Gang rapes mother...

[Alerik the Fortunate]

My only thought is that they have forfeited their right to existence. Anything done to them with the express purpose of preventing future occurrences would be justified. If it means their swift death, then so be it. If they can ever be rehabilitated as human beings, then so be it. If they are kept alive only for study to understand how humans can do such things, how to influence them not to do them or simply to obtain information on accomplices or other gang connections, so be it. This is assuming, of course, that the actual perpetrators have been caught, and avoids questions of reliability of the justice system, extraction of confessions, etc.

[Zwinmar]

Yes I am guilty of wanting people who do this kind of thing to sufer.

However, I think removal from society is the best option. My thought process on this is almost, if not fully, Machiavellian.

Saying that, If I actually caught a rapist in the act, I would undoubtably try to kill them. I could and can justify it through rhetoric, what it comes down to however is that I feel such a crime deserves immidiate death to the offender.

Perhaps it is a misplaced chivalric thought process that dictates that I must protect a woman. One that I will not willingly give up. My brothers (3) are the same way so perhaps it has to do with the way we were brought up.

At the same time however, I am also one of those people that head toward a gun fight rather than away. Maybe I am just nuts, but also not being a scicologist (spelling?) and only haveing a very rudimentary understanding of it, I can not really explain why I feel this way.

Perhaps I am just one of those restrained violent people who doesnt tolerate others being hurt. I dont know. I just know that some crimes will send me into a beserker rage (yes all I see is red..can regail you with a story on that later if you wish) that will only stop when the offender has been brought low.

Even as a kid when someone messed with a woman I was itching to jump in and defend her, and did several times, much to the suprise of the male involved.

[Dark Hellion]

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, work intervened.

I believe that we are working under different axiomatic systems here LordZentei. I am very much a follower of the golden rule. As a result, I am also a big believer in Lex Talionus (sp? can never get it right). We treat others as we wish to be treated, when we cause others to suffer, we are giving our unconscious agreement that we wish to suffer as well. As such, an eye for an eye, you pluck out my eye, I deserve to pluck out yours, and you deserve to have it plucked. The equitable treatment of both criminal and victim within the criminal-victim system. However, we cannot always equivocate sufferings, we cannot simply rape rapists, so we must try other forms of suffering upon them, solitary confinement, induction of pain, etc.

This is of course a major problem in the transplantation of this ideal of justice from abstract to a societally implementable practicality, that we must somehow measure suffering and then inflict equal measure back upon those who cause it. However, if you "balance the math" as it where, you can see that it is fair and just, those who are punished have given their agreement that, within the system of morality that we presumably are operating under, they deserve it.

It is simple, but simplicity should not go against a system as an abstract. I admit its impracticality, it is more of wishful thinking, and I will concede that wholeheartedly. Justice is the barbarity of facing the full consequences of our actions without the protections of society, Newton's Third Law in flesh and blood, you push me and I push right back. As long as I react equally justice is maintained, inequity is injustice.

Of course, this is all abstractions that exist only in the world of theory. Law cannot do such things for many practical reasons, including finding people who can handle inflicting said punishment, the assurance that the punishment is given only to the deserving, and the assurance that the punishment is correct. Within the law, I wish that these felons could be charged with death, but they cannot. Law is not justice though. Law cannot achieve true justice, because humans are fallible, and all systems we make must be necessarily conservative to address this fallibility.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know why people are so shocked when young people do things like this. I shit you not when I say that you can tell who's going to be grow up to be a violent criminal by the time they're in third grade, and I've talked to retired teachers who have confirmed that by following the behaviour of those early-identified "problem kids" right up through adulthood.

It's often said that sociopaths did horrible things like torturing small animals when they were children; does it not occur to anyone that they were already sociopaths at the time, and that they torture the animals because they're helpless, not because they're not yet full-blown sociopaths? People seem to think they were nice kids who just exhibited one nasty warning sign; that's not the way it is. These kids were already sociopaths, and given a chance, they would kill you for kicks, for money, for status, or for anything else that they desire.

[Lord Zentei]

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, work intervened.

Same here.

I believe that we are working under different axiomatic systems here LordZentei.

And that is entirely posible.

I am very much a follower of the golden rule. As a result, I am also a big believer in Lex Talionus (sp? can never get it right). We treat others as we wish to be treated, when we cause others to suffer, we are giving our unconscious agreement that we wish to suffer as well. As such, an eye for an eye, you pluck out my eye, I deserve to pluck out yours, and you deserve to have it plucked. The equitable treatment of both criminal and victim within the criminal-victim system. However, we cannot always equivocate sufferings, we cannot simply rape rapists, so we must try other forms of suffering upon them, solitary confinement, induction of pain, etc.

That is not the golden rule. The golden rule is: "treat others as you want them to treat you", while what you are proposing is "treat others as they treated you".

This is of course a major problem in the transplantation of this ideal of justice from abstract to a societally implementable practicality, that we must somehow measure suffering and then inflict equal measure back upon those who cause it. However, if you "balance the math" as it where, you can see that it is fair and just, those who are punished have given their agreement that, within the system of morality that we presumably are operating under, they deserve it.

Not so. You can balance the math in other ways: for instance the wrongdoer can be forced to pay reparations - up to the extent that the benefit he creates for the wrongdoer matches the harm - and if unable to do so, can be required to enter indentured service until he is able to. If that takes a lifetime, so be it. The fact that a wrongdoer suffers does not undo the suffering he wrought. Therefore, the math analogy does not support your position.

Moreover (to be considered in conjunction with the above), I'd point out that there is the issue I raised earlier: that the purpose of government is to allow human society to function, and to this end it is granted a monopoly on the application of coercion and force. Thus, if it applies coercion and force beyond what is needed for society to function, it is overstepping its bounds.

The correct approach is then to ensure that the wrondoer is forced to reverse the negative utility he created unto his victim rather than creating more negative utility and lumping it on him -- and that also maximises the net utility enjoyed by society (whether you count the wrondoer as part of it or not).

It is simple, but simplicity should not go against a system as an abstract. I admit its impracticality, it is more of wishful thinking, and I will concede that wholeheartedly. Justice is the barbarity of facing the full consequences of our actions without the protections of society, Newton's Third Law in flesh and blood, you push me and I push right back. As long as I react equally justice is maintained, inequity is injustice.

This definition is rather simplistic for reasons stated above; moreover there are more things than justice needed to create an ideal society.

You argued earlier that you wanted suffering for the wrongdoer even without this managing to protect society. However, if you are attempting to acheive two objectives (protection of society and suffering for wrongdoer), then what do you do in a hypothetical scenario where the two are in conflict? If you choose the former, then, as an authority, you have failed in your responsibilities.

Of course, this is all abstractions that exist only in the world of theory. Law cannot do such things for many practical reasons, including finding people who can handle inflicting said punishment, the assurance that the punishment is given only to the deserving, and the assurance that the punishment is correct. Within the law, I wish that these felons could be charged with death, but they cannot. Law is not justice though. Law cannot achieve true justice, because humans are fallible, and all systems we make must be necessarily conservative to address this fallibility.

And, of course, there is that as well. But at least we seem to agree on this point.

[Lord Zentei]

GHETTO EDIT:

Not so. You can balance the math in other ways: for instance the wrongdoer can be forced to pay reparations - up to the extent that the benefit he creates for the wrongdoer matches the harm - and if unable to do so, can be required to enter indentured service until he is able to. If that takes a lifetime, so be it. The fact that a wrongdoer suffers does not undo the suffering he wrought. Therefore, the math analogy does not support your position.

Shoot, the orange bit is meant to be "victim", obviously.

[Sidewinder]

You have no idea what I would want to do to pieces of shit like this.


They deserve the worst possible death imaginable, and I can imagine alot.

I second that. People this... depraved... should be impaled.

[Dark Hellion]

The golden rule, as I remember it from Catholic Confirmation was Treat others as you wish to be treated. That is Treatment A->B=Treatment B->A. Otherwise all your points are exactly correct, and are why my abstract belief of justice is not societally implementable. Society doesn't assure perfect morality and ethical behavior on the part of its participants, it has to trade the ethical perfection of those who would achieve it to balance out those who are deficient. All abstracts fall through once you make people do them, because we are not machines.

[CaptHawkeye]

I don't know why people are so shocked when young people do things like this. I shit you not when I say that you can tell who's going to be grow up to be a violent criminal by the time they're in third grade, and I've talked to retired teachers who have confirmed that by following the behaviour of those early-identified "problem kids" right up through adulthood.

My mother is a Speech Therapist at a local Elementary School, the stories she sometimes comes home with about certain kids are frankly disturbing. I keep wondering what's up with the current generation of parents that leads them to believe that their kids will either magically raise themselves or that repeatedly abusing them for minor or irrelevant issues somehow makes them "macho".

I know such instances happened historically as well, but it seems as if the frequency of incompetant parenting has dramatically increased as of recent decades. I doubt this is due to population increase alone.

People seem to think they were nice kids who just exhibited one nasty warning sign; that's not the way it is. These kids were already sociopaths, and given a chance, they would kill you for kicks, for money, for status, or for anything else that they desire.

I tend to consider it the "Holden Caulfield Mindset". IE: The public or personal misconception that children are incapable of sociopathic or psychopathic mind patterns, because no one is "born evil". The thing that people seem to misunderstand is that no is "born good" either.

[Lord Zentei]

The golden rule, as I remember it from Catholic Confirmation was Treat others as you wish to be treated. That is Treatment A->B=Treatment B->A.

Then we seem to interpret the Golden Rule differently. I understand it such that you act how you would want others to act regardless of whether they abide by the rule.

I.e. A -> B does not mean that B -> A, which is a fallacy in any case (Affirming the Consequent to be precise).

Otherwise all your points are exactly correct, and are why my abstract belief of justice is not societally implementable. Society doesn't assure perfect morality and ethical behavior on the part of its participants, it has to trade the ethical perfection of those who would achieve it to balance out those who are deficient. All abstracts fall through once you make people do them, because we are not machines.

Indeed, this is unfortunately the case.

[the wicked prince]

Happened in WW2

[Dark Hellion]

Happened in WW2

????? Dude, what the fuck? This might be the most worthless post in history.

[CaptHawkeye]

Happened in WW2

Oh that's ok. God forbid you should add anything relevant to the fucking topic you me-tooing dipshit.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Happened in WW2

And once again Godwin's law goes into effect...

I second the vote for most pointless post in History.

[Julhelm]

These kids were already sociopaths, and given a chance, they would kill you for kicks, for money, for status, or for anything else that they desire.

I take it you're suggesting it to be a genetic trait? If it is, shouldn't it theoretically be identifiable before birth like other defects allowing us to potentially eliminate the problem shitstains like these altogether?

[TheFeniX]

Although depravity of this magnitude is pretty rare, it's shit like this why I constantly tell my girlfriend: "If I'm not home, don't ever open the front door for anyone you don't know unless you're expecting them."

I don't care if the guy was screaming bloody murder, the most I'm going to do for him is call the police to help. They're equipped to deal with that.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

A: Letting lose of all kinds of sadistic actions.

OR

B: Let lose with dark humor.

Are you seriously suggesting that the people making the internet-tough-guy posts here have such severe psychological issues that ranting online is the *only* thing stopping them from becoming sociopaths?

I'm sorry but as much of a general misanthrope as I am, I still believe that a majority of people here making these dick-wielding posts are doing just that: Dick-wielding. Not because it's the only way they can stop themselves from being violent to others, but just because they feel the human urge to prove themselves the toughest with big words and threats that they could never actually back up.

In regards to the article, I'm not that surprised. From what I've seen and heard from those closest to me, this is far from uncommon. Granted, this is all anecdotal, so take with as much salt as you like: My adoptive mother has gone through homelessness with her one biological son more than once. On some occasions, the immediate choice was either try and survive the night on the streets, or go to one of the homeless shelters. From personal experience, she decided she was much safer on the streets.

The more poorly funded projects and homeless shelters in Chicago, and possibly other cities as well, are some of the worst possible places to be. Non-existent security. Police response will be limited to none. A majority of people are unwilling to call for help because they have no desire to get involved with the law. Have the urge to rape someone? Do it in a homeless shelter, most will be too weak to resist, the rest too apathetic to interfere or call for help even if the victim is making enough of a commotion to attract attention.

Again, this is all secondhand information, and I really don't have the urge to directly verify this. All I do know is that my adoptive mother now runs an unofficial safe-house for homeless kids that I spend most of my time helping out at, and that most all who've come through have stated flat out that if the choice was stay on the streets or go to a homeless shelter, they'd feel safer on the streets.

[Lord Zentei]

These kids were already sociopaths, and given a chance, they would kill you for kicks, for money, for status, or for anything else that they desire.

I take it you're suggesting it to be a genetic trait? If it is, shouldn't it theoretically be identifiable before birth like other defects allowing us to potentially eliminate the problem shitstains like these altogether?

There seems to be an increasing tendency on these boards to consider "sociopath" as synonymous with "irredeemably evil sub-human".

It is a psychological defect. It is not an automatic ticket to monstrosity.

[Superman]

These kids were already sociopaths, and given a chance, they would kill you for kicks, for money, for status, or for anything else that they desire.

I take it you're suggesting it to be a genetic trait? If it is, shouldn't it theoretically be identifiable before birth like other defects allowing us to potentially eliminate the problem shitstains like these altogether?

I think you'll find that most psychiatrists consider something like sociopathy to be both genetic and environmental. The genetic predisposition is there, and the screwed up environment allows the genes to achieve their potential. The same can be seen with almost any disease, an example could be lung cancer and smoking.

[AMX]

The golden rule, as I remember it from Catholic Confirmation was Treat others as you wish to be treated. That is Treatment A->B=Treatment B->A.

Are you out of your mind?
"Treatment A->B=Treatment B->A" is most definitely not "Treat others as you wish to be treated"; it's "Treat others as they treat you", which is, quite obviously, not the "Golden Rule".

[Dark Hellion]

I am speaking after the fact of course. I treat you how I expect to be treated back. That is the golden rule. However, there are those who obviously do not wish to abide by this. For this, instead of having a separate system for those outside of it, we simply re-subsume them under the system. They treat you badly, and they deserve to be treated badly back. The problem is that no one is technically allowed to do such, as we are still bound by the Golden rule. So as a society we allow others to situationally break this rule to deal with those who would abuse it, by treating them justly and giving them back what they dish out.

The problem with practical implementation is the necessity of a perfectly, or near perfectly moral power who can decide when the rule has been breached and decides how to return the favor of treatment. This is why it is an arbitrary system, and not a real one.

[Lord Zentei]

It's often said that sociopaths did horrible things like torturing small animals when they were children; does it not occur to anyone that they were already sociopaths at the time, and that they torture the animals because they're helpless, not because they're not yet full-blown sociopaths? People seem to think they were nice kids who just exhibited one nasty warning sign; that's not the way it is. These kids were already sociopaths, and given a chance, they would kill you for kicks, for money, for status, or for anything else that they desire.

According to this good doctor, NIMH's diagnostic criteria for sociopathy is that the person be at least 18 years old. Though of course, I don't doubt that predispositions to sociopathy can certainly exist in children, and that warning signs such as the ones you describe can be picked upon.

Empathy isn't always inherent, often it needs to be taught: it's those who cannot learn it who become sociopaths.

[Superman]

According to this good doctor, NIMH's diagnostic criteria for sociopathy is that the person be at least 18 years old. Though of course, I don't doubt that predispositions to sociopathy can certainly exist in children, and that warning signs such as the ones you describe can be picked upon.

Empathy isn't always inherent, often it needs to be taught: it's those who cannot learn it who become sociopaths.

Actually, this is why clinical training is needed to interpret some of these things. Antisocial personality disorder does, in fact, exist in before age 18. It's called Conduct Disorder. Read a little further into it and you will see that APD is an adult diagnosis, and CD is for youth.

At any rate, diagnoses are simply labels meant to categorize these things.

[Lord Zentei]

Actually, this is why clinical training is needed to interpret some of these things. Antisocial personality disorder does, in fact, exist in before age 18. It's called Conduct Disorder. Read a little further into it and you will see that APD is an adult diagnosis, and CD is for youth.

At any rate, diagnoses are simply labels meant to categorize these things.

I'm aware of CD; it's even mentioned in the article.

However, it aslo states that APD is a function of environment as well as inherited traits. And I thought that the "sociopath" label applied only to APD.

[TithonusSyndrome]

This definitely sounds like something out of the ALKQN or MS-13 initiation playboook, and West Palm Beach is loaded with its own street gangs. Attacks like this one are far too common, it's just rare that anyone is caught in the aftermath.

Assuming that's true, it wouldn't surprise me at all. It doesn't take much digging to find my distaste for gangsta culture.

And then it's only a matter of time before thoughts begin floating in my head about whether or not there are feasible legal responses to the glorification of gangsta culture in the media. Unlike a mob movie which focuses on a long-dead era and a narrow ethnic group, a movie like "Get Rich or Die Tryin'" is damn near a recruitment tool for insecure and violence-prone youth seeking an medium to vent their rage through.

I can't make an actual argument, though; I can't see where this line of thought leads other than "outlaw gangsta media", which is obviously a shitty no-fly proposal.