Sober Thread: 3 women missing for 10 years found alive.

Is it your impression that people do these sorts of things because they aren't adequately afraid of the punishment?

"Sure, I could avoid raping and imprisoning women, but c'mon, what's the worst that could happen? It's not like they'll kneecap me or execute me."

To me this violates the definition of basic human rights. If it's a basic human right, it cannot ever be forfeited by any misdeed. If it can, it is not a basic human right.

And saying that we have protection from unusual crime and punishment because of cruel monarchs' political whims is like saying that we have freedom of speech because the founding fathers were annoyed at their inability to distribute pamphlets. It is only true in the most literal-minded, facile sense.

 

FUCK yes. So easy. They take you down to a shower room and say "Hey, what's that over there on the wall??!" *bang*. Sleepies. You're welcome, taxpayers.

As a Canadian I am pro death penalty if it would be done the proper way, as stated above. I am one for a fair and balanced system, but I am not one for giving special treatment for those condemned to die in America. Remind me why they're there again. Appeal after appeal...Last meals? Cotton swabs from medical professionals before lethal injections? How much more money should you guys have to waste keeping prisoners healthy enough to execute? Of course, if we could fulfill our fantasies of doing in "our way" I have no doubt most of us would have the prison personnel decorate their cell on their first night in jail with every sharp object known to mankind to give themselves a chance to off themselves and save us all a lot of money and headaches. Maybe some pre-knotted sheets and a sturdy overhead pipe to peddle a little more influence.

For those of you disappointed that this creep can't be put down like a dog, rest assured: life in prison is a fate worse than death, no matter how you slice it. It is nothing but a brutalizing trip into hell. He'll never anything to be remotely happy about anything ever again.

 

This.

There are few fates worse than death. Life in prison tops the list. You sit in this small, what is it, 8x8? cell, all day, most of every day, for the rest of your natural life. Sure, there's some books and crap, but this dude will no longer be called by his name -- he will answer to a number. And from my understanding of how well crimes like his go over in the prison population, he will spend every day fearing for his life. Assuredly he will get beat up by a few of his fellow inmates looking for their own sense of justice.

I'm all in favor of putting a bullet into someone's head for certain crimes. But this is not one of them. Let them rot in jail for the rest of their life, and save the bullet for someone who didn't do such a heinous thing. I'll sleep happy knowing that some of my tax dollars are going toward giving this guy a living hell.

 

This definition of basic human rights is from here: <a class="postlink" href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Basic+human+rights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... man+rights</a>

Basic rights that fundamentally and inherently belong to each individual.

Human rights are freedoms established by custom or international agreement that impose standards of conduct on all nations. Human rights are distinct from civil liberties, which are freedoms established by the law of a particular state and applied by that state in its own jurisdiction.

Specific human rights include the right to personal liberty and Due Process of Law; to freedom of thought, expression, religion, organization, and movement; to freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, age, language, and sex; to basic education; to employment; and to property. Human rights laws have been defined by international conventions, by treaties, and by organizations, particularly the United Nations. These laws prohibit practices such as torture, Slavery, summary execution without trial, and Arbitrary detention or exile.

So based on this definition, giving him a trial and executing him does NOT violate "basic human rights", nor does the knee-jerk reaction of wanting to kick him in the balls until he dies, it just limits when you can kick him in the balls until he dies. I don't mind waiting. It also suggests that by committing such a crime he did, in fact, give up those rights, especially if he is convicted.

 

It is not the waiting that i think pisses people off, it is the finacial drain on the system, for a very easily guilty verdict(as have been pointed out, his house, he lived in the house, a kid share dna...). I am all for the death penalty, but i think a bullet in the head for this fucker is way to easy on him.

 

If this guy did it, I'm all for killing him. I give no fucks if its painful or drawn out. (Honestly I would like it to be cheap but that's just me.) I don't need vengeance. I just think there is a certain line you cross where you have shown yourself to be beyond help. The imprisonment and systematic rape of three women is over that line. I don't give a shit if he finds god and spends the rest of his life faithfuly taking his "don't be an emotionally broken monster" medicine and just generally being a swell guy. In my opinion this is the action of a truly core deep fucked up person, and if he slips up once someone else's life is ruined. That's not a chance that should be given him as far as I'm concerned.

Hell as far as the method of his death is concerned let the women involved decide. That would possibly give the only people who have a right to seek justice some small mesure of closure.

 

I'm intrigued by this. Do you actually think carefully considering all of the different horrible, painful ways to die and selecting one for their assailant would give these women closure? Has anyone besides comic book villains ever been excited by a prospect like that?

 

I agree that his crimes are beyond reckoning or redemption. When you infringe on the basic human rights of others you forsake your own. Violence is easy to commit and our society thrives much more on social trust than it does clemency for criminals. In a case like this just give him the death penalty; bullet to head, lethal injection, gas chamber, electric chair - whatever. I don't see the harm in letting him pray to a God of his choosing, or apologizing to the victims. This is trivial compared to the crime itself, and we can't objectively concern ourselves with sincerity because once someone has crossed the line as far as he has you can't ever again treat them any better than a caged dog. Rehabilitation for sociopaths can only ever be done for the sake of their own soul. Nothing more, nothing less, and it would be an insane legal system that ever let someone like this walk the streets again. In some circumstances the surviving victims have found solace in admissions of guilt, so we should offer that opportunity regardless of it's effect on a case by case basis. The issue with holding him up in a penitentiary is that what he's offered society is murder and rape, and now we're going to drain our shrinking coffers to feed and guard him for decades? I would like to see our legal system refrain from the death penalty in trials that surpass reasonable doubt, but don't eliminate doubt. I don't think I need to post stories of overturning DNA evidence or reconstructive memory in witness testimony to make that point. This isn't one of those trials. My only issue with going beyond a traditional execution to torture this guy is that if we don't establish limits there's no telling how far people will stretch them. If it becomes acceptable for prisoners, does it become acceptable for prisoners of war? Are these emotionally charged reactions reasonable for resolving political disputes? That might sound far fetched, but if you crack a history book it really isn't.

 

I don't have a problem with him praying to the God of his choosing in private. I do have a problem with him apologizing to his victims.

Number one, he's not sorry for what he did. He's sorry that he got caught. He had 10 fucking years to feel bad about what he was doing. He didn't.

Number two, what good is it going to do? The girls, their families, and their friends get to listen to a prepared statement from this piece of shit that tries to elicit sympathy for his actions.

"I was abused. I had a bad childhood. My inner child was wounded. "

That's not going to help heal their wounds. It's only going to open new ones and make them question the fucked up reality they already have to deal with. It might make him look a little better in the eyes of public opinion..."Oh look, he feels remorse."

The girls and their families will get to deal with conflicting emotions of "Does he really mean it? Maybe he had a bad childhood? Are we wrong for being mad?"

Fuck that. He gave up his right to any sympathy or any basic human rights for what he did to 3 human beings for 10 fucking years. That's a combined 30 years that he made others succumb to his sick whims. That's also 30 combined years of hell he put their families through.

They don't need to listen to this sick fuck apologize and open new wounds on top of the damage he's already caused just to make him feel like he's doing some sort of penance for his wrongs.

He can shove his apologies and his explanations straight up his ass.

 

This thread had gotten slightly contentious, and I don't think it has to be.

Is it reasonable for private citizens, especially those with kids, to have a knee-jerk reaction of "fuck this guy I hope he gets smothered in a tarp made out of his own skin?" Absolutely. I don't (and correct me if I'm wrong) think Pimptress and Toytoy are actually advocating that the entire basis of our legal system changes based on a single horrific incident. They're just being human beings, feeling human beings, and expressing something fundamental.

It's also reasonable to think about the consequences of living in a society where the government takes killing its citizens lightly. I don't think ghetto or anybody else is "idealistic and naive" to hope that the government would have to be goddamn certain before it goes putting bullets into people.

Personally, I don't really care about the death penalty very much. Both life in prison and the death penalty are crazy expensive, terrible and as much of deterrent as a criminal might need, so while I don't think the state should really be in the killing business, the practical differences are almost nil.

 

Except when the person in question isn't guilty. Not that it happens often, but it certainly has happened.

 

Compared to holding someone in a prison for decades the death penalty isn't expensive at all(the trial however bares the same cost). Not sure why people in this thread are pretending those costs are similar.

Pontificating on how the victims would react to an apology or admission of guilt is pointless, and acting like preventing an apology is some sort of chivalrous shielding for the victims is patently absurd. You have no idea how they would feel, and you have no idea if he would be sincere. They don't even have to listen to him at all unless they want to. Ted Bundy felt guilt through his crimes, but he was driven by impulses he couldn't control. Then there's John Gacy who's last words were "Kiss my ass." There's no need to simplify everything just because you want to stomp on his throat until he drowns in his own blood.

 

I can't tell whether you don't understand the point, or are making a different point ("if we just killed them quickly, it'd be cheap), but as of right now, death row inmates cost the legal system more than those with life in prison. The judicial cost of a death sentence case is markedly higher, and the appeals process tends to be long enough that you still have to house them for more than a decade. It takes so long that 25% of them just die of natural causes first.

The death penalty is cheap, the death penalty with due process is expensive.

What's often? We tend to release about one convicted death row prisoner for every ten that we actually kill. Maybe some of those were guilty and out on procedural standards, but those are likely counterbalanced by those wrongly convicted and never freed (which ones bigger? I honestly have no idea).

 

It's impossible to know exactly how many innocent people have died because of the death penalty, but I would argue that any is too many. And you can't "counterbalance" innocent people being killed with guilty people going free, that's just bad math.

 

I shouldn't have said the trial cost is the same, but yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Our legal system moves abhorrently slow.

 

Yeah, the appeals process is a double edged sword. On one hand making sure innocent people don't get punished for shit they didn't do is a good thing. On the flip side though guilty fucks draining the ever loving shit out of public resources to extend their worthless lives by years is obviously a problem.

Unfortunately I don't have even the slightest idea on fixing it. (At leadt I don't have any idea that won't get ripped to shreds by the board while I get my intelligence insulted.)

 

I had spent many a close minded year, thinking that expedited death penalty would do us all a favor. However, one innocent person experiencing said expedited death penalty is too many. This is not a scenario where the good out weighs the bad. Enough said.

However, I am of the opinion that our tax dollars should not be spent going down the drain that is keeping plenty of these fucks alive. Jail and what I presume prison are not necessarily enjoyable things, but inmates are able to make a life in incarceration, and they just live. What defines their happiness changes, but plenty of them are still able to adapt and enjoy their lives to a point.

I say they all need to be put to work, and make the end cost of incarceration zero. Jail and prison should not be any kind of drain on society. Inmates should be put to work to accomplish as much or more than the cost of their incarceration. They are all way too comfortable in their position. Incarceration should not be fun/ enjoyable/ or even stoic. It should be shit and punishment. There is no way that you should be able to get incarcerated and come up with some way to even slightly enjoy your time there.

To me it is absolutely absurd that tax payers should have to spend a dime to keep these people Locked up in a room enjoying three square meals a day, so that they can fuck off and watch cable all day. I spent 10 days in jail for a dui i got when I was 19, for being a fucking idiot. And the people I found in there were so comfortable being career criminals, and didn't give a shit about being locked up, that they thought that part of life was just being in jail. There was nothing about the process that ever really gave any kind of deterrent to going back. And after accepting the fact that I was going to be there for my time, and stopped worrying about every minute I was there, I was able to be comfortable with it. It wasn't so bad at all. It was like mandatory summer camp for adults. I spent my time playing basketball, watching movies and football, and playing cards. It was a mandatory 10 day vacation. After being there for only a few days, it was very easy to see how the idea of being incarcerated stopped being a deterrent, and became an idea of stability, knowing that i had nothing to worry about, and that I had no responsibilities. It allowed me to be 14 all over again.

TLDR Incarceration doesn't achieve what it should, and drains too many resources on the population.

 

Yeah, prison is a cakewalk and we should bring back slave labor.

Wait, what?