In 2015, Billingsley was sentenced to 30 years in prison, with 16 years suspended, after he pleaded guilty to a first-degree sex offense, court records show.

The Maryland sex offender registry shows he was released from prison in October. The registry classified him in “tier 3,” which includes the most serious charges and requires offenders to register for life.

    • Kofu
      link
      fedilink
      -11 year ago

      retributivist, just find out what that means.

      • @FooBarrington
        link
        11 year ago

        I know what retributivism is, and it perfectly fits into what you’ve written so far. Now explain to me: why shouldn’t we be preemptively retributive with people like you?

        • Kofu
          link
          fedilink
          -31 year ago

          Pre-emptily retributitve?

          You want to equate my belief, that the punishment should fit the crime by saying “a killer deserves to face death to right the wrong” to being a killer my self? Then explain to you why you shouldn’t have that view point? Pre-emptively?

          Just making sure I understand you properly.

          • @FooBarrington
            link
            31 year ago

            You want to equate my belief, that the punishment should fit the crime by saying “a killer deserves to face death to right the wrong” to being a killer my self?

            Everyone wants a punishment that fits the crime, but we disagree what punishment fits what crime. You want the state to kill people who you think deserve to be killed, but you also know that this will lead to innocent people being killed by the state, which is acceptable to you. How does that not make you complicit in the murder of innocents?

            Then explain to you why you shouldn’t have that view point? Pre-emptively?

            Why you shouldn’t have what view point? The one that leads to innocent people being killed? Because it leads to innocent people being killed. Generally, any view point that leads to innocent people being killed is one you shouldn’t have.

            • Kofu
              link
              fedilink
              -21 year ago

              You know, if you just watched that video. You’d understand my view point and it also has the opposite opinion, its both arguments give by two people who are more able to explain it better than me. Im basically trying to understand it myself and I try to explain it with some confidence with every other person on lemmy.

              The crime is? He kills his 3 kids. The punishment? Death, in this case. deserved and proportional, in my opinion, in this case!

              Btk, same opinion. Greene River, same opinion.

              You keep saying innocent people will be killed and you believe i want that to happen. I do not. you say “its inevitable” and I will say, that if you kill someone on false charges, it is wrong and it should only be applied to the cases I have stated previously, not a power just given out willy nilly.

              I’m not actively calling for an extremely low bar death penalty justice system, I say, eye for an eye. Killed his kids, delete him from life and this other guy from OPs post the guy rapes and kills a woman, 26, no remorse, killing is like brushing teeth, delete him from our society, and because I belive that I’m a potential murderer? Geeze man, thats depression as a conclusion. mountains, mole hills or something something.

              • @FooBarrington
                link
                31 year ago

                But the part that you don’t seem to comprehend is simply that no matter how high you set the standards, you will kill innocent people. What if somehow evidence comes out that shows you got the wrong guy instead of the one who kills 3 kids? You’re going to say “you just have to be sure”, but there is literally no way. Nobody in the history of humanity has figured out how to do what you’re proposing without killing innocent people, and I’m pretty sure nobody ever will.

                So there are invariably only two options:

                • kill people and innocents
                • don’t kill people and don’t kill innocents

                Unless you’ve found a magic solution that 100% ensures infallibility in the justice system, there is no third option. Understand now?

                • Kofu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -31 year ago

                  The guy is on video, he confessed to the police that it was premeditated, there were multiple witnesses. Where is this innocent person you keeping talking about being killed? I would argue its the fucking kids. I know you are talking over the whole judicial system but im arguing its these cases specifically.

                  I think you really enjoy telling other who they are, incorrectly I might add, think im a murderer in waiting? I would say you like to feel your superiority of the moral standard that retribution is equal to being a murderer yourself. Thats what I call delusional.

                  You be out here defending the lifes of the most disgusting humans on this planet and you think I’m the murderer? I call you an enabler, you would allow them to become “rehabilitated” in a system that relies on recidivism and just go on to kill again. Maybe you should think about all the people who left the prison just to kill again, their victim lay at your feet because you, obviously that is not true, but its your stupid logic.

                  • @FooBarrington
                    link
                    31 year ago

                    The guy is on video, he confessed to the police that it was premeditated, there were multiple witnesses. Where is this innocent person you keeping talking about being killed? I would argue its the fucking kids. I know you are talking over the whole judicial system but im arguing its these cases specifically.

                    And even in cases like this mistakes have been made before. But you obviously can’t accept that, as your whole position would fall apart, so you instead talk about this way that will surely work that somehow nobody else came up with.

                    Also, don’t act like killing a murderer somehow brings back the people he murdered. The only difference between locking them up for life and killing them is that the earlier leaves you the option of freeing them if it’s proven your innocent, whereas the latter fulfills your bloodlust.

                    I think you really enjoy telling other who they are, incorrectly I might add, think im a murderer in waiting? I would say you like to feel your superiority of the moral standard that retribution is equal to being a murderer yourself. Thats what I call delusional.

                    Mate, have fun calling me delusional, I don’t care. It’s pretty obvious you’re a young kid stumbling upon these philosophical ideas for the first time, and you simply can’t accept that the “simple and obvious” solution you’re proposing is flawed. But since it feels right to you, it can’t be wrong! And that’s what I call bloodlust.

                    You be out here defending the lifes of the most disgusting humans on this planet and you think I’m the murderer? I call you an enabler, you would allow them to become “rehabilitated” in a system that relies on recidivism and just go on to kill again. Maybe you should think about all the people who left the prison just to kill again, their victim lay at your feet because you, obviously that is not true, but its your stupid logic.

                    See, perfect example. I’m not “defending the lives of the most disgusting humans on the planet”, I’m defending the lives of the innocent people your quest for revenge will kill as collateral damage. Because, spoiler alert, locking up a terrible murderer for the rest of their life will not allow them to murder. But you don’t care that innocent people will die.