ER Nurses wept at the sight of his injuries

Well... I have a good friend that is estranged from his wife, and granted they are not living in the same household at the moment, but there were estranged long before he moved out of their home (one he actually owns). They treated each other somewhat like roommates, but she lived in one room and he in another.

He let her stay in the household only because he knew their daughter wouldn't be able to live in a healthy home if he kicked her out, and as a result of his job he couldn't win custody of his daughter... so I can see how it would be "estranged"...

Ren: Harden Criminals...

How can you look at this couple and consider them NOT harden criminals if they LAUGHED as they tortured a THREE YEAR OLD AND a SIX YEAR OLD. One of the two actually dying. If that's not a "harden criminal", I really am curious what you define one as.

I also hand a death sentence to them.

I would do so not for revenge against them or justice for the victim. What's done is done.

This question begs answer to far more fundamental questions - to what degree is a society entitled to preserve itself against those who would harm its people? How far SHOULD it go in demonstrating what it is willing to accept or reject, and what form should that rejection take?

With these dynamics at the center of my mind, I lean toward the more severe. I want to send a message to any and all that torturing and murdering children is so unacceptable to me and my people, that by doing so a person forfeits their own right to life.

Does that mean I respect the sanctity of life less? Not to my mind - I do not make the decision lightly. Maybe in some conceptions, does my sentence cheapen a person's life, but I'll suffer that opinion. I respect the views of others...and in doing so I have an earnest question: When you pass your sentence on these people, what is in your mind? The victim? The wrongdoers? Civilized society? Or is it your conception of yourself? Are you unwittingly putting this question at the forefront of your decision-making: "What does the sentence I passed say about ME?"

Some things to consider.

Dessel761 wrote: I'd sentence them to be tortured and beaten to death just as they did to that poor defenseless child. An eye for an eye.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Ghandi.

Alethea Thompson wrote: Ren: Harden Criminals...

How can you look at this couple and consider them NOT harden criminals if they LAUGHED as they tortured a THREE YEAR OLD AND a SIX YEAR OLD. One of the two actually dying. If that's not a "harden criminal", I really am curious what you define one as.

Hmm a hardened criminal would be someone who has profited from crime on multiple occasions, meaning they would always consider criminality to be a viable lifestyle. Hardened criminals don't call 911 when they think they might have killed someone; they dispose of the corpse, "take care" of any witnesses, and head for a country that lacks extradition treaties and preferably also a half-decent police force.

Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying your position.

ren wrote:

Alethea Thompson wrote: Ren: Harden Criminals...

How can you look at this couple and consider them NOT harden criminals if they LAUGHED as they tortured a THREE YEAR OLD AND a SIX YEAR OLD. One of the two actually dying. If that's not a "harden criminal", I really am curious what you define one as.

Hmm a hardened criminal would be someone who has profited from crime on multiple occasions, meaning they would always consider criminality to be a viable lifestyle. Hardened criminals don't call 911 when they think they might have killed someone; they dispose of the corpse, "take care" of any witnesses, and head for a country that lacks extradition treaties and preferably also a half-decent police force.

To say that almost makes it seem as you think they had compassion for those children. Stringing a child up by their feet, and striking them in the stomach several times, not to mention the other atrocities they committed? Also, who is to say they did not profit? Obviously there was child neglect occurring in that home, also it'd be reasonable to say the children were being claimed as dependents. Which mmeans they are profiting off of those children, especially during tax season. So if you want to use that definition for harden criminals, then again, yes. I'd say that they were.

profiting from the children is not the same as profiting from the crimes committed. I does not look as though they made the children sick for the purpose of claiming money off the government/charitable organizations. When called, the police didn't say "thank you for no longer making a profit out of this child" did they?


It is fair to assume that those people harmed those children (killed one) because they didn't like the children in some way. Their lives and experiences made them what they are: a bunch of guys who couldn't keep their anger at what we can assume to be absolutely everything, including their own children, in check.

Many in this thread have stated they would like to kill those people, because they don't like what those people did/do. Yet you do not have to live with them, and being Jedi and all, shouldn't really be capable of feeling sufficient amounts of anger to go and kill 2 (or 3 ?) people.

Could you explain in what way you and them are any different (other than you haven't killed anyone yet)?

From the Doctrine of the Order :

"Jedi believe....
....In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty."

Would someone wiser and more experienced in the ways of the Force please be so kind as to explain when and how exceptions apply to this belief, and the precise criteria which would warrant such an exception, as I'm finding the comments on this thread which call for the death penalty to be rather confusing.

Thank you in advance.

Callan wrote: From the Doctrine of the Order :

"Jedi believe....
....In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty."

Would someone wiser and more experienced in the ways of the Force please be so kind as to explain when and how exceptions apply to this belief, and the precise criteria which would warrant such an exception, as I'm finding the comments on this thread which call for the death penalty to be rather confusing.

Thank you in advance.

Very simply put, the Doctrine is not followed to the "letter of the law" if you will, by all Jedi. I fully oppose the use of torture, and of cruel punishment. But I believe that the punishment is appropriate in a case like this. And when I say that I would call for the death penalty, I do not do so with recklessness or a lack of thought.

And sanctity, does not excuse the choices we make, or the negate the consequences.