There are two complementary dysfunctional personalities in a co-dependent relationship. Maybe I missed it, but I think this self-test alludes to only one of them--the "enabler" half of a co-dependent relationship. What might be a test for the other half--the "controller" dependent?
Posts by ros
-
37Am I Codependent ? Now I'm a Bully?
by Jang ina couple of people have claimed i am co-dependent ..... a few years back i had to go through this list and do the following: .
codependents frequently:.
codependents frequently:.
-
-
-
272
McVeigh vs Death Penalty
by Amazing ini am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
-
-
ros
To Expatbrit:
Then perhaps the US system of incarceration needs work?
An understated indisputable fact if there ever was one! Bingooooo!
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7 -
272
McVeigh vs Death Penalty
by Amazing ini am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
-
-
ros
Hello, Expatbrit:
As for killing for ones country. If it is necessary in the last resort to do so to protect your country against aggression and pillage by another state, then imo, it is justified as self defence in extremis.
Religion is not the only thing that brainwashes. It has a way to go to catch up with nationalism.
In war you may be killing decent people with families, not sadist killers.This is not an applicable parrallel to the McVeigh situation however, or to the death sentence in general, since criminals are no longer a threat to the security of the state or it's inhabitants at the time they are sentenced to death.
Balony! Even most first-degree murderers can apply for paro--and can be granted it-- after a mere 7 years in the US. Read COMF's post about prisoner's on the first or second page.Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7 -
272
McVeigh vs Death Penalty
by Amazing ini am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
-
-
ros
Dear Englishman:
This will probably be my last post on this thread, because these social issues are like trinitarian debates, they go round and round and accomplish little.It does seem that the more fundamentalist a society is in terms of its religion the more vigorously it enforces 'punishment' for breaking that society's laws e.g. capital punishment.
How nice for criminals.A more liberal and less fundamentalist society tends to be more tolerant and recognises individuality and diversity. These societies are usually 'softer' in their treatment of criminals.
Let us assume for this topic that your observation is correct about the U.S. being more "fundamentalist" than other societies; therefore relating "fundamentalism" to "capital punishment".
Would it likewise be fair to relate a nation's "fundamentalism" to its scientific and academic achievements?So, why is this? It could be because religious fundamentalism demands a mental and emotional rigidity that requires regulated and obedient behaviour from everyone. People who do not follow a rigid religious doctrine have the capacity to believe people can change and would rather educate than punish. They would rather that people saw the sense in following laws than instil fear or social retribution e.g. capital punishment.
You're right. If a sane human being of normal intelligence does not intuitively understand why they should not murder, torture, rape, or otherwise brutalize other people, I personally don't see how leniency would educate them, or what the redeeming value would be for the effort--especially from the perspective on non-religious thinkers.When I hear that religions condone capital punishment I question whether they are really serving their God or whether they are merely aligning with social leaders to control their society. Marx may have had a point. Religious organisations are more to do with man and power here on earth than with spiritual issues. The Bible I know is full of contradictions, but few Christians would disagree that love and forgiveness is an overriding theme. Capital punishment is unforgiving, it is judgemental, it is final, and it is about man - not God.
Well, I can agree with you on this one, Englishman, up to a point. However, its my impression that most religions, and in fact many of the religious people I know, oppose capital punishment. I admit that the ONLY justification I can think of for not imposing capital punishment for guilt-proven sadistic murderers is if one believes that it gives the killer a chance to "repent and get saved", believing that is the will of God. In fact, if I were not religious, I would probably be or support vigilantism. The compassion of non-religious people toward these beasts baffles me.You still haven't responded to my question about killing for your country (war).
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7 -
49
murder letter
by silentlambs inlets dance, we have added "wt letters" section to the website.
it will offer a new letter each week added to a list with an introduction.
read the introduction, click to view the letter and see if it answers the questions.
-
-
ros
Hello, Silentlambs:
I join with others applauding your diligent efforts to expose the WT Society's practice of not allowing its members to report pedophilia and even murder to law enforement authorities. The page on your SilentLambs website for official WT letters is a great addition.
During the years I was an active JW, I was not aware of the prevalence of pedophilia within the organization. The way I initially found out about that, and the practice of congregation cover-ups for such offenders, was from some of the confessions I heard at BRCI conferences, and then later in Internet exJW discussion forums. Yet at first I thought these were isolated incidents. But since starting my own website, BEACON, I have been appalled by the sheer number of letters coming from people with stories of being horribly abused as children by their relatives and prominent elders in their congregations. Many are very much like the letters you have in the "Victims" page of your website. And yes, it is astonishing--even for the WTS--that they so dispicably protect the guilty and punish the innocent. But what I find even more incredible is the accepting indifference of the general membership of Jehovah's Witnesses toward these kinds of atrocities in their midst. That mothers have realized what was happening to their children and allowed it to go on is beyond me. This has revealed to me, above anything else, the degree to which Jehovah's Witnesses are in a duped mental state of blind submission, and it is outrageous! I have tried to think back on my years in the Watchtower wondering if I would have ever actually gone along with shielding such things. The story about people in one congregation admittedly being aware that a violent-type low-life had killed his little son and allowed it to be passed off as accidental death boggles the mind.
Another thing that occurred to me in reading the stories on your site were the instances of DFings where the offence was not made known to the congregation, and any who knew anything about it were warned to keep silent or face judicial action for "gossip". Hmmm. One of the Biblical texts most often cited by Jehovah's Witnesses to justify disfellowshipping is Jesus' instruction at Matthew 16:15-17, which verse 17 in the New World Translation reads: "If he does not listen to them ["two or three witnesses"], speak to the congregation, let him to be you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."
Does that not say the congregation is to be in formed, and allow that the wrong-doer should be turned over to the "nations"?While we on the forbidden outside may have gained some awareness, no one can expose it to the world like one such as yourself who knows the situation first-hand from the inside and is willing to come forward. If there is anything I or BEACON site can do to aid your efforts, please let me know: [email protected]
May your efforts be blessed.
-
272
McVeigh vs Death Penalty
by Amazing ini am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
-
-
ros
To Englishman:
Please excuse me if some of this was covered in a thread titled something like "Yanks vs Brits", or something. (I didn't happen to read that one.)
QUESTIONS:
Do you maintain that Britain is not a religious Society? How is the U.S. more a religious society than Britain?May we assume that you would not support killing people of another nationality for political reasons (war).
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7 -
272
McVeigh vs Death Penalty
by Amazing ini am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
-
-
ros
Reply to JanH:
I'm sure O.J. Simpson would agree with you.
If you are 51% certain that a particular defendent "did it", he or she is probably guilty. This is how it often works in civil cases, because one or the other party is right or wrong.
You've been reading too many math theory books, Jan. You can't put a viable percentage value like 51% on guilt vs. innocence in a person's mind. If you are going to try to figure it on percentage, the closest you could get is a 58.31% opinion of probability in a 12-person jury if the vote was 7-to-5, assuming each person on the jury was 100% certain about their vote.For my conscience, determining guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" is where the clay is in the legs of the judicial system when it comes to capital punishment. I support that circumstantial evidence that is not conclusive for guilt, and should NEVER NEVER be sufficient to impose a death penalty. From all that I have heard about McVeigh, there is no room for ANY doubt whatsoever, "reasonable" or otherwise, much less a mere 51%, if that's the way you figure it. I would not impose the death penalty if probability of guilt were even only 95% if it meant 5% odds of taking an innocent life.
On the issue of freeing "probably guilty" people:
If you figure "probably guilty" (YOUR term--not a legal one) as 51%, then what percent do YOU set for "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?But let's use your percentage way of figuring these things for the sake of illustration. Considering whether "probably guilty" people should be set free, you said:
Of course, if you imprison people based on what you think they probably did, just under half the prison population will end up being innocent people.
Jan, that is a totally absurd statement! Talk about a "straw man"! That assumes that every prisoner in the penal system was sent up on 51% evidence of guilt. Ridiculous! The way you figure, if one guy got strung up on 95% certainty of guilt, that would conclude that out of every 20 executions one was innocent!Let's put "probable guilt" (to use your term) at a little higher percent--say the 95% certainty, allowing a 5% margin that the accused could have been framed by the real killer, and therefore there is a 5% possibility that the guy is innocent. Let's say the crime is abducting, raping, and torturing 10 different kids on 10 different occasions. The accused claims to be innocent. Given a 5% margin of error, the guy is "probably" guilty, but there is no absolute proof, because that would require 100% certainty. Proof means proof.
Are you saying you would set this guy free, on the 95% chance another child(ren) would be brutally assaulted and murdered because the guy's only "probably" guilty? I'm not saying he should be executed, but are you saying he should be released?It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. That is a principle of justice universally agreed
Then that is where the flaw in the system is. Conviction is one thing, but sentencing for capital punishment should have to go beyond the margin between "reasonable doubt" and absolute proof for my vote. In purest terms, "proof" should have to be 100% certainty. (Try to imagine the word "proof" now in the terms that you would require to believe in God. :-) Anything less than 100% ranges from "probably guilty" down to "innocent". "Beyond a reasonable doubt" requires a judgement call by its own definintion. Who decides what's "reasonable". Unless there is a strict legal definition for "reasonable doubt" to mean absolute certainty beyond any doubt whatsoever, then it allows conviction on "circumstantial evidence" which does not constitute "proof". I will say that I would never support capital punishment for anyone convicted on what is legally defined as "circumstantial evidence" no matter how convincing it might seem. That--in my opinion--is how innocent people get executed. However, if the crime is serious enough, with evidence indicating a high probability of guilt, the individual should be incarcerated. I don't believe you can put lives at a high percentage of risk in spite of the inevitability that there will be the rare unfortunate occurrence of an innocent person being unjustly imprisoned. Some things just are not perfect and never will be. Boils down to the principle of the "lesser of two evils".Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7 -
272
McVeigh vs Death Penalty
by Amazing ini am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
-
-
ros
Hi, Jan:
You seem to suggest a two-level verdict system for murderers: innocent, probably guilty and proven guilty, and where the "proven guilty" are executed and the "probably guilty" are sent to prison. Can you imagine the increase in innocent people being sent to prison? I hope you have just not given this any serious thought.
I don't think so. My contention only addressed the case of proven sadistic murders. If I understand what you are suggesting, you would support liberating the "probably guilty"?Going beyond the point of whether capital punishment is murder or not, and getting into the ridiculousness of the whole judicial process is another entirely different discussion. Even more so than religion.
Your attempt to make this into a question of money just makes me sick. "Kill them because it's cheaper!" Don't you have any morality whatsoever?
Hey, did I say which way I would vote? As I've said, my solution would be a penal colony on a remote island in the Pacific. Jan, obviously my point in suggesting a vote for taxation was tongue-in-cheek since we are reasonably sure such a thing will never happen. My point was not which way I would vote, or "kill them because its cheaper", but to point out that imo the morality of most people is in their pocketbook. (I COULD be wrong--and certainly there are exceptions, no doubt like yourself.)
On the other hand, it does bother my conscience that I made you sick--I wouldn't want to do that.Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7 -
272
McVeigh vs Death Penalty
by Amazing ini am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
-
-
ros
Hi, Farkel:
If what you say is true, then I would be neutral on the issue. I definitely draw a sharp moral distinction between thrill-murder and execution. Execution not revenge. Most of the people involved in the trial and execution of a murderer had no personal involvement for revenge. Revenge would be, in McVeigh's case, since he blew up the Federal building killing innocent people and children, causing indiscribeable grief to their families and relatives, we would have the homes of his relatives blown up to cause him the same kind of grief. That would be revenge on McVeigh. Swatting a fly is killing, but it is not murder. Executing a wanton murderer of children is killing, but it is not murder. IMO.However, let me say that my preference by far would be the penal colony on a remote island in the Pacific.
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7 -
272
McVeigh vs Death Penalty
by Amazing ini am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
-
-
ros
Okay, how about this for a solution on whether or not to have the death penalty:
Submit the issue of capital punishment for PROVEN wanton murderers to popular vote of the citizens--with one caveat:
If the death penalty were voted out, only those who voted against it would be taxed for the construction, housing, employment of guards, cooks, utilities, medical expenses, etc. etc. to keep them. Anyone who voted for the death penalty would not be taxed for the livlihood of PROVEN wanton murderers.I would be agreeable to the abolition of the death penalty for PROVEN wanton murderers on those terms.