Dick Montage Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Release the files publicly, open up a vote as punishment and let the people decide. There are no moral issues in such action because the majority has decided and not just a 10-headed panel saying he should be shot. There are no moral issues with such an action? I'm not even going to bother, because I can't even comprehend how you could make such a claim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 There are no moral issues with such an action?I'm not even going to bother, because I can't even comprehend how you could make such a claim... I think what he meant is that society as a whole tells us what is moral and immoral, so if society as a whole makes a decision, then that decision becomes moral? I guess I agree to that to a certain extent, but it certainly is flawed logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Blog Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 he should be given the worst punishment ever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dischordiant Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Indeed.This man is sick and he needs help. At 73 years of age, how much 'help' can he really get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-Flex Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Your logic sir is extremely faulty, you said the following:In RWI, we have tackled this issue numerous times. I am reluctant to yet again go back and retrieve all the information that has been issued throughout these threads, but it is most common to use as an example the United States. Of the prison population, the United States has imprisoned 1% of the adult population, according to a study done in the last few years. Pulling some quick information from Wikipedia, the United States has 5% of the world's population with 25% of the prison population. Yet crime is still committed. It is committed in great amounts regardless of the penalties. Further information from Wikipedia reveals that some countries with low crime rates also have low prison populations. Obviously, deterrent does not work. There must exist some deterrent and punishment, to eliminate widespread criminal behaviour, but harsher and harsher punishments will not make a difference. The facts in the US example, lets say, that they only have 5% with 25% shows that the system today is not sufficient, does it not? You have provided the numbers for me to make my argument on this side of the debate. You have also said: Further information from Wikipedia reveals that some countries with low crime rates also have low prison populations. Obviously, deterrent does not work. Obviously deterrent in these countries DOES work, hence the lower prison populations. Rehabilitation of the criminal does not work, hence the rise in numbers for repeat offenders! You also said: Yet crime is still committed. It is committed in great amounts regardless of the penalties. That is because the penalties are not severe enough! I'm not saying criminals should not have the very basic rights, ie food, shelter. I do, however, believe that is where it should end. They should not be afforded HBO and cable tv, they should be secluded from the outside world altogether. Their lives should be taken away from them and they should be left with nothing but the basic necessities. The reason why crime and prison population is so much lower in those other countries you have talked about is because this is what they do. It is known, and with the exception of a very few, people obey the law because they are afraid of the consequences. The goal of the prison system ceased being about rehabilitation a long time ago. I'm talking about cases of personal crimes here ie rape, assault, murder, torture. The type of crimes which would alter the victims life for the rest of their lives. Should a thief have his hands cut off, no, but he should be made to make the victim whole again! The punishment has to start fitting the crime. Do you honestly believe the current system works?? I will agree with you on one thing. Deterrence will not work for everyone, but it will work for most. If I see that someone else has gotten their hand burned by putting it on a hot stove, I'm not going to put my hand on there. No one ever said anything about letting the victim chose the punishment. That is what are justice system is for. Either a judge or members of a jury makes these decisions. These decisions are thought out and deliberated upon, such as we are doing on here right now. This is not vengeance, but what society today calls justice. As I said before, we still no reply, is that its time to step up to the plate and make a choice--a world where the safety of our families and children is our primary concern or the safety and welfare of our criminals is our primary concern. If you ask me, my wife and kids come first every time! Obviously we have differing opinions on the issue concerning the ethics of punishment in the judicial system, so I won't bother continuing to argue on that contingent. On the other hand, I still have issue with your claim that deterrence would work, and that my logic is faulty. I would ask you to re-evaluate the data again. The United States has a high prison population, where it has harsher imprisonment times, yet it continues to pack more into the jails. Denmark and Ireland, as an example, do not send as many to prison, yet have low crime rates. I would believe that it is not harsh terms that prevents this, but a system of rehabilitation instead of blind imprisonment. The United States has one quarter of all prisoners in the world, yet this is not stopping criminals from continuing their acts. Deterrence occurs in degrees, but it is impossible to make a huge difference with deterrence by harsh punishment. In the United States, people still murder, regardless of the death penalty. People will always commit crimes regardless of whatever punishment you decide to give, because it is human nature to do so, and not to think of the consequences. Most think they will get away with it, so why bother with thinking of the consequences? Imprisonment is harsh enough as a deterrent for most. It is not a thief putting his hand on a hot stove, it is the thief taking a purse believing that the reward (which occurs immediately) outweighs any potential punishment (in the future), but also that they will get away with it. The reward will always tempt the criminal regardless of punishment. It is not so simple as to expect them to weigh the issue in a completely rational manner and choose not to steal. Additionally, I take issue that you imply that my views on justice values the criminal over the innocents. It is clear that I seek to make society a better place, but that harsh punishment is not a deterrent. Again, punishment that does nothing but harm a criminal with no benefit to society is vengeance, not justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Obviously we have differing opinions on the issue concerning the ethics of punishment in the judicial system, so I won't bother continuing to argue on that contingent. On the other hand, I still have issue with your claim that deterrence would work, and that my logic is faulty.That is because I believe your logic is faulty! I would ask you to re-evaluate the data again. The United States has a high prison population, where it has harsher imprisonment times, yet it continues to pack more into the jails. Denmark and Ireland, as an example, do not send as many to prison, yet have low crime rates. I would believe that it is not harsh terms that prevents this, but a system of rehabilitation instead of blind imprisonment. The United States has one quarter of all prisoners in the world, yet this is not stopping criminals from continuing their acts. Yes because the punishments are not severe enough and prisons are not the horrible places you see in the movies anymore. They have cable TV and personal computers. They are allowed to vote. They can continue their lives behind bars almost the same, with the exception of coming and going as they please, as it was before they went in. Deterrence occurs in degrees, but it is impossible to make a huge difference with deterrence by harsh punishment. In the United States, people still murder, regardless of the death penalty. People will always commit crimes regardless of whatever punishment you decide to give, because it is human nature to do so, and not to think of the consequences. Most think they will get away with it, so why bother with thinking of the consequences? Imprisonment is harsh enough as a deterrent for most. It is not a thief putting his hand on a hot stove, it is the thief taking a purse believing that the reward (which occurs immediately) outweighs any potential punishment (in the future), but also that they will get away with it. The reward will always tempt the criminal regardless of punishment. It is not so simple as to expect them to weigh the issue in a completely rational manner and choose not to steal. Yes, but not all states have the death penalty, the ones that do, it takes a severe crime to get the death penalty. The numbers in those states are slightly lower than the numbers in others. Even in the states with the death penalty, it is poorly implemented and seldom used. Additionally, I take issue that you imply that my views on justice values the criminal over the innocents. It is clear that I seek to make society a better place, but that harsh punishment is not a deterrent. Again, punishment that does nothing but harm a criminal with no benefit to society is vengeance, not justice. Again, I would ask you what you would do to improve the current system today? I at least offer suggestions, but you sir, seem content to sick back on your hands and say what can and cannot be done. It's easier to criticize someone else's opinions than to put one of your own forward. Do I think we'll agree on this issue, no, but at least I can admit the current system is very flawed and changes need to be made. I did not imply that your views valued anything over anyone. I asked you what choice you would make, because IMHO, by continuing with the system the way it is, that is EXACTLY what we are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Psychiatric? He knew what he was doing. He chose to lock her up and do that. He lied and changed his mind. That's not being mentally impaired. His response of crying when he saw her in court wasn't out of regret for her, it was out of regret for himself and realizing it was over. If the death penalty was ever just, this would be the case for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-Flex Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Again, I would ask you what you would do to improve the current system today? I at least offer suggestions, but you sir, seem content to sick back on your hands and say what can and cannot be done. It's easier to criticize someone else's opinions than to put one of your own forward. Do I think we'll agree on this issue, no, but at least I can admit the current system is very flawed and changes need to be made. I did not imply that your views valued anything over anyone. I asked you what choice you would make, because IMHO, by continuing with the system the way it is, that is EXACTLY what we are doing. This would assume the justice system we have is a bad one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 This would assume the justice system we have is a bad one. No offense, but now you're just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the obvious. How is today's system a good one?? If you're a criminal, it's great!! The numbers speak for the themselves. Crime is on the rise, and repeat offenders is rising also, how is this a good system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ging Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I conjecture that rednekcowboy hasn't ventured into the fields of psychology or criminology, and would like to challenge him to design a better system. This may sound facetious, and don't take this the wrong way, but in 6 pages of posts I've seen the same thing from you and it's getting boring. You aren't taking in what other people have to say, so there's no point repeating yourself over and over. As for my personal opinion on the matter, Fritzl is no danger to society, so there's no reason not to let him walk free. He has been imprisoned so that an example can be made of him, but I imagine he has been just as traumatised by this as the rest of his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Fritzl is no danger to society I tend to disagree. She has shown an understanding of moral codes, and also shown the ability and desire to go against them. The way he plotted the whole thing (constructing his "dungeon" - I hate the use of that word but hey), his ongoing deception (leaving a baby on his own doorstep with a letter from the daughter)... I see him as a dangerous man. A rapist and paedophile should not be let free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorlag Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Josef Fritzl has been sentenced to life imprisonment in a psychiatric hospital with facilities far more comfortable than the dungeon he locked his daughter Elisabeth in for 24 years.source They are comfortable (too comfortable for him), but at least hes getting locked away for this crime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ging Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I tend to disagree. She has shown an understanding of moral codes, and also shown the ability and desire to go against them.The way he plotted the whole thing (constructing his "dungeon" - I hate the use of that word but hey), his ongoing deception (leaving a baby on his own doorstep with a letter from the daughter)... I see him as a dangerous man. A rapist and paedophile should not be let free. The initial premeditiation and setup is a big issue, but I would argue that the rest of it flowed out of necessity. Research suggests that rape is used as a tool for control more than it is for a sexual outlet, so it appears that Fritzl was a control freak gone too far. Things like the baby on the doorstep suggest that he tried to make amends early on, but pretty much as soon as he imprisioned his daughter there was no turning back. Fortunately this is a rare enough scenario that there is no way of knowing how he felt at the time, but I think he kept the scam going for this long out of desparation and a lack of self-esteem. Accordingly, if he was doomed to this pattern from the moment he locked up his daughter, and if he locked up his daughter out of desparation (which is a hideous thing to do in itself), then rape was never intended, and therefore he is unlikely to rape again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 BUT... Didn't he rape the other children he fathered with the daughter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorlag Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 BUT...Didn't he rape the other children he fathered with the daughter? As far as i know, he "only" raped the oldest daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 That within itself says something then - that he is less likely to turn his targets upon another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorlag Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 That within itself says something then - that he is less likely to turn his targets upon another. According to Fritzel this was the reason: Mr Fritzl, who fathered seven children by his daughter after abusing her in the cellar of his house in eastern Austria, claimed that he was obsessed with a desire to have a family with her because she was a ?great housewife and a mother?. Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3892739.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Despite his crimes (which are admittedly disgusting), there are people in the world that have gotten more lenient punishments for worse crimes. He is going to be in prison for the rest of his natural life where he cannot ever harm another human being, that should be more than enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) I conjecture that rednekcowboy hasn't ventured into the fields of psychology or criminology, and would like to challenge him to design a better system.This may sound facetious, and don't take this the wrong way, but in 6 pages of posts I've seen the same thing from you and it's getting boring. You aren't taking in what other people have to say, so there's no point repeating yourself over and over. As for my personal opinion on the matter, Fritzl is no danger to society, so there's no reason not to let him walk free. He has been imprisoned so that an example can be made of him, but I imagine he has been just as traumatised by this as the rest of his family. The reason for me repeating myself is that no one has completely answered my questions, and you have totally avoided them entirely. He is no danger to society?? Are you serious? Personally I don't give a rat's a** if he's been traumatized by these events, he PERPETRATED them. He is the cause. The plain fact that he is given any comfort is ridiculous. The safety of his daughter and her children is more than reason enough to keep him locked up and is there anything to suggest that he won't do this to someone else? He has destroyed lives in a most dispicable way, has shown no regard for their lives or what he has done and his life should be destroyed in kind. Would you be comfortable with Fritzl living with you and your family or even next door to you? Honestly, rather than trying to come up with an argument against me (and a very weak one at that) just for arguments sake, why don't you re-read the previous posts and answer some of my questions? Furthermore, I have made recommendations as to what I think needs to be done to the current system to try and repair it. It is very easy for someone to criticize someone else, sir, but what would you suggest? Wait, you think Mr. Fritzl should be let free, that speaks volumes in itself! Edited March 26, 2009 by rednekcowboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorlag Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Despite his crimes (which are admittedly disgusting), there are people in the world that have gotten more lenient punishments for worse crimes. He is going to be in prison for the rest of his natural life where he cannot ever harm another human being, that should be more than enough. He lifes in Europe and we don't have dragonian punishments or ghetto like jails... so locking him up for the rest of his life is all we can do... Also have a look at my source posted above... it contains many words from him, why he did this and that... It helps to understand what was going on in his brain and why he also needs therapists and why there should be no chance that he gets out anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I agree with you, the guy is obviously mentally ill. Personally I wouldn't want him to get the death penalty anyway, too many people these days get put to death for things they really shouldn't die for. Not that I am saying I sympathise with him for one second of course, I just believe that modern society can go a bit OTT with demanding blood without really understanding why people commit crimes nowadays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 He lifes in Europe and we don't have dragonian punishments or ghetto like jails... so locking him up for the rest of his life is all we can do...Also have a look at my source posted above... it contains many words from him, why he did this and that... It helps to understand what was going on in his brain and why he also needs therapists and why there should be no chance that he gets out anymore... Can you find a different source?? Or copy and paste it here, I can't go on that site, keep getting pop-ups about it being some kind of "attack site" and my comp goes all haywire!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllMac Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 That sick son of a biitch should be thrown in the worst hell hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Tyranade Subscriber² Posted March 26, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted March 26, 2009 Josef Fritzl has been sentenced to life imprisonment in a psychiatric hospital with facilities far more comfortable than the dungeon he locked his daughter Elisabeth in for 24 years. The 73-year-old was jailed after a jury in St Poelten, Austria, unanimously found him guilty of murder at the end of a four-day trial at which he had already admitted incest, rape, false imprisonment and coercion. IMO for those charges he should be sent to a normal prison insted of some confortable place to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvo Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 IMO for those charges he should be sent to a normal prison insted of some confortable place to live in. He'd get killed though. I see no problem with that because the damage he caused on his children is irreversible and inexcusable but yeah, they don't want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts