31–40 of 152 posts
If Harvard only wants to go to bat for Michelle Jones, august scholar, and not Michelle Jones, convicted murderer, then they don't deserve to draft off of her present work or academic legacy.
Good on NYU for sticking to their guns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Also, murdering a 4 year old child should lead to lifelong sentence in any case imho, so sorry, no sympathies here.
She got pregnant at 14 after being raped by a high-school senior, suffered domestic violence from her mother and afterwards in multiple group homes and foster families she was placed in, culminating in a psychological breakdown. Given her state of mind then, this isn't directly comparable to other cases of cold, premeditated murder.
I don't understand why we let people out of prison if we aren't prepared to actually let them out of prison. I'm not really bleeding heart about this, I'd be fine with any murder of this sort meaning life in prison. What does not make sense is letting someone out and then not treating them as normal humans again. It only encourages people to revert to evil.
The incarceration is the punishment handed out by the state, the state being a proxy of 'society'. There is however no moral obligation for any citizen to take over the stance of that 'abstract society' that a prisoner can be released for whatever reason. In other words, everybody has to right to associate or not with who they want. The extreme example here is that the victim of child molestation at the hand of a par…
While true this is a reflection on society itself. Some people learn this the hard way, when they end on the wrong side of it and then ask "why do people not forgive?"
> On a meta note, I would be a lot more sympathetic to many 'causes' if only they would choose less reprehensible poster children for their campaigns.
> Campaigning on the basis of a child murderer who abused a 4 year old and let him starve to death not being admitted to a top university being 'unfair'? Yeah, good luck with that.
You either stand for your principles in all circumstances or none. If they only count for 'easy' cases they are worthless anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The incarceration is the punishment handed out by the state, the state being a proxy of 'society'. There is however no moral obligation for any citizen to take over the stance of that 'abstract society' that a prisoner can be released for whatever reason. In other words, everybody has to right to associate or not with who they want. The extreme example here is that the victim of child molestation at the hand of a par…
> The incarceration is the punishment handed out by the state, the state being a proxy of 'society'. There is however no moral obligation for any citizen to take over the stance of that 'abstract society' that a prisoner can be released for whatever reason. While true this is a reflection on society itself. Some people learn this the hard way, when they end on the wrong side of it and then ask "why do people not forg…
So a third-striker convicted to 15 years in jail for stealing a loaf of bread is equally 'deserving' of help than a child murderer? Okay... Look I would agree if you would say 'we'll focus on a group and if there happen to be undeserving people in that group, we'll grudgingly accept that as 'collateral damage'' - but saying that there can be no advocacy until you can, up front, define exactly what you will stand for and what not, and if you miss an edge case you somehow have a moral obligation to take those 'under your wing' so to say, is just naively rigid absolutism.
I don't understand why we let people out of prison if we aren't prepared to actually let them out of prison. I'm not really bleeding heart about this, I'd be fine with any murder of this sort meaning life in prison. What does not make sense is letting someone out and then not treating them as normal humans again. It only encourages people to revert to evil.
There is no "we" as you mention. Everyone is an individual with different values and judgments. How could you expect the entirety of the human race to treat someones actions in a consistent way? It simply is going against reality.
> Jones got pregnant at 14 after what she called non-consensual sex with a high-school senior. Why minimize? Sounds like rape.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no "we" as you mention. Everyone is an individual with different values and judgments. How could you expect the entirety of the human race to treat someones actions in a consistent way? It simply is going against reality.
This is not true. We live in a society with rules and laws on how to treat people. If the law says someone goes to prison for murder then "we" as a society have agreed to this. If everyone lived by different laws, we'd be in chaos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the professors: "If officials who take a careful look at the case decide that Harvard should move forward, then we think that the university should do everything in its power and ability to welcome Jones here and support her, and we are indeed happy to play a part in that effort,” they continued. “We have stated our concerns as questions, and we hope they are treated as nothing more nor less than questions, not…
OTOH "we're just asking questions" is downright weasely.
I don't understand why we let people out of prison if we aren't prepared to actually let them out of prison. I'm not really bleeding heart about this, I'd be fine with any murder of this sort meaning life in prison. What does not make sense is letting someone out and then not treating them as normal humans again. It only encourages people to revert to evil.
Some quotes from the article makes it seem like they are more worried about the potential social and political backlash, than their personal beliefs on whether she has been rehabilitated. > " We didn’t have some preconceived idea about crucifying Michelle,” said John Stauffer, one of the two American studies professors. “But frankly, we knew that anyone could just punch her crime into Google, and Fox News would proba…