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

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;143327]

...but you just could not let it rest like that, could you? So okay, Iīll offer my own end to the discussion:

Oh my mistake, I thought your end to the discussion was the several long paragraphs preceding your request to agree to disagree.

Logically, a bumble bee cannot fly since itīs construction will not allow for it, according to the Chalmers High School of Technics, Gothenburg. Luckily, nobody told the bumble bee about it.

The often quoted, completely inaccurate, bumblebee myth. Proof that for the rational mind, logic, not rumor and belief always wins out.

[Fisherman]

Natalie:

"from what personal experience of such attacks do you speak? Do you feel somehow that your opinion is superior to those who have suffered at the hands of rapists and murderes? Do you feel you know better than them?"

What I feel, Natalie, is that I am entitled to an opinion even without ever having been subjected to the kind of violence you speak of myself. What I also feel is that you are trying to set a scale here, where those who have been beaten up or raped always have the upper hand in the topic we are discussing, due to their experiences. I also think that you are aiming to prove that point by calling me insensitive, somehow making it look like I side with the Sutcliffes of this world.
I donīt.
On the contrary - in this discussion, I am probably the person that is most opposed to violence of all kinds.

I was once a boxer. I was always a big guy, and I inherited my fathers strength. He once moved a car that had parked him in, by lifting the car onto the pavement. And so I came up with the idea that I would probably be able to beat most people up, should I want to. And yes, I had a talent for flooring the other guys, but it did not make me happy, and so I put my boxing gloves on the shelf. I actually found them there this very year, fragile and mouldy, and I threw them away, some thirty-five years after having used them the last time. Today I am a pacifist, and have been for many a year, due to the fact that I resent violence.

So, you see, the actions of Sutcliffe and his likes are something that I distinctly dislike. But I equally dislike any reaction to it that focuses on inflicting violence on Sutcliffe. And that includes what has been called a "clean death" on these boards. Contrary to what you are suggesting, I am not saying that I have some sort of right to judge who may think what about Sutcliffe, nor am I judging those who harbour a wish to get back at him for what he has done to them or their near ones. I am only saying that I myself believe that harming or killing Sutcliffe would be just about the worst way to handle the matter. I remain convinced that he must be kept away from society, but to ensure this by killing him is - to my mind - not the best way to go about it.

To you, Natalie, as well as to Ally, who speaks so much of rationality and logic, I will say that there is a very obvious logical flaw in the sentence "When we have killed all the killers in the world, there will be no killers left".

This is where I stand, and this is where I will remain standing. And just as this thread started out with people speaking about how Sutcliffe deserved whatever form of violence that he had coming to him, I believe I have the right to stand up and speak for my wiew.

The best,
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Fisherman,thankyou for your reply.I just want it to be clear that while I totally accept that you are entitled to your opinion,I do not accept that you are entitled to speak for me about what happened to me or tell Zodiac how he should feel about what happened to him or how a person should respond to an atrocity that happened to them.
Do you feel you can speak on behalf of the women who went in their droves on "Reclaim the Night " marches when Sutcliffe was terrorizing their district with his murders and tell them that they shouldn"t have felt the emotions they did when they were feeling terrorized? Do you feel you are entitled to speak on behalf of Lesley Ann Downey"s mother whose life was shattered and has been scarred forever by what happened to her daughter ? Or for any of the relatives ,for that matter ,of the victims of Hindley and Brady,or Huntley or Sutcliffe ?
Its a question of respecting a person"s entitlement to reclaim their power and their right to protest, anger, assertiveness etc.Why is anger considered to be somehow a wrong response to their various ordeals ?Who says so?

[Natalie Severn]

Here isa link Fisherman,that may help you understand my point about Sutcliffe and his legacy:http://womensgrid.freecharity.org.uk/?p=3789

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Natalie. I am well read up on Sutcliffe, but I will have a look at your link just the same!
Once again, in answer to your earlier post: Just as you yourself can only speak for yourself, the same thing applies to me. And much as I do not want to upset anybody, speaking my mind on these issues is something I must be allowed to do. The original reason for my doing so, Natalie, was that I was upset by the wiews that first came to light on this thread. Some of them would be enough to make most people afraid of the dark.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

To you, Natalie, as well as to Ally, who speaks so much of rationality and logic, I will say that there is a very obvious logical flaw in the sentence "When we have killed all the killers in the world, there will be no killers left".

Of course there is a logical flaw in that sentence which is why no rational person would use it, and indeed I have not. I prefer "when we have killed all the murderers in the world, we can use the resources wasted on them to improve the lives of others, who are not murdering scumbags."

This is where I stand, and this is where I will remain standing. And just as this thread started out with people speaking about how Sutcliffe deserved whatever form of violence that he had coming to him, I believe I have the right to stand up and speak for my wiew.

You absolutely have the right to speak your view. Just like I have the right to say that any opinion based on emotion and feeling rather than logic and reason is of no value for the purposes of debate.

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

[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

[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

[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:

"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]

Exactly.

[Natalie Severn]

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

[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

[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.

[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