I am finding it difficult to establish how you concluded this. The closest I think I came was in to state: "You merely need to establish the best way to stop her from doing it again." But I followed with the list, "being locked up, psych treatment, whatever." Perhaps your post was merely a non sequitur opportunity to let out some feelings on a rather horrible Individual, which is fair enough.
However, I would hope you can read I'm not suggesting "psych treatment", or any other rehabilitative programme, as a singular and definite solution. Sometimes, "being locked up" forever might be both necessary and sufficient: for example, for repeat offenders who have dishonestly progressed through rehabilitation attempts.
He deserves a bullet in the ear.
Does he? Why?
Or, if the family members of any of the victims wants some hands-on revenge, let them deal with both Garridos in whatever way they choose.
You want to teach society to see anything-goes revenge as a form of justice? What happens when I feel you've wronged me and it just so happens I have a better private security force, public relations team and/or lawyer than you? There are societies with legal systems based on emotional superstition and victim-determined punishments based on emotional revenge. Could you give an example of one which has developed in some way preferable to those based on English common law, where attempts are made from arrest through court to sentencing to avoid personal conflicts of interest?
This implies that if an unstable individual listens to music that drives him/her to suicide, then the person(s) that performed and/or wrote the music is guilty of murder.
Are the performers and writers playing this music intentionally over a period of time in such a way ostensibly as to harass this individual? Is it planned meticulously to cause distress? As interrogators might play loud music for hours every day to break your "unstable" mind while they also aim bright lights at you and threaten you or your family, say? If so, yes, the involved performers/writers are murderers.
If you mean that just listening to this song (e.g. once on the radio) drove the individual to killing himself, then you'll need to provide some evidence that the person's decision to commit suicide came about in a significant way from listening to the song. Do you have one example of this, anywhere? There are many examples in psych and popular literature of people killing themselves after being exposed to a concerted bullying campaign, you see, but I'm yet to find anyone written up who had no intention of suicide before listening to a song, but killed himself right after.
And no points for the Gloomy Sunday urban legend, sorry.
The idea of punishment and responsibility for crimes rests on the assumption that man is a free rational entity.
This is another silly mistake of US philosophy:
(1) We've had criminal justice systems for much longer than people thought of man this way - they've been justified on anything from Divine Right to "well, I have a bigger stick than you";
(2) Actually, what a criminal justice system does is: (i) Physically stop criminals from doing the same thing again for a certain amount of time; (ii) Discourage minds from telling their bodies to perform acts considered criminal, in the knowledge that they'll be restricted if they are caught.
Criminal justice systems enable society to flourish in certain ways by restricting certain sorts of behaviour. You don't need to say that individuals are "responsible" for their behaviour for this to work.
As for the "punishment" argument, there are two angles to this: (i) The idea of revenge as justice. This is just silly, but unfortunately the above fallacy is sometimes used to conclude it as correct; (ii) Punishment as a way of conditioning the mind to stop behaving in a certain way. This sometimes works, but usually doesn't, whence recidivism.
If you do away with that, how can you hold Lori Drew responsible for driving someone to suicide?
You don't ever need to. You merely need to establish the best way to stop her from doing it again: being locked up, psych treatment, whatever.
After all, she has no control over the biological functions of her mind, right?
Who cares? All your arguments rest on the same fallacy.
You can't make an association with "et tu, Brute?" on the betrayal of friendship on the basis that X and Y did something and now Z is doing something too.
The comparison is completely without substance, and the only vague relation I can fathom is that now all browsers betray wives and girlfriends by hiding porn-surfing habits. But I can't imagine Slashdot playing the privacy haters' "only the naughty want privacy" card.
Nerds, drink deep or taste not of the non-computer-oriented spring.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume that rehabilitation is possible
I am finding it difficult to establish how you concluded this. The closest I think I came was in to state: "You merely need to establish the best way to stop her from doing it again." But I followed with the list, "being locked up, psych treatment, whatever." Perhaps your post was merely a non sequitur opportunity to let out some feelings on a rather horrible Individual, which is fair enough.
However, I would hope you can read I'm not suggesting "psych treatment", or any other rehabilitative programme, as a singular and definite solution. Sometimes, "being locked up" forever might be both necessary and sufficient: for example, for repeat offenders who have dishonestly progressed through rehabilitation attempts.
He deserves a bullet in the ear.
Does he? Why?
Or, if the family members of any of the victims wants some hands-on revenge, let them deal with both Garridos in whatever way they choose.
You want to teach society to see anything-goes revenge as a form of justice? What happens when I feel you've wronged me and it just so happens I have a better private security force, public relations team and/or lawyer than you? There are societies with legal systems based on emotional superstition and victim-determined punishments based on emotional revenge. Could you give an example of one which has developed in some way preferable to those based on English common law, where attempts are made from arrest through court to sentencing to avoid personal conflicts of interest?
This implies that if an unstable individual listens to music that drives him/her to suicide, then the person(s) that performed and/or wrote the music is guilty of murder.
Are the performers and writers playing this music intentionally over a period of time in such a way ostensibly as to harass this individual? Is it planned meticulously to cause distress? As interrogators might play loud music for hours every day to break your "unstable" mind while they also aim bright lights at you and threaten you or your family, say? If so, yes, the involved performers/writers are murderers.
If you mean that just listening to this song (e.g. once on the radio) drove the individual to killing himself, then you'll need to provide some evidence that the person's decision to commit suicide came about in a significant way from listening to the song. Do you have one example of this, anywhere? There are many examples in psych and popular literature of people killing themselves after being exposed to a concerted bullying campaign, you see, but I'm yet to find anyone written up who had no intention of suicide before listening to a song, but killed himself right after.
And no points for the Gloomy Sunday urban legend, sorry.
The idea of punishment and responsibility for crimes rests on the assumption that man is a free rational entity.
This is another silly mistake of US philosophy:
(1) We've had criminal justice systems for much longer than people thought of man this way - they've been justified on anything from Divine Right to "well, I have a bigger stick than you";
(2) Actually, what a criminal justice system does is:
(i) Physically stop criminals from doing the same thing again for a certain amount of time;
(ii) Discourage minds from telling their bodies to perform acts considered criminal, in the knowledge that they'll be restricted if they are caught.
Criminal justice systems enable society to flourish in certain ways by restricting certain sorts of behaviour. You don't need to say that individuals are "responsible" for their behaviour for this to work.
As for the "punishment" argument, there are two angles to this:
(i) The idea of revenge as justice. This is just silly, but unfortunately the above fallacy is sometimes used to conclude it as correct;
(ii) Punishment as a way of conditioning the mind to stop behaving in a certain way. This sometimes works, but usually doesn't, whence recidivism.
If you do away with that, how can you hold Lori Drew responsible for driving someone to suicide?
You don't ever need to. You merely need to establish the best way to stop her from doing it again: being locked up, psych treatment, whatever.
After all, she has no control over the biological functions of her mind, right?
Who cares? All your arguments rest on the same fallacy.
You can't make an association with "et tu, Brute?" on the betrayal of friendship on the basis that X and Y did something and now Z is doing something too. The comparison is completely without substance, and the only vague relation I can fathom is that now all browsers betray wives and girlfriends by hiding porn-surfing habits. But I can't imagine Slashdot playing the privacy haters' "only the naughty want privacy" card. Nerds, drink deep or taste not of the non-computer-oriented spring.