What Is Wrong With The Type Of People Who Feel Sorry For Rapists & Murderers?

Because I think death penalty for a rapist or a murderer(granted, with possible exception here) is no different from murder.

 

Some kind of (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up morality you have there.

 

Funny, I was about to say the same about you.

It is surely immoral to punish anyone in a worse way than his act itself. So, you may justify death penalty for a murderer, but certainly not for a rapist.

My morality is clear and just. I suggest you think more deeply about your morality beyond empty moral outrage.

 

The original OP introduced the issue of racists into the thread as I cite above and rebuttal to the original OP, as expressed is certainly on-topic. I have never met a "liberal" that felt sorry for rapists, pedophiles and murderers but I have found many, such as myself, that do feel sorry for racists because studies have shown they are typically low IQ individuals that lack critical reasoning skills. Their inability to think critically leads to prejudice and bigoted racism.

The fact that racism is linked to stupidity isn't just an opinion but has been supported by clinical studies:

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

Sadly, because most racists lack critical thinking skills because of their low intelligence, it's almost futile to discuss the issue of racism with them. They simply can't put two and two together. They are easily brainwashed by racist propaganda by groups like Combat 18 and Stormfront which capitalize on half-truths in promoting racism. Talking about racism to a racist is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and annoys the pig.

Racists really are a pitiful lot and they deserve out sympathy. Not for what they promote which is hatred and discrimintion but because they are afraid and generally lack the ability to understand complex issues. For the most part they're just stupid people and incapable of understanding their own stupidity.

Of course I do condemn those intelligent individuals that pander to racists and we see this happening with many Republican politicians today. From the clincal studies listed above there tends to be a link between low intelligent individuals and conservative ideology and we do see Republican politicians like Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich and even Ron Paul, to a lesser degree, pandering to these low intelligence racists in their political discourse. Examples can certainly be shown that reflect this fact.

We don't see anyone, conservative or liberal, pandering to rapists, pedophiles and murderers. These are common criminals and don't have the "excuse" of stupidity to rationalize their actions. We don't "feel sorry for them" because there is no reason for us to pity them. They're thugs and perverts and nothing more. Racism, which is founded on stupidity, is a different issue because we can feel pity the stupid people so long as they don't violate the Rights of others.

 

If it'll help the victim's families feel better, so be it. Plus, it would make criminals think TWICE about committing heinous crimes.

 

Just because something feels better does not mean we should be allowed to do it, if it harms someone else.
Plus, retribution is proven ineffective in crime prevention beyond some rather low limit. Also, a criminal should not be punished excessively to prevent others from commiting crime, as that would be pinishing him for the potential crime of others, not his own deed.

So both are by far inadequate to justify harsh eye for an eye morality.

 

What does that mean feel sorry for? In what way?


PS. Sounds like you are just describing a Christian to me(you know an actual Christian, who actually follows the teachings of Jesus).

 

That's something you don't see every day...

 

Of course you are correct, Shiva already pointed out the reason!! They are racist because they are stupid. The idea that the level of melanin in a persons skin is determinative of behavior, cannot be described as anything other than stupidity. It really is that simple.

 

The left has no movement opposed to big government conservatism? I am pretty sure they do....... Or do you mean, there is no movement opposed to establishment democratic policies, because I am positive there is. I am part of it.

 

Nope they wouldn't, because they are intelligent people. I actually strongly support life sentences for all child rapists or pedophiles who molest multiple children. I think there should be some leeway for people who only had intent, or never actually touched children, but a person ever raped or molested children they should get life in prison. I believe the same should go for rapists as well. Life in prison. That is the best, solution, because despite what morbid bloodthirsty mouth breathers want, our justice system is not about getting revenge, to sate the blood-lust of insane members of the American public. Our justice system exists, to protect the safety and rights of the American people, and when they allow pedophiles and rapists back onto the streets, they are NOT doing that. However, if they are locked in a prison, they ARE!! Going beyond that, makes our society drop to the point of being little better than a rapist. Torturing some one for years, is disgusting and immoral!!

 

Capital punishment actually violates the ideals upon which America was founded although we know that the founders of America did have capital punishment. They also had slavery which violated the ideals they established and over time we've found that the ideals were certainly more extensive than the original application of those ideals.

Let me address this by first presenting the "ideal" upon which American was founed as expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

All Americans have read these words but few take the time to understand them which is one reason I use them in my signature. They present three points which established the ideal and political philosophy upon which America was founded.

First is all is the political philosophy that ALL people have inalienable Rights. An inalienable Right is one that the individual cannot give away or that cannot be taken away by others including government. These inalienable Rights, when we look at the criteria for them, are based upon that which is inherent in the person without regard to any other person and that cannot infringe upon the inalienable Rights of others. As expressed there are numerous inalienable Rights and only three of the most important are listed as being "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinness" which are certainly very important inalienable Right.

Next is that the purpose of government is also expressed in these words. It's primary purpose is to protect the inalienable Rights of the Person. That is the logical reason for government. To protect the Rights of the People.

Finally is the establishment of the fact that the government obtains it's power from the People. The government has no power that isn't inherent in the People as the government's power is derived from the power of the People.

The founders also knew that for government to protect the inalienable Rights of the People it must, in some case, infringe upon those Rights. For example incaceration infringes upon the Right of Liberty. It does not deny the Right of Liberty of the individual but it certainly infringes upon that Right. In protecting the inalienable Rights of others there are cases where an infringement is necessary but that infringement should always be the least necessary to achieve the greater goal of protecting the Rights of other People.

A convicted robber, rapist, pedophile, or murderer is not incarcerated for punishment but instead for the protection of society from their actions. The Declaration of Independence did not establish "punishment" as a reason for government but instead it established the protection of the inalienable Rights of the People as the role of government.

Punishment, such as an eye for an eye, is an act of revenge and is completely unrelated to the protection of our inalienable Rights. When we incarcerate a person it is to protect us from their probably future acts based upon their past acts which would violate our inalienable Rights. This literally argues against incarceration for victimless crimes. If there is no victim then no one's Rights have been violated.

Next is the issue of what power does the individual have that it can delegate to the government. Do we, as individuals, have the power to commit the premeditated murder (i.e. the violation of their Right to Life) of a person that is fundamentally helpless? We can certain take their life as an act of self-defense but we've never had the power to murder helpless people. A person in prison is literally helpless and the capital punishment is the premeditated taking of the life of a helpless person. As individuals we don't have that power and cannot delegate a power to government that we don't possess.

Society, and our individual inalienable Rights, can be protected from even the most heineous of criminals by incarceration without the possibility of parole for life. That person can no longer violate the inalienable Rights of the People. That is the extent of our authority as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Our government does not have the mandate to extract revenge and we do not have the power to authorize the government to commit the premeditated murder (i.e. the violation of inalienable Right to Life) of any person as we do not have that power as a person. We do have the "power" to detain a person that which is violating our Rights if we render them "helpless" which is grounds for the authority of government to incarcerate an individual for the protection of society.

We need to outlaw capital punishment as it violates the very ideals upon which America was founded and there is no rational argument for it. It is an unnecessary infringement upon an inalienable Right.

Final note: punishment has never been established to be a deterant to crime. The rapist, pedophile and murderer all believe they will not be caught and "punished" for their heineous acts which violate the inalienable Rights of others.

 

Ignorance is never bliss... why don't you read before ASSuming anything? I have made countless posts in this thread explaining what I mean.

Empty assumptions speak more about you than they do about anyone else.

You picked out one word from an entire post that was about something else entirely. The fact is racism happens to be an ideology that you personally disagree with. Anti-racists are brainwashed by the mainstream media and society itself who constantly spew out buzzwords and propaganda to try and demean anyone who doesn't think in the collective way that they do.

This is one of the stupidest and most hypocritical things I have ever heard. On one hand you accuse racists of generalizing and then you do the same based on an obvious propaganda study. Why is it a propaganda study, you ask? I can reel off hundreds of names such as Dr, James Watson, Dr, David Duke, Dr, Shockley, Dr, David Parrott, historian David Starkey, Jared Taylor, Mohandas Gandhi, Che Guevara, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Professor Derrick Bell, Muhammad Ali, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, David Irving, Adolf Hitler, Enoch Powell, Nick Griffin, Presidents Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Lyndon Johnson, Henry Ford, Winston Churchill, Cecil Rhodes and John Wayne who are/were all deeply intelligent and racist people. Some of the things these intellectuals have said would get them lifetime bans on this forum.

The whole argument of "racists are dumb" is one of the weakest and most juvenile jabs I've ever heard of. Furthermore, it's obvious propagand that you have personally fallen for. Racism is just an ideology that society has been brainwashed into looking down on.

Your whole post reeks of someone who desperately doesn't like something and is throwing out as many childish passive-aggressive insults as possible. The amount of times you mentioned the word "stupid" kind of speaks for itself.

But to get back onto the real topic. I'll admit I haven't heard many people say they feel sorry for rapists and murderers. But they do exist. It's extremely rare and that's why I describe them as extreme liberals. Extremes of any group are dangerous including extreme racists... like the ones that would go out and kill blacks or something. I'm not bashing liberals here, I'm bashing extremists. People who just aren't right in the head. I personally heard someone this week say she feels sorry for a pedophile who molested her daughter.

 

No, she wasn't a Christian.

Go and live life. Ignorance is always bliss until reality smacks you in the face.

Anti-racists are beyond stupid, ignorant and hypocritical.

 

A bunch of those people on that list ARE dumb, the rest are in 2 categories. One is the category called "only racist in right wing racist fantasy land" and the second category is of people whip lived before biological scientific advancements allowed us to scientifically understand racial difference. Now that we have DNA evidence, and biology explaining to us that the difference between races is one of skin pigmentation, the idea that any intelligent person continues to be racist is nonsense. Historically it was possible, because no matter how brilliant some one was, the science was not at a level to disprove such absurdity. It is now, so that we are left with only stupid people being racist.

 

To a large extent I agree but I do have some exceptions to that.

It is true that our criminal justice system is not about punishment but instead it is about the protection of the inalienable Rights of the People. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments are all about the protections of the Rights of the Individual. We don't have any Constitution support for the belief that the criminal justice system is about punishment. The Constitution is explicit in the noted Amendments that it is about protecting the Rights of the Person. Judicial systems that are about punishment (i.e. revenge) do not have the protections that we find in our Constitution.

I disagree with the proposition that every individual found guilty of sexual abuse of children should receive a mandatory sentence of life in prison. For the protection of society from such individuals it can be argued that incarceration for life might be warranted but certainly not in all cases. As we know there are successful treatments programs for a significant number of these individuals over time where they stop being a threat to society. We know that the success rate in prison is very low but treatment is significantly better in mental institutions. I would be more of the position that indefinate incarceration in a mental institution should be mandated and then if, beyond any reasonable doubt, the person is no longer a threat to society then, and only then, should they be released back into society.

I would also argue that "admission to the crime" should not be a criteria for denying release. We know that with all of the safeguards we have that innocent people are still found guilty. I find it reprehensible that we would require a "confession" to a crime as being prohibitive when it comes to release. We literally require innocent people that are wrongfully convicted to admit to a crime they did not commit just to gain their freedom. I don't have the link but I'm aware of the case of a convicted murderer who has always maintianed he was innocent and it has prevented him from being released on parole. Even the parole board acknowledges that if he "confessed" that they would have released him a decade ago but he will not confess. He's been a perfect inmate but will not confess because he still maintians he was wrongfully convicted. He will not "tell a lie" just to obtain his freedom and I highly respect that. The man would rather rot in prison than to confess to a crime he knows that he didn't commit.

I also object to "plea bargian" confessions as the State uses coercion to obtain these confessions. Many people are wrongfully incarcerated based upon plea bargians where they are actually innocent. We had that related to a sexual abuse case here in WA where the prosecution threatened the accussed and several confessed. As it turned out one person fought the case and it was found that the children had been coerced by the prosecutor into lying about what happened and that person was found not guilty. The others remained incarcerated because they had "confessed under coercion by the prosecution" and that is wrong.

I certainly object to "intent" where no violation of the Rights of the Children has occurred, except in the case where "conspiracy" to violate those Rights can be clearly established, as being any reason for incarceration. We, as people, fantasize all of the time about "criminal" acts without having any actual intention of carrying out those acts.

 

It is ok, you don't need to get upset. People pointing out the obvious fact that racists are stupid, shouldn't offend racists. It should make racists reconsider their stupid positions. Pretty simple.

 

It doesn't. It's blatant and childish propaganda spewed out by mentally inferior anti-racists so they don't have to enter into serious debate on racial realities and get humiliated by racists who know more than them about life.

As I've said, Dr, James Watson, Dr, David Duke, Dr, Shockley, Dr, David Parrott, historian David Starkey, Jared Taylor, Mohandas Gandhi, Che Guevara, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Professor Derrick Bell, Muhammad Ali, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, David Irving, Adolf Hitler, Enoch Powell, Nick Griffin, Presidents Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Lyndon Johnson, Henry Ford, Winston Churchill, Cecil Rhodes and John Wayne all laugh at your transparent claims.

 

The fact that racists are generally stupid, not just a belief based but instead established by clinical studies, is why they deserve our pity. It is sad that so many of them are incapable of realizing their own stupidity not realizing that they've been brainwashed because they lack critical thinking skills to understand how and why. How many times have we read their post about the IQ scores of African-Americans because they don't inderstand IQ tests? How many times have we read their statements about African-American criminal conviction rates because they don't understand the causes of crime and criminal convictions? Their views and beliefs are so myopic that intelligent people just shake their heads in amazement that anyone could be that stupid. We know that we really can't change their beliefs because they don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to understand the facts.

We really should feel sorry for stupid people. Fortunately for society they represent a very small segment of the population and not all stupid people are racists. As long as they don't violate the Rights of others the racists can mostly be ignored.

 

I always feel sorry for stupid people, but that is no reason that we should pretend their foul drivel is other than it is, surely? They cn infect others, after all.

 

LOL... I've posted clear facts that the childish and weak argument of all racists being stupid is not only stupid itself and inaccurate, but also hypocritical. Yet still ignorance reigns supreme.

There's no helping anti-racists. They clearly are living on a different planet to the rest of us. I'm done trying to educate a bunch of angry children. You can only go round in circles for so long before you become dizzy...

 

Racist are like people who believe in phlogiston or a flat earth. They may have an adequate IQs, but they are living in a world that no longer exists. There is only one human race, and that's it.

 

Media and establlishment brainwashing only works on a portion of the population. That portion doesn't make up the whole world. It just makes up YOUR world.

 

Yes, it makes up a huge part of the world. Brainwashing is a powerful thing. Especially if it dominates the mainstream media and all of the mainstream channels aimed at our youth.

 

Tell the Republicans to lay off then. Out here opinion is a lot freer.