Prisoner released in Calgary "Likely to Kill" - Page 5 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

jammies · 09-06-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

And for Jammies, when I said "schools of ethics", what was implied was "schools of normative ethics". Sorry if this wasn't clear.

Consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics (I would argue virtue ethics isn't normative, but that's another story) all support my view.

The problem is what you *actually* said implied that it was impossible to make an ethical argument in support of vigilantism. There is a huge difference between the non-specific phrase "school of ethics" and the technical terminology of "school of normative ethics". One interpretation puts your opponents outside the pale; the other is much less compelling.

Although I don't know why I care about the difference, as vigilantism is reprehensible no matter if it can be justified by anti-human creeds or not.

peter12 · 09-06-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammies

Well, as I don't care if I am in a lose-lose proposition, let me say I spent half a decade in my twenties as a hard-core libertarian, so I'm reasonably certain my knowledge of libertarianism is actually quite extensive. I think if you did some further research on libertarian theories of justice - like Friedman here (where, btw, he specifically cites Rand as a libertarian, contrary to your view), proposing contracts, private agencies and courts, vs. Nozik here, where he proposes a limited state apparatus of justice, you would see that claiming any particular unifying principles of libertarian justice is premature.

You simply cannot claim that Friedman speaks for all libertarians on this issue, as if you actually reference the Libertarian Wiki, it explicitly states that libertarians are split on the issue, and one would think that if this was controversial, it would reference a far more extensive discussion than looks to be the case. Friedman and Hayek are no more the end-all and be-all of libertarianism any more than St. Paul is the ultimate arbiter of Christendom.

Forgive me for the digression, but it might be interesting to know that I became disillusioned with libertarianism after I worked at a large multi-national (Digital/Compaq) and realized that large corporations were examples of how economies of scale overcame neo-classic theories of laissez-faire capitalism by distorting free markets with their own peculiar brand of bureaucratic ineptitude. And at least with a government, you can vote the bums out.

Well, it could be argued that St. Paul IS the ultimate end in Christianity. This is really interesting and I apologize for treating you so tritely. Let's continue this discussion in the other thread. I especially like how you mentioned corporatism at the end there. Myself, I still maintain a distrust of corporations while maintaining a strong libertarian outlook.

Robbob · 10-10-2008, 01:37 PM

So the guy they said was a risk was arrested

http://660news.com/news/local/articl...0_125603_17788

He was arrested yesterday, after a woman reported being assaulted in a Beltline home on October 1st.
The woman was alone in a home in the 500 block of 15th Avenue SW, when a man burst in and attacked her, until she was able to make enough noise to scare him off.
Scott is facing several charges including aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and break and enter.
He had been under supervision by the Calgary Police Service High Risk Offender Program since his release on September 3rd.

Still don't understand how it got to the point where some one needed to get hurt before they could do something. I think this could have ended worse. I hope they throw away the key this time.

bigtmac19 · 10-10-2008, 02:00 PM

I just saw this on the Herald Website. Unfortunately it was only a matter of time before this happened. I cannot believe this poor woman had to go through this, it should never have happened. This guy should be declared a dangerous offender. It can only be hoped that someone wakes up enough to have this done now.
Thank God she wasn't more seriously hurt, though the mental trauma is bad enough.

CaptainCrunch · 10-10-2008, 02:04 PM

She should be suing the government for millions

bigtmac19 · 10-10-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

She should be suing the government for millions

I'm sure she would not have a case. He served his full sentence, he had his rights to be in the community, blah, blah, blah.

Robbob · 10-10-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

I'm sure she would not have a case. He served his full sentence, he had his rights to be in the community, blah, blah, blah.

Unless she can prove that he qualifies to be designated as a dangerous offender and they still did nothing. CPS said that he would strike again within 30 days and he did. If all the experts can see it and make and annoucement to worn the public then the system failed.

bigtmac19 · 10-10-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbob

Unless she can prove that he qualifies to be designated as a dangerous offender and they still did nothing. CPS said that he would strike again within 30 days and he did. If all the experts can see it and make and annoucement to worn the public then the system failed.

Well one can only hope then. I hope she can and will have a case here.

Eddie Bronze · 10-10-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbob

I hope they throw away the key this time.

They won't. They hardly ever do. These things always become about the poor criminal and always forget the victim that no one in the justice system ever shows they care about. They'll rehab him until he's 95 and dies of natural causes, all the while having violated or killed numerous innocent people along the way himself. He's a scum sucking maggot who has the law on his side. Way too much sympathy for criminals in the courts.

troutman · 10-10-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Bronze

They won't. They hardly ever do. These things always become about the poor criminal and always forget the victim that no one in the justice system ever shows they care about. They'll rehab him until he's 95 and dies of natural causes, all the while having violated or killed numerous innocent people along the way himself. He's a scum sucking maggot who has the law on his side. Way too much sympathy for criminals in the courts.

Let's not blame the courts. The Criminal Code is federal legislation.

pepper24 · 10-10-2008, 03:44 PM

Hopefully he's now back in prison for a long time. Hearing stuff like this nearly makes me lose it. I have many friends that live in that area and it could have easily been one of them.

Aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and break and enter plus his prior convictions should justify this. I am not hopeful though.

Azure · 10-10-2008, 04:33 PM

I'm sure he'll be out soon enough....

metallicat · 10-10-2008, 05:08 PM

What can even be said anymore? First this week we have the pedophile in Edmonton, and now this guy. The only thing they got wrong here, is that he didn't actually kill anyone. And thank God they were wrong on that. When is enough enough? When a politicians' family member becomes a victim?

Azure · 10-10-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

What can even be said anymore? First this week we have the pedophile in Edmonton, and now this guy. The only thing they got wrong here, is that he didn't actually kill anyone. And thank God they were wrong on that. When is enough enough? When a politicians' family member becomes a victim?

Or some other important person with 'pull'.....otherwise nothing is going to be done about it.

Joborule · 10-10-2008, 07:33 PM

I don't understand that if someone is likely to kill again, then how can you allow the person to come back out? This person has rights my ass. those rights should be suspended for the most part once he's found guilty. If he's not qualified for release by experts, then he shouldn't be allowed back out until then.

metallicat · 10-10-2008, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joborule

I don't understand that if someone is likely to kill again, then how can you allow the person to come back out? This person has rights my ass. those rights should be suspended for the most part once he's found guilty. If he's not qualified for release by experts, then he shouldn't be allowed back out until then.

I think that is what our dangerous offender status is for, but it is severely underutilized I think.

Eddie Bronze · 10-11-2008, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Let's not blame the courts. The Criminal Code is federal legislation.

Yes, I guess I didn't do the greatest job trying to get my point across. I realize the lawyers and judges and juries can only do what they are allowed and right now it's not much. It's just really hard to have much faith in legislation that allows these people second and third and fourth chances, or allows 31 of 34 people to be back on the streets one day after being busted by the police in an investigation that took years to complete. When I said the justice system needed an overhaul that's what I meant, I guess I just used the wrong words. My bad.