Dad angry over child support kills son

[Rachmaninoff]

Every time I think I've heard it all, I run into an article like this one here, seriously WTF? [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28485556/"][U]Dad angry over child support kills son[/U][/URL]

If you're too much of a loser to pay child support then get yourself [I]fixed[/I] and never have kids instead of doing what this guy did. Talk about being beyond cheap and sick.

Cases like this... only confirm my belief that for some, the death penalty is the best answer. Sadly, he's probably going to spend so much time in jail and then walk.

[Raunsgaard]

While I completely agree that it is sick and that he must be mental or whatever to do such a horrible thing, I do not quite share the belief that death penalty will solve everything.
I somehow feel that in order to actually punish this man (and turn the world into a better place in the end), you need to make people understand and realise that what they did was wrong, once they are aware of what they did and are conscious enough to regret their mistakes, then comes true penalty in that they have to live with what they did for the rest of their lives.
If the world is ever going to work that way, I'm not sure, and I somehow doubt it, but I can always hope.

One of the core principals I base this upon, is the fundemental thing that another being can never than the right, and "high enough authority" to take another persons life, whether or not the law says so. The law cannot justify death penalty, nothing can.

But this is just my perspective on the world;)

At least most people in the world probably agree that what he did was wrong =)

BTW happy new year to everyone (Think it's my first post since New Years Eve at least).

Edit: Should you happen to find some controversy between my signature and the message I posted, I must say that I have a split personality, but firmly believe killing is wrong!
I just happen to be angry enough to understand what would make people kills others for revenge:S

/Raunsgaard

[Charlie Bravo]

[quote name='Raunsgaard']Edit: Should you happen to find some controversy between my signature and the message I posted, I must say that I have a split personality, but...[/quote]
[FONT="Century Gothic"][SIZE="2"]Well... at least you'll never be bored with yourself. :D

On the topic, however, I think that killing your child because you don't want to pay child support is just... wrong on so many levels. I mean how could you take an innocent life for one? For two, how could you take a life that you created into this world? It's crazy that the only logical thought in this man's head would be to kill his son and not let him live.

Then again, maybe this man needed to be in jail. Maybe... because of this cruel act, someone will be moved enough to change and a life will be altered for the better. I hope so at least.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Gavin]

[CENTER][IMG]http://zeitgeistglee.250free.com/Gallows.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[SIZE="1"]That is all.[/SIZE]

[Xeonn]

[quote name='Raunsgaard']I somehow feel that in order to actually punish this man (and turn the world into a better place in the end), you need to make people understand and realise that what they did was wrong, once they are aware of what they did and are conscious enough to regret their mistakes, then comes true penalty in that they have to live with what they did for the rest of their lives.
If the world is ever going to work that way, I'm not sure, and I somehow doubt it, but I can always hope.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree that is how I feel about it too, taking someone's life doesn't teach him or anyone else a lesson its just a cheap way to not deal with him.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]I'd like to point out here, since the topic has come up, that the death penalty is NOT a [I]punishment[/I] (a measure designed to instruct and correct), but a [I]consequence[/I]?a deserved result one one's action.

I have heard statements like [COLOR="DarkRed"]Xeonn[/COLOR]'s and [COLOR="DarkRed"]Raunsgaard[/COLOR]'s before; and though I recognise that the ideal is well-intentioned (stemming from a desire to rid society of murder, which is by no means a cause to be scorned), I always feel as if a small aspect of the situation is overlooked, and so I am always forced to disagree that the penalty should not be used.

But in order to show why I disagree, I think I should start with how I agree.

[quote name='Xeonn']...taking someone's life doesn't teach him ... a lesson....[/quote]
This is a very good point, for how can someone learn from their mistakes and punishments if they are no longer alive? It is impossible. Once one is dead, one is gone from this world, and so using the death penalty to say "You've been a bad boy; don't kill people anymore, it's wrong" is completely pointless. So then the idea that murderers are being punished understandably makes no sense.

But let's consider another case: one where something of value was stolen, the criminal captured and convicted, and the item(s) recovered. The punishment for the criminal here is jail time. The [I]consequence[/I] is that they must reimburse the owner of the stolen article(s), and often above and beyond the original value. The logic here is simple: you have taken something that is not yours, and you must give it back.

But say the article(s) cannot be recovered. Not much difference then, except that the convicted person must reimburse the wronged by an equivalent (or greater, depending on the court ruling) value.

Now, I am by no means attempting to trivialise the value of a human life. To the contrary, that pricelessness is key to my support of the death penalty. If a person kills another, they have taken a life that [I]was not theirs to take[/I] ... but they cannot give that life back.

[quote name='Raunsgaard']One of the core principles I base this upon, is the fundamental thing that another being can never than the right, and "high enough authority" to take another persons life, whether or not the law says so.[/quote]
Yes. To do so is murder.

BUT.

That fact does not erase the debt that [I]must[/I] be paid. And because life is priceless, it cannot in good conscience have any material price set upon it. The only compensation that has the possibility for equal value is another life.

In other words, once you kill someone, [I]your life is forfeit.[/I]

[U]You[/U] have consigned yourself to death. Your life is the payment for your actions, and the law is merely the enforcer.

Now that I have established the point, I feel obligated to note the exceptions we as humans have rationalised. First, in wartime people kill people. It is the nature of war, and no matter who wins, the deaths are always justified for the victors. The aggressors will have justified their actions before they have even begun (and those who hold the power will never prosecute themselves), and the defenders will have been left with little other recourse but to kill and justify their actions afterward. Second, and similar to part of the first, is killing in self-defense, for again the person when attacked is left with little alternative. Last, if a person kills by accident, whatever the circumstance, the consequence will be mitigated because the [I]intent[/I] was absent.

Apart from that, the death penalty is required of the person who killed. The law did not take it upon itself to decide the offender needs to die, but it [I]is[/I] necessary for the enforcement, for there are few cases where a person will offer their own life voluntarily after committing murder.

As to whether it "teaches anyone else a lesson", I find the point unfortunately unarguable, for either side of this point is merely optimism or pessimism. On the one hand you have the ideal that the death penalty [I]should[/I] be a deterrent for those who kill (i.e., this is what happens when you take a life), and on the other you have the unfortunate reality that those who need to be deterred from murder will not care and will still try to get away with murder because, like in the case of war above, they feel justified in what they do.

I do not like the death penalty. When I see or hear of people who "got what they deserved", I feel no sense of satisfaction or vindication.

But I believe that it is necessary, and will be as long as there are murderers.

[CENTER]----------------[/CENTER]

To the original topic, this news to me merely shows how far a person will go to escape responsibility.

I mean, there really aren't any downsides for him. On the one hand if he gets away with murder, he never has to pay child support again. On the other hand, if he goes to jail for life, or if he gets the death sentence, he never has to pay child support again.

Really, he got what he wanted no matter how you look at it.[/FONT]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='Gavin'][CENTER][IMG]http://zeitgeistglee.250free.com/Gallows.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[SIZE="1"]That is all.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Agreed.

(Darn you, 25 characters limit!)

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Raunsgaard]While I completely agree that it is sick and that he must be mental or whatever to do such a horrible thing, I do not quite share the belief that death penalty will solve everything.[/QUOTE]You might want to re-read what I posted since you seem to have taken it out of context.[quote]Cases like this... only confirm my belief that [U]for some[/U], [U]the death penalty is the best answer[/U].[/quote]I did not say that the death penalty will solve everything. Only that for some cases I believe it is the best solution.[QUOTE=Raunsgaard']I somehow feel that in order to actually punish this man (and turn the world into a better place in the end), you need to make people understand and realise that what they did was wrong, once they are aware of what they did and are conscious enough to regret their mistakes, then comes true penalty in that they have to live with what they did for the rest of their lives.[/quote]Allamorph already covered this really well but this isn't about teaching someone the error of their ways, this is about them being required to accept the consequences of their actions. And deliberate murder of a child because you don't want to pay child support is far more serious than someone who has stolen or committed other less heinous crimes. I find it hard to believe that they didn't know that killing their own son was wrong.

Anyway, Allamorph addressed it clearly enough, I just want to be clear that not once did I advocate the death penalty as a solution for all crimes.

Xeonn, the only one who was cheap, whether the death penalty is used or not, is the one who took the cowards way out and murdered his own son instead of owning up to his responsiblity as a father. There is no lesson to be taught, the deed is done. This is about him facing the consequences of making that choice.

[Raunsgaard]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']You might want to re-read what I posted since you seem to have taken it out of context.I did not say that the death penalty will solve everything. Only that for some cases I believe it is the best solution.Allamorph already covered this really well but this isn't about teaching someone the error of their ways, this is about them being required to accept the consequences of their actions. And deliberate murder of a child because you don't want to pay child support is far more serious than someone who has stolen or committed other less heinous crimes. I find it hard to believe that they didn't know that killing their own son was wrong.

Anyway, Allamorph addressed it clearly enough, I just want to be clear that not once did I advocate the death penalty as a solution for all crimes.

Xeonn, the only one who was cheap, whether the death penalty is used or not, is the one who took the cowards way out and murdered his own son instead of owning up to his responsiblity as a father. There is no lesson to be taught, the deed is done. This is about him facing the consequences of making that choice.[/QUOTE]


Sorry I did not intend to start an argument with you, I merely wanted to express my opinion :>

While I won't change my mind about death penalty (at least as it is now), I read Allamorph's post, and it made me think;) Not chance my mind but think, and I understand why some feels death penalty is needed at least better now.

Also I must say Allamorph's post is the best answer I've ever read as to why death penalty is nescessary.
Not that I agree it is but taught me something new.
So I understand the idea that it is not about teaching them that they are wrong, but having a severe consequence to what they did. So the idea is to frighten them? or am I jumping conclusions again?
If so (if it is to frighten them) I still think it is wrong and not a super valid reason, though a better one.

Please keep in my mind post is intended to debate this constructively, for me to express my opinion and gain knowledge about others (this somehow contributes to my general picture of the world and how it functions), and not to make any enemies, neither politically nor personally:>

Will post more later maybe.

[Dagger]

Hey, Alla. *waves* As a disclaimer, I should say that I don't actually have a very strong pro or anti opinion about the death penalty issue. I don't quite follow your logic, though, so this is more a request for clarification than an actual counterargument.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]But let's consider another case: one where something of value was stolen, the criminal captured and convicted, and the item(s) recovered. The punishment for the criminal here is jail time. The consequence is that they must reimburse the owner of the stolen article(s), and often above and beyond the original value. The logic here is simple: you have taken something that is not yours, and you must give it back.

But say the article(s) cannot be recovered. Not much difference then, except that the convicted person must reimburse the wronged by an equivalent (or greater, depending on the court ruling) value.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
How does this logic apply to other crimes that involve the theft, so to speak, of something irrecoverable? Rape, for instance. There are quite a lot of crimes that have no natural, logical "consequence," as far as I can tell. And as for the crimes that do have logical consequences--well, I'd say that there are cases where implementing them would be monstrous.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
That fact does not erase the debt that [I]must[/I] be paid. And because life is priceless, it cannot in good conscience have any material price set upon it. The only compensation that has the possibility for equal value is another life.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Is life the only priceless commodity out there? Can we then put a price on everything else? You make it sound like the law is the enforcer of some kind of primal principle, but that seems awfully eye-for-eye to me.

~Dagger~

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]I suppose I should point out that normally I'd be utterly against the death penalty in most circumstances viewing it as something which very rarely gives justice for as crime as opposed to revenge for the victim.

In this case however what this man has done falls so far below what I consider to be the "floor" of human morality in murdering a child, his own child, for such selfish reasons that his [I]extermination[/I] is not only warranted, but necessary to show others like him or of his mentality what will occur if they act similarly.

Honestly I would describe the death penalty as an inhuman method of justice, but equally I cannot find it accurate to describe this murderer as human after what he has done therefore he should not be subject to the same rights and protections as others.[/SIZE]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]What I wouldn't give to be the judge on that case. To quote Chaos/Neil: "We have chosen the bus for you. Farewell and may God kick you off of the first cloud you land on."

[IMG]http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/tindo-bus-2.jpg[/IMG][/FONT][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Raunsgaard']Sorry I did not intend to start an argument with you, I merely wanted to express my opinion :>[/quote]You're fine. It's not an argument, just a clarification. I actually don't know anyone who thinks the death penalty will solve everything so your line of logic made no sense. So I was making sure you're not under the impression that I actually think that. You see most people I know, myself included, see it as a measure to only be considered in the most extreme cases.

[Raunsgaard]

Aye I didn't mean it literally:P The way I meant it was everything, as in everything considering this one case:>

But I get your point :P Sorry for the misunderstanding^_^

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Raunsgaard']Please keep in my mind post is intended to debate this constructively, for me to express my opinion and gain knowledge about others (this somehow contributes to my general picture of the world and how it functions), and not to make any enemies, neither politically nor personally:>[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Always. (^_^) Only reason I ever talk in here, actually. (Well, I aim for that, at least. Don't always work out. >_>)
[quote name='Raunsgaard']So I understand the idea that it is not about teaching them that they are wrong, but having a severe consequence to what they did. So the idea is to frighten them? or am I jumping conclusions again?[/quote]
For the person who committed the murder, no. At that point, frightening them serves nothing. It's merely a consequence, as I said earlier?a deserving result. If you stick your hand in a fire, you get burned. (Obviously you can't stick your hand in the fire without the fire knowing, so to speak. :p) If you steal money from your parents, and they find out, you lose their trust and faith, and you lose possession of the money you took.

If you take a life intentionally, you forfeit your own.

Frightening others? Ehh, not as such, no. In this case they are merely being told the truth, which is that if they kill they have given up their right to live. But what I see from this question is that you might think frightening someone is bad, and should not be done no matter what the circumstance. (Correct me if I am mistaken.) And while I do agree that it is mean to frighten people, I see it more as telling someone "if you jump in the fire, you will be very badly burned" or "if you wander away from me you'll get lost". The [I]outcome[/I] may be frightening, but we'd be doing the person a greater disservice if we [I]didn't[/I] tell them what would happen. And the scarier the truth, the more obligated we are to tell it.

[CENTER]--------------------[/CENTER]

Hey, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Dagger[/COLOR]. [I]*waves back*[/I]

[quote name='Dagger']How does this logic apply to other crimes that involve the theft, so to speak, of something irrecoverable? Rape, for instance.[/quote]
So basically, what happens to me if I stole your virginity? Or, for that matter, if I stole your innocence, or your loyalty, or your love?

Although it can be [I]said[/I] that a person can lose all of these things, I don't think on the case as really one of theft, but one of trespass. Just as a person has no right to make use of your land without your permission, a person has no right to make use of your body, either. Yet trespassing on a person's land is not theft, so the same logic can't apply. Rape and murder are alike in that what was lost?life and virginity?cannot be replaced, but there I think the similarity ends, and also one can be raped many times over (just as one can be stolen from many times over), but you only have the one life.

Then, also, you can't really [I]return[/I] rape in kind....

Anyway, bleh to the philosophising. :p

You are right; for cases like those there [I]are[/I] no identifiable consequences, and we are only left with the fact that those actions are wrong, and must turn to the law for recompense. And what the law administers then is a 'deemed fitting' punishment.

[QUOTE][I]And as for the crimes that do have logical consequences--well, I'd say that there are cases where implementing them would be monstrous.[/I][/QUOTE]
Like in the case of [URL="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters"][COLOR="Blue"]Smithfield pigs[/COLOR][/URL], where "...[f]ixing the problem [I][the damage to the environment][/I] completely would bankrupt the company." (5). Yes, I agree.

However, if a prominent government (or recreational) figurehead were to commit murder, the worst that their execution (shudder at the word :p) would cause would be a massive uproar in the populace?O.J. Simpson comes to mind.

[QUOTE][I]Is life the only priceless commodity out there? Can we then put a price on everything else?[/I][/QUOTE]
Certainly not. To both, actually. The basic problem is that we cannot deal with every crime as if it were the same as every other crime. And that's why I do not think one can fairly equate rape with thievery; a rapist may or may not take something from their victim, but they [I]always[/I] do something [I]to[/I] their victim.

[QUOTE][I]You make it sound like the law is the enforcer of some kind of primal principle, but that seems awfully eye-for-eye to me.[/I][/QUOTE]
In truth, the law [I]is[/I] eye-for-eye. The law is merciless, black and white. If you have done wrong, you must suffer the consequences.

Humans, however, are [I]not[/I] black and white, and we are singularly capable of mercy. Even if a person deserves the death penalty, we are not bound by the law to give it to them.

Let that point be clear. I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. But I am strongly [U]against[/U] the [I]unconditional administration[/I] of it.[/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[QUOTE=Raunsgaard]Aye I didn't mean it literally:P The way I meant it was everything, as in everything considering this one case:>

But I get your point :P Sorry for the misunderstanding^_^[/QUOTE]Ah, I see. That makes more sense if you were only referring to this case. In that we are agreed. I wasn't trying to imply that it would solve everything. Sadly, I don't think either route will. At the very least he has been caught and arrested for the crime. I know I'll be curious to see how it's handled. Right now they haven't said how they intend to follow up on it yet.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying what you meant. :catgirl:

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"]I don't believe in the death penalty, however, if that is what they decide on I will support it. I'm not sure if they are considering it or not though, I just feel that something as sick as this could warrant that kind of sentence.

Anyway, I find the whole thing extremely sad. How could anyone murder their own child? That's the saddest part of all, that someone would actually kill their own son to avoid responsiblity. I'm really glad they caught him. Someone like that shouldn't be on the streets.[/FONT]