffe. He is perhaps a thousand times more deserving to die than Wilma McCann was, but a thousand times is not enough to justify violence on his or anybody elses behalf in my point of wiew.
If this offends you, I am sorry, and I apologize to you for it, Zodiac.

The best,
Fisherman

[protohistorian]

Fisherman to be irony you would have had to establish a logical argument for the maintenance of life over execution. You have yet to do this. Every time we get close you revert to the emotional argument of "it makes us savages". You cannot rhetorically counterpoint a non existant feature. Dave

[Ally]

You know what's ironic? The fact that the actual victims of violence or those on this thread who have been personally affected by Sutcliffe himself are tripping all over themselves apologizing for any unintended offense caused by the airing of their views, while the Captain of the Compassion Brigade sails aloft on his smug platform of holier-than-thou consideration for others, so convinced in the superiority of his opinion that he cares not a whit for the offense he may have caused in the airing of it, making light and making mock.

That's irony.

[Fisherman]

Dave writes:

"I do believe Fisherman hit the nail on the head in post 98. He admits his position is illogical and irrational."

Irony, Dave. I-r-o-n-y. Thatīs how it is spelt. Sometimes it swooshes by the noses of people undetected.

The best,
Fisherman

[Zodiac]

Dear Fisherman,

As I am the person who began this thread I do feel a certain responsibility for how it has panned out. I can assure you that I did not post the news of Sutcliffe's latest maneuverings out of any intent to raise a lynch mob! Nor did I want it to become some sort of referendum on capital punishment, it was really about the feelings of the victims and their loved ones, a subject that all too often gets forgotten about. I had never started a thread on casebook before and I was unsure as to whether or not I should do so now, as this is something that is very personal to me and I realised that I could end up getting hurt quite badly. As it has turned out, I think that, on the whole, I probably made the right descision to do it. It seems to have given everyone a chance to express their views, feelings and opinions both on Sutcliffe and on serial killers, rapists, paedophiles etc. in general.

It also had the unexpected result of allowing another poster to feel able to speak out about her own childhood experience, the trauma of it, the anger and the hurt and how the victim, while doing their level best to get on with life and trying their very hardest to present a normal front to the rest of the world, never really fully recovers. The nightmares and the flashbacks, the breakdowns and dark thoughts of suicide, may lessen over long years, but finding that, yet again, he is trying to get out, brings it all back to the fore again. He does this kind of thing every so often, he plays the media, he knows what effect it has on us. Sonia's death in 2007 may be listed as suicide, but Sutcliffe killed her every bit as much as he did her mum.


I suppose I should have known that it was inevitible that a thread about the feelings of victims would end up morphing into a debate on the rights and dignity of the murderer and the pros and cons of the death penalty! But again, to try be positive about it, it has given all sides of the debate a chance to air the views and express their feelings and yes, everyone is fully entitled to their own opinion and their right to have it heard. I hope that you feel that you have been able to do this yourself. One of the most encouraging things that I have noticed about this debate is that everybody, whatever their opinions or politics and whatever their own stance on capital punishment, has managed to debate the subject without causing additional grief to the victims. With one exception. The only things I have been deeply hurt by has been your off hand treatment of Natalie, who had just taken a hugh step by speaking out for the victim, as a victim herself, and your egregious and repeated insistance on comparing the value of Sutcliffe's life with those of his victims. You have used Sonia's mother at least twice as part of your argument. Personally, I find this unforgivable without at least some kind of an apology.

You mention in your post #95 that your original reason for posting was that, "I was upset by the views that first came to light on this thread. Some of them would be enough to make most people afraid of the dark." In my own post #43 I wrote the following, "I hope I have not offended anyone with my post, that was not my intention but I appologize if I have done so anyway." I realise that this was a general appology to anybody that I had unintionally offended, so I will now appologize to you in person.

Fisherman, I would like to appologize for anything that I have said in the course of this thread that has caused you any upset or hurt, that was not my intention, but as that doesn't make the hurt anyless real or less upsetting, I feel that it still merits my appology. Once again I am very sorry and I appologize.

Zodiac.

P.S. I would like to thank all of you who have given me your support and encouragement over the past few days, it is appreciated more than I could ever say. Thank you so much.

[protohistorian]

I do believe Fisherman hit the nail on the head in post 98. He admits his position is illogical and irrational. While I realize some feel modern states are this way already, do we really want them to pursue that as a goal? Dave

[Natalie Severn]

Hey,this has begun to sound like a Carry on Film starring Hitler"s Henchmen !

[Ally]

Exactly.

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"The world is already almost entirely devoid of logic and that is why it is in the crappy state it's in. The welfare states, while greatly "advanced" in humanity and compassion are entirely lacking in production--and one day, the producers will get tired of carrying the weight of the rest of the world or their backs will simply give out. At the point, the great welfare states will crumble under their own inertia and the weight of their bloat."

Never mind, Ally - we can always start executing people again, and weīll be on our way to a brighter new world.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

Indeed they have not, Ally. Nor do we have a duty to feed the ones who die of famin every day.

The difference being, I can choose or not choose to feed and shelter those of famine in foreign countries or my own. The state takes my taxes and penalizes me if I fail to provide them and therefore, I choose to live in a state where killers are faced with execution for their crimes. People who support the death penalty who live in socialist collectives, don't have that option.

Who knows, maybe the world of tomorrow will be completely void of your logic, Ally?

The world is already almost entirely devoid of logic and that is why it is in the crappy state it's in. The welfare states, while greatly "advanced" in humanity and compassion are entirely lacking in production--and one day, the producers will get tired of carrying the weight of the rest of the world or their backs will simply give out. At the point, the great welfare states will crumble under their own inertia and the weight of their bloat.

[Fisherman]

Ally:

"People do not have a duty to feed and shelter someone who would murder them."

Indeed they have not, Ally. Nor do we have a duty to feed the ones who die of famin every day. When we choose to do so, in spite of the fact that no duty is at hand, we do so from compassion. Irrational, illogical compassion - we would have been better off privately saving that money.

We make choices, quite simply. And different people make different choices for different reasons. When the day arrives where we only spare peoples lives for logical reasons, we have lowered ourselves to the level of animals.

In Jackīs day, the death penalty was obligatory in the countries of the world. Today, 52 per cent of the worlds population is in favour of it, a figure that has been shrinking throughout, and very few developed countries use it. Who knows, maybe the world of tomorrow will be completely void of your logic, Ally?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

lex talionis

Hello Ally. I am delighted to see capital punishment being discussed in this thread. Since I have just finished this topic with my ethics students, permit a couple of observations.

First, there are 2 main theories for allowing capital punishment.

1. the doctrine of deterrence
2. the doctrine of lex talionis

As I understand your arguments, you adopt #2. The doctrine of lex talionis is often used by deontological ethicists and, as such, is not concerned with any consequences (for example, deterrence). A perfect example of this approach is found in the writings of Immanuel Kant. This doctrine is logically unassailable--given that one adopts the Kantian paradigm for ethics. (By the way, if you should peruse Kant, i think you will be pleasantly surprised.)

Second, you are right to distinguish murder from killing. I notice, however, that you've not defined these notions. Permit me.

Killing =df. "The taking of life (esp. human)."

Murder =df. "The unjust taking of human life."

For those interested in Kant's ethical writings, may I recommend his "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals."

I hope this adds to the discussion.

Cheers.
LC