US 3 people dead, over 280 injured from explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon

Spang said:
The Sandy Hook shooter was a "troubled" white kid, so no outcry. The Boston bomber was a "typical" Muslim, so outcry ensues.
Click to expand...

I think they both should have been fed to starving animals and I'm completely serious. They have no rights and don't get any compassion from me after what they did. But the meat from their pathetic corpses could at least do some good.
 
I wonder if his brother is convicted to execution what they will do with his corpse then.

Eta I couldn't find information on federally executed prisoners body disposal except about McVeigh, who, after killing him, they placed his body in a laundry sack, and sneaked out of the prison in a white unmarked van, cremated him, and his ashes were scattered. There were two hearses there that went to nearby funeral homes empty to fool the press and whatever other ghouls were there observing.
 
beancounter said:
But I am suspicious by nature. Like when someone who normally holds the minority opinion, from a VV perspective, does a 180 degree turn out of the blue and starts agreeing with the majority on a number of issues. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

180 degree view? You forget - I'm one of those hippie liberal types who have been advocating for prisoner's rights on VB/VV for years. I've been accused for caring more about the rights of criminals than of victims.

I approach crimes from the idea that the perpetrator is mentally ill.

I truly believe that in the Boston Marathon bomber case, the brother should be locked up for life, but otherwise not punished. He needs to be kept separate from society since he obviously has failed living in civilized society. But as a civilized society, we should not torture, we should not abuse, we should not kill.

He should be put in a place where society is safe from him, but where he's also safe from harm. Yes, it may seem unfair, since three of his victims will never be able to enjoy the same. But life doesn't allow us trades. We can't magically switch off his life and bring back even one of the dead victims. We can't torture him and magically have the injuries of one of the living victims disappear.

If we treat him like he's less than human, that he doesn't have the same rights under law that we do, if we torture and kill him for our amusement, then we are embracing a similar philosophy to him: we're just differing on who we're dehumanizing, and the degree of abuse we're committing against them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF, cornsail, ledboots and 1 other person
Spang said:
T
Burying a dead body is not a special consideration.
Click to expand...

This.

I would posit that people like Ted Bundy are worse than this guy (although this guy is bad enough that being "worse" isn't really relevant), but I would take the same stance with respect to the corpse of Ted Bundy (or any other monstrous killer) - what we do with that corpse reflects the kind of people we are.

They're dead. Bury them and move on. Why give them more power by taking out our disgust on a corpse.
 
das_nut said:
If we treat him like he's less than human, that he doesn't have the same rights under law that we do, if we torture and kill him for our amusement, then we are embracing a similar philosophy to him: we're just differing on who we're dehumanizing, and the degree of abuse we're committing against them.
Click to expand...

This also.

I view all of this outrage over burying the corpse the same way as I view those who celebrate outside penitentiary walls after an execution - all it does is reflect badly on the people celebrating.
 
das_nut said:
180 degree view? You forget - I'm one of those hippie liberal types who have been advocating for prisoner's rights on VB/VV for years. I've been accused for caring more about the rights of criminals than of victims.
Click to expand...

Just a few years ago, you explicitly told me your were a moderate.

So, it's just what ever persona fits the situation then?

And you have no comment on the first part of my post?
 
das_nut said:
He should be put in a place where society is safe from him, but where he's also safe from harm. Yes, it may seem unfair, since three of his victims will never be able to enjoy the same. But life doesn't allow us trades. We can't magically switch off his life and bring back even one of the dead victims. We can't torture him and magically have the injuries of one of the living victims disappear.

If we treat him like he's less than human, that he doesn't have the same rights under law that we do, if we torture and kill him for our amusement, then we are embracing a similar philosophy to him: we're just differing on who we're dehumanizing, and the degree of abuse we're committing against them.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone in this thread advocating torture for amusement or execution, or wanting to trade his life to bring back the dead. Whose viewpoint are you debating?
 
das_nut said:
If you're buried in a cemetery of any decent size, odds are favorable that you're going to be buried in the same cemetery as rapists and pedophiles.
Click to expand...

That's true. But the issue here is that this one was an international criminal and people weren't able to keep it quiet. Most pedophiles and rapists are obscure. To the extent that it's about family members who are also buried there, I think that people don't like the idea of their family members being buried next to a notorious murderer - if they didn't know, then I guess it wouldn't matter. But since they do know, it's a problem.

Spang said:
Burying a dead body is not a special consideration.
Click to expand...

From my own idiosyncratic perspective, I think being able to bury a body is a special consideration. I don't really think anyone should be buried, and take up land space into eternity. I personally think everyone should be cremated, unless they're naturally disposed of, like animals, and become part of nature - animal food. So especially if where your body is planted causes distress to a community because you're a mass murderer, I think your body being buried is an especially special consideration, and maybe you exempted your right to it. I think it's right that Bundy's body was cremated and he doesn't actually have a site that "fans" can visit. If I was related to one of his torture victims, emotionally speaking, I'd probably want to desecrate his burial site myself.
 
mlp said:
This also.

I view all of this outrage over burying the corpse the same way as I view those who celebrate outside penitentiary walls after an execution - all it does is reflect badly on the people celebrating.
Click to expand...

I don't recall hearing about any mass celebrations when it was announced that the body was going to be buried in VA. I think you extrapolating a bit too much.
 
beancounter said:
How does wanting the body to be buried in a location outside of MA equate to "taking out our disgust on a corpse?".
Click to expand...

Well, it seems that no one wants the corpse buried in their neck of the woods - people in Virginia are upset that it was buried there, saying things such as "It didn't happen here, why are they burying the body here?!" So it seems as though no one wants the body buried anywhere near them.


beancounter said:
I don't recall hearing about any mass celebrations when it was announced that the body was going to be buried in VA. I think you extrapolating a bit too much.
Click to expand...

I didn't say there were celebrations. I'm saying that there's a similarity between the mindset that pickets the funeral home where the guy's body was (the Worcester police actually made an appeal for someone to come forward and offer a burial site because they were having to use a lot of resources to protect the funeral home), the mindset that celebrates an execution, and the mindset that takes offense at proper disposal of a body.

It just seems to me that people could find more productive things on which to focus their emotional energies.

BTW, Bundy's lawyer was instructed to scatter his ashes in the Cascade Mountains, which happens to be where Bundy tortured and killed some of his victims and disposed of their bodies. It's an area which Bundy loved. There's an irony in that, isn't there - that Bundy probably got exactly the disposition of his remains that he would have wanted.

ETA: Thinking about it, if I want to avoid being in the vicinity of someone's remains, I'd rather they were buried - a grave is rather easy to avoid - than to have their ashes spread all over someplace that I would like to enjoy without thinking of him/her.
 
I think he could be buried at sea like Bin Laden, if his family wanted a burial and no place could be found or kept secret?
 
beancounter said:
I guess they would bury him in a prisoner grave yard quietly.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is such a place any more at most penitentiaries, other than places like Angola and in Texas. And inmates are only buried there if their families don't claim the bodies.
 
beancounter said:
Just a few years ago, you explicitly told me your were a moderate.
Click to expand...

Moderate overall. But on some issues, I'm a hippie dippie liberal, and on other issues I'm quite conservative (or would be, if the current crop of conservatives hadn't lost their freaking minds).

As for the first part of your original horse, y'know, this is a veg*n forum. We shouldn't beat horses, even if they are dead. ;)
 
Ansciess said:
I think he could be buried at sea like Bin Laden, if his family wanted a burial and no place could be found or kept secret?
Click to expand...

We did have the Navy available for the disposal of bin Laden's remains. I don't know how far out to sea you would have to take a corpse to make sure it doesn't wash up somewhere. I also don't know that it's a legal way to dispose of someone who dies on U.S. soil.
 
Top Bottom
Back