Nobody is born bad. The society has to be held accountable to what happened to the kid as well. No. Case by case basis has to be considered here. If someone died I would have thought differently for sure. I think the kid hasn't grown up and he is just misguided. He foolishly thought he will do all of us a favor after he got our attentions by injuring people by pipebombs. The problem is I still don't know what he wrong in those letters. I don't really care. It is a broad generalized statement isn't it? First of all I don't think we have even tried to rehabilitate criminals before. It it is costly and tax payers don't want to pay for it. Right now we are not doing much to deter criminals from committing crime. Locking them up in jail is not punishment. A lot of those individuals are rather be in jail than to be on the street. They get cable TV, magazines, and exercise equipment in jail. Putting someone to death is not punishment either. Instead it is an easy way out for the likes of McVeigh. Civilized societies have tried to take as much cruelty out of punishment. Without cruelty punishment has became a joke. Punishment itself is a cruel concept. If the society is unwilling to really punish criminals, we should just develop ways to rehabilitate them so we stop wasting taxpayer's money by keeping them in jail forever. We should try to develop medications to mellow out criminals who commit violent crime and other different type of medicine or mental treatment to deal with criminals. We should also fix problems in society so nobody will ever become a criminal again.
*Gives Adamski another stern look, just for kicks* Joeman: Why? He chose to start blowing up mailboxes and injuring people. He could have been right - I doubt it, I've read his letters - utter bullshit - But I don't care. He made a person partially deaf. He's injured other people. Fuck him. That's a nice string of assertions. Have you any evidence that punishment dosen't work?
If it works then why do so many criminals keep going in and out of jail? Put someone in prison as a form of punishment doesn't always work obviously. Punishment without cruelty is ineffective. That is just my personal opinion. We are already having overcrowded prisons and we are all paying for it. I believe we should rethink how we should deal with law breakers. Those who can be rehabilitated easily and wouldn't commit felony again should be let go and rejoin the society. I believe the kid can be saved and I want to give him another chance. If he is as naive as he seems, locking him up doesn't do us any good. He need him to rejoin the society ASAP to work to help financing our government and social securities.
Thats pretty funny Joe, where do you get your ideas from? Sesame Street? In the real world, people who do really bad things - must pay for their actions. Like it or not. I would much rather have a murderer behind bars or being put to sleep than wandering around the streets looking for his next victim. Ya, lets spend millions of dollars on medication that might help criminals. When all a criminal has to do - IS STOP COMMITING FU**ING CRIMES! Its that simple. They dont have a disease, crime isnt a disease, its a bunch of people who have no regard for others who they have to share this planet with. We should ship them all off to an island and let them wipe themselves out. Why do we care so much about people who dont give a sh*t about us, and would take us out in a second. I'll tell you what, you wait until a horrible crime happens to someone you care about. Im almost positive you'll change your views. Oh, I see, its the innocent working citizens responsibility to stop these people from living a life of crime. Uh, some of us are too busy trying to protect ourselves from being robbed by the corner crackhead or raped by the 15 registered sex offenders in the neighborhood. Or better yet, were trying to raise are children in the right manner, so they dont turn out like that. Yes, this boy was misguided, troubled, probably a loner - so lets all feel sorry for him and forget about the real victims. He probably didnt have the tools to seek help, but he still knew what he was doing and he still chose to do it and he still hurt people. And if thats not enough for punishment, I dont know what is. Take care
I totally disagree with you there. Look, why some newborn babies grew up to become good citizens and some grew up to become thugs? I don't believe anyone is born bad. Don't you think the society need to bare some blame for actions of its own citizens? Don't you think the "system" is what shaped the mind of each individuals? Lets see.... We have poverty, degenerative pop cultures full of sex and violence, disfunctional families, violent video games, drugs and alcohol... you think none of these things can possibly shape the mind of a youth and eventually lead to criminal behavior? We allow all these things to fulfill our pleasures and desires and do whatever we please in the name of free speech and freedom, now we are going to lock away all the bad apples produced out by our imperfect system? With a society like ours, you are going to expect to have a few screwed up individuals. Why don't you commit any crime? Because you don't need to and you have a lot of lose. For some people commiting a crime is an easy way out of their problems and they have nothing to lose. For some people they grew up around bad influences and the system we live in do not guide them toward the right path. No I am saying all criminals should be let go and I don't feel sorry for all the criminals. If Robert Blake killed his wife he deserves to be fried in electric chair and so are ERON executives. But in that kid's case, he should be freed to rejoin the society as soon as he is ready. Everyday we all make decisions we are not aware of which contributed to his idiotic decisions. It is US who determine what our system should be. Afterall it is US like you and me that helped him blowing up the mailboxes and injurying those people. We are all responsible.
Joeman: Sex is fun, try it some time. It dosen't lead to blowing up mailboxes. Don't like free speech, then shut the fuck up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually, it's because it would be un-ethical. This kid had a posh life compared to mine, thank you very much. I've yet to harm anybody except in self defense.
Why do you have to be so damn personal? You don't have enough information to tell if I am sexually deprived. I have no problem with the idea of free speech, but I do have problems with companies market sex and violence to kids in the name of free speech.
Sorry, didn't mean to hit a nerve. I'm really not good at dealing with sensitive people - I'll be nicer. Boo fucking hoo. I like my Constitution and I'm willing to deal with that. Don't like it, move to Cuba or China or Saudi Arabia or Iran or some place without freedom of speech.
All I am asking is free speech with some common sense. Some corporations only make a point about free speech to maximize their profit. They don't care if their product is not good for children. No you did not hit my nerve and I am not that sensitive. From my experience when people become too personal over the internet, conversation become less pleasant. However I eventually allow myself to get into personal sniping back and forth more when I get to know people better Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can any one answer above question?. Why can't we call him a "Christian" terrorists? Just wondering.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Double standard aren't we?
Markx: He cannot be executed - murder is the only capitol offense, and he hasen't commited it. However, I've heard more than a few 'Lock him up and throw away the fucking key' comments. That seems to be the majority opinion. And I remember quite a few 'whys' in the wake of 9/11. So, I don't think there is a huge double standard. Joeman: Okay. Ask all you like, so long as you don't attempt to force.
That was the point Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would absolutely LOVE to see him called Christian terrorist in the media
No, I dont. I think when a person hits a certain age, he has the choice to make whatever decisions he wants to. I dont care how bad an individual is abused in their life or how much bad influence they have experienced (speaking from first hand experience here) - they do not have the right to commit crimes. I was molested - so do I have the right to molest people? No, I dont. I was beat severly - do I have the right to beat others severly? No, I dont. Are you getting the picture here? Your acting as if these criminals have the right to commit crimes and as if we the innocent people, have to babysit them. This is not right. I dont care how much you argue you point - it is not right to harm other people and take away their security which is so precious to an individual. Pop culture leads to crime, give me a break. Thats like saying watching batman leads to crime. Ill tell you what, why dont you let this "poor soul" go and see what happens. He is going to see he wont get punished and others will see this too and think its okay - and its not. Ever. Thanks for listening and be kind to each other.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, and one more thing - All you guys crying "misguided, let him go, etc" You would all be singing a different tune if a child had been killed
Or if he would have been muslim or arab?.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry I am just messing with you guys. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes. I admit my attitude would have been a lot different if anyone has been killed or if he is a Muslim homicide bomber. I consider everything case by case basis. However I don't always agree on the traditional brute force way of dealing with criminals. If we can show forgiveness, maybe that kid wouldn't think the government is so bad afterall.
Briefly Joeman ,,, I don't think it's about holding society accountable. It cannot be held accountable in any direct way. In fact, the rightness or wrongness of this political violence is not entirely the issue. Rather, the problem of vicious condemnation of our bomber is that, given the general endorsement of violence as an agent of change within the culture which spawned him it seems quite the diversion from having to countenance the fact that people endorse violence and suffering. Yes, it takes a village to raise a child, so to speak. But that would imply that society is being held accountable for its demands by the very bombings themselves, and this comes dangerously close to accepting political violence as an agent of change. While acceptance such a point of communal responsibility is possible, I feel that acceptance would inherently award the point greater significance than it is worth. A case-by-case examination, indeed. But we must remember to consider circumstances and not attitude; that is to say, we cannot justify our bomber's decision to accept violence as an agent of change, but we can certainly look at the circumstances compelling any person toward that. It is, therefore, the duty of that portion of the community which chooses to react at all, to consider the relationship between the values of the act and the values it attacks. Xev I raise an eyebrow; he could have been right. Indeed, I agree. And I, too, doubt that he is. But what does the sentiment of fuck him and the reasons for that sentiment say about the rest of, say, American society, which implicitly endorses violence as an agent of change? Fuck them, too? I would love to leave it at that, but the problem is that if those who know better say fuck it and go on with life, things will get dangerous even for them. In general, the more attention--including scorn--people give him without considering the larger issue of political violence, the more they make his ill-stated point. Consider Bush, recently putting his foot down with Israel over the situation there. Hello, Mr. President, but it's nice of you to finally join the rest of the world. Hello, America, your participation in the situation for the last fifty years has only helped make it this bad. This is what the American people have wanted, and that includes the comparative values and moral structure of the America in which our bomber was raised. Greedy myopia has lowered the comparative value of human life. If I don't pour a whole lot of scorn onto this bomber, it's because I'm not surprised it finally came down to this. And besides, the ration of shit I would give him would be about the comparative value of it and the timing of it. The latter affects the former. The first thing to realize that nobody is innocent. Either the law or a higher principle of life indicts Americans. Americans either finance political violence or else they abstain from paying taxes and stand in violation of the law. And that is at the very least. If you listen closely, most people in the US have a line at which political violence becomes acceptable. And if you examine the historical application of that acceptability, some of the reasons for violence are pretty stupid. But in the comparative value of it, I draw a line between civilian and military/government personnel. Not to be construed as a direct endorsement of political violence, but ideally, if two nations want to raise volunteer armies and have those people go out in the middle of nowhere and shoot each other to pieces, I'm not going to object; in the meantime, there is a necessary exclusion of what is acceptable for those people who choose warfare to shoot at, and a necessary exclusion of who suffers. Leave everybody else out of it. You see, regardless of how mixed up, troubled, or confused our bomber is, what I can't understand is why he would want to lower himself to the vulgar level and endorse violence as a measure of change. That's where I would give him a ration of shit for the comparative value of it. The timing of it is obvious. Americans will, someday, have a massive sociopolitical seizure, and the prospect of warfare between neighbors is not remote. But now is not[/i] the time. Acting or speaking while angry is always a bad move, and perhaps it's the isolation of the post-modern attention span, but it's irresponsible to draw such conclusions as our bomber drew at such a point in his considerations. The longer I see political violence the more useless it seems. I denounce it all in principle, but since it seems people are truly determined to make themselves and others miserable with it, who am I to argue? That it's wrong doesn't mean it's not going to happen. What chance have I, for instance, of convincing President Bush, the whole of Congress, and the American people in general that there is a better way to go about this? However, if we're going about the proactive defense of the "American Way" ... where is that way? I can, at least, demand a forthright war restricted to the necessary and voluntary players. I can at least demand the presence of that "American way". But yeah, the more I see of political violence, the more ridiculous it appears. It's hardly conclusive, but there is not much in my column on behalf of the idea of justified political violence and I do occasionally wonder if there ever will be. So I'll give a ration of shit to our bomber for not being patient enough to realize that none of it gets anything. But the moral collapse is unfortunate, and sad; while I couldn't have pointed the guy out on the street and said, He'll be the one to crack, it is also expected. It's also why I doubt he's right. But fuck him? What would I say of the next one? And the next? It's hardly as severe as the connection 'twixt American economic policy and the necessity of poverty, but I do feel that I would be contributing to the conditions which inspire such vicious outbursts as our bomber's. Yes, my pipe is right here and I'm listening to Radiohead and there's a nice haze in here .... thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
