Prisoner released in Calgary "Likely to Kill"

[Weiser Wonder]

Well, it sucks that he is being let go but what are you going to do? He served his sentence, that's how it works. You can't keep him in jail for future crimes. That is a very slippery slope.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

x2

Rights are earned.

No. Wrong. So very and completely wrong. That's why they are called rights because people have a "right" to them. They are demands made of the government every person has the ability to make.

Sorry, don't mean to be a jerk but it's an important distinction to learn in order to think properly about the way people are treated by government.

[Flames09]

You're right, rights aren't earned thats why they are rights, but the second you are a danger to the public then your rights should be limited to keep others out of harms way.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Well, it sucks that he is being let go but what are you going to do? He served his sentence, that's how it works. You can't keep him in jail for future crimes. That is a very slippery slope.


No. Wrong. So very and completely wrong. That's why they are called rights because people have a "right" to them. They are demands made of the government every person has the ability to make.

Sorry, don't mean to be a jerk but it's an important distinction to learn in order to think properly about the way people are treated by government.

well .... it's semantics, and not very relevant to me.

You earn your freedom by not breaking laws ... break laws and you go to jail, seems to me that it is through your behavior and decisions you determine what freedoms you earn.

[LeftWing]

In severe cases these issues should be put to a public referendum. If the public votes in favor of continuing the sentence then the evil **** continues to rot in jail. Think of it as a larger jury pool - rational justice continues in the form of public will instead of lawless vigilantism.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

well .... it's semantics, and not very relevant to me.

You earn your freedom by not breaking laws ... break laws and you go to jail, seems to me that it is through your behavior and decisions you determine what freedoms you earn.

I don't think you are thinking about this correctly. You are born with rights so long as you don't violate rights of others. Laws are created to protect people's rights.

It's dangerous and not at all irrelevant of the issue to think of rights as "earned".

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by LeftWing

In severe cases these issues should be put to a public referendum. If the public votes in favor of continuing the sentence then the evil **** continues to rot in jail. Think of it as a larger jury pool - rational justice continues in the form of public will instead of lawless vigilantism.

One of the very most important aspects of individual rights is protection from the tyranny of the majority. We can't have people being voted into prison.

[18flames]

He already served his sentence, his full sentence mind you, and he didn't get paroled, why are some of you guys asking why hes getting released? Hes already done his time, you don't know for a fact hes going to kill someone, thats just all speculation, like Eklund.

[Thunderball]

Situations like this bring up very interesting moral questions...

If we release a violent person who was refused parole (which leads one to think the professionals appraising him felt rehab was not successful), is that fair to society, and specifically, to the person or persons that may likely become victims at the hands of someone we are fully aware is violent and dangerous? In essence, are the rights to freedom of one person more important than the safety and security of others?

Secondly, should rights be completely inalienable? Should sex offenders and violent criminals be granted the same rights as you and I, or is there a point where their actions deem them subhuman and can then be allowed to be treated as such? On the other hand, is it too dangerous to the fabric of society to have the ability to strip people's rights away from them, regardless of crime?

Thirdly, if there is the ability to use a dangerous offender provision to keep someone like this in prison, with all this in mind, is it ethical to refuse to use it?

[arsenal]

Maybe for offenders of serious crimes, once their release date comes up, they have another hearing. One that assesses the probability that they will re-offend, if rehab has worked, or could work etc.
Kind of a final parole hearing before release.
If they fail this, they get sentenced back to prison, with out chance of release until their assessment is that they will not re-offend.

I understand that he has done his time, but the fact that the assessment of him is that he is "likely to re-offend", but we are going to release him anyway, just seems like you are asking for trouble.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Secondly, should rights be completely inalienable? Should sex offenders and violent criminals be granted the same rights as you and I, or is there a point where their actions deem them subhuman and can then be allowed to be treated as such? On the other hand, is it too dangerous to the fabric of society to have the ability to strip people's rights away from them, regardless of crime?

Personally, I think we have to make a clear distinction between rights and freedom. A lot of people think they are the same thing. Freedom should always supercede "rights", so if someone elses "rights" are deemd likely to impede someone elses freedom, then their rights should be revoked.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

Other people have the right to be killed? The right to life is the first and foremost civil liberty in the democracy. The state's number one duty is protect the lives of its citizens. Our justice system clearly fails that in this particular case.

At what point is it ok to just let him rot in jail for the rest of his life? If he's 50/50 to kill again? 80/20? 99%? 1%? 0.001%? Where do you draw the line? How can you possibly draw that line? How is it not morally reprehensible to draw that line? Is it worth the erosion of everyone's rights to save a guy from killing again?

No justice system is perfect, all we can hope for is the fairest, most reasonable approximation. In this case, the only clear, fair solution is to let the guy go, because in the end it is not even close to worth it to erode the rights of 30 000 000 in order to (maybe) save one or two.

Thinking of the problem from an ethics standpoint, this is the only solution. None of the schools of ethics would advocate the right wing emotion filled hatred going on in this thread.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

At what point is it ok to just let him rot in jail for the rest of his life? If he's 50/50 to kill again? 80/20? 99%? 1%? 0.001%? Where do you draw the line? How can you possibly draw that line? How is it not morally reprehensible to draw that line? Is it worth the erosion of everyone's rights to save a guy from killing again?

No justice system is perfect, all we can hope for is the fairest, most reasonable approximation. In this case, the only clear, fair solution is to let the guy go, because in the end it is not even close to worth it to erode the rights of 30 000 000 in order to (maybe) save one or two.

Thinking of the problem from an ethics standpoint, this is the only solution. None of the schools of ethics would advocate the right wing emotion filled hatred going on in this thread.

Can you name a single school of ethical thought?

We may have already crossed the line of no return after sentencing. Clearly the man should have been locked up to prevent any potential future murders, which he has clearly shown himself capable of. Even still, the state does not match his depravity and take his life, only sustain him within a self-contained facility to protect society from him.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

Can you name a single school of ethical thought?

Enlighten me, oh glorious and wise peter12.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Enlighten me, oh glorious and wise peter12.

You made the claim that not a single school of ethical thought would condone the protection of individual civil liberties over the protection of a murderer.

[evman150]

I don't have to prove what I know (background knowledge) to you. It is not germane to the discussion at hand. It is incumbent upon you, if you disagree with me, to come up with a school of ethics that would support your conclusion. Then we can discuss that. Calling me out on my background knowledge is bad form, insulting, and indicative of a poor debater.

[JiriHrdina]

Take it to PM guys - you are gumming up not one but two threads now.

[jammies]

Fascism qualifies as a "school of ethical thought"; I'm pretty sure a fascist would have no trouble in justifying this guy's execution. For that matter, nihilists would find no issue with killing him either, although not for the reason that he is a criminal, which would probably actually be viewed as a positive attribute.

Not to say I agree with either, which I definitely do not, but claiming that there are no ethical schools which embrace repression and arbitrary killing is plain wrong.

[Ducay]

They're called human rights for a reason. You people seem to be forgetting this. And no, don't say 'he isn't human'. He has rights and we are all allowed them.

[jolinar of malkshor]

We have the ability to hold people in prison indefinately by obtaining a dangerous offender label. I am wondering why it wasn't sought for in this case.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

We have the ability to hold people in prison indefinately by obtaining a dangerous offender label. I am wondering why it wasn't sought for in this case.

Exactly, that is what I want to know.