Father vows to kill son's murderer if released

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Sure? No? Yes? Why not? Really depends on where you live.

The point is that the law can't cover every case, and some crimes are worse than others even though the details are different. The law sees one as legal and one as not. The law has given punishment that it saw as befitting the crime. That does not mean that societially that it is just.

Justice is very much defined by societal norms. In our society, carrying out an abortion is not a hugely abnormal act for most people. You can argue that you personally view that otherwise, but that doesn't change the normative value. Therefore, killing abortion doctors for simply carrying out abortions is an unjust punishment.

But we are discussing vigilantism, which is not about societies laws, but of an INDIVIDUALS own moral view in response to law. The individuals own moral and ethical code will prompt him to see the law as either just or unjust.

Similarly, a 28-year sentence for a person who sexually assaulted, killed and then ate a 5-year old child is unjust. It is far, far below the normal punishment - the societally normal punishment expected by our norms and beliefs. Our society would (in general) view this as a death penalty crime or at least life without the possibility of parole.

No, they aren't - because (again) the laws on homosexuality represent for the most part our societal norms.

Note that the laws don't have to, and sometimes the laws (or use of the law) is not a reasonable fascimile of justice as defined by the norms of society.

The laws on homosexuality do NOT reflect the individual moral view of one who deeply feels homosexuality is immoral, and a true cause of harm to a society. The rabid homophobic person would view societies views as unjust, and his own view as fair...and so, if he was apt to be a vigilante, would do what HE deemed as right, killing those he believes dangerous.

Vigilantism is about what the INDIVIDUAL believes, not the code of the society he lives in.

Another way to say what I said above is this: vigilantism is a reasonable alternative when the practiced law does not meet societal norms. One could even argue that this is the expected behavior in those situations.

Considering what I wrote above, I do disagree. And, even as vigilantism is about what the individual thinks, different societies and groups can also hold VERY different views than the law of the land in which they live.

I never said the father shouldn't face charges for killing a guy in cold blood, though that wouldn't be all that fair. It would be legally okay though.

It would be fair to charge the guy with the crime he committed.

More to the point, of COURSE it's a subjective thing! SO IS LAW. 28 years is entirely subjective - do you think that there's a law out there that says 'if you rape, kill and eat a 5-year old you should get x if you're 16 years old and keep a journal of it'? Don't be obtuse. The law is subjective and people, all the time, get both the law and the practice of the law wrong. Furthermore, the law changes over time based on the changing of societal norms. These things are absolutely subjective. There's no objective law any more than there's an objective morality or objective truth, and believing otherwise makes you in the same camp as any other extremist wackjob.

Now, you may decide that the law is a better subjective gauge, but don't pretend that one is more objective than another. Especially practiced law.

A society cannot be civil if it allows members of that society to rape, kill, and eat children and then return to society after 25 years or so. A civil society will not allow those kinds of people to exist in it, especially while the parents are alive.

I agree with you that the laws punishments can be subjective. I do NOT agree that the law itself is subjective as its not based on individual morals. Its more concerned about the larger aspects of social interactions. So, when it deems an act harmful, and thus makes it illegal...I do agree there is some subjective element in that determination of harm...but I also feel its more objectively based as attempts to deal with the larger whole in some form of synergy.

Is jailing for life civil when the sentence was not life? IF the person is shown to be such a danger, the sentence at the outset should be life...and jails should be run in a far humane manner. How civil is a society that KILLS its criminals? Societies can be judged in part by how it treats its most powerless and vulnerable...and inmates are powerless and vulnerable.

[KazigluBey]

Sometimes, as in cases like this, I support vigilantism. I don't hold our flawed judicial system above my own morals and sense of justice. When they overlap, as in the vast majority of cases, that's great. But when our judicial system does not dispense justice, as in this case, then it means no more to me than the laws of China. That doesn't mean I'm dumb enough to actually break the laws and risk punishment for my principles, I just don't hold our justice system in the highest esteem like some of you do.

[Kalbear]

But we are discussing vigilantism, which is not about societies laws, but of an INDIVIDUALS own moral view in response to law. The individuals own moral and ethical code will prompt him to see the law as either just or unjust.

Sure, but our response to that is entirely dependent on societal norms - even if it's tribal or larger.

Vigilantism - the taking of punishment into personal or group hands instead of legal hands - is a product of a law being perceived as unjust. Whether that's reasonable behavior in the eyes of society is based on societal norms. You're taking the point that it is never reasonable, and that's quite simply not true.

The laws on homosexuality do NOT reflect the individual moral view of one who deeply feels homosexuality is immoral, and a true cause of harm to a society. The rabid homophobic person would view societies views as unjust, and his own view as fair...and so, if he was apt to be a vigilante, would do what HE deemed as right, killing those he believes dangerous.

Doesn't matter; you're asking us whether or not we view a gay killer as the same thing as a guy who would kill the eater of his 5-year old son.

And they're not the same. Even if they are the same action - an extralegal act of violence - that does not make them the same in value to others.

Vigilantism is about what the INDIVIDUAL believes, not the code of the society he lives in.

Never said otherwise. Whether or not that vigilantism is justified or reasonable, however, IS dependent on what society they live in. And that makes all the difference in the world.

Considering what I wrote above, I do disagree. And, even as vigilantism is about what the individual thinks, different societies and groups can also hold VERY different views than the law of the land in which they live.

Sure, and that can be okay too! Again, justice is not the same as law. The law can and often is unjust. The legal system is often unjust. And people practicing law is almost certainly unjust.

The individual can think something or not, and act on it. The act of vigilantism isn't necessarily justifiable at all times. But you're saying it never is; I'm saying it most certainly can be depending on societal norms, the specific case, etc. And the acts of a homophobe killing gay people are not the same as the act of a father avenging his son's death.

It would be fair to charge the guy with the crime he committed.

Yep! It likely wouldn't be fair to convict him of it though.

I agree with you that the laws punishments can be subjective. I do NOT agree that the law itself is subjective as its not based on individual morals. Its more concerned about the larger aspects of social interactions. So, when it deems an act harmful, and thus makes it illegal...I do agree there is some subjective element in that determination of harm...but I also feel its more objectively based as attempts to deal with the larger whole in some form of synergy.

What complete, utter bullshit.

Tell me, how is whoring about the larger aspects of social interactions? How is whoring harmful?

How is pot smoking harmful?

How are the various laws around gun control (or lackthereof) harmless?

How are the laws against women not wearing tops harmful?

How is mandating that women have an ultrasound before an abortion harmless?

Going back aways, how were laws for segregation, misogyny, servitude, rape, and things like dueling?

Again, let's go back to this case. Here are the absolute facts:

The person raped a child by his own admission.

The person then killed that child.

Then that person boiled that child, ate their flesh, and kept their bones as a trophy they displayed prominently at their house.

That person got 28 years in prison for second degree murder. Second degree murder is, if you don't know, when the person doesn't necessarily intend to kill the victim. How is that objectively practiced in this case?

The general sentence for aggravated murder of a child is life in prison. This guy got 40 years. How is that objective?

Law is codified, so it's more objective than the changings of various morals here and there, but being 'more objective' isn't the same as being objective. And laws don't come into being by a perfect, reasonable, rational society who have every best intent in mind. Laws against pot smoking came into being because a publishing maganate decided hemp threatened his paper mills. Laws against whoring came into play because of puritanical backgrounds - the same laws that relegate drinking to certain areas and times in a town. Laws are a product of society.

Is jailing for life civil when the sentence was not life? IF the person is shown to be such a danger, the sentence at the outset should be life...and jails should be run in a far humane manner. How civil is a society that KILLS its criminals? Societies can be judged in part by how it treats its most powerless and vulnerable...and inmates are powerless and vulnerable.

Okay, so you already agree that the law in this case wasn't objective or just or even representatitve of a civil society. Awesome. Glad we got that far. Similarly you agree that this is clearly not a civil society because of our jail conditions. Also awesome. So in a civil society vigilantism wouldn't be allowed or encouraged because the law was practiced reasonably, fairly, and justly and prisoners were kept in humane conditions.

We're not talking about fantasyland though.

[Spring Bass]

The description of the murderer from the news piece portrays him as a total psychopath - the guy tried to kill multiple children, including the guy's son in the piece, because he thought he could get away with it and it would be kind of fun. Color me skeptical that he's actually rehabilitated.

Who wants to bet the guy will show up in court again at some point, accused of attempted kidnapping/sexual assault on some kid?

[Gold Storm]

I would not be surprised to learn that they are looking into Woodmansee's history to see if there were any other kids who went missing in the area after he killed Jason. They will be digging and looking to see if they can charge him with something else that will keep him in jail. Also, the guy has been in jail since he was 23, he could be institutionalized and function better in prison.

[Repman]

I'm also tired about this "psychological" disease/poor victim card that is played for everyone who makes horrible choices. It's just not right, that man who did that to that child is absolutely NOT a victim. He made his choice. He should be in jail for the rest of his life.

End of story.

Or at the end of a rope.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Will bet money this story ends up being a feature film. Which is pretty sad.

I think its very hard for a non-parent to judge what this father says. I certainly can't. The law be damned, we are all human and sometimes the inner animal takes over.

I will say that I highly doubt the father has any real plans to kill his sons murderer. I mean, it makes a great media headline, but if he had any real intentions he'd keep his mouth shut.

[ohmahgaw]

Its absolutely absurd to hold the belief that someone is demented or a danger to society for wanting to take the life of the person who BRUTALLY murdered their child. You can think it's wrong to act on it all you want, but going as far as to say that it's wrong to even feel that hatred just blows my mind, really.

Call me unenlightened, call me a knuckle dragger, or centuries behind your "oh so enlightened" ways, but honestly you just sound like a naive imbecile to me.

Unless you have had this happen to your child, you have no idea how it feels, and the LAST thing that this poor man deserves is to be told that he is wrong for feeling the way he does.

I would not hesitate to kill someone who murdered my loved one. I don't give a flying fuck about what the law does and doesn't say towards that end, because, gasp, the law is not my end all be all for what is right and wrong.

See, people like this infuriate me, because they place more value on criminals than on the victims. Like, oh god its so terrible that this man wants to kill his childs murderer, but eh, never mind about, you know, that guy that killed a 5 year old. He deserves a nice comfy prison where he can learn and grow as a human being. Fuck that. THESE PEOPLE are what is wrong with the justice system, and its people like this that say it's ok for rapists to get out of jail after 2 years because it would be soooo cruel to make them stay in prison where they get tormented! Never mind that they continue raping, jail is cruel!

You know what, maybe we shouldn't even have prisons, since they are so psychologically damaging to the inmates, i mean victims .

[BLU-RAY]

Wow, we've never had this thread before.

Also, Rockroi, I dunno if you even read GC these days, but this shit is out of hand. You need to protect your copyright, son. Though, it could be interesting to see OMG and RIL slug it out in this style.

Re: the thread topic, since I should probably make a post concerning it... I definitely get where the father is coming from, and I pretty much agree with the folks who have said that while society should never condone or encourage vigilantism, it seems... prudent? logical? common sense? to expect it in situations like this.

The one thing that has weirded me out the most about this thread is the level of shock and disgust re: the crime (NOTE: this is not a reflection on any of you who expressed such, continue reading before lighting me up)... have I watched too many police procedurals? I definitely thought, "wow, that's fucked up", but I wasn't really taken aback by the brutality or anything. I kind of assume this is a bad sign for me.

[Commodore]

after watching the documentary Dear Zachary, I empathize

[ohmahgaw]

The one thing that has weirded me out the most about this thread is the level of shock and disgust re: the crime (NOTE: this is not a reflection on any of you who expressed such, continue reading before lighting me up)... have I watched too many police procedurals? I definitely thought, "wow, that's fucked up", but I wasn't really taken aback by the brutality or anything. I kind of assume this is a bad sign for me.

Might be. Might be that the overwhelming number of crime dramas on Tv has desensitized a lot of people to this kind of thing. I have no doubt that if this ever happened to someone you knew, even peripherally, you would be extremely disturbed.

[BLU-RAY]

Might be. Might be that the overwhelming number of crime dramas on Tv has desensitized a lot of people to this kind of thing. I have no doubt that if this ever happened to someone you knew, even peripherally, you would be extremely disturbed.

Yeah, I for sure agree with that; like I said, I completely get where the father is coming from, because in his position, I think I'd feel the same way (clearly I can't know that, but it seems likely). But as a news item, this just doesn't hold much shock value for me, and I wonder if it should.

[Eurytus]

If he hates that his child was killed, then killing another should be the last thing he would wish to do.

That is the worst kind of moral equivalence bullcrap. There is simply no comparison between some twisted piece of dreck murdering an innocent child (and attempting to murder another) and the father of said child killing his child's murderer.

The child's life had worth and potential.

This scum's life isn't worth small change.

[Eurytus]

Hi Alexia...what I am comparing is the belief that people seem to have that it is OK to kill someone for doing something or being something that is disliked. So, the man who feels truly that abortion is unjust and so kills to save the lives of countless children...is no different this man who wants to kill the man who killed his child. And it is no different than the racists and homophobes who would wish to kill gays and the group they dislike because of a belief that both those groups poison and harm society, and the nations laws about equality are doing great harm to the USA...so theyd claim.

Bull. Not remotely comparable at all. The murder and cannibalism of a child is a horrific crime in ANY society. The fact that having an abortion or being gay is NOT should really clue even a very dim person into the dramatic difference there.

Being gay might be comparable to being a child murdering cannibal in your eyes, but I'd say that reveals more about you than it does society.

[MinDonner]

Leaving aside the main topic of vigilantism or whatnot, can I just say WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK at all the people calling for "prison justice"? As if this is somehow some kind of equitable system where the evildoers get what they deserve, instead of a horrific form of institutional bullying where the really tough inmates get to victimise the weaker ones, regardless of the relative severity of their crimes? Fuck that shit. If you really want arse-rape to be a part of the justice system, then write it into the penal code and do it officially, don't just rely on a bunch of convicted murderers to carry out your revenge fantasies for you.

[Horza]

What Min said plus: the whole point of equal protection is that it applies to utter filth - if it's to mean anything it has to.

[The Iceman of the North]

Sure is still a lot of barbarians around on this board.

[Eurytus]

Always interesting to see people who empathise more with the convicted murder than the person who merely threatens to murder.

A nice set of priorities there.

[mormont]

Always interesting to see people who empathise more with the convicted murder than the person who merely threatens to murder.

A nice set of priorities there.

I've read the whole thread, and there isn't one such person here.

[Horza]

Always interesting to see people who empathise more with the convicted murder than the person who merely threatens to murder.

A nice set of priorities there.

Back that slur up.