| Two tragedies: sins of fathers? | |
|---|---|
| Sep 25, 2007 02:27 | #11   |
 | Al32, In fact, the father did commit a crime. His act was against the law. No one has the right to deprive others the freedom of life. Even though you are someone's parents or patrons, you still have no such right. This post reminds me of the issue concerned with the "euthanasia". Should euthanasia be made legal? Although some people claim that the use of euthanasia is out of good intention, did they really respect the rights of the ones who were killed? |
| Sep 25, 2007 11:11 | #12 |
| The acts of these fathers were against the law, no doubt about that. But, to look again this Sweden murder, perhaps would not have been a crime in some Islamic country? I think now we are talking about if those acts were right or not. Question, should eutanasia be made legal, contains same dilemma. Is it right or not? I think in Netherlands eutanasia is legal. But is it right? Eutanasia is one of biggest questions there is. Is it right to kill someone if that person asks? Who decides when someone is so ill that he/she has a right to become executed by own request? Or does that person need to be ill at all? If situation of life is in a dead end? Instead of committing suicide, person asks other to help. Nowadays it is almost popular to say to close people, even to children: If some day I become a wegetable, promise me I don´t have to live the rest of my life depending on some machine. What a horrible decision to give to own children. Could I "let free" my father or mother? I don´t think so. Let´s think about that, friends. |
| Sep 25, 2007 12:41 | #13 |
| I dont dispute the fact that the father comitted a crimme and that he should be punished. My only concern is that we often react too quick and say that he should be killed for it. In many countries, capital punishment is not legal and except for some verry rare cases (brutal murders with absolutely no doubt about the guilt and intention of the killer..showing no remorse for exemple) where I wouldn't mind for it to apply, I agree with this law. You said it yourself: "No one has the right to deprive others the freedom of life." so why did you quickly answer that we should kill that father?? Isn't his sorrow and the fact that he will spend his life in jail enough?? And in the eventuality that the man spend many years in jail (thinking about what he has done) and comes out one day, do you agree that there is a possibility that this man might even become a better man? Maybe he will be greatful that the community spared is life and that will make him care more about others and then respect life more than you and me? |
| Sep 25, 2007 22:31 | #14 |
| Quote, "Nowadays it is almost popular to say to close people, even to children: If some day I become a vegetable, promise me I don´t have to live the rest of my life depending on some machine." Carlos, On this point, I am in favor of your idea. It is really a horrible desicion. You and AL32 insisted that the culprit should be freed. Well, we live in a communtity, where it needs some rules and disciplines. There are rules in life, otherwise, this world would be messy. The safety and rights of others would be infringed. I also felt sympathy for that poor father. I can feel how painful the father is when he had to kill his beloved son. However, his action is reallly wrong. |
| Sep 26, 2007 00:54 | #15 |
| Zoey: I have never insisted that the man should be freed; I brought up that possibilty just to make people think about it and about the fact that (for the third time I explain this now: ) life time prison for murderers - in my opinion- is better than quickly judge them and say that those people should be killed...that's all!! Is it because I'm against capital punishment (in most cases anyway) that I'm saying that their should be no rules and discipline in life?: NO!! Killing a killer is almost like if you catch your child stealing something and then you tell him that it's bad and then steal it from him and use that thing --> what did you teach him? Did your reaction would make him realize the bad action and bring him not to do it again? ..OK, this was not the best example, but you get my point no? Ultimately, I think that only god (the gods or what ever divinity you believe in) should have the right over chosing life of death; not human judges or a government. Again, put a killer in a small prison cell for 30, 40, 50 years ..until he dies and this is showing rules and discipline enough for anyone who would be tempted to do the same crime... In no way, I was trying to deffend or excuse any crime; I only argue on the form of punishment. And I don't want to get into the debate over euthanasia; it's way too complicated legally and morally. |
| Sep 26, 2007 06:50 | #16 |
| I once spent four weeks in a military prison for a very minor offence. It felt a lot longer than that. No TV, No fridge and lights out at 9pm and then up again at 4am. A life time of that would have been worse than being in hell. I have since visited prisons to lecture to the imates about weight training and other things. Most of the Men that I met there seemed OK and understood why they had been sent down. It would IMO be kinder to hang them than to keep them locked up untill they are old.But perhaps that is our crime? On euthanasia..if someone wants to leave in their own time and place then let them. It is their life. It is not owned by the goverment. If they suffer let them go...in thir own time of choosing. Dodger |
| Sep 26, 2007 23:19 | #17 |
| Dodge, I can understand why you stated that" it would IMO be kinder to hang them than to keep them locked up untill they are old." Although, I have never been confined somewhere. I know it is very painful when you lost your freedom, even for only a short period. However, should we end their lives? Probably not. As you said, that is our crime. I do believe that most inmates would be reformed in most cases except very few extreme cases. Life-in-prison would be a little bit severe punishment for the wrongdoer, but it is the inevitable price you have to pay for your malice. Life-in-prison provides the enough time for the culprit to learn a lesson. |
| Oct 3, 2007 18:52 | #18 |
| Quote: "The father should be put into prison and executed." Many statistics show that death penalty is not a good deterent anyway (god is another problem), and, personaly If someone did something bad, I think it will be much harder for him to face what he did for years alone in his cell... Most of the time death penalty is absurd. Though prison shall not be a place you just abandon people. You shall make it possible for them to reintegrate the society if they are about to finish their prison term. Prison shall educate people also not only punish them. That's the only way to make people better (except they have mental diseases, in this case they shall be watched over during all their life). This topic evokes two things to me, one is laudable the other is just awful. I m talking about euthanasia and eugenics. The first is an act of compassion for someone who is suffering and whose life pronostic is really pesimistic. I think this shall be allowed especially if the person asks for it but it shall be framed using law (to limit the cases it can be applied, not favouring abuses: to inherit for example). It is difficult to decide, but in this case we shall not be selfish. Keeping someone alive while he shall already be dead just because we cannot come to grips with his abscence is a bit criminal in a way. Eugenics is a method improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (clearly it means to kill those who are not "normal", the nazi regime practised it for example). For a man affected by mental disease is not responsible of the acts he commits, he cannot be punished as a normal person, even if he kills someone (he doesn t understand what he did anyway). So killing him just because he is different or thought as potentially dangerous is a discriminative practise that shall be heavily punished especially since it is a murder (no need, though, to lower oneself to commit the same crime as the one who shall be punished). The only legally acceptable solution is to put him in a special hospital for the rest of his life. Never forget punishements were first invented to solve the problem of behaviour inside a society. The reason of it is that the behaviour is not suitable for the life in society, but the sentence shall be linked with the crime, of course, but also with the person. It shall not just be objective (the crime= this sentence), it shall take into account some subjective data to reevaluate the judgment. |
| Oct 3, 2007 18:52 | #19 |
| IMO we shall talk so much about news in brief... (not to the point of publishing the picture of the father for example) We can take it as an example but talking always about small stories like this usually distract our attention from more important issues. This is the culture of the news in brief that is polluting our newspapers (people are usually more interested in this kind of stories which makes them dumber) favouring a kind of voyeurism. This is not really the case for this topic though since we are dealing with the major issue it raises (euthanasia), but we shall not publish the picture of this guy in it I think. |
| Oct 3, 2007 18:56 | #20 |
| I just hope such hospitals and such organisations to protect and take care of disabled (mentally or physically) will develop soon in China. It is necessary for the society as a whole. |
Post a Reply to: Two tragedies: sins of fathers?
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.