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

[s0me0nesmind1]

I like the thread - because I actually find this quite a fun topic to debate. It really is a close call even for myself.

However, if I had to choose it would simply be this: Your past is your past. You can't edit it. You can't erase it. You made it. Your reputation is based on your past events..... And there is NO reason an employer shouldn't be able to dismiss you based on your reputation.

This is no different than someone not hiring GZ because they didn't like what he did in that event. Doesn't matter if he was found guilty, HIS past is HIS past - and it is a part of HIS reputation. This same case holds true for this person - even though he was found innocent of the crime, it's his reputation that should be tarnished and remain so.

 

[brycejones]

If it upsets you that I wouldn't send my children to an admitted killer for their education, then that is your problem.

Uno

It doesn't upset me it's your choice. What is lame is you raise a point in a debate but refuse to clarify what you mean by it. You decide to attempt to make a point and when asked for clarification decide to run away instead of actually answering what should be a simple question that's your choice as well. It makes you a pretty poor debater but you probably already knew that.

 

[werepossum]

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

Well said. Far too many people feel that any consequences to one's actions equates to punishment. In my book, having satisfied any legal punishment does not mean the crime disappears, and it certainly doesn't justify further malfeasance just because that malfeasance is necessary to have a better life. Of course, that is assuming he lied to his employer; it's also possible that his employer never asked the questions that would require he lie to show a clean bill of health. But in either case, I see no reason his employer should be required to continue employing him if his now-revealed past is a net negative to that employer. Jobs aren't charities, and if using the "N" word can cost Paula Dean a job then surely shooting a family dead can have at least as serious consequences.

 

[brycejones]

Well said. Far too many people feel that any consequences to one's actions equates to punishment. In my book, having satisfied any legal punishment does not mean the crime disappears, and it certainly doesn't justify further malfeasance just because that malfeasance is necessary to have a better life. Of course, that is assuming he lied to his employer; it's also possible that his employer never asked the questions that would require he lie to show a clean bill of health. But in either case, I see no reason his employer should be required to continue employing him if his now-revealed past is a net negative to that employer. Jobs aren't charities, and if using the "N" word can cost Paula Dean a job then surely shooting a family dead can have at least as serious consequences.

What's unusual about this case is his employer is supporting him, its 3rd parties who are calling for him to lose his job.

 

[bshole]

It doesn't upset me it's your choice. What is lame is you raise a point in a debate but refuse to clarify what you mean by it. You decide to attempt to make a point and when asked for clarification decide to run away instead of actually answering what should be a simple question that's your choice as well. It makes you a pretty poor debater but you probably already knew that.

Yea I was interested in what her answer would be too. I "think" Uno believes that this person should never have been employed by anybody. That this person should have been ostracized, unemployed, alienated and put into position that would most likely result in another violent episode.

 

[unokitty]

It doesn't upset me it's your choice. What is lame is you raise a point in a debate but refuse to clarify what you mean by it. You decide to attempt to make a point and when asked for clarification decide to run away instead of actually answering what should be a simple question that's your choice as well. It makes you a pretty poor debater but you probably already knew that.

brycejones,

You have my sympathy.

Uno

 

[werepossum]

What's unusual about this case is his employer is supporting him, its 3rd parties who are calling for him to lose his job.

I have no problem with Milikin University doing so, although were I considering sending a child to that university to study I'd probably consider other schools. Schizophrenic murderer is not high on my preferred list of qualities in a professor.

Could be worse, he could be working as a cop.

 

[Jhhnn]

What's unusual about this case is his employer is supporting him, its 3rd parties who are calling for him to lose his job.

Third party busybodies intent on old testament vengeance in matters where they have no business in the first place, yes.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have no problem with Milikin University doing so, although were I considering sending a child to that university to study I'd probably consider other schools. Schizophrenic murderer is not high on my preferred list of qualities in a professor.

Could be worse, he could be working as a cop.

This whole "Think of the Children!" schtick is extremely tedious, particularly when talking about people age 18 & older, who *aren't children* in the first place.

I mean, uhh, you do believe in the death penalty for 18 year olds, right?

Or are 18 year old marines fighting in Afghanistan illegal child soldiers?

You might want to consider re-evaluating your views to form a coherent whole, rather than just spouting off self righteousness when it feels good.

 

[brycejones]

brycejones,

You have my sympathy.

Uno

You just went full inncorruptable without the name calling. Congrats

 

[IGBT]

make no mistake..he's still a murderer. He's just between incidents.

 

[Jhhnn]

make no mistake..he's still a murderer. He's just between incidents.

Yeh, 46 years between incidents.

Obviously, you haven't the vaguest notion just how lame your comment really is in the context of the man's life.

 

[werepossum]

This whole "Think of the Children!" schtick is extremely tedious, particularly when talking about people age 18 & older, who *aren't children* in the first place.

I mean, uhh, you do believe in the death penalty for 18 year olds, right?

Or are 18 year old marines fighting in Afghanistan illegal child soldiers?

You might want to consider re-evaluating your views to form a coherent whole, rather than just spouting off self righteousness when it feels good.

Regardless of whether my child is 17 or 18, he is still my child. Let us just agree that I have a lower appreciation of mentally ill mass murder in a professor's portfolio than do you.

And please take note that a left wing and a far left wing do not form "a coherent whole". They merely enable you to furiously fly in tight and highly amusing circles.

 

[Jhhnn]

Regardless of whether my child is 17 or 18, he is still my child. Let us just agree that I have a lower appreciation of mentally ill mass murder in a professor's portfolio than do you.

And please take note that a left wing and a far left wing do not form "a coherent whole". They merely enable you to furiously fly in tight and highly amusing circles.

Please note that you furiously avoided the questions, which is totally unsurprising.

Righties have the amazing ability to hold contradictory beliefs, usually lashing out in denial when called on it.

First, believe in whatever makes you feel good, then find justification after the fact, never questioning the feel good part at all.

We all share concerns for our children as they enter adulthood, but that doesn't mean they're still children, or that your bullshit trope will go unchallenged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThinkOfTheChildren

 

[Matt1970]

Yeh, 46 years between incidents.

Obviously, you haven't the vaguest notion just how lame your comment really is in the context of the man's life.

You are welcome to take your whole family over to his house. Odds are he probably won't kill you all.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are welcome to take your whole family over to his house. Odds are he probably won't kill you all.

If invited, I wouldn't hesitate. He's lived an upstanding & productive life for 46 years, probably a lot longer than you or his other detractors here have been out of diapers.

 

[Matt1970]

If invited, I wouldn't hesitate. He's lived an upstanding & productive life for 46 years, probably a lot longer than you or his other detractors here have been out of diapers.

Well, spin the wheel and hopefully it lands on live.

*EDIT* And no, in case you haven't noticed dumbass I have only been alive for 42 years.

 

[werepossum]

Please note that you furiously avoided the questions, which is totally unsurprising.

Righties have the amazing ability to hold contradictory beliefs, usually lashing out in denial when called on it.

First, believe in whatever makes you feel good, then find justification after the fact, never questioning the feel good part at all.

We all share concerns for our children as they enter adulthood, but that doesn't mean they're still children, or that your bullshit trope will go unchallenged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThinkOfTheChildren

<sigh> Sometimes I forget just how limited is your intellect. To specifically answer your questions:
I do support the death penalty for 18 year olds.
I do not believe that 18 year olds fighting in Afghanistan (or anywhere else) are illegal child soldiers.

In the faint hope you might one day understand my previous answer, I'll expand on it:
1) With my money, I vote. I would probably not vote to support a university who employs an admitted killer as a department chair. At the very least, I'd look into it and consider this new information in selecting a school with my child.
2) My child will always be my child, and I will always have a vested interest in his welfare, regardless of whether he has reached legal adulthood.

 

[HeXen]

Here is what I think. You murder, you die by same method. Getting to live or die by humane methods is what I think is not fair.

 

[Jhhnn]

<sigh> Sometimes I forget just how limited is your intellect. To specifically answer your questions:
I do support the death penalty for 18 year olds.
I do not believe that 18 year olds fighting in Afghanistan (or anywhere else) are illegal child soldiers.

In the faint hope you might one day understand my previous answer, I'll expand on it:
1) With my money, I vote. I would probably not vote to support a university who employs an admitted killer as a department chair. At the very least, I'd look into it and consider this new information in selecting a school with my child.
2) My child will always be my child, and I will always have a vested interest in his welfare, regardless of whether he has reached legal adulthood.

So, uhh, an 18 year old isn't "a child" except when they're your child, at which point everything is different, right?

Nice of you to clear that up, even as you try to maintain the "Think of the Children" trope.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, spin the wheel and hopefully it lands on live.

*EDIT* And no, in case you haven't noticed dumbass I have only been alive for 42 years.

So, you confirm what I offered to be true while calling me a dumbass.

I'm getting more than a whiff of denial...

Not that you'll ever notice.