At what point does a person stop "paying" for a crime?

[brycejones]

Any job that is suitable for someone that has shot and killed his immediate family...

What do you think that is? Its a simple question you should be able to answer it.

 

[unokitty]

What do you think that is? Its a simple question you should be able to answer it.

What part of "Any job suitable for someone that has shot and killed his immediate family..." are you having a hard time understanding?


Uno

 

[Zaap]

As to his role as a college educator now that his past is known potential students can decide if they want to take his class or not.

Sorry, but this is exactly the flaw in all of these arguments. Your past being known is something that needs to happen BEFORE you become a college educator. If it's no big deal as this argument goes that he killed his family and got off for it... then it should be no big deal that has to be hidden from a college that will employ you. Those ignoring this are mounting a self-defeating argument.

 

[brycejones]

What part of "Any job suitable for someone that has shot and killed his immediate family..." are you having a hard time understanding?


Uno

What is that? You don't think a job where he teaches adults is suitable so I'm curious what jobs do YOU think are suitable?

 

[Matt1970]

A 16 year old with no history of mental illness successfully plans to murder his parents and his sister. He murders them all with a rifle that he had hidden the week before...

He convinces a court that he is crazy. He is sentenced to treatment rather than jail.

Six years later, he convinces the treatment center that he is sane.

He lives off of payments from the estate of the father that he murdered.

He obtains a Ph D in psychology.

The man is an admitted murderer. He concealed that from his employer.

And he concealed the fact that he changed his name to St. James.

You are free to believe that he is 'not guilty.' You are also free to believe that he committed the perfect crime. He was however never found innocent.

Not someone I would want educating my children.

Uno

This.

 

[Jhhnn]

What part of "Any job suitable for someone that has shot and killed his immediate family..." are you having a hard time understanding?


Uno

The part where you're not dodging the question.

 

[unokitty]

You don't think a job where he teaches adults is suitable ...

That's a strawman. Other than you, no one here has spoken about a job teaching adults. Not interested in your logical fallacies.


If you are offended because I wouldn't want to send my children to an admitted murderer for their education, then that is your problem.

I'm okay with that.

If you want to go to Decatur IL and study under this professor, or if you want to send your children to him, I'm okay with that as well...

Uno

 

[Jaskalas]

Society was stupid enough to determine that he should live to see this age.

Thus he is a free man. By that definition I stand by him unless he committs a new crime. I cannot accept punishing him twice for the same crime. That includes harassing him over his past.

 

[Darwin333]

I think there are exceptions (when aren't there?), but in general if you do the crime I don't care if your record follows you around. It's the single best deterrent there is. If committing a crime can't follow you around then neither can being a good citizen with a clean record.


Fern

I disagree. We have a judicial system that punishes you for your crime. After the punishment is carried out you have paid your debt to society. I think its retarded the way we currently do things where the crime does follow the person around and in a lot of cases almost forces them back to their criminal ways.

Once they have paid their debt to society I don't think its a good idea to make it as hard as possible for them to become good standing members of society but thats just me.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's a strawman. Other than you, no one here has spoken about a job teaching adults. Not interested in your logical fallacies.


If you are offended because I wouldn't want to send my children to an admitted murderer for their education, then that is your problem.

I'm okay with that.

If you want to go to Decatur IL and study under this professor, or if you want to send your children to him, I'm okay with that as well...

Uno

"Children" are generally 18 years old before entering college, making them adults in the eyes of the law in most matters.

I believe that the strawman is yours, sir.

 

[Jhhnn]

I disagree. We have a judicial system that punishes you for your crime. After the punishment is carried out you have paid your debt to society. I think its retarded the way we currently do things where the crime does follow the person around and in a lot of cases almost forces them back to their criminal ways.

Once they have paid their debt to society I don't think its a good idea to make it as hard as possible for them to become good standing members of society but thats just me.

Well, yeh, but the prison-industrial complex really needs repeat customers to help create more jobs.

You do want more jobs, right?

 

[Jaskalas]

I disagree. We have a judicial system that punishes you for your crime. After the punishment is carried out you have paid your debt to society. I think its retarded the way we currently do things where the crime does follow the person around and in a lot of cases almost forces them back to their criminal ways.

Once they have paid their debt to society I don't think its a good idea to make it as hard as possible for them to become good standing members of society but thats just me.

100% agreed.

 

[unokitty]

...After the punishment is carried out you have paid your debt to society. ...

The professor we are discussing was never convicted of any crime. He never had any 'debt' to pay. He never spent any time in jail. He successfully avoided any conviction or punishment for his killings. The courts found him innocent because he was crazy.

When he was 15, this fellow shot his mother twice, second time point blank in the face. He shot his sister twice, second time point blank in the face. Killed his father as well.

By his own admission, he killed with premediation, Prior to the killings, he had never exhibited any symptoms of mental illness.

After killing his immediate family, he was hospitalized. After several years, he was found not crazy and released.

With the help of his late father's pension, he went to college and earned a Ph D. Changed his name and hid his past.

You can say he hasn't exhibited any symptoms of mental illness since he killed his family. Then again, his mother could say something similar up until the time he shot her in the face and killed her.

And now, you are claiming that because the fact that he killed his immediate family has become public knowledge that he is some sort of a victim? That the facts constitute some sort of punishment?

He killed his mother, he killed his sister, and he killed his father. He avoided any punishment.

While he did get away with killing his family, he doesn't have the legal right to kill their memory. He doesn't get to eliminate their birth records. He doesn't get to censor their death records. He doesn't get to censor news coverage of his trial.

You are welcome to think that that is unfair. But the killer gets no sympathy from me.

Uno

 

[Argo]

I'd be ok with wiping the slate clean for minor offenses (burglary, low degree assault) butt IMO, major offenses like murder, rape, child molestation shouldn't be wiped clean. I would not want my daughter educated by somebody who molested a child just 5 years ago. Similarly, I wouldn't want my plumber to be a convicted murderer.

 

[Jhhnn]

The professor we are discussing was never convicted of any crime. He never had any 'debt' to pay. He never spent any time in jail. He successfully avoided any conviction or punishment for his killings. The courts found him innocent because he was crazy.

When he was 15, this fellow shot his mother twice, second time point blank in the face. He shot his sister twice, second time point blank in the face. Killed his father as well.

By his own admission, he killed with premediation, Prior to the killings, he had never exhibited any symptoms of mental illness.

After killing his immediate family, he was hospitalized. After several years, he was found not crazy and released.

With the help of his late father's pension, he went to college and earned a Ph D. Changed his name and hid his past.

You can say he hasn't exhibited any symptoms of mental illness since he killed his family. Then again, his mother could say something similar up until the time he shot her in the face and killed her.

And now, you are claiming that because the fact that he killed his immediate family has become public knowledge that he is some sort of a victim? That the facts constitute some sort of punishment?

He killed his mother, he killed his sister, and he killed his father. He avoided any punishment.

While he did get away with killing his family, he doesn't have the legal right to kill their memory. He doesn't get to eliminate their birth records. He doesn't get to censor their death records. He doesn't get to censor news coverage of his trial.

You are welcome to think that that is unfair. But the killer gets no sympathy from me.

Uno

You write as if that happened yesterday, as if he weren't mentally ill at the time, and as if no redeeming acts have ever been performed.

For some, there's no greater sense of sick self satisfied righteousness than to have others to look down upon.

The man has lived an upstanding life & been an asset to his community & employer ever since. It's a sad thing that meddling busybodies feel the craven compulsion to sensationalize his unfortunate youth, and even worse that people like you choose to judge him based on that.

 

[Jaskalas]

And now, you are claiming that because the fact that he killed his immediate family has become public knowledge that he is some sort of a victim? That the facts constitute some sort of punishment?

You are welcome to think that that is unfair. But the killer gets no sympathy from me.

I appreciate that you do not agree with the court, I don't either, but to have a rule of law in this country we must abide by it. Should a sense of vengence come first? Must we extract our pound of flesh regardless of the rule of law? I don't think so.

I would violate it to protect an innocent man, but not to lynch a murderer. We have a due process for such things. If you don't like it - change it. If you cannot change it - find a place more to your liking and move there.

We do not ask for sympathy , we demand that he be left alone.

 

[Matt1970]

I wonder if there was a question on his job application asking if he has a history of mental illness?

 

[IGBT]

because in the mind of many justice wasn't served. that's why.

 

[Jhhnn]

because in the mind of many justice wasn't served. that's why.

In such simple minds, justice is never served short of state sanctioned murder. It's the same headset won by the goat herding followers of Abraham, thousands of years ago.

 

[unokitty]

I appreciate that you do not agree with the court, I don't either, but to have a rule of law in this country we must abide by it. Should a sense of vengence come first? Must we extract our pound of flesh regardless of the rule of law? I don't think so.

I would violate it to protect an innocent man, but not to lynch a murderer. We have a due process for such things. If you don't like it - change it. If you cannot change it - find a place more to your liking and move there.

We do not ask for sympathy , we demand that he be left alone.

Other than you, no one here has spoken of vengeance. Other than you, no one here has spoken of lynching. Not interested in interacting about your fantasies.

Obviously, the killer that we are discussing didn't want anyone to know the truth concerning his past. He tried, and failed, to cover it up.

You are welcome to perceive the killer as a victim. Though, its not clear to me how one can be victimized by the truth concerning their own actions.

You are welcome to be sympathetic to the killer.

I don't perceive the killer as a victim. And for him, I'm not sympathetic.

Reality and the truth exist independent of your demands.

If that is a problem for you. Then, that's your problem.

Uno

 

[Jaskalas]

If that is a problem for you. Then, that's your problem.

If you were to harass him, I would insist the law makes it your problem.

 

[Jhhnn]

Other than you, no one here has spoken of vengeance. Other than you, no one here has spoken of lynching. Not interested in interacting about your fantasies.

Obviously, the killer that we are discussing didn't want anyone to know the truth concerning his past. He tried, and failed, to cover it up.

You are welcome to perceive the killer as a victim. Though, its not clear to me how one can be victimized by the truth concerning their own actions.

You are welcome to be sympathetic to the killer.

I don't perceive the killer as a victim. And for him, I'm not sympathetic.

Reality and the truth exist independent of your demands.

If that is a problem for you. Then, that's your problem.

Uno

So, uhh, wearing the scarlet letter isn't some form of vengeance? Really?

 

[unokitty]

If you were to harass him, I would insist the law makes it your problem.

Then, that's why in your previous post you spoke of vengeance and extracting a pound of flesh?

If you think that the law encourages cyber-bullies and their false accusations, that is another of your problems.

Uno

 

[brycejones]

That's a strawman. Other than you, no one here has spoken about a job teaching adults. Not interested in your logical fallacies.

Uno

Seriously? You started this idiotic argument that his job isn't suitable and then refuse to define what is a suitable job. So fine, your argument is a straw man and I'll ignore it and you from now on.

 

[unokitty]

Seriously? You started this idiotic argument that his job isn't suitable and then refuse to define what is a suitable job. So fine, your argument is a straw man and I'll ignore it and you from now on.

If it upsets you that I wouldn't send my children to an admitted killer for their education, then that is your problem. I've already stated that if you want to send your children to one, I'm okay with that.

If it upsets you that I'm not sympathetic to a person that has killed his immediate family, then that is your problem.


Fact is, you lack the authority to tell me what to think or who to send my children to for their education.

I'm okay with that.

Uno