PDA

View Full Version : Cannibalism in Czech Republic


TriggerGod
07-13-2008, 08:16 PM
A BOY of seven was kept chained in a cellar by his cannibal family — as they ATE parts of him.
Sobbing Ondrej Mauerova was rescued alive when a neighbour’s TV picked up footage from a camera filming his agony.
He had been partially skinned after monstrous mum Klara, 31, caged him for months while relatives who were also in a sick cult feasted on his raw flesh, an appalled judge heard yesterday.
The mum wept in a Czech court as her evil was exposed in a case echoing the Fritzl dungeon horror in Austria.
Ondrej and his helpless brother Jakub, nine, were kept in cages or handcuffed to tables as they were ritually TORTURED, BURNT and WHIPPED with belts.

Naked


Their life of hell only ended when a neighbour in the city of Brno bought a CCTV baby monitor.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00511/paedoembed_511904a.jpgHorror ... Ondrej, far right, brother Jakub, their 'sister' - and mum


Instead of pictures of his newborn he was confronted by live images of Ondrej naked in the cellar — beaten and chained.
Cops swooped on the house next door and also freed a girl posing as an adopted sister aged 13 and clutching a teddy.
She later turned out to be 34 — and one of the torturers. The boys’ mum accused the woman — fellow cult member Barbora Skrlova — of brainwashing her. She wailed: "Terrible things have happened. I realise it and can’t understand how I could have allowed it."
The court in her home city heard the abuse of her children was co-ordinated via text messages sent by a leader of the Grail Movement cult — who was known only as the "Doctor".
Her sister Katerina was also involved.
The abuse trial of the boys’ mum, another relative and their bogus sister Skrlova — who fled and was later found posing as a boy in Norway — continues.
Three others also face charges.
Source (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1314511.ece)
:disaprove

Arcesious
07-13-2008, 08:36 PM
That's horrible! I don't really know what to say... It's just... horrible.

Ctrl Alt Del
07-13-2008, 08:44 PM
The capacity of humanity to make me throw up must be one of the few things that impress me at today age.

Litofsky
07-13-2008, 08:50 PM
Cannibalism to survive is one thing (if I'm on a remote island with no other source of food, and your dead body is lying there, I'm going to eat it. No offense intended), but when a family chains up a child to eat his flesh, that just sickens me.

:disaprove

TriggerGod
07-13-2008, 08:52 PM
Cannibalism to survive is one thing (if I'm on a remote island with no other source of food, and your dead body is lying there, I'm going to eat it. No offense intended), but when a family chains up a child to eat his flesh, that just sickens me.

:disaprove

And when a 34 year old poses as a 14-something year old just to do that, almost makes America seem like an excellent role-model.

Web Rider
07-13-2008, 09:41 PM
that's really....really disturbing. And they'll probably get some rather weak punishment knowing the German prison system. And the guy in charge will probably get off even lighter.

Faith in humanity, -10

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-13-2008, 09:56 PM
Faith in humanitylol

Burnseyy
07-13-2008, 10:00 PM
im speechless. :|
that's just disgusting.
i hope they get locked away for ever.

EnderWiggin
07-14-2008, 01:44 PM
And they'll probably get some rather weak punishment knowing the German prison system.
What's this about Germany and Austria?

This happened in the Czech Republic, guys.

And yes, it's abominable.

_EW_

Gargoyle King
07-14-2008, 02:14 PM
Wow the world really is going down the pan, I should know what living in "Broken Britain" and all.................

Marius Fett
07-14-2008, 05:19 PM
"Broken Britain"

That's putting it lightly...

This country has gone to the dogs...

Especially since Brown became PM...

TriggerGod
07-14-2008, 05:36 PM
That's putting it lightly...

This country has gone to the 3 headed dogs of He**...

Especially since Brown became PM...

Fixed
Brown's just screwing everything up. How he became PM is a mystery to me.

Rev7
07-14-2008, 05:47 PM
Disgusting. Utterly disgusting....

Burnseyy
07-14-2008, 09:21 PM
That's putting it lightly...

This country has gone to the dogs...

Especially since Brown became PM...


too true.

mur'phon
07-15-2008, 04:13 PM
"Broken Britain"

*Looks at Britain*
*Looks at world*
*Laughs*

jonathan7
07-15-2008, 04:41 PM
:disaprove

This is both evil and despicable.

A better source than the Sun (which isn't a Newspaper; it's just a gossip mag with soft core images...)...

The Independent; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chance-discovery-of-abused-child-reveals-bizarre-czech-grail-cult-451364.html

People may wish to notice that the Independents article is a lot less sensationalist ;)

Fredi
07-15-2008, 09:45 PM
Horrible ...

Rabish Bini
07-16-2008, 12:18 AM
Raw flesh?

It really makes you wonder what crosses some peoples minds.
Hope they get locked up for a fair while, like, over 20 yrs.

EnderWiggin
07-16-2008, 09:46 AM
Raw flesh?

It really makes you wonder what crosses some peoples minds.
Hope they get locked up for a fair while, like, over 20 yrs.

How about, like, for the rest of their miserable lives?

_EW_

Jae Onasi
07-16-2008, 12:39 PM
Lock them up forever. What a horrible thing to do to any person, but especially a child.

Inyri
07-16-2008, 12:42 PM
My my, can't we at least kill our food first? I thought humans were supposed to be civilized!

Gargoyle King
07-16-2008, 01:29 PM
Fixed
Brown's just screwing everything up. How he became PM is a mystery to me.Blair's poodle, as Blair was Bush's poodle, they all follow each other around.*Looks at Britain*
*Looks at world*
*Laughs*Well of course our quarrels seem small in comparison, what with communist death squads in China, Iran apparently funding the Taliban war effort, Mugabe etc. etc.
but regardless Britain is rapidly going downhill.

El Sitherino
07-16-2008, 01:32 PM
As it's apparent I need to make this post;

Everyone here please keep in mind that while you are free to discuss your opinions and feelings on a matter, statements made that clearly disregard tact and integrity will be removed. Yes, you are free to speak as you wish, however there are particular lines of worth and value that must be kept in mind.

Thank you, have a less than terrible day.

mimartin
07-16-2008, 03:33 PM
Truly sick and disgusting. I don’t know what shocked me more that people would eat people as some type of cult ritual or that a mother would do this to her own child.
How about, like, for the rest of their miserable lives? Lock them up forever. What a horrible thing to do to any person, but especially a child. Agreed, but it is not a worthy punishment for anyone that would commit such acts. I say lock the three up in a room with no food and only one knife in it, when they get down to one remaining cannibal then start feeding again. Just make sure it is a vegetarian diet only.

Inyri
07-16-2008, 03:36 PM
I say lock the three up in a room with no food and only one knife in it, when they get down to one remaining cannibal then start feeding again. Just make sure it is a vegetarian diet only.If you just agreed with Jae that is a horrible thing to do to any person, why would you encourage it to be their punishment?

mimartin
07-16-2008, 03:48 PM
If you just agreed with Jae that is a horrible thing to do to any person, why would you encourage it to be their punishment?It must be acceptable to them or they would not have done it to another human being. After all, how we define cruel and unusual is different for each of us. Yes, I do consider this cruel and unusual, but they obliviously do not consider it cruel or usual.

EnderWiggin
07-16-2008, 03:52 PM
It must be acceptable to them or they would not have done it to another human being. After all, how we define cruel and unusual is different for each of us. Yes, I do consider this cruel and unusual, but they obliviously do not consider it cruel or usual.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

_EW_

El Sitherino
07-16-2008, 03:52 PM
It must be acceptable to them or they would not have done it to another human being. After all, how we define cruel and unusual is different for each of us. Yes, I do consider this cruel and unusual, but they obliviously do not consider it cruel or usual.

True, however philosophically what you had stated is incorrect and wrong.

Either you agree it's acceptable on any level, or you don't. You can't justify your poor choice of words with their mental instability. I think I should be able to shoot someone with a tranquilizer dart if they cut me off. However that's a safety risk, therefore it shouldn't be that it happens to me either as a punishment.

mimartin
07-16-2008, 04:09 PM
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
More absurd than a mother cutting body parts off her own son and eating it?
Either you agree it's acceptable on any level, or you don't. I really don't think it is acceptable, but neither is what they did to a child and there is no punishment that fits this crime.

jonathan7
07-16-2008, 04:13 PM
Can I please point this out...

Nowhere in the Independents article I linked too is cannibalism mentioned as the form of abuse. However the sensationalist, childish, idiotic, (I don't think words can express how much I hate) the Sun - article claims the cannibalism... I do not trust the Sun, in fact I would go so far as saying people who read the Sun should not be allowed near any academic institution ever! And indeed I would more likely trust the Iranian Ministry for propoganda than anything ever published in the Sun.

Inyri
07-16-2008, 04:14 PM
More absurd than a mother cutting body parts off her own son and eating it?It's not that absurd. As a civilized people we find it atrocious, but 'parents' eat their 'children' in nature as well. Of course they don't typically chain them up and eat them bit by bit, but we have to make some concessions since supposedly we're 'smarter' than animals.

Don't be kidding yourself, though. Just because it's a horrible thing to do doesn't mean they deserve to be punished in an inhumane way. Remember -- violence begets violence. If you want them to eat each other when you already said it's a horrendous crime then you're really no better than they are.
I really don't think it is acceptable, but neither is what they did to a child and there is no punishment that fits this crime.Read above. It's either wrong or it's not wrong. It can't wrong for them to do it but okay for it to be done to them because they did it first. You need to decide which it is.

I do not trust the Sun, in fact I would go so far as saying people who read the Sun should not be allowed near any academic institution ever!When I read it my first instinct was it was a fabrication. That's not exactly high-level professional writing right there. :p

El Sitherino
07-16-2008, 04:22 PM
More absurd than a mother cutting body parts off her own son and eating it?
I really don't think it is acceptable, but neither is what they did to a child and there is no punishment that fits this crime.

Clearly you do not understand the pain and suffering the human mind is capable of conjuring. I think you need to take a bit of course study in Psychology.

Find these peoples weaknesses and you can make them beg for death within 5 minutes. Don't give it to them and they'll suffer more than the child ever did.

mimartin
07-16-2008, 04:58 PM
It's not that absurd. Maybe not to you, but to whom the question was direct at, EnderWiggin, he said it was the most absurd thing he ever heard.
Remember -- violence begets violence. If you want them to eat each other when you already said it's a horrendous crime then you're really no better than they are. Yes, and turn the other cheek gets that one slapped too. Some people only understand violence. I never said I was better or worse than anyone else and I don’t consider myself better than these people or anyone else. I have my morals code and I don’t violate that code and I don’t judge others by my moral code. I do however, believe children should not have to worry about becoming someone dinner and I believe in punishing anyone that would harm a child severely.
Read above. It's either wrong or it's not wrong. It can't wrong for them to do it but okay for it to be done to them because they did it first. You need to decide which it is. I already said that it would be unacceptable. What more do you want? I still think the punishment should fit the crime, but there is no punishment to fit this crime.
Clearly you do not understand the pain and suffering the human mind is capable of conjuring. I think you need to take a bit of course study in Psychology.

Find these peoples weaknesses and you can make them beg for death within 5 minutes. Don't give it to them and they'll suffer more than the child ever did.I guess I should have continued in Psychology because in Basic Psychology and Child Psychology we did not learn that. Although in the second level of Psychology I took at University of Houston-Clear Lake the professor did kill his stepfather with a claw hammer during winter break. That kind of killed my appetite to continue in that field of study and I went into accounting and finance instead.

Wouldn’t what you are proposing still be considered cruel and/or unusual?

make note never to upset El Sitherino nor to tell him where I live.

EnderWiggin
07-16-2008, 05:00 PM
As scary as that is, what Sithy said is completely true.

@mimartin - yes, having them be eaten because they ate someone is more absurd than the eating in the first place. And I spoke using a superlative because it had more of an effect.

_EW_

El Sitherino
07-16-2008, 05:19 PM
Wouldn’t what you are proposing still be considered cruel and/or unusual?



That depends if you consider the manifestation of ones own thoughts causing torturous pain, unusual. For some it's their everyday depression.

mimartin
07-16-2008, 06:40 PM
That depends if you consider the manifestation of ones own thoughts causing torturous pain, unusual. For some it's their everyday depression.
Sounds like you've watched too many 1980's movies. If I did not know better I would have thought you were describing a 1984 movie starring Dennis Quaid called “Dreamscape.”
http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/Dreamscape%20poster%201.jpg

Samuel Dravis
07-16-2008, 08:35 PM
I already said that it would be unacceptable. What more do you want? I still think the punishment should fit the crime, but there is no punishment to fit this crime.Then I suppose we should stop thinking in terms of punishment and start thinking in terms of societal protection, shouldn't we? And in that context, it is very easy to think up things that would protect people in the future from monstrosities like this family. I say: put them in jail until they're no longer a threat to anyone.

mimartin
07-16-2008, 09:22 PM
Then I suppose we should stop thinking in terms of punishment and start thinking in terms of societal protection, shouldn't we? Agreed.

And in that context, it is very easy to think up things that would protect people in the future from monstrosities like this family. I agree, but I really don't see how the government can protect a child from his/her own parent. To me that is more a job falls upon us all. Just like in the story, the neighbors are the ones that called the police and it is up to everyone to pay attention to what is happing around us, especially when it involves children. That boy owes his life to neighbors that were willing to get involved after they happened to see his tortured body on the monitor. I’m thankful that they did not turn a blind eye to such abuse just so they did not have to complicate their life anymore than it already is.

El Sitherino
07-16-2008, 09:29 PM
Raise your kids right, instill true family value (love for your family, not the other **** they pass off as family value) and compassion for others.

Problem is everyone wants to hate somebody, make a human enemy. Make the enemy a poor choice, a poor sense of life; hate.

Rabish Bini
07-17-2008, 01:27 AM
How about, like, for the rest of their miserable lives?

_EW_


Yeah, down here in Aus you can't really get locked up much longer than 20 yrs...

EnderWiggin
07-17-2008, 01:39 AM
Yeah, down here in Aus you can't really get locked up much longer than 20 yrs...

Then your system is wrong :xp:

_EW_

Arcesious
07-17-2008, 02:06 AM
I shouldn't first be a measure of years- it should be a judgement of how rehabitation for a second chance can be done, and, if not the first time committing a crime on such a level, how much longer the person(s) should serve time in jail/what the higher punishment should be.

Rev7
07-17-2008, 02:55 AM
I shouldn't first be a measure of years- it should be a judgement of how rehabitation for a second chance can be done, and, if not the first time committing a crime on such a level, how much longer the person(s) should serve time in jail/what the higher punishment should be.
Do you not believe in punishment though?

Totenkopf
07-17-2008, 03:06 AM
Yeah, down here in Aus you can't really get locked up much longer than 20 yrs...

Funny thing here is that a "life sentence" really ~=20 years, so perps will often get multiple life sentences to keep them locked up till old age or death.

@Arc--second chances are all nice and fine, but prison is for punishment. If you manage to rehab an inmate prior to release, wonderful/bonus.

mur'phon
07-17-2008, 08:44 AM
Rev7: I can't speak for Arc, but to me the reason to punish criminals is A: to prevent them from reoffending, and B: to scare others from comitting a crime.
I have a very hard time imagining a criminal thinking "well, if I get caught it's only 20 years, but if it had been life, I wouldn't do it". So I don't really see a point in keeping people locked up for longer, unless there is a significant chance of them reoffending.

jonathan7
07-17-2008, 08:55 AM
Rev7: I can't speak for Arc, but to me the reason to punish criminals is A: to prevent them from reoffending, and B: to scare others from comitting a crime.
I have a very hard time imagining a criminal thinking "well, if I get caught it's only 20 years, but if it had been life, I wouldn't do it". So I don't really see a point in keeping people locked up for longer, unless there is a significant chance of them reoffending.

I'd add a 'C' to that as well; the protection of society - some parts of the prison population have extremely high re-offending rates (Serial Killers and Paedophiles); so they should be locked up for the rest of their lives for societies safety - even if some are reformed; is it really worth the risk letting them out?

True_Avery
07-17-2008, 09:27 AM
(Ok, I'm about to make a few very radical generalizations and comments. This is me trying to be objective on this subject, and something like that can get out of line very quickly. Subjective views have been shown already, so I might as well throw in something else.)

There is Punishment or Rehab.

Ok, Punishment. We are very punishment oriented beings. We like to see things suffer, and then we justify that suffering. Some do it through psychotic tendencies. Some do it because they want to see someone punished for a crime. The list goes on practically forever.

All in all, humans need to hate -something-. The man who beats his children yearns for the some suffering dose as the man who wants someone to sit in a jail cell the rest of their life. If not that, they place their hate towards a co-worker, boss, job, lifestyle, etc.

But why punishment via Jail/Prison time?

Guy rapes a child. Ok. We got a crime. Put him away for the rest of his life you say?

Why?

Wouldn't it just save tax payer money and Prison space to just kill the guy? Kill him. You are paying for his living conditions. You are paying for his meal. Paying for his mattress. Paying for the steel that keeps him in there.

If you hate the guy so much, why on earth are you paying to keep him alive? Freaking kill the guy.

This whole "Make him suffer like he made his victim suffer" thing makes you just as bad as the criminal. You just have the luxury of fulfilling your suffer dose on the other side of the bars, and in a legal way.

A: to prevent them from reoffending, and B: to scare others from comitting a crime.
From the United State's stats on prisons, it doesn't seem to be working. You could take all those life inmates, line them up, and gas them.

That would scare people away from doing a "crime".

As you said, 20 years is about as long as you need. If they are just going to keep going, why keep them around in the first place?

@Arc--second chances are all nice and fine, but prison is for punishment.
Couldn't death make just as easy a life sentence? Why make them feel bad for what they have done when it benefits absolutely nobody?

Making him cry and apologize to the family of the kid he murdered wont fix a thing. Sure, it makes the family feel better...

So you've essentially been paying for his cell in the hopes that he will one day cry in front of the parents of the kid he killed.

Ok, he cried... What was achieved? Was it worth the money, or was he just better off dead?

I'd add a 'C' to that as well; the protection of society - some parts of the prison population have extremely high re-offending rates (Serial Killers and Paedophiles); so they should be locked up for the rest of their lives for societies safety - even if some are reformed; is it really worth the risk letting them out?
Let them out?

Why put them behind bars in the first place? If they have proven they are a danger to society, why not just get rid of them entirely?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, then you get into rehab.

Rehab isn't punishment per say. It is an attempt to fix.

Sitting in a cell is not a good fixer upper. It might get you going, but Rehab can get you help.

Why not have a Capital Rehab system instead of a Capital Punishment system?

If you are going to pay for them to sit in the cell, why not actually fix them as well instead of fulfilling your addiction to human suffering?

And, if you honestly think they cannot be fixed, why are you allowing them to live in the first place?

Or, do you just prefer your legalized revenge?

If you are in it to see them suffer, don't think you are any better than they are. In this society, your suffering fix just happens to be legal. Theirs is not.

jonathan7
07-17-2008, 09:43 AM
Why put them behind bars in the first place? If they have proven they are a danger to society, why not just get rid of them entirely?

I'm not in this discussion for revenge, or wanting to see anyone suffer. Prison is there as a punishment, something to scare people into not committing crime and to keep those dangerous to society for harming others as well as themselves. Justice cannot bring itself down to be about hatred or revenge, else it is not justice, it is something else entirely.

Why do I disagree with capital punishment?

Because;
a) What happens if you have capital punishment and kill an innocent man? I don't think a dead man is too bothered about being declared innocent.
b) I find it highly illogical to kill someone who is guilty of murder.
c) The state should set an example - thus if it doesn't want it's citizens to murder one another it should not murder it's citizens either.
(and to quickly answer an objection, I can foresee) d) Criminals locked up in prison should be financially viable; that is to say if we assume a criminal costs x amount - they should somehow with in the confines of the prison do something towards their upkeep.

With regards Rehab; it has been proven that group rehab of serial killers has only made them more effective at serial killing. As such rehab in their case has proven to be pointless.

Emperor Devon
07-17-2008, 09:52 AM
Wouldn't it just save tax payer money and Prison space to just kill the guy? Kill him. You are paying for his living conditions. You are paying for his meal. Paying for his mattress. Paying for the steel that keeps him in there.

Ends don't justify the means. Any measure of punishment beyond what's required to keep society safe from criminals (and serve as a deterrent to other criminals) is pointlessly cruel, even if it saves money for us.

(Whether it actually costs less money to kill them or not is debatable, but as I'm too lazy to provide any links and haven't even provided an argument don't feel like you have to respond me on that count.)

Why not have a Capital Rehab system instead of a Capital Punishment system?

Depends on the odds of any attempt at rehabilitation actually rehabilitating them. And whether the benefits of that outweigh the potential harm they could cause if they don't end up being rehabilitated.

True_Avery
07-17-2008, 10:10 AM
(I'm about to make a few very radical generalizations and comments. This is me trying to be objective on this subject, and something like that can get out of line very quickly. Subjective views have been shown already, so I might as well throw in something else.)
Ends don't justify the means.
That is a subjective point of view.

If an End has been met, then the means have automatically been justified.
If the means were not justified, then the End will have never been met.

The saying contradicts itself.

Any measure of punishment beyond what's required to keep society safe from criminals (and serve as a deterrent to other criminals) is pointlessly cruel, even if it saves money for us.
Cruelty is as subjective as "Ends don't justify the means". If the End has been met, then the means have been justified.

Money has been saved, space has been saved, and you have a commonly used control device: Fear.

a) What happens if you have capital punishment and kill an innocent man? I don't think a dead man is too bothered about being declared innocent.
This is, of course, assuming that the person in question is without hope, and proven, without a doubt, to be guilty.

Also, nowadays the margin of error, for going in in-mates, is roughly 1% from the last time I checked. I'll double check that and someone is welcome to link me a statistic.

b) I find it highly illogical to kill someone who is guilty of murder.
So, lock them away forever?

If a car breaks and it looks, without a doubt, incapable of repair, why not sell it to the scrapyard?

Why keep a broken car in your garage?

As you have stated in your post, the car cannot be fixed because it just makes it crash with a bigger boom.

You are essentially keeping an item with you that is taking up space.

d) Criminals locked up in prison should be financially viable; that is to say if we assume a criminal costs x amount - they should somehow with in the confines of the prison do something towards their upkeep
Considering that a good percentage of those sitting in prison are from the poverty and low class, they are in no financial state to pay for their own room.

That added to the damages they may have had to pay the family, and the expensive lawyer.

But, I could agree with you on your notion of having them work their due. currently, however, inmates spend the better part of 16 hours in the prison cell doing just about nothing but thinking.

Depends on the odds of any attempt at rehabilitation actually rehabilitating them. And whether the benefits of that outweigh any potential harm they could cause if they don't end up being rehabilitated.
Ok, then why not just get rid of them?

If the car cannot be fixed, why are you keeping it around? For memories sake? To keep in you front yard to scare the kids from speeding?

It is obvious it will never drive again. Except this time, the dead car is sitting on government property and the grass it is staining just happens to be paid by the taxpayers.

With regards Rehab; it has been proven that group rehab of serial killers has only made them more effective at serial killing. As such rehab in their case has proven to be pointless.
Ok, so the point of having them around?

The state should set an example - thus if it doesn't want it's citizens to murder one another it should not murder it's citizens either.
(and to quickly answer an objection, I can foresee)
Fear makes a great control device.

Justice cannot bring itself down to be about hatred or revenge, else it is not justice, it is something else entirely.
If there was no revenge, then we would not need a justice system.

From a third person point of view it is to protect people. In first person, when you are trying to get the person in jail that may be the case in some small way.

But you take someone to court and try to get them in jail because they have taken something from you and you want to get as much, if not more, back.

Objectively the justice system is a control device for society. Subjectively, it is both a control device and a tool for revenge.

jonathan7
07-17-2008, 10:32 AM
This is, of course, assuming that the person in question is without hope, and proven, without a doubt, to be guilty.

There have been enough cases in the UK of miscarriages of justice (even recently) for me to reject the death penalty out of hand.

Also, nowadays the margin of error, for going in in-mates, is roughly 1% from the last time I checked. I'll double check that and someone is welcome to link me a statistic.

I can't comment on the statistics, safe to say I am aware of the cases of miscarriages of justice.

So, lock them away forever?

Until they die; despite what some may think about how horrible be locked in a prison cell; the reaction of those on death row in the states, seems to show me that many prisoners still prefer life in prison to death.

If a car breaks and it looks, without a doubt, incapable of repair, why not sell it to the scrapyard?

Why keep a broken car in your garage?

As you have stated in your post, the car cannot be fixed because it just makes it crash with a bigger boom.

You are essentially keeping an item with you that is taking up space.

You didn't just compare a human being to a car did you?

Perhaps they are taking up space, but I don't have a wanton disregard for human life; as such they should be imprisoned not killed.

Considering that a good percentage of those sitting in prison are from the poverty and low class, they are in no financial state to pay for their own room.

That added to the damages they may have had to pay the family, and the expensive lawyer.

But, I could agree with you on your notion of having them work their due. currently, however, inmates spend the better part of 16 hours in the prison cell doing just about nothing but thinking.

I was more indicating the latter than the former, however if say a serial killer/paedophile has no dependants and they were to be imprisoned indefinitely I would have no problems with the state ceasing their assets to pay for their incarceration.

Ok, then why not just get rid of them?

Because as far as we know we are the only life in the entire universe, so I would not kill human life so flippantly.

If the car cannot be fixed, why are you keeping it around? For memories sake? To keep in you front yard to scare the kids from speeding?

Cars and human beings are totally different, with your logic why don't we just kill disabled kids?

Ok, so the point of having them around?

See above.

Fear makes a great control device.

Only to those who are scared.

If there was no revenge, then we would not need a justice system.

Justice in my Oxford wordfinder is defined as; 1. just conduct. 2. fairness. 3. the exercise of authority in the maintenance of right.

Revenge is defined as; 1. retaliation for an offence or injury. 2 an act of retaliation 3. the desire for this; a vindictive feeling

A court of law cannot be driven by revenge, those seeking prosecution (say the family of a abused/murdered) may be seeking revenge; but that is not what the court is about.

From a third person point of view it is to protect people. In first person, when you are trying to get the person in jail that may be the case in some small way.

That depends on the first person... Didn't you just have a go at ED for being subjective?

But you take someone to court and try to get them in jail because they have taken something from you and you want to get as much, if not more, back.

As Ghandi pointed out; if we live out an eye for eye the whole world ends up blind. Sure some (perhaps most) people do the above - but the justice system is much more than that, it is for the maintenance of right; revenge is about visiting on someone ten fold what they have done...

In the case of a serial killer or paedophile from my perspective, I pity individuals who are so damaged (evil or whatever you want to call it) that they do what they do. I do not wish harm on them, only that they are not afforded the opportunity to commit their acts of violence again.

Objectively the justice system is a control device for society. Subjectively, it is both a control device and a tool for revenge.

It is a control device, a proper justice system is never a tool for revenge, as revenge is the antipathy of justice.

True_Avery
07-17-2008, 07:12 PM
(I'm about to make a few very radical generalizations and comments. This is me trying to be objective on this subject, and something like that can get out of line very quickly. Subjective views have been shown already, so I might as well throw in something else.)
There have been enough cases in the UK of miscarriages of justice (even recently) for me to reject the death penalty out of hand.

I can't comment on the statistics, safe to say I am aware of the cases of miscarriages of justice.
Fair enough.

Until they die; despite what some may think about how horrible be locked in a prison cell; the reaction of those on death row in the states, seems to show me that many prisoners still prefer life in prison to death.
They have killed someone. Taken the life of another, or possibly many others. They have little to no rights in that cell.

Why care that they prefer life over death when they have technically already been sentenced to death in their cell?

You didn't just compare a human being to a car did you?
Yes, I did. I'm trying not to speak on the moral level of a subjective view, so a human being can easily be compared to a car if the metaphor fits.

Perhaps they are taking up space, but I don't have a wanton disregard for human life; as such they should be imprisoned not killed.
Imprisoned forever?

Your morality is wasted. By locking them away forever, you have already proven you have a disregard for certain human lives.

You've already killed them. They will sit in a cell for the rest of their life doing practically nothing 16 hours a day, 24/7 until they die.

If you have already condemned them to that, why not just outright kill them? You are saving money, you get your corpse, and the family gets their revenge.

The only difference is that mine happens faster, and saves more money.

Because as far as we know we are the only life in the entire universe, so I would not kill human life so flippantly.
So, human life is better than all the other life we trample on? As far as I know, we kill plenty of life without much of a second thought.

And you are not killing them flippantly. You've already killed them by sentencing them to life. The gun is sitting on the back of their head and you have the trigger.

You just happen to be holding it there for over 50 years. Eventually you are going to pull it. Technically, you already have.

Technically the bullet is already in. You are just letting him bleed a lot longer.

Cars and human beings are totally different, with your logic why don't we just kill disabled kids?
You are asking someone who is trying to use an objective opinion whether or not to look at disabled kids?

For an attempt to appeal to emotion, you've failed. But, I'll spare you the "Disabled people are drags on society" speech for another thread.

A car is a machine. A human is a machine. They both have uses. When they break down, you can fix them. When they die, you scrap them.

Why not a car? Would muffins be better?

Ok. Mom makes some muffin mix. She pours them into a pan and put them in the oven.

But she never takes them out. Eventually, she puts more in.

She is always cooking them, but never enough for them to burn. Just ever so slightly.

She keeps adding more and more in... but in the end, nothing ever gets cooked, the oven is overloading, and her electric bill is going up by the second.

There, that a better comparison?

See above.
See above.

You might be morally obligated to keep them alive, but your morals cost the taxpayers money and, in the end, just keep dead people alive long past their expiration date.

If they were milk, you'd have already of tossed them down the drain.

Only to those who are scared.
Your current justice system is based on intimidation, a lighter form of fear. You do this, and we'll punish you for it.

So yes, it only works on those who are scared. At the moment, it looks like a good amount of people are not.

"Do this, and you'll live and sit in a jail cell and -might- get probation" doesn't sound all that threatening.

"Do this, and we'll kill you" However, does.

A court of law cannot be driven by revenge, those seeking prosecution (say the family of a abused/murdered) may be seeking revenge; but that is not what the court is about.
In a third person, yes.
In the gallery, yes.

But what, may I ask, are you helping about the case by being apart of the gallery?

The prosecution table is seeking some form of revenge on the defendant.

The prosecution and defense are the justice system. You have a counterbalance to get past the bias and into facts, but the entire system revolves around one person getting legal revenge on another.

They are not contradiction. By definition they might be, but in practice they are mutually exclusive. If you didn't have people seeking revenge, then you wouldn't need a court of law.

That depends on the first person... Didn't you just have a go at ED for being subjective?
Read above.

You have the ability to argue this from the gallery. It would be different if you were a father that had lost a son, and were sitting at the prosecution table.

Not trying to make an appeal to emotion, just stating a scenario for a man to go to prison for life.

He might be thinking in some way "I need to get him off the street." But, the reason he is sitting at the table and trying to get the other man in jail is revenge. Legal revenge.

As Ghandi pointed out; if we live out an eye for eye the whole world ends up blind. Sure some (perhaps most) people do the above - but the justice system is much more than that, it is for the maintenance of right; revenge is about visiting on someone ten fold what they have done...
Well, then they still both have 1 working eye? Sounds like the justice system. He killed your son, you put him in jail for life. You lost your eye, so you took his.

If revenge is taken to an extreme, sure. But, revenge can also be a subtle thing.

And don't try and argue what is "right" and what is "wrong". Then we just get into the messy argument of moral relativity.

You idea of what the justice system is very romantic and all, but, again, you are talking from a gallery seat.

In the case of a serial killer or paedophile from my perspective, I pity individuals who are so damaged (evil or whatever you want to call it) that they do what they do. I do not wish harm on them, only that they are not afforded the opportunity to commit their acts of violence again.
By locking them in a cell until they die?

And you've already ruled out rehab, so... again...

What is the logical reason for keeping them alive? You haven't given me an answer outside of "It is the right thing to do" while completely contradicting yourself by already technically sentencing them to death in the first place.

It is a control device, a proper justice system is never a tool for revenge, as revenge is the antipathy of justice.
Then your Utopian, romantic justice system simply does not exist.

jonathan7
07-17-2008, 08:11 PM
<snip>

I don't think you can be persuaded to the course of love on this; you seem to be purely interested in the financial side of things and human beings apparently being nothing more than machines.

Firstly my "romantic" view of the judicial system and how I'm apparently sat in the gallery.

Now, you have irked me sufficiently with poor observations from ignorance for me to comment; To date, 16 friends of mine have suffered the crime of rape; in not one single of those cases is anyone serving a prison sentence (indeed, such are the problems of trying to get a rape conviction, none got as far as court).

1 of those individuals is one of my best friends; rape and child abuse are possibly the worst crimes that can be inflicted on another person and I have never seen anyone fully recover having suffered such a heinous crime perpetrated against them. Now from the above, out of two of my friends I know exactly who did it. Suffice to say given who my best friends is associated with, I could have 'justice' served. I never however will go outside the legal methods of prosecution, why? Because whatever is done to the offender does not take back what was done to my friends; and me perpetrating revenge on them - just makes me as bad as them.

For the record on the Gandhi quote - the whole world looses both eyes not just one; and I might hasten to add your world view, is the reason the world is in such a state - hate and revenge only beget more hate and revenge and a horrible never ender circle of destruction is formed.

You may also wish to consider that your post came across, as arrogant, that you were talking down to me and that somehow I'm stupid for thinking what I do; good day.

True_Avery
07-17-2008, 08:38 PM
(I'm about to make a few very radical generalizations and comments. This is me trying to be objective on this subject, and something like that can get out of line very quickly. Subjective views have been shown already, so I might as well throw in something else.)
I don't think you can be persuaded to the course of love on this; you seem to be purely interested in the financial side of things and human beings apparently being nothing more than machines.
Objective debating is interesting isn't it? At the same time, you seem to be only interested in the moral side of things.

Objectively, humans are simply an animal. A machine. If you did not want to see an objective argument for human beings, then you shouldn't have tried to debate with me in the first place.

Now, you have irked me sufficiently with poor observations from ignorance for me to comment; To date, 16 friends of mine have suffered the crime of rape; in not one single of those cases is anyone serving a prison sentence (indeed, such are the problems of trying to get a rape conviction, none got as far as court).
Then the justice system isn't just now is it? Seems to defeat your own argument that the system works on justice. If it did, then all those rapists would be sitting in a cell now.

1 of those individuals is one of my best friends; rape and child abuse are possibly the worst crimes that can be inflicted on another person and I have never seen anyone fully recover having suffered such a heinous crime perpetrated against them. Now from the above, out of two of my friends I know exactly who did it. Suffice to say given who my best friends is associated with, I could have 'justice' served. I never however will go outside the legal methods of prosecution, why? Because whatever is done to the offender does not take back what was done to my friends; and me perpetrating revenge on them - just makes me as bad as them.
I never, ever said to go beyond the legal means of prosecution.

I stated that prosecution is a form of revenge. If you chose not to prosecute, then you chose not to take revenge on the person who did.
I did not say that taking it is required. I have said, as you have just stated, that it is merely a form of revenge. You are the one that is taking this to a personal level.
Now please, go up and look at my posts and tell me where I have said that taking the law into your own hands was required?
I will say it again and again. Prosecution is a form of revenge. You do not need to physically stab someone to exact revenge.
As I said, it is often a much more subtle thing.

Again, your attempt to appeal to my emotions with a life story is a lost cause.


Firstly my "romantic" view of the judicial system and how I'm apparently sat in the gallery.
I have yet to see an argument saying otherwise. So far you have attempted to appeal to my emotions and morals, but that is not the attempted argument I am trying to make.

For the record on the Gandhi quote - the whole world looses both eyes not just one; and I might hasten to add your world view, is the reason the world is in such a state - hate and revenge only beget more hate and revenge and a horrible never ender circle of destruction is formed.
Humanity will always be in conflict. You, I, or anybody else will never be able to fix that.

If we must live with them, why keep those around that we -know- are dangers?


You may also wish to consider that your post came across, as arrogant, that you were talking down to me and that somehow I'm stupid for thinking what I do; good day.
No.

I'd like you to look at the top of all of my posts where I said I was trying to debate an objective point of view. It is an argument based on logic.

I have not attempted to insult you in any way. I am merely attempting to make logical conclusions with the information that I presently have.

If you saw it as insulting, or undermining your moral argument, then that is your problem.

Not mine.

Again, if you were not ready to debate against an attempted objective viewpoint then you should not have tried to in the first place.

jonathan7
07-17-2008, 08:46 PM
Again, your attempt to appeal to my emotions with a life story is a lost cause.

No, the point of my story, was your claiming to be objective and I'm being 'emotional' and subjective, my point was more that I would suggest my the law of averages I would have far more reason to be arguing from your POV than the one I am arguing from.

If you saw it as insulting, or undermining your moral argument, then that is your problem.

Not mine.

Thanks for proving my point.

True_Avery
07-17-2008, 09:18 PM
PLEASE READ THIS:
(I'm about to make a few very radical generalizations and comments. This is me trying to be objective on this subject, and something like that can get out of line very quickly. Subjective views have been shown already, so I might as well throw in something else.)

No, the point of my story, was your claiming to be objective and I'm being 'emotional' and subjective, my point was more that I would suggest my the law of averages I would have far more reason to be arguing from your POV than the one I am arguing from.
On the contrary, your story proves my point right as far as my objective viewpoint is concerned.

16 victims, nobody behind bars. That means our current justice system is not working, and people do not fear the "law" enough to avoid doing it.

No punishment was exacted. No revenge was exacted. Nothing was gained or lost. And now those rapists that hurt your 16 friends are free to do it again without fear of the "just"ice system.

I apologize, however, for making an assumption on the post.

Thanks for proving my point.
I am arguing objectively. Not subjectively.

If this was a subjective argument I would expect a mod to warn me very quickly. But, I have a warning at the top of my posts if you have not bothered looking.

The fact you are being insulted proves my point. I am not in this to insult people. I am in this to debate with a stance that is not normally taken.

If you find an objective viewpoint insulting, then you should have never, ever attempted to debate it. You brought it upon yourself.

Don't cry victim when the spider bites you when there is a sign right next to it saying "This spider bites"

Jae Onasi
07-17-2008, 09:38 PM
Well, you'd expect a mod to warn quickly, except we do things like go to work, then to dinner, clean our houses, and other mundane things besides just wait for posts to pop up. Warnings at the top of the post are not sufficient--in fact, if you have to post a warning, that's a pretty good clue that it likely needs a review prior to posting for sure, and possibly a re-write. Everyone: tone down the aggression and the gross comments. Thanks.

Nedak
07-18-2008, 12:54 AM
Is there something in the water in Europe?

I swear to god, I keep hearing all of these bizarre stories from places in Europe.

Arcesious
07-18-2008, 01:00 AM
As for horrible criminals- I don't beleivein turning our backs on them and kiling them. Punishment is a good deterrent against committing a crime, buut not agaisnt recommitting one. Prison often hardens a criminal further... Many criminals need phycological help.

Turning our backs on them because of their mental instability and lack of control/good judgement is inhumane, and cold-blooded in itself. Many people want revenge, for the murderer or rapist or whatnot to die/be punished miserably. Punishment as a technique for 'rehabilitation' is self-destructive.

These criminals need positive reinforcement, and somebody to understand them and be able to help them realize the severity of the crimes they have committed. The first step to healing for the victim or victim(s) and victim(s) friends and family is forgiveness- something many people will not give, because of blind emotion and anger aganst the criminal. I'm not trying to say criminals aren't bad- I'm saying that they need help. The first step towards healing for the criminal is guilt.

I hate the crimes people commit, and hate them for what they have done- but I'm not one to support witholding another chance at living from those criminals.

The cold blooded acts of criminals do not justify cold-blooded acts in return.
When you make it an eye for an eye, everyone ends up blind.

El Sitherino
07-18-2008, 01:15 AM
I think everyone has the wrong idea.

It's not about punishment, it's about preservation. That is to say, the matters of death are very complex and circumstantial therefore it is impossible to rationally debate the issue as each situation is the matter to debate.

EnderWiggin
07-18-2008, 02:04 AM
When you make it an eye for an eye, everyone ends up blind.

When you don't punish criminals, everyone ends up at risk to have it happen again.

:rolleyes:

_EW_

Arcesious
07-18-2008, 02:42 AM
Proper, deserved punishment, IMO, isn't effectively done through imprisonment. Rehabilitation, in way I'm saying, should come at whatever neccessary level is required to rehabilitate a person. If that means aggresive therapy, then that works just fine with me. Although there are a lot of criminals too far gone to be rehabilitated, I admit.

ES, that's a good point there...

Q
07-18-2008, 03:04 AM
Arc, you really need to watch A Clockwork Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_%28film%29). It sums up my opinion on "rehabilitation" quite nicely. :)

Totenkopf
07-18-2008, 04:13 AM
Nothing like a little ultraviolence to the gulliver to take the piss out of the droogies. It was a seriously warped movie, btw. Twistedly entertaining.

Istorian
07-23-2008, 02:51 PM
When you don't punish criminals, everyone ends up at risk to have it happen again.

Totally correct.

These people are just pervert:(

*Don*
07-23-2008, 03:38 PM
That's disgusting.

Seriously, I've seen countless sickening crimes performed in my old neighborhood, but this one makes all of them seem pathetic.

How do you do that to a child?
I'd suggest the death penalty, but unfortunately that kills the criminals too fast and doesn't allow them to suffer for their crimes.....

Web Rider
07-23-2008, 04:32 PM
I swear I responded to this saying how disgusting I thought it was....On the subject of people-eating, from what I've read, human flesh has some kind of chemical/hormones in it that makes it addictive.

oh well.

On the subject of punishment, I am not foolish enough to believe everyone can be rehabilitated. Should at least give it a try though. For petty crime, this is generally the best solution. For crimes like this, I mean, I dunno, I don't think any of the current "death penalties" are sufficient. And, come to think of it, I don't think Germany even HAS the death penalty does it?

TriggerGod
07-23-2008, 06:03 PM
I swear I responded to this saying how disgusting I thought it was....On the subject of people-eating, from what I've read, human flesh has some kind of chemical/hormones in it that makes it addictive.
Basically organic cigarettes. Nice.

On the subject of punishment, I am not foolish enough to believe everyone can be rehabilitated.

True. Look at Lindsey Lohan. Gone through Rehab, got DUI'd.
As for the Penalty:
Death.
I mean, I remember hearing that if you were stranded on an island, you had run out of food, and in order to survive, you had to eat the other person. I believe that should only apply if the other person gave up, and let the other person.
In this case, they had food. And it was the flesh of a 7 year old child.
If Austria can only sentence a person for 20 years, send them to the USA with a note attached, explaining the situation, and they'll be put away for longer (50+)

Istorian
07-23-2008, 06:51 PM
If Austria can only sentence a person for 20 years, send them to the USA with a note attached, explaining the situation, and they'll be put away for longer (50+)

Best solution!!! Congrats TG!!;)

EnderWiggin
07-23-2008, 06:53 PM
If Austria can only sentence a person for 20 years, send them to the USA with a note attached, explaining the situation, and they'll be put away for longer (50+)

Unless we're going to send them to Gitmo, sending them here won't do anything ;)

_EW_

TriggerGod
07-23-2008, 07:04 PM
Unless we're going to send them to Gitmo, sending them here won't do anything ;)

_EW_
Or that :)

Web Rider
07-23-2008, 07:16 PM
True. Look at Lindsey Lohan. Gone through Rehab, got DUI'd.


to be fair, "punishment" for a star or political figure, or anyone high on the social ladder, is nothing like punishment for regular people. Rehab for a star is a forced stay at the Ritz without the drugs. Rehab for you and me is a Motel Six with mandatory AA meetings.

TriggerGod
07-23-2008, 07:35 PM
to be fair, "punishment" for a star or political figure, or anyone high on the social ladder, is nothing like punishment for regular people. Rehab for a star is a forced stay at the Ritz without the drugs. Rehab for you and me is a Motel Six with mandatory AA meetings.

You got a point there. In fact... it inspires me for a topic.

Jae Onasi
07-23-2008, 10:40 PM
True. Look at Lindsey Lohan. Gone through Rehab, got DUI'd.


I wouldn't begin to remotely compare alcoholism to cannibalism.

mur'phon
07-27-2008, 05:11 PM
Web: Agreed, and I wish more research would be done finding the kinds of rehab that work, and in what circumstances.

Trigger: If I ever end up in your island example, I hope you are the other person :P

As for how sewere you should be able to punish someone, we have a system where you can only be sentenced for 21 years (in practise it tends to be more like 15-17 years), but if you are considered a threat to society, you'll be sentenced for only three years, which can be renewed indefenitely by a team of specialists. Seems to work alright.

True_Avery
07-28-2008, 07:38 AM
Just wanted to say:

I apologize if my comments in this thread were offensive and immature. I may have gone over the line in my above statements.

It's not about punishment, it's about preservation. That is to say, the matters of death are very complex and circumstantial therefore it is impossible to rationally debate the issue as each situation is the matter to debate.
Can't argue with you there.

If Austria can only sentence a person for 20 years, send them to the USA with a note attached, explaining the situation, and they'll be put away for longer (50+)
Mmmm, yeah... but how exactly does that help the United State's current prison overpopulation problem?

If you are going to use that logic, we may as well make a huge island and have a world prison.

Come to think of it, that is an interesting idea. Maybe not a good or bad idea, but an interesting one.

to be fair, "punishment" for a star or political figure, or anyone high on the social ladder, is nothing like punishment for regular people. Rehab for a star is a forced stay at the Ritz without the drugs. Rehab for you and me is a Motel Six with mandatory AA meetings.
Sad, but very true.