Ethical debate anyone?
- Thread starter ACooper
- Start date
But which one is more likely to kill again?
The person involved in gang activity? Or the person killing the 10 year old? Or is it just that the person involved in gang activity is likely to only kill other people involved in gang activity, and that's somehow less repulsive to think about?
I agree with Jess on this. A murder is a murder is a murder. Just because someone is probably involved in gangs doesn't mean they are a criminal, or that they are a threat to the general public. What if they were a harmless drug addict hurting only themselves and were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time? What if the person who murdered them goes on to do a driveby and hits innocent bystanders? What if they rob a gas station and kill the attendant? Mug someone? Kill a prostitute?
Once a person has crossed the line and killed another human being, and it wasn't in defense of home and family or on a battlefield, I'd consider them to be at risk of doing it again.
The person involved in gang activity? Or the person killing the 10 year old? Or is it just that the person involved in gang activity is likely to only kill other people involved in gang activity, and that's somehow less repulsive to think about?
I agree with Jess on this. A murder is a murder is a murder. Just because someone is probably involved in gangs doesn't mean they are a criminal, or that they are a threat to the general public. What if they were a harmless drug addict hurting only themselves and were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time? What if the person who murdered them goes on to do a driveby and hits innocent bystanders? What if they rob a gas station and kill the attendant? Mug someone? Kill a prostitute?
Once a person has crossed the line and killed another human being, and it wasn't in defense of home and family or on a battlefield, I'd consider them to be at risk of doing it again.
Then why don't we change "gangbanger" to "adult"? Because the original question wasn't "If a wall street banker is murdered should we devote the same resources to finding his murderer as a the murderer of a 10 year old?"
So, should we devote more resources to finding and prosecuting people who murder minors than to people who murder adults?
Because to me, there's no clear cut "That dude over there is a gangbanger!" There's a whole massive, twisty, diverse culture involved and so many people (cops included) see a guy with a dark complexion wearing baggy shorts living in a low income neighborhood and assume he's in a gang. You can't assume things. Not by how people look. Or where they live. Or what crimes you think they may have committed based on those things. It's just plain wrong.
If you go to the southside of Tucson there are thousands of what people here would likely call gangsters. Some of them are. The majority are Hispanic young men.Some are tattooed, drive gold and chromed out lowriders with Mother Mary airbrushed on the back, etc. They wear the stereotypical gangster clothes. But you know what else? If you spend any amount of time in those neighborhoods you'll see them pushing frilly pink strollers around beaming at all the passersby and showing off their babies.
I feel terrible every time there's a gang shooting reported. I think the media skews it's reporting the same way they skew "OMG Pit bull attacks!!!!" If it's in a poor part of town, and the people are minorities, guess what they'll report it as? "ZOMG Gang violence!!!11" Sadly, the police will likely treat it the same way. Just like they pre-condemn the pitty type dogs in any incidents, and don't publish retractions when it's found the golden retriever that had blood on its face at the scene matches the bite wounds perfectly.
So, should we devote more resources to finding and prosecuting people who murder minors than to people who murder adults?
Because to me, there's no clear cut "That dude over there is a gangbanger!" There's a whole massive, twisty, diverse culture involved and so many people (cops included) see a guy with a dark complexion wearing baggy shorts living in a low income neighborhood and assume he's in a gang. You can't assume things. Not by how people look. Or where they live. Or what crimes you think they may have committed based on those things. It's just plain wrong.
If you go to the southside of Tucson there are thousands of what people here would likely call gangsters. Some of them are. The majority are Hispanic young men.Some are tattooed, drive gold and chromed out lowriders with Mother Mary airbrushed on the back, etc. They wear the stereotypical gangster clothes. But you know what else? If you spend any amount of time in those neighborhoods you'll see them pushing frilly pink strollers around beaming at all the passersby and showing off their babies.
I feel terrible every time there's a gang shooting reported. I think the media skews it's reporting the same way they skew "OMG Pit bull attacks!!!!" If it's in a poor part of town, and the people are minorities, guess what they'll report it as? "ZOMG Gang violence!!!11" Sadly, the police will likely treat it the same way. Just like they pre-condemn the pitty type dogs in any incidents, and don't publish retractions when it's found the golden retriever that had blood on its face at the scene matches the bite wounds perfectly.
You and I might not be able to identify a gangbanger by sight, but if the guy is dead and in the morgue and the police are deciding where to allocate resources, maybe we can assume (for the sake of this thread
) that they've identified him by now and he's a known felon, maybe he's even currently wanted for something, he's been in jail repeatedly for assaults/drugs/thefts, he's known to associate with known gangs.
) that they've identified him by now and he's a known felon, maybe he's even currently wanted for something, he's been in jail repeatedly for assaults/drugs/thefts, he's known to associate with known gangs.
You and I might not be able to identify a gangbanger by sight, but if the guy is dead and in the morgue and the police are deciding where to allocate resources, maybe we can assume (for the sake of this thread) that they've identified him by now and he's a known felon, maybe he's even currently wanted for something, he's been in jail repeatedly for assaults/drugs/thefts, he's known to associate with known gangs.
) that they've identified him by now and he's a known felon, maybe he's even currently wanted for something, he's been in jail repeatedly for assaults/drugs/thefts, he's known to associate with known gangs.
I'm siding solidly with Jess on this one. lol.
Human beings are human beings. Each one has the same intrinsic value. Our laws don't put more value on one over another. Our legal system shouldn't either. And I for one am NOT comfortable with anyone, ESPECIALLY law enforcement officers to be the ones making the judgment call of who does and doesn't deserve taxpayer resources when a murder is committed. All murders endanger the safety of the community.
And nobody answered the question. Should we devote more resources to finding child killers than people who murder adults?
lol. Human beings are human beings. Each one has the same intrinsic value. Our laws don't put more value on one over another. Our legal system shouldn't either. And I for one am NOT comfortable with anyone, ESPECIALLY law enforcement officers to be the ones making the judgment call of who does and doesn't deserve taxpayer resources when a murder is committed. All murders endanger the safety of the community.
And nobody answered the question. Should we devote more resources to finding child killers than people who murder adults?
I'm siding solidly with Jess on this one. lol.
Human beings are human beings. Each one has the same intrinsic value. Our laws don't put more value on one over another. Our legal system shouldn't either. And I for one am NOT comfortable with anyone, ESPECIALLY law enforcement officers to be the ones making the judgment call of who does and doesn't deserve taxpayer resources when a murder is committed. All murders endanger the safety of the community.
And nobody answered the question. Should we devote more resources to finding child killers than people who murder adults?
lol. Human beings are human beings. Each one has the same intrinsic value. Our laws don't put more value on one over another. Our legal system shouldn't either. And I for one am NOT comfortable with anyone, ESPECIALLY law enforcement officers to be the ones making the judgment call of who does and doesn't deserve taxpayer resources when a murder is committed. All murders endanger the safety of the community.
And nobody answered the question. Should we devote more resources to finding child killers than people who murder adults?
I'm beginning to feel ignored and unloved.
:red_bandana:
I'm beginning to feel ignored and unloved.
I'm beginning to feel ignored and unloved.
See, I guess that's the difference. I do cry for them. My husband was one of those tattooed Hispanic young men on the south side, break dancing in clubs and wearing baggy clothes. He wasn't a criminal though. He wasn't dangerous, and he lives in a different culture now. That's where his roots are though. A lot of the friends he grew up with now are dead, far too young. Some were murdered or OD'd while trying to make themselves forget the horrifying things they'd seen or had been done to them while growing up. I watched my husband cry when he read in the paper one of his best childhood friends was found shot and stuffed in a dumpster. The papers said gang violence. It might or might not have been. I cried for them, and I cry every time I see a "Gang Shooting 3 left dead" headline in the paper. Because the victims could have been people like my husband, or his friends.
Edit: The way the media handles it, in my eyes, is very much how they handle dog attacks. If it has short fur, it's a pit. If it's brown and poor, it's gang violence.
Actually, making it an adult, say a Wall Street banker, instead of a "gangbanger" only makes me more likely to say we need to devote more resources to the child's murder.
Adults get murdered for all sorts of reasons, and the majority of those murders are actual family murders, and most of the rest are personal grudges. A few are random violence, things like drug deals and robberies gone wrong. From the statistics and gut instinct, whoever killed Mr. Wall Street probably did so either because they personally hated him, or because they wanted to rob him. In the first case, they probably won't kill anyone else, and in the second case, a robbery gone bad, they've probably gone to ground.
In the case of a child murder, the motives are murkier. It could be internal family violence (at which point we have a limited number of suspects to look at). Unfortunately, it could also be one of those rare killers who get off by killing children. Those people are rare, but they tend to keep killing. And they kill more children. If its a family murder, we should be able to figure that out pretty quickly and move on to our banker . . . if its a habitual childkiller they need to be stopped.
Back to the gangster example, and why I would dedicate more resources to the gangster than the banker . . . because the person who killed the gangster is likely another gangster, and this may be the start of a feud that could kill more people.
You all are missing my point. I'm not devaluing the gangster . . . I want to pick the target that is most likely to kill again, and neutralize them. Yes, it factors into the equation whether or not the next victim is likely to be a little kid, or whether it is likely to be an adult who may have some part in their fate (or at least some ability to control it), but my real concern is stopping a possible serial killer (since most people do not have normal motives for killiing children, no matter how bratty they are) before they can kill again. If its an internal family murder, and there are other children in the family, then they may be in danger.
Its not about valuing lives, its about two things . . . stopping the greater threat, and to a lesser extent, protecting the weaker possible victim.
Yeah, I'll admit, assuming the "gangster" really is a "gangster" and not some guy like Romy's friends, I only have so much sympathy for them. (And no, I don't assume "brown and poor" means gang violence . . . just as often its someone who is merely a victim who was in the wrong place) But they (if a criminal) still have a family, and the killer is still a murderer, and they may well have had some decency left . . . and if they are dead we will never find that out.
However, assuming we have the extremely limited facts we have here, I would go after the murderer I thought most likely to kill again, and most likely to target the most helpless victims.
Adults get murdered for all sorts of reasons, and the majority of those murders are actual family murders, and most of the rest are personal grudges. A few are random violence, things like drug deals and robberies gone wrong. From the statistics and gut instinct, whoever killed Mr. Wall Street probably did so either because they personally hated him, or because they wanted to rob him. In the first case, they probably won't kill anyone else, and in the second case, a robbery gone bad, they've probably gone to ground.
In the case of a child murder, the motives are murkier. It could be internal family violence (at which point we have a limited number of suspects to look at). Unfortunately, it could also be one of those rare killers who get off by killing children. Those people are rare, but they tend to keep killing. And they kill more children. If its a family murder, we should be able to figure that out pretty quickly and move on to our banker . . . if its a habitual childkiller they need to be stopped.
Back to the gangster example, and why I would dedicate more resources to the gangster than the banker . . . because the person who killed the gangster is likely another gangster, and this may be the start of a feud that could kill more people.
You all are missing my point. I'm not devaluing the gangster . . . I want to pick the target that is most likely to kill again, and neutralize them. Yes, it factors into the equation whether or not the next victim is likely to be a little kid, or whether it is likely to be an adult who may have some part in their fate (or at least some ability to control it), but my real concern is stopping a possible serial killer (since most people do not have normal motives for killiing children, no matter how bratty they are) before they can kill again. If its an internal family murder, and there are other children in the family, then they may be in danger.
Its not about valuing lives, its about two things . . . stopping the greater threat, and to a lesser extent, protecting the weaker possible victim.
Yeah, I'll admit, assuming the "gangster" really is a "gangster" and not some guy like Romy's friends, I only have so much sympathy for them. (And no, I don't assume "brown and poor" means gang violence . . . just as often its someone who is merely a victim who was in the wrong place) But they (if a criminal) still have a family, and the killer is still a murderer, and they may well have had some decency left . . . and if they are dead we will never find that out.
However, assuming we have the extremely limited facts we have here, I would go after the murderer I thought most likely to kill again, and most likely to target the most helpless victims.
How about, for the sake of argument here, we replace "gangbanger" with Woman Protecting the Reputation of her Corgi". Now whose killer would you be more inclined to go after?
There certainly are plenty of serial killers out there who go after adults. And perhaps the child was killed by a parent who went off the deep end. But now you're going after the parent who has no motive to kill someone else's child, while the serial killer is going to continue killing.
There certainly are plenty of serial killers out there who go after adults. And perhaps the child was killed by a parent who went off the deep end. But now you're going after the parent who has no motive to kill someone else's child, while the serial killer is going to continue killing.