Deep hatred of women chapter 7 billion
What a horrible man. Not James, obviously; the other fella (who has me blocked).
Oh the poor poor poor wee young man, won’t somebody PLEASE think of the darling tiny bashful sad shy trembling delicate vulnerable quivering feeble dainty sensitive young man who smashed an older woman’s eye socket? Won’t somebody also PLEASE ignore the violent repeated punching of the older woman in order to focus all concern and compassion on the tiny delicate little man who punched her hard in the face three times?
Kelvin Morgan, whoever he is, is a very bad man.
My own view in regard to perps like this bastard is that for them, the lash should be brought back. To the losers who rape and assault women and those weaker then themselves, it is IMHO all about power. Such a perp should IMHO be taken somewhere nice and quiet, tied onto a triangle, and flogged, with the victim having the call as to when the said flogging should end. Power restored.
Worth a try, surely.
Seems to me that the police, by not restraining the mob that incited the violent assaults that day, need to be sued good and hard.
Morgan is fundamentally a nobody who’s pushed his opinions loudly onto the internet. A leftist and ‘progressive’ with the typical whiff of contempt for women. According to his LinkedIn profile he’s a financial advisor and mortgage broker currently looking for opportunities. His profile comments read more like twitter or facebook than a typical LinkedIn profile though.
@Omar: Yes let’s be all “tough on crime”, revenge as justice because suddenly the victim is someone you actually give a shit about; that’s an improvement…
It might well feel good (humans/some other primates *love* doling out punishment), but it is in no way preventative. The kid/man child/whatever would’ve done it regardless given the conditions on the ground; there was no thought, no decision made. Restorative justice is bollocks for the same reason.Angry young men are inherently unstable and dangerous. Better to quarantine him away from society until he’s aged out of it.
The cops could certainly have been better equipped to deal with it, but it’s the “words are violence/trans genocide” meme that’s at fault here.
Must agree with BKiSR. The lash, or any other form of punishment, simply meets a deeply held belief in “punishment fitting the crime”. While Omar’s outrage and desire for retribution is understandable as part of the human condition, we know that no punishment deters crime.
Laws do not prevent bad behaviour. All laws can do is spell out what we, as a community, decide is to be beyond the pale and what should be the penalty for stepping past it. Were laws to act as a deterrent, Saudi Arabia would have no theft, Iran no gays, and the USA no mass murders.
The best punishment for a man like Hudnan Jacks is banishment and shunning. He needs to be removed from any occasions where he may interact with women, men with whom he disagrees, small children and animals. People should refuse to acknowledge him in the streets, turn their backs on him when he requests service, and use their bodies to deny him entry.
Hudnan Jacks and other men like him must be shown beyond doubt the contempt we hold for him.
I dunno, I prefer significant prison time to shunning, but not for punishment. In a humane prison (do they have those in New Zealand?). Gets him away from people he could hurt without being too damaging…
@ #4:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And when you’ve come down off your high horse, and have eliminated your righteous indignation (admittedly, that could take some time, but I leave choice of method for doing that entirely to you, though I could suggest a couple) you might read my comment @#1 again. My main concern is not punishing the perp; rather it is empowering the victim, in this case a “71 year old lady.” I would restore that victim’s lost power and sense of self-worth by leaving the decision to her as to when the punishment should end, or even begin at all..
Punishment does work, which is why toddlers are sometimes made to stand in the Naughty Corner at kindergarten, why all laws have penalties for infringement, and why Yeshua bar Joseph’s recommendation of turning the other cheek has been honoured over the centuries since he proclaimed it, far more in the breach than in the observance.
(My apologies to His Reverence if he finds that fact to be disturbing. ;-)
“Real risk of self-harming”–since when are we supposed to be concerned about whether a violent criminal self-harms in response to being held responsible for what his crime?
He’s responsible for what he did to the victim. He’s responsible for whatever he does to himself.
Dunno about you but I read the police blotter quite a bit; punishment doesn’t work. Execution, for all its barbarism at least has the benefit of preventing recidivism. What punishment teaches us at a young age is 1) Don’t get caught and 2) Gain the sufficient strength to make sure you’re the one doling it out. Effective harm prevention involves swiftness and assurance of apprehension; the police did not do their duty in this case.
As to the victim, she’ll have to find her power and sense of self-worth on her own (assuming that’s possible) without the minor pleasure that revenge or the ridiculous notion of restorative justice might provide. The state owes her compensation for harm that occurred on their watch but not vengeance or reconciliation.
Thing is, if you believe as the gobbos do you’re gonna assault old ladies at least occasionally because they’re “killing people”. How do you deal with that insane belief? It’s like the abortion murderers; if you really believe that shit strongly then killing doctors who perform abortions is justified and necessary.
@ #9: Sorry to disagree with you, but punishment does work, and has done so literally for (geological) ages. Sad, perhaps, but true. Because it is essential to the formation of the dominance hierarchies which have run the Kingdom Animalia since at least the appearance of the first vertebrates, and probably in the seas long before that. The only requirement for it to work is that the recipient have consciousness coupled with memory, and can learn what to do and what not to do in order to stay alive and avoid being subjected to it.
The reason is simple: the survival prize in the ‘top dog,’ ‘top cat,’ ‘top goanna’ etc stakes goes to the one who eats best and longest. Thus the entire Earth in its way is a restaurant chain, with some eating beans if they can get some, some being a bit luckier, are regulars at McDonalds; and so on all the way up to the Ritz.
Oh, and I forgot to mention. The top dog also gets the biggest harem and the most decendants perpetuating his ‘selfish’ genes. So his kind win in the competition for natural selection. The losers… well starvation or predation awaits them. Even the mighty lion, king of the African plains, gets followed by a pack of hyaenas until he is so weak that they can kill him without injury to themselves; and then eat what they want of him. So his battle is also to propagate as many progeny as he can before that fateful day comes.
IMHO, it’s a rough world out there. But we humans have largely built our refuge from it in our civilisations; some better than others.
Was it this prick who was suggesting that the victim was somehow not a real woman because she wasn’t expressing maternal feelings for the man who broke her skull. That one genuinely shocked me because I, naively, thought that that was one expression of misogyny we’d left behind.
The two sides of the deterrence discussion often talk past each other, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they’re operating from different definitions.
The argument that punishment does deter crime usually operates from an understanding of deterrence meaning reduction in the aggregate. That is, if the incidence rate is X prior to instituting a punishment and Y after, and Y is less than X, then the punishment has deterred the crime.
On the other hand, the argument that punishment doesn’t deter crime usually operates from an understanding of deterrence meaning either absolute prevention overall or reduction in the individual. That is, overall deterrence if-and-only-if the overall incidence rate goes to zero, or individual deterrence of-and-only-if all punished individuals stop offending.
The desire for retribution is I think pretty natural – I’ve certainly felt it. I believe we need to rise above that though and look at what careful research and quality data can tell us. Some of the most retributive and carceral states in the world have awful crime and recidivism statistics. “Justice” systems are also notorious for getting things wrong. I’d rather lock the most heinous person up forever in a humane prison than run the risk of executing an innocent person.
Omar, that reasoning sounds like eco-psych codswallop frankly. Even to the extent that it might have a grain of truth, what you are describing is not punishment working, but fear of the tyrant. Fear of the biggest and baddest wolf. The lesson isn’t don’t do crime, but don’t get caught doing crime. to be the big bad wolf, rather than the merely savage dog.
There will likely always be those who are bad and mad, and so we’ll always have crime. But a lot of crime is committed by those better described as the sad. Research tells us that those from impoverished and abusive backgrounds are far more likely to commit crime than those from stable and loving backgrounds. It gets worse as it becomes entrenched through successive generations. You want to prevent crime, you do away with grinding poverty and domestic abuse in all its forms. This is known, but never really tackled because it’s incredibly hard, expensive, and will likely take decades of consistent effort. There’s no gain in it for politicians who need to be re-elected in 3-5 years. for those already in the system, it’s already known through smaller scale programs that if you can wrap enough counselling, support, training, and post prison vocational, housing, and social structure around people you can reduce recidivism. Again it’s expensive, hard, work that from the outside looks like you’re rewarding people who’ve done bad things. Most people want to punish, and keep on punishing, rather than recognise underlying humanity and raise the worst to be better than they were.
Ramblings of an old man who’s bitter that the world will be worse than he’d hoped it was going to be.
Complicating that is the fact that I’m a third side: pro-incarceration, pro-policing, and anti-punishment. In any case Omar has laid out some of my basic assumptions without refuting my case. Yes, you might say the risk of punishment is a deterrent to something like robbing a bank but that’s because the perpetrator understands there being a reasonable level of risk of getting caught. People would be doing it all the time if the risk of getting caught was low.
In this case, it’s a crime of passion instigated by wrong beliefs, exacerbated by autism, and the inevitable result of turning up at a charged protest (which is to say, no real evaluation of crime vs. likely punishment).That something like this could or likely would happen was obvious and yet the authorities did little/nothing to prevent it. Old lady’s skull will never be the same and sufficient compensation probably can’t or won’t be provided, so why not get mad at the lack of retribution on behalf of a stranger on the other side of the world?
Rob:
I assume that you are referring there to my comments @ 10 & 11.
Well, what some people call ‘fear,’ others call ‘respect.’ The Saudis and rulers of other Islamic states have their own traditional ways of maintaining it, irreligious tyrants like Saddam Hussein and Joe Stalin likewise, and western democracies another. But there are limits on behaviour built one way or another into all human societies by laws and respected customs. Lawless, every-man-for-himself societies have existed, but generally self-destruct or morph into something Jane Austen would describe as ‘more agreeable.’
Locks are commonly fitted to doors, not to keep your average neighbour out, but rather the exceptional bad egg. Dominance hierarchies of one kind or another are in work places, sporting clubs, kindergartens, universities … I could go on.
BTW I am against capital punishment, because it is sometimes inflicted, and irretrievably, on the innocent. But I am willing to make an exception for monsters like Saddam Hussein, of whose guilt there can be absolutely no doubt, and whose victims fear could always be helped by his acolytes to bust out of any prison and proceed from there to absolute power again.
@ 15: My suggestion at #1 was regarding ‘rehabilitation’ of the victim, in this case an elderly woman, by changing the power relationship. Within reasonable limits, she gets to call the shots, not the perp. If the latter is somewhere on the autism spectrum, that can be taken into account by both the police and the victim. But having power restored to her is IMHO of the highest importance, because otherwise she can be stuck in her victimhood quagmire for the rest of her life.
Omar @16, I think you’re making my point.
BKiSA @ 15, to be clear, I’m not anti-incarceration, policing, or punishment. Rather, I disagree in the type and manner of how those are normally applied. People who commit crimes need to be caught. They need to be punished, and if that punishment means protecting society from harm while the criminal is given the opportunity to reflect and possibly begin rehabilitation, then incarceration is required. For some people incarceration may be for a long time, possibly forever. All too often policing is a blunt tool at best, subject to the preferences and biases of the police themselves and their political masters. At worst policing itself becomes a tool of oppression and discrimination. Our justice systems collectively target crimes against property committed by every day crims far more stringently than financial crimes. Yes, it’s bad to mug someone and steal $100 bucks from their wallet, but you know, it’s also bad to commit fraud, run a Ponzi scheme, or distort the financial system at huge cost to society as a whole. mug someone you go to jail. Defraud the whole financial system and you’ll probably get away with it scot free*. I’d rather be mugged for $100 than have my whole pension stolen or have banking and insurance cost significantly more for my whole life. Once someone is in prison, conditions should be such that they are humanely fed and housed, and are free from violence or abuse – whether from other inmates or staff**. For those who will be released there should be intervention to ensure they are as unlikely as possible to reoffend. that intervention needs to extend beyond their release. instead, most prison systems provide benign neglect at best, or are unremittingly brutal. I think that’s been pretty well documented.
* Consider Trump. Very unusually facing a US$400M fine, and being defended by other businessmen for only having done ‘what we all do’.
** violence by inmates against inmates is well documented in every prison system I’ve ever heard of (NZ included), but some, such as the US, are notorious. violence and abuse by staff against inmates likewise. Just today there was this stomach churner from Australia (which is not a country we would instantly pick as the likely worst). tl;dr: corrupt and abusive officer, other officers who turned a blind eye, officers who did report ignored or retaliated against, incompetent prison administration, the intelligence team had given up investigating the broke system, organisational heads promoted people whose they new to be ineffective and incapable.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/350204189/he-was-one-boss-best-officers-he-was-also-serial-rapist
Do we really want to “rise above” retribution entirely? I can certainly agree we should work to modify our instinct to punish wrongdoers, and not give free rein to the urge to inflict cruel or disproportionate punishment.
But when dealing with crimes of violence, or other crimes where the weak or innocent are deliberately victimized, I think some measure of retribution can help restore our sense that justice has been served.
I don’t think we should bring back lashing, but I understand where Omar is coming from. And I agree with him about capital punishment: I oppose it in practice, but not necessarily in theory. I’m comfortable saying a decent society, could it somehow eliminate the possibility of mistaken conviction, would be justified in imposing the death penalty on Lawrence Bittaker.
I’m not sure. I still ponder the question. But I think so.
Brings to my mind that old poem ny Anon: “The law doth punish man or woman / Who steals the goose from off the Common / But lets the greater felon loose / Who steals the Common from the goose.” – from the heyday of the English parliamentary Enclosure Acts, and the popular reaction to them.
Excuse him, because HE’S “at risk” of either self-harm or some kind of attack?
HIS risk is hypothetical, potential, unrealized, a “maybe.”
HER risk became real, actual, manifest damage and injury. At his hands, literally. He punched her THREE TIMES.
In weighing the competing interests, why is his “potential risk” — which he has not suffered, and might not ever suffer –worth more than her provable, actual, and real injuries? The scales of Justice are rigged. There’s a big thumb pushing down the man’s side.