NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I was flipping through the channels yesterday and I came upon an interesting little story (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/16/ng.01.html). Fortunately, it was being reported by CNN's very best host, Nancy Grace, so you get to have a fun time sifting through the bullshit, but you'll have to try to bear with me. Actually, that's a lie. You don't have to, but you're going to, because you want to know what I'm going to say. Because I'm interesting.

But first, I'll tell you a funny joke I heard the other day.

Question: What do you get when you put a convicted, repeat child molester, the raper of a 13-year-old boy, and a 35-year-old father of two in the same area of Washington?

Answer: A 35-year-old father of two.

Actually, that wasn't a joke, that's what really happened. A 35-year-old father of two went on a vigilante mission and blew the heads off of two released child molesters after looking up their address online. One of the two served just five years for raping a 13-year-old boy, and one of them served just fourteen after molesting several children. Both of these individuals are level 3 sex offenders, the most likely type of sex offender to reoffend, but they were still released in under twenty years.

This guy kicks ass. I'm glad he fixed what the American justice system fucked up. However, there seems to be one problem. While he has effectively made some people notice how fucked up the justice system can be, he has also sparked a debate that could turn out to be bad for his cause. Some people are now saying that perhaps access to the address of convicted sex offenders should not be public because of the way that this man found his targets.

Seriously, am I the only one who doesn't give a shit?

If people use the list of registered sex offenders to hunt down and kill people who get off way too light, which these guys did, good the fuck for them. The justice system is what's fucked up about this case, not the killer of two sex offenders. The only thing I'd be pissed about is if this actually did result in the removal of location from the information provided on convicted child molesters and rapists. That would be a step toward protecting child rapists from harm, and that's just fucking ridiculous. I seriously can't believe that such a debate has even been sparked.

Let me make it clear that this was not some random shooting. Mullen, the killer, risked the lives of no one else when he offed these two mother fuckers - or I guess daughter fuckers would be more accurate - so saying, "But then vigilantes would become out of control and kill the wrong people," is a stupid point to make and does not apply here. If it were a random, uncontrolled killing where the person was not as thorough and careful as this guy, my opinion on how fucking awesome he is would definitely change. But he was not reckless, and as such, I'm glad he did what he did, and I hope the stupid fucks that actually care about the protection of level 3 sex offenders don't win out on this one and remove the location of said convicts from public access.

I don't usually agree with vigilante justice.

But in this case, it seems quite justified. Where the justice system fails, others take its place.

You can't have vigilantes going around killing people. What if one of the sex offenders had an innocent friend or relative over the house and the other sex offender wasn't home. Then the vigilante may well have blasted an innocent person in place of the absent sex offender.

Plus, we're supposed to be a civilized nation. Rule of law is part of that. I don't agree with letting violent sex offenders out of prison EVER, but I also don't agree with letting people go around shooting ex cons.

The vigilante should get a short prison sentence. Prison is in order because society must show that vigilanteism isn't allowed. Short sentence because he didn't kill anyone who's life was really worth much.

Members of the public executing where they see fit? Inspired, let's do away with the whole messy issue of justice by scrapping the court system altogether while we're at it. Nice.

You can't have vigilantes going around killing people. What if one of the sex offenders had an innocent friend or relative over the house and the other sex offender wasn't home. Then the vigilante may well have blasted an innocent person in place of the absent sex offender.

God, damn it, commie! I told you specifically not to say this. We're talking about this case specifically as far as sentencing is concerned. What I don't give a shit about is the protection of sex offenders by removing location from the information accessible online.

Plus, we're supposed to be a civilized nation. Rule of law is part of that. I don't agree with letting violent sex offenders out of prison EVER, but I also don't agree with letting people go around shooting ex cons.

The vigilante should get a short prison sentence. Prison is in order because society must show that vigilanteism isn't allowed. Short sentence because he didn't kill anyone who's life was really worth much.

Most of the time, I would agree that a short sentence would be in order, but in this case I believe he handled the situation so carefully that risking the lives of others was not a factor, and so any time for reckless endangerment, the only thing that I would ever think to convict him of, isn't applicable.

You can't have vigilantes going around killing people. What if one of the sex offenders had an innocent friend or relative over the house and the other sex offender wasn't home. Then the vigilante may well have blasted an innocent person in place of the absent sex offender.

Plus, we're supposed to be a civilized nation. Rule of law is part of that. I don't agree with letting violent sex offenders out of prison EVER, but I also don't agree with letting people go around shooting ex cons.

The vigilante should get a short prison sentence. Prison is in order because society must show that vigilanteism isn't allowed. Short sentence because he didn't kill anyone who's life was really worth much. I agree. However, this is a sympton of justice problems. I was reading the paper today, and I saw (British news, not American) that some bastard who forced immigrants into prostitution got about 14 years. This guy basically facilitated repeated rape, and he got 14 years!

obviously the offenders where realised early because the prison knew they wouldn't do it again.…and guess what they didn't

"vigilantes are worse than murderers they think there right"

If you allow and encourage vigilantism like this, then soon enough, you have no justice system. These people might terrible criminals, but if you turn a blind eye to vigilante justice being meted out to them because you think their crime merits ignoring the law, and if society allows this, soon enough we have no justice system at all.

They might well be scum, but there are plenty of people out there that I think are scum, but I don't condone someone going out and killing them. As far as I'm concerned, someone who goes out and takes a life like that is as much scum as someone who abuses children.

Vengeance is not justice.

Members of the public executing where they see fit? Inspired, let's do away with the whole messy issue of justice by scrapping the court system altogether while we're at it. Nice.

Learn to read. I am not saying that I don't give a shit about vigilante killings, I am saying that I don't give a shit about protecting ex-felons to inhibit vigilante killings. I am also saying that, in this specific case, the vigilante killing was handled well enough that he should not receive time. Most cases would be much more recklessly handled, and would deserve some short sentencing. This is a very unique case.

obviously the offenders where realised early because the prison knew they wouldn't do it again.…and guess what they didn't

"vigilantes are worse than murderers they think there right"

Okay, first of all, thanks for making me laugh by acting like that was a quote. Second of all, the courts did not and could not have known that they would not reoffend, in fact reoffense for level three sex offenders is pretty likely. Thirdly, that's not what we're fucking arguing about. Fourthly, this vigilante was right. Finally, some murderers also think they're right.

Learn to read. I am not saying that I don't give a shit about vigilante killings, I am saying that I don't give a shit about protecting ex-felons to inhibit vigilante killings. I am also saying that, in this specific case, the vigilante killing was handled well enough that he should not receive time. Most cases would be much more recklessly handled, and would deserve some short sentencing. This is a very unique case.
It is not unique. Why is it unique because some one went vigilante? The justice system is fucked up, but that does not give him the right to go around killing people to rectify it. To hell with all 3 of them, the molester and the vigilante.

If you allow and encourage vigilantism like this, then soon enough, you have no justice system. These people might terrible criminals, but if you turn a blind eye to vigilante justice being meted out to them because you think their crime merits ignoring the law, and if society allows this, soon enough we have no justice system at all.

They might well be scum, but there are plenty of people out there that I think are scum, but I don't condone someone going out and killing them. As far as I'm concerned, someone who goes out and takes a life like that is as much scum as someone who abuses children.

Vengeance is not justice.

I'm not saying I don't give a shit about vigilante justice! Holy fuck! I'm saying that I don't give a shit about protecting rapists and child molesters from vigilante justice by inhibiting the ability of innocent people to learn about sex offenders in their area. Please stop making this argument - that goes for everybody. Please.

It is not unique. Why is it unique because some one went vigilante?

If you read my post and the linked story, maybe you'd know. He planned this out carefully and checked ahead of time before offing the two guys.

The justice system is fucked up, but that does not give him the right to go around killing people to rectify it. To hell with all 3 of them, the molester and the vigilante.

When people rectify it as well as he did, without being reckless, I disagree wholly.

I'm not saying I don't give a shit about vigilante justice! Holy fuck! I'm saying that I don't give a shit about protecting rapists and child molesters from vigilante justice by inhibiting the ability of innocent people to learn about sex offenders in their area. Please stop making this argument - that goes for everybody. Please.

Semantics.

Semantics.

What is wrong with you? Seriously. You're arguing about the complete wrong topic, it has nothing to do with semantics, it has to do with you not reading and knowing what the fuck this thread was about. It has to do with you trying to derail this thread from the start and go into a completely different subject. It has to do with thread hijacking. Go away or argue about the right thing. Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

I honestly thought this thread was going to be something to do with Star Wars

the courts did not and could not have known that they would not reoffend

so I guess all the history of psychology and other early releases are wrong and that all the monitoring and counselling doesn’t work :rolleyes:

in fact reoffense for level three sex offenders is pretty likely.

obviously these cases weren't going to re-offend since the jail sentences were so shortened (or could it be that the government wants paedophiles running around on the street?)

Thirdly, that's not what we're fucking arguing about.

It's stating why we "give a shit"


Fourthly, this vigilante was right.

was he how? did these sex offenders have a bad look in there eye that the cops didn’t pick up on?

Finally, some murderers also think they're right.

then it would usually be manslaughter if a murders justified

What is wrong with you? Seriously. You're arguing about the complete wrong topic, it has nothing to do with semantics, it has to do with you not reading and knowing what the fuck this thread was about. It has to do with you trying to derail this thread from the start and go into a completely different subject. It has to do with thread hijacking. Go away or argue about the right thing. Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

Calm yourself. Getting angry on internet forums is like trying to lose weight by sitting on the couch wearing fishnet stockings. You accomplish nothing but making yourself look stupid.

And the difference between not minding vigilante justice and not minding the facilitation of vigilante justice is splitting hairs. It's like saying, "I don't want people to get rained on in their houses, but I don't mind taking away their roof on a stormy night."

If you don't like what the law is doing, you try to have the law changed, you do not ignore it and then outright break it on your own because you think you know better. If this is what people do when they have the information of these people's addresses available to them, I think it shows that they cannot be trusted with that information.

so I guess all the history of psychology and other early releases are wrong and that all the monitoring and counselling doesn’t work :rolleyes:

Well, considering that sexual predators attain the level 3 rating because they are so likely to reoffend, I guess it doesn't. Psychos can fake it, too. In fact, some are quite good at it.

obviously these cases weren't going to re-offend since the jail sentences were so shortened (or could it be that the government wants paedophiles running around on the street?)

Obviously you're wrong, because they were level three sex offenders. When a rapist and a repeat child molester get off in under twenty years, the justice system is fucked up.

It's stating why we "give a shit"

Vigilante justice is not what I don't give a shit about, if you had actually read the post.

was he how? did these sex offenders have a bad look in there eye that the cops didn’t pick up on?

No, they simply did far too little time, and were highly likely to reoffend.

then it would usually be manslaughter if a murders justified

No, manslaughter is when the death of the victim was not the intent. Manslaughter isn't justified murder. If you don't at least have an idea of what something is, you might want to look it up before you post as if you do.

Calm yourself. Getting angry on internet forums is like trying to lose weight by sitting on the couch wearing fishnet stockings. You accomplish nothing but making yourself look stupid.

It makes you look stupid, huh? Kind of like debating with someone about a subject that isn't the one being debated? Or like saying "Semantics," when something clearly has nothing to do with semantics?

And the difference between not minding vigilante justice and not minding the facilitation of vigilante justice is splitting hairs. It's like saying, "I don't want people to get rained on in their houses, but I don't mind taking away their roof on a stormy night."

Wrong. Bad analogy, and again not what I'm arguing. Learn to read. I'm saying that I don't give a shit about protecting ex-felons when it has to be at the expense of innocents. I'm not saying that I support vigilante justice. Your analogy sucks because it doesn't have enough fucking entities in it. The correct analogy would be a situation where there are two roofless houses - one with a violent criminal in it, and one with an innocent person in it - and I have to decide to whom will I give the only roofing available.

If you don't like what the law is doing, you try to have the law changed, you do not ignore it and then outright break it on your own because you think you know better. If this is what people do when they have the information of these people's addresses available to them, I think it shows that they cannot be trusted with that information.

Completely fucking irrelevant, yet again. Please go away. I'm telling you, you're arguing the wrong fucking point, it's pissing me off, the thread was written to debate a completely different subject, you're derailing my thread, and continuing to do so is flamebaiting the hell out of me.

The criminals were judged by their peers, punished accordingly, and served their sentence. I don't really care if some nutjob doesn't agree with the ruling. Damn, can you imagine what a f'ed up system that would create? Every time someone feels a sentence isn't strict enough, just kill the people involved to even it out.

No, the guy made a huge mistake. You don't need to agree with the rulings, in fact it's pretty much a guarantee there will always be someone who won't; they were judged by their peers and the sentence was decided.

He should be tried for double homocide, plain and simple. He can be judged, punished, and - if the sentence allows - released into freedom for whatever amount of his life remains.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

The criminals were judged by their peers, punished accordingly, and served their sentence. I don't really care if some nutjob doesn't agree with the ruling. Damn, can you imagine what a f'ed up system that would create? Every time someone feels a sentence isn't strict enough, just kill the people involved to even it out.

No, the guy made a huge mistake. You don't need to agree with the rulings, in fact it's pretty much a guarantee there will always be someone who won't; they were judged by their peers and the sentence was decided.

He should be tried for double homocide, plain and simple. He can be judged, punished, and - if the sentence allows - released into freedom for whatever amount of his life remains.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

NWBD. (This acronym stands for "Not What's Being Debated," and will now be used for any and all posts in this thread that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.)

When people rectify it as well as he did, without being reckless, I disagree wholly.
Vigilanteism, with your definition of recklessness, is a mass murder.


NWBD. (This acronym stands for "Not What's Being Debated," and will now be used for any and all posts in this thread that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.)
This thread has no point any more when you tell some one who stated he, as a vigilante, is no more than a murderer that that is not what is being debated.

Good on that guy, screw the justice system, vigilanties all the way!

NWBD. (This acronym stands for "Not What's Being Debated," and will now be used for any and all posts in this thread that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.)I'm going to say this in as polite a fashion as I possibly can: you do not define what is, or is not, applicable in regards to a debate, regardless of if you started the debate. You can refuse to acknowledge anything outside of a defined scope; that's your business.

But I would thank you kindly to think outside your own beliefs, and realize that not everyone is going to agree with what you define as relevant, and that you cannot expect people to bend their viewpoint of what is relevant just to suit you.

The fact is, there is no such thing as an isolated incident. Every single incident has an impact on the world as a whole, legally and practically. You can pretend it doesn't affect anything outside the immediate chain of events, but you're only plugging your fingers into your ears and humming as loud as you can.

Your debate, your choice, though.

Rule of law. The person who committed the murder should be tried and sentenced to the punishment that becomes a murderer (save the death penalty, because it is cruel, unusual and barbaric).

Vigilantism is unacceptable. The life of the murder victim in no way diminishes the fact that it was murder.

Rule of law. The person who committed the murder should be tried and sentenced to the punishment that becomes a murderer (save the death penalty, because it is cruel, unusual and barbaric).

NWBD, but I do think it's funny that you posted that rule and excluded the death penalty for being cruel and unusual, when it is neither. It is just and somewhat prominent.

Vigilantism is unacceptable. The life of the murder victim in no way diminishes the fact that it was murder.

NWBD.

I'm going to say this in as polite a fashion as I possibly can: you do not define what is, or is not, applicable in regards to a debate, regardless of if you started the debate. You can refuse to acknowledge anything outside of a defined scope; that's your business.

But I would thank you kindly to think outside your own beliefs, and realize that not everyone is going to agree with what you define as relevant, and that you cannot expect people to bend their viewpoint of what is relevant just to suit you.

NWBD. Yes, if I start a debate regarding whose safety takes precedence when deciding the amount of information made public, criminals or innocents, and people start debating vigilante justice, I most definitely have the ability to label things that are not related to the debate whatsoever as such.

NWBD, but I do think it's funny that you posted that rule and excluded the death penalty for being cruel and unusual, when it is neither. It is just and somewhat prominent.

The European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights disagree. That you live in a culture where barbarism is tolerated, and that it has rubbed off on you such that you are an admirer of murderers is inconsequential.

NWBD.

You do not own threads started in General. Leave the thread if all you are going to do is shirk debate and act like a petulant child trying noisily to block out what he does not wish to hear.

NWBD. Yes, if I start a debate regarding whose safety takes precedence when deciding the amount of information made public, criminals or innocents, and people start debating vigilante justice, I most definitely have the ability to label things that are not related to the debate whatsoever as such.Vigilante justice is a result of too much information being made public. Hence, it being relevant to the debate. It would be like debating whether cigarettes should be legal or not, and someone bringing up cancer -- it's an effect of the situation being described.

On an unrelated note, I apologize for my previous post, as - rereading it - it was more brash than I'd intended for it to be.

The European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights disagree. That you live in a culture where barbarism is tolerated, and that it has rubbed off on you that you are an admirer of murders is inconsequential.

Well, that must mean they're right. Because Europe is always right, and most of history's civilizations were actually uncivilized, barbaric justice-whores.

Apologies, but, while it's NWBD, I fail to see how something just can be cruel at the same time, considering how comparitively humane the death penalty has become.

You do not own threads started in General. Leave the thread if all you are going to do is shirk debate and act like a petulant child trying noisily to block out what he does not wish to hear.

I'm not shirking debate, I'm debating this topic, as opposed to the topic people want to turn this one into. Last I checked, thread hijacking isn't allowed, anyway. If you had read my thread and my posts you'd understand that, but that was apparently too much work.

Obviously the starter of this thread has not made himself very clear. I don't even understand what he's trying to debate. That however is off the point.

First off, right or wrong, this vigilante deserves to be presumed innocent, tried and then sentenced accordingly (or not sentenced, but he pretty much admitted it already).

Second, my first point IS relevant due to the fact that to avoid future vigilantism, some people should have their privacy back. Namely, sex offenders. The government should already be keeping tabs on them, why make this public knowledge so that some father thinks that it gives him the right to track them down and kill them?

Vigilante justice is a result of too much information being made public. Hence, it being relevant to the debate. It would be like debating whether cigarettes should be legal or not, and someone bringing up cancer -- it's an effect of the situation being described.

Then argue that. That is a good, relevant argument. Say that too much information is currently made public and this contributes to vigilante justice, and thus the information being made available at this time must be curbed, to an extent. Don't say that vigilante justice is bad and why, that's not what we're arguing. Say that vigilante justice is bad, and that an excess of public information contributes to it, thus excessive public information is bad, thus it should be reduced. Is that so hard?

Assuming this is your argument, I would say that the reduction in information granted would make parents less informed as to the dangers their children may face, and is not fair to the innocents. I would also point out that the justice system's laxity contibuted more to the father's pursuit of this attack than the information granted to the public, highlighted by some of the points stated in his letter to the paper.

By the way, your analogy was off, as it depends how cancer was brought up. An analogy for this situation would be someone posting an argument for the legality of cigarettes, to which you reply, "Cancer is bad because it kills people." No one is arguing that cancer isn't bad, they're arguing that cigarettes should be legal. If you can tie cancer into the current debate, do so. Don't just start arguing about cancer. Do you see what I'm saying at all?

Second, my first point IS relevant due to the fact that to avoid future vigilantism, some people should have their privacy back. Namely, sex offenders. The government should already be keeping tabs on them, why make this public knowledge so that some father thinks that it gives him the right to track them down and kill them?

Thank you! Thank you, thank you, thank you. Something relevant.

The thing is, a father should have the right to know that there is a sex offender living nextdoor to him, as, considering the high rate of reoffense for sex offenders, he may not feel safe with his children being nextdoor to such a person, and may wish to move or petition his presence. The father's right to be safe in his own home should not be curbed for the ex-felon's right to privacy. You can't always trust the government to keep people safe from released sex offenders, either, or their rate of reoffense would not be so high, because FBI agents would kick the door in before a sexual predator could reoffend. The rights of potential reoffenders, of ex-felons, should not inhibit the rights of wholly innocent people.

Fallanour, thank you again for finally arguing the correct point. Bless your teachers for teaching you to read.

Fact: Child molesters are the worst kind of sexual predators.
Fact: Child molesters are always recidivists and can't be rehabilitated.
It is imperative for the society to protect the children by removing the molesters from the society permanently. Life sentence without possibility of pardon is the only reasonable punishment for them. The society sometimes fails to punish these criminals accordingly, and lets them walk after a few years. In that case, it is an obligation of the people to take the matter into their own hands and protect the children, hence the information about the convicted child molesters MUST be publicly available.
Rights of the children to live, and to live safely from these predators precede any rights these predators had, and waiwed when they commited their first cruel and despicable act.

Well, that must mean they're right. Because Europe is always right, and most of history's civilizations were actually uncivilized, barbaric justice-whores.

Europe, and most other first world nations, are right about this. That state-sanctioned murder was common in no way makes it less barbaric. Slavery was common, too. I certainly hope that you are not an admirer of the latter as you are of the former.

Apologies, but, while it's NWBD, I fail to see how something just can be cruel at the same time, considering how comparitively humane the death penalty has become.

It is cruel, and it is not just. Your delusions about the "humaneness" of murder and killing are ludicrous. The AMA precludes its members from becoming state-sanctioned killers for a reason.

I'm not shirking debate, I'm debating this topic, as opposed to the topic people want to turn this one into. Last I checked, thread hijacking isn't allowed, anyway. If you had read my thread and my posts you'd understand that, but that was apparently too much work.

No, you are, through a most puerile way might I add, trying to block out a vital part of the debate around your topic. Why? Probably because you know you can't justify vigilantism and therefore would not be able to defend your stance if that crucial part of the debate were allowed. Fortunately, you do not govern the contents of threads, and it remains obvious that vigilantism is on-topic in this thread because it has so much to do with the motives behind whether or not to allow these lists.

Then argue that. That is a good, relevant argument. Say that too much information is currently made public and this contributes to vigilante justice, and thus the information being made available at this time must be curbed, to an extent. Don't say that vigilante justice is bad and why, that's not what we're arguing. Say that vigilante justice is bad, and that an excess of public information contributes to it, thus excessive public information is bad, thus it should be reduced. Is that so hard?

Assuming this is your argument, I would say that the reduction in information granted would make parents less informed as to the dangers their children may face, and is not fair to the innocents. I would also point out that the justice system's laxity contibuted more to the father's pursuit of this attack than the information granted to the public, highlighted by some of the points stated in his letter to the paper.

By the way, your analogy was off, as it depends how cancer was brought up. An analogy for this situation would be someone posting an argument for the legality of cigarettes, to which you reply, "Cancer is bad because it kills people." No one is arguing that cancer isn't bad, they're arguing that cigarettes should be legal. If you can tie cancer into the current debate, do so. Don't just start arguing about cancer. Do you see what I'm saying at all?Sir - or madam, whichever it may be - please take a deep, calming breath and chill out. Your unprovoked aggressive demeanor is growing tiring very, very fast. I have responded to each of your posts with arguments that were thought through carefully, worded as politely as the matter permitted, and generally free of any attempt to insult or offend.

In return, you have been increasingly aggresive and incendiary with your replies. If you cannot debate in a calm, respectful manner, than I will politely bow out of your topic and leave the debate to those who wish to partake.

Now, with that said -- please do not tell me how to debate, nor how to make my points. That's something which is at my sole discretion. You don't have to like how I do it. You don't have to agree with my points. And if you feel I am completely out of line, I will not in any way restrict or deny your right to seek moderation against me.

You have no place, however, in attempting to control my means of expressing my opinions. I make points as I feel they are best made, and I don't plan to change that because it is disliked by those I debate with.

That isn't meant to be aggressive, but I do need to clear the air on this subject, as otherwise the problem would simply continue to build until it reached a much less pleasant end.

Back to the matter at hand.

Vigilante justice is a problem, in my opinion -- and it is paramount that this is understood, as it is the cornerstone of all other comments I will be making on the subject.

First of all: the vigilante justice executed in this particular case occured because information that the murderer did not need to know, was available to him. It allowed him to exact his own brand of justice, and it can be comfortably argued that - while it would not be impossible for him to have done the same without the information - it made the act much easier and more plausible.

Second of all: in response to the original question, which is both the basis of the first post, and the basis of the poll - which seems to have changed at some unspecified point throughout the thread - "Seriously, am I the only one who doesn't give a shit?"

Quite possibly not, but I do give a shit. I do care that two men who had served their sentence were murdered, I do care that this was made possible through information provided to the murderer.

Lastly, regardless of how cancer is brought into the cigarette debate, it is obvious it is being used in the respect of pro vs. con unless otherwise explicitly stated. Likewise, I believe the risks/cons of the information being available outweigh any alleged gains of having the information available.

I hope that clears things up.

Europe, and most other first world nations, are right about this. That state-sanctioned murder was common in no way makes it less barbaric. Slavery was common, too. I certainly hope that you are not an admirer of the latter as you are of the former.

But slavery isn't justified in the same way killing a killer is justified.

It is cruel, and it is not just. Your delusions about the "humaneness" of murder and killing are ludicrous. The AMA precludes its members from becoming state-sanctioned killers for a reason.

Because they're idiots? It's perfectly justified. If you kill someone - if you take away someone's right to live - and it is not a legal act, such as in war or self-defense, you should have your right to live taken as well.

No, you are, through a most puerile way might I add, trying to block out a vital part of the debate around your topic. Why? Probably because you know you can't justify vigilantism and therefore would not be able to defend your stance if that crucial part of the debate were allowed. Fortunately, you do not govern the contents of threads, and it remains obvious that vigilantism is on-topic in this thread because it has so much to do with the motives behind whether or not to allow these lists or not.

No, I'm not, and I have in fact argued that point already after it was related to the current debate. Way to prove you haven't read this thread. I do not support vigilantism as a general rule, because all-to-often it is reckless. This was not reckless, but that's a debate for a different thread. I will not debate the death penalty or vigilantism with you any more unless you are using it to explain why you feel criminals should receive a break on the amount of information people are allowed to access with regards to them. It is not too much for me to ask that you argue the topic that I posted. Thread hijacking is not allowed. Thanks.

But slavery isn't justified in the same way killing a killer is justified.

Who kills the killer who kills the killer? Justice, or that which is just, is not that which is retributive.

Because they're idiots? It's perfectly justified. If you kill someone - if you take away someone's right to live - and it is not a legal act, such as in war or self-defense, you should have your right to live taken as well.

Fortunately, that sort of thinking is going the way of the dodo. Your own Supreme Court recently banned executions of children. Adults will not be far off, and perhaps then you'll join the overwhelming majority of developed nations in realising the folly of banning murder and yet allowing it.

No, I'm not, and I have in fact argued that point already after it was related to the current debate. Way to prove you haven't read this thread.

Way to prove that you did not think it through.

I do not support vigilantism as a general rule, because all-to-often it is reckless. This was not reckless, but that's a debate for a different thread. I will not debate the death penalty

You were the one who started the debate on the death penalty. I mentioned it in passing as an exemption, and did not deal with it all in my original post, but you were the one that questioned me on it. So do please think this through like you should have from the beginning and do not go off on tangents you try to deny everyone else. The hypocrisy becomes a bit too garish otherwise, I'm afraid.

or vigilantism with you any more unless you are using it to explain why you feel criminals should receive a break on the amount of information people are allowed to access with regards to them. It is not too much for me to ask that you argue the topic that I posted.

People here have already explained to you that the vigilantism here is an integral part of your debate. I see you continue to try to block that out, despite what anyone says. Therefore I shan't waste more breath on you in that respect.

Thread hijacking is not allowed. Thanks.

Start living as you preach, please.

Sir - or madam, whichever it may be - please take a deep, calming breath and chill out. Your unprovoked aggressive demeanor is growing tiring very, very fast. I have responded to each of your posts with arguments that were thought through carefully, worded as politely as the matter permitted, and generally free of any attempt to insult or offend.

Sir.

In return, you have been increasingly aggresive and incendiary with your replies. If you cannot debate in a calm, respectful manner, than I will politely bow out of your topic and leave the debate to those who wish to partake.

If you debate the actual topic, I will be calm. If you try to debate the death penalty or vigilantism like Fass did, you are flamebaiting me via thread hijack, and I cannot promise that I will remain calm.

Now, with that said -- please do not tell me how to debate, nor how to make my points. That's something which is at my sole discretion. You don't have to like how I do it. You don't have to agree with my points. And if you feel I am completely out of line, I will not in any way restrict or deny your right to seek moderation against me.

I'm not one to seek moderation. For one, I'm not flawless myself - as I'm sure you've noticed - and two, I find people that have to seek mods to settle disputes annoying and whiny, and I'm not a fan of being a hypocrite.

You have no place, however, in attempting to control my means of expressing my opinions. I make points as I feel they are best made, and I don't plan to change that because it is disliked by those I debate with.

I'm not telling you how to debate. Debate however you like. I am telling you what you should be debating. You can't go onto a thread on one subject and start arguing another unless you are somehow relating the other to the current subject. First of all, it's inconsiderate. Second of all, it serves only to derail my thread.

Vigilante justice is a problem, in my opinion -- and it is paramount that this is understood, as it is the cornerstone of all other comments I will be making on the subject.

I would agree that vigilante justice is normally not a good thing.

First of all: the vigilante justice executed in this particular case occured because information that the murderer did not need to know, was available to him. It allowed him to exact his own brand of justice, and it can be comfortably argued that - while it would not be impossible for him to have done the same without the information - it made the act much easier and more plausible.

However, if the victims were the type to reoffend, as so many sexual predators are, then the information was information that an innocent would need to know to ensure the safety of his or her child or children, and until the father killed these two sexual predators, he was an innocent, aside from a few minor smudges.

Second of all: in response to the original question, which is both the basis of the first post, and the basis of the poll - which seems to have changed at some unspecified point throughout the thread - "Seriously, am I the only one who doesn't give a shit?"

Quite possibly not, but I do give a shit. I do care that two men who had served their sentence were murdered, I do care that this was made possible through information provided to the murderer.

That's not what I said I don't give a shit about. I said, and I quote myself:

Some people are now saying that perhaps access to the address of convicted sex offenders should not be public because of the way that this man found his targets.

Seriously, am I the only one who doesn't give a shit?

Exactly like that. I even italicized what I didn't give a shit about to prevent this kind of confusion. Go check, I've never even edited the original post.

Lastly, regardless of how cancer is brought into the cigarette debate, it is obvious it is being used in the respect of pro vs. con unless otherwise explicitly stated. Likewise, I believe the risks/cons of the information being available outweigh any alleged gains of having the information available.

No, it's not obvious. If you say that cancer is bad because it kills people, it means simply that. Most people would agree with that statement. Most people that are for cigarettes being legal would agree with that statement. So introducing is not something that could be assumed to be an argument either way. It is an argument against cancer, not an argument against cigarettes, and so it is not relevant until made so.

The rest of your post was NWBD. I will soon have replied to it in the Death Penalty thread. As for the only relevant thing you posted:

People here have already explained to you that the vigilantism here is an integral part of your debate. I see you continue to try to block that out, despite what anyone says. Therefore I shan't waste more breath on you in that respect.

No, it is not, and they have not. Vigilantism does not inevitably result from publicized information, nor does it inevitably stop from classifying information, so it is not integral in the least. That statement is simply factually incorrect.

Bump.

No, it is not, and they have not. Vigilantism does not inevitably result from publicized information, nor does it inevitably stop from classifying information, so it is not integral in the least. That statement is simply factually incorrect. Not necessarily. Why do you think that Salman Rushdie went into hiding over the Fatwa? Because it only takes one nutter to kill them - which they can't easily do if they don't know their address.
I'm not too sorry about their deaths, but it's a slap in the teeth for the justice system. It's not solving anything - it's actually making the problem WORSE by lessening respect for the justice system. I could understand if they were related to the kids or whatever, but…

Not necessarily. Why do you think that Salman Rushdie went into hiding over the Fatwa? Because it only takes one nutter to kill them - which they can't easily do if they don't know their address.
I'm not too sorry about their deaths, but it's a slap in the teeth for the justice system. It's not solving anything - it's actually making the problem WORSE by lessening respect for the justice system. I could understand if they were related to the kids or whatever, but…

The difference is that when people go into hiding, they probably aren't going to reoffend. They're not putting themselves into the position to. A level 3 child molester or rapist in a city neighborhood is very likely to reoffend, and it is the right of parents to be aware of this and protect their children to the best of their ability short of doing something criminal. Short of arming their kids, the best thing they can do is know where the danger lies, and make sure that their kids avoid it. Besides, to assume that, just because the location isn't easily accessible, a parent with the intent to kill wouldn't be able to attain the address is somewhat naïve.

As for the slapping the justice system in the teeth part, I think the fact that two level 3 sexual predators who are very likely to reoffend got off in under 20 years each is proof enough that the justice system desperately needs a slap in the teeth.

The purpose of making the information about the convicted sex offenders public is that the people be informed about the fact that such predators live among them, so the people can take appropriate measures to protect their children.
As I have said before, rights of the children > rights of the molesters.

I'm split on this, really. On one hand, I understand why the addresses are given, as these are level three offenders, and those living next to or near them may want to know there's someone who can't keep his manhood in his pants. On the other hand, I think perhaps we should restrict the information given to a name and an area, such as a zipcode. That way, other civilians can still be on guard and the ex-convict can still retain some privacy, as he did serve his sentence. Remember that, as you said, the justice system is pretty f'ed up. That not only means that truly guilty offenders can get away with light sentences, but truly innocent men found guilty can be subject to unfair sentences, or, in some cases, acts of vigilantism.

The purpose of making the information about the convicted sex offenders public is that the people be informed about the fact that such predators live among them, so the people can take appropriate measures to protect their children.
As I have said before, rights of the children > rights of the molesters.

But could we still take appropriate measures to protect children by limiting information to the area and not a specific house? At least they will know that there's still one among them (and they'll have a name), but they'll still retain some rights and freedoms themselves.

But could we still take appropriate measures to protect children by limiting information to the area and not a specific house? At least they will know that there's still one among them (and they'll have a name), but they'll still retain some rights and freedoms themselves.

That would lead to community paranoia, and a fear of any new inhabitants when the notice was given to the public.

I'm split on this, really. On one hand, I understand why the addresses are given, as these are level three offenders, and those living next to or near them may want to know there's someone who can't keep his manhood in his pants. On the other hand, I think perhaps we should restrict the information given to a name and an area, such as a zipcode. That way, other civilians can still be on guard and the ex-convict can still retain some privacy, as he did serve his sentence. Remember that, as you said, the justice system is pretty f'ed up. That not only means that truly guilty offenders can get away with light sentences, but truly innocent men found guilty can be subject to unfair sentences, or, in some cases, acts of vigilantism.

Well, to start, zip codes can span pretty large areas, so that's not exactly specific enough. Also, dishonest or driven people can still figure out where the guy lives, and these are the type that would use the information for something other than their own protection, anyway. Finally, the conviction of innocents is becoming increasingly rare with the advances being made in modern forensics, so while that final point is a good one, it's an almost infinitely unlikely possibility, the odds of reoffense massively outweigh it, and the removal of locations from the public would most likely not prevent it.

Any convicted child rapist or sexual predator or other such personages should be destroyed.

But could we still take appropriate measures to protect children by limiting information to the area and not a specific house? At least they will know that there's still one among them (and they'll have a name), but they'll still retain some rights and freedoms themselves.

We could, but again, it wouldn't do much in the way of preventing vigilante efforts. Simply imprisoning level 3 sexual predators for life would do much more, as they would be somewhat protected in prison in the rare event that they are actually found innocent within five or ten years, and vigilantes would not feel as compelled to deal justice on their own when the courts were doing it properly.

Bump II.