Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 3582196" data-attributes="member: 94">I'm not trying to defend that sort of vigilante justice. I'm saying it's patently ridiculous to claim it is IMPERATIVE that the MONSTROUS CRIMINAL be given a FAIR TRIAL.There's nothing imperative about it, at all. What, exactly, is the adverse threat to the fabric of society if monstrous criminals aren't given a fair trial?There is nothing inherently good, moral, or superior to allowing a fair trial of a monstrous criminal whose fate is already decided.Again, perhaps monstrous criminal is too strong? Would you care to revise your remarks? You said nothing to mitigate the seriousness of the alleged crime or any doubt as to the criminal's guilt until pressed to clarify your position.I'm also not clear on whether or not you are arguing from the position that &quot;Saving the most innnocent lives&quot; is the ultimate good or not. I can't sort out what you're trying to say. It sounds like you are saying that saving innocent lives is GOOD if it happens in the course of a trial, in the sense that you are saving a possibly innocent man from the death penalty; but on the other hand saving innocent lives is BAD if it means blowing some homocidal prick away without benefit of a trial, in order to keep him from killing more innocent people.The sacrifice of certain lesser goods is implicit in the term &quot;greater good.&quot;In fact what you are saying is that you would rather that unknown numbers of innocent people die at the hands of monstrous criminals, rather than risk the possibility that one monstrous criminal not get his day in court.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 3582196, member: 94"] I'm not trying to defend that sort of vigilante justice. I'm saying it's patently ridiculous to claim it is IMPERATIVE that the MONSTROUS CRIMINAL be given a FAIR TRIAL. There's nothing imperative about it, at all. What, exactly, is the adverse threat to the fabric of society if monstrous criminals aren't given a fair trial? There is nothing inherently good, moral, or superior to allowing a fair trial of a monstrous criminal whose fate is already decided. Again, perhaps monstrous criminal is too strong? Would you care to revise your remarks? You said nothing to mitigate the seriousness of the alleged crime or any doubt as to the criminal's guilt until pressed to clarify your position. I'm also not clear on whether or not you are arguing from the position that "Saving the most innnocent lives" is the ultimate good or not. I can't sort out what you're trying to say. It sounds like you are saying that saving innocent lives is GOOD if it happens in the course of a trial, in the sense that you are saving a possibly innocent man from the death penalty; but on the other hand saving innocent lives is BAD if it means blowing some homocidal prick away without benefit of a trial, in order to keep him from killing more innocent people. The sacrifice of certain lesser goods is implicit in the term "greater good." In fact what you are saying is that you would rather that unknown numbers of innocent people die at the hands of monstrous criminals, rather than risk the possibility that one monstrous criminal not get his day in court. [/QUOTE]

Verification