NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently a Teen who killed a homeless man now says that Jail is too hard, and wants a reduction in his sentance of 22 years. Jeez is this guy for real? (whiny voice) Oh Jail is too hard, it's cold, and drafty, and can you just reduce my sentance for me, I mean after all it was just a homeless man, am I right?(/whiny voice)

Teen Murderer Says Jail Is Too Hard, Appeals Sentence

POSTED: 12:20 pm EST December 4, 2006
UPDATED: 2:37 pm EST December 4, 2006

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- One of the teenagers responsible for beating a Holly Hill homeless man to death asked a judge to reduce his 22-year prison sentence Monday. Warren Messner and three other teens pled guilty to killing the man because they were bored, but Messner said prison is too hard.

Messner is a big boy. He was 15 at the time he was brought into the woods to see the homeless man his friends had been beating. Even at that young age, he outweighed the victim, Michael Roberts, by 200 pounds when he jumped on his chest, crushing his ribcage. Roberts died.

"Did you feel bad when you are doing it?" Messner was asked during questioning.

"Not really, no," he replied.

He didn't feel bad then, but he does now. He has been in juvenile detention for eight months, locked in a small cell and occasionally allowed to go to class.

Messner and his attorney said he has already learned his lesson and is ready to go home to help others.

"I want to be an inspirational speaker for troubled teens," he said Monday.

Messner got the lightest sentence of the four boys. Teens Jeffrey Spurgeon, Justin Stearns and Christopher Scamahorn got 27 to 35 years. They all cut plea deals to avoid life in prison.

The state attorney said that's as much leniency as they should get and the judge agreed.

"I can't think of some reason to change the sentence. I'm going to deny the motion," said the Hon. Joseph Will.

Messner's parents broke down at the denial. His mother said it's unfair, that her son fell in with a bad crowd and prison is killing him.

"He's not getting the mental health, the schooling. He's not getting anything, anything but locked in a cell all day long," Lori Messner said.

The judge and the state both argued that being deprived services and being locked away is precisely the point of prison. Warren Messner will spend the next 22 years in prison without the chance for parole.

http://www.wftv.com/news/10458584/detail.html

He was already given less than they ought to have given him.

Leviticus 24:17 "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death."

Messner and his attorney said he has already learned his lesson and is ready to go home to help others.

"I want to be an inspirational speaker for troubled teens," he said Monday.

then he can be an Inspirational speaker from Jail.

Messner's parents broke down at the denial. His mother said it's unfair, that her son fell in with a bad crowd and prison is killing him.
Laying the blame on everyone else execpt the kid himself. :rolleyes:

"He's not getting the mental health, the schooling. He's not getting anything, anything but locked in a cell all day long," Lori Messner said. the mental health was supposed to be given while the parents were raising him. didn't they ever teach him not to beat up on helpless people and jump on their chest?

he didn't feel bad doing it then, he admitted to not feeling bad about it before sentencing... so he does the time. maybe he can be released on good behavoir... maybe.

Hah, prison won't kill him of course, unless they drop it on his chest and send it in 3 times to give him a kicking.

Inspirational speaker, oh dear, that is so clearly the desperation of a clueless thug thats just figured out if you kill people for fun bad stuff WILL happen to you. And he doesn't like it? Good!

22 years, from the looks of his victim, homeless or not, the man had more than 22 years left and someone's life can turn around in a day. That man will never have that chance now.

Apparently a Teen who killed a homeless man now says that Jail is too hard, and wants a reduction in his sentance of 22 years. Jeez is this guy for real? (whiny voice) Oh Jail is too hard, it's cold, and drafty, and can you just reduce my sentance for me, I mean after all it was just a homeless man, am I right?(/whiny voice)



http://www.wftv.com/news/10458584/detail.html

At least he gets 3 squares a day. Better than the homelss guy had.

the mental health was supposed to be given while the parents were raising him. didn't they ever teach him not to beat up on helpless people and jump on their chest?



My parents never did.

Strangely it never came up..

Trilby63;12041112']My parents never did.

Strangely it never came up..

so your parents didn't tell you not to fight?

Oh he's just whining because Bubba keeps touching him.....:p

Oh he's just whining because Bubba keeps touching him.....:p

and playing "pokey" with him.

He was already given less than they ought to have given him.

Leviticus 24:17 "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death."

Wait, weren't you the one arguing that the OT laws were no longer in effect?

so your parents didn't tell you not to fight?

Nope.


I believe it had something to do with how short and scrawny I was and how futile it would be for me to even bother with violence.

WTF... He has been in juvenile detention for eight months, locked in a small cell and occasionally allowed to go to class.

he's not even in "JAIL" yet. this is Junior Jail... and he's complaining? about eight MONTHS!!!

:eek:

Trilby63;12041138']Nope.


I believe it had something to do with how short and scrawny I was and how futile it would be for me to even bother with violence.

ah, but you knew how futile it was to fight. so you knew that fighting was wrong... well starting one anyway... :p

Wait, weren't you the one arguing that the OT laws were no longer in effect?

Moral versus ceremonial. The ceremonial law was fulfilled. The moral law is still binding.

Bullshit. Let the scumbag suffer out the entire sentence.

ah, but you knew how futile it was to fight. so you knew that fighting was wrong... well starting one anyway... :p

Indeed..

And homeless people were never specifically mentioned.

Besides which I live in a small town with few homeless people.

He didn't feel bad then, but he does now.

that’s enough for me so long as we get some psychiatrists in who will make sure he actually is sane (because to kill you have to be insane)

And 22 years seems pointless to me retribution should have no place in justice

Moral versus ceremonial. The ceremonial law was fulfilled. The moral law is still binding.

SO death to all gays. Lev 20:13.
No mixed cloth either. Lev 19:19.
Gotcha.

Apparently a Teen who killed a homeless man now says that Jail is too hard, and wants a reduction in his sentance of 22 years. Jeez is this guy for real? (whiny voice) Oh Jail is too hard, it's cold, and drafty, and can you just reduce my sentance for me, I mean after all it was just a homeless man, am I right?(/whiny voice)



http://www.wftv.com/news/10458584/detail.html

At 15, your sense of right and wrong is developed. He's a sociopath and wants out. He's saying what he thinks people want to hear. He should have gotten life in prison without parole.

At 15, your sense of right and wrong is developed. He's a sociopath and wants out. He's saying what he thinks people want to hear. He should have gotten life in prison without parole.

Agreed. If he had just robbed a place or threatened someone, I might feel some sympathy. He landed on this guys chest and killed him. 8 months isn't enough time to "feel sorry" enough for that.

At 15, your sense of right and wrong is developed. He's a sociopath and wants out. He's saying what he thinks people want to hear. He should have gotten life in prison without parole.

I suppose 15-year-olds should have the right to vote then, yeah?

At 15, your sense of right and wrong is developed.

source?

He's a sociopath and wants out. He's saying what he thinks people want to hear.

so why would he say he didn’t regret it when he was being convicted?

He should have gotten life in prison without parole.

any reason for this other than petty revenge?

Agreed. If he had just robbed a place or threatened someone, I might feel some sympathy. He landed on this guys chest and killed him. 8 months isn't enough time to "feel sorry" enough for that.

Yup. Falling in with the wrong crowd is stealing shit, beating a helpless homeless person is deliberate evil.

I suppose 15-year-olds should have the right to vote then, yeah?

Some of the 15 year olds here have a better grasp of politics than many adults.

Not saying they "should" vote but the line is arbitrary. It used to be 21.

He landed on this guys chest and killed him. 8 months isn't enough time to "feel sorry" enough for that.

so you never did anything wrong when you was young especially when in a group

think he’s just the poor kid who went too far other than that he was being just your ordinary hoodlum trying to look tough in front of his friends

source?



so why would he say he didn’t regret it when he was being convicted?



any reason for this other than petty revenge?

Well, it's not like he accidentally ran the guy over, or even shot him during a robbery from anxiety. He , a boy weighing over 300 lbs, intentionally jumped on this guys chest while him and others were beating on him. Are you trying to say he didn't intend to severely hurt the guy?

SO death to all gays. Lev 20:13.

No. Death to those who commit homosexual acts. Gay, bi or straight. And before anyone screams that I'm a horrible person, I should be excecuted under this law.

No mixed cloth either. Lev 19:19.
Gotcha.

This is one I'm unsure of and so I try to observe it (though most don't) until I am presented with a Scriptural explanation as to why it was part of the ceremonial law.

Some of the 15 year olds here have a better grasp of politics than many adults.

Not saying they "should" vote but the line is arbitrary. It used to be 21.

Some, we don't know this one did. The line is similarly arbitrary to Bookislvakia's assertion that "at 15 your sense of right and wrong is developed." He doesn't know this person.

source?



so why would he say he didn’t regret it when he was being convicted?



any reason for this other than petty revenge?

He didn't regret it then because he had yet to experience prison. He saw no point in lying at the time. Prison is doing its job, to make him sad and to keep him away from other helpless innocents.

I'm looking for sources now, I'll get back to you. As a psych major, I'm pretty sure that if the state saw fit to put him away, then he was old enough to go to prison. However, I respect the desire for sources. It may take a bit, but I'll jump through the hoops.

Yes, there is a reason to put people in prison who commit crimes. It's to prevent them from committing more crimes, especially of the dangerous variety. His parents should probably be in rehab or something too, unless they can prove they raised the kid right.

If you can get a skilled mental health professional to clear the kid of being a sociopath or dangerous, then let him rot for another year to make sure it sticks and then put him on parole.

so you never did anything wrong when you was young especially when in a group


Group think is not a defense for murder. Try again.

so you never did anything wrong when you was young especially when in a group

Did I ever kill anyone? Nope.

think he’s just the poor kid who went too far other than that he was being just your ordinary hoodlum trying to look tough in front of his friends

"Trying to look tough" would be shoving the guy around and threatening him. Not jumping on his chest trying to severly injure him. Are you able to see the difference?

beating a helpless homeless person is deliberate evil.

wow the E word I can tell your thinking about this rationally :rolleyes:

Some of the 15 year olds here have a better grasp of politics than many adults.

doesn't mean they all do though especially since they haven’t really touched on the rise of dictators yet in school

Some, we don't know this one did. The line is similarly arbitrary to Bookislvakia's assertion that "at 15 your sense of right and wrong is developed." He doesn't know this person.

If he doesn't know not to kill someone, or try to, at 15, he needs to be institutionalized.

If he doesn't know not to kill someone, or try to, at 15, he needs to be institutionalized.

Maybe he should; maybe prison is the wrong place for him.

so you never did anything wrong when you was young especially when in a group

think he’s just the poor kid who went too far other than that he was being just your ordinary hoodlum trying to look tough in front of his friends

The worst thing I did was speed. In a car.

If you're saying that part of normal development is the commission of violent or serious crimes, then...I dunno what to say to that.

Apparently a Teen who killed a homeless man now says that Jail is too hard, and wants a reduction in his sentance of 22 years.
Good. I'm glad he's whining about it, too.

Maybe this will deter future murders by whiny teenagers.

If he doesn't know not to kill someone, or try to, at 15, he needs to be institutionalized.

Now that IS something I agree with. As long as he's being kept away from innocent people while he's being treated, I don't mind. But suddenly going from "I don't care" to "Wow, prison sucks, I learned my lesson!" is suspicious.

wow the E word I can tell your thinking about this rationally :rolleyes:



doesn't mean they all do though especially since they haven’t really touched on the rise of dictators yet in school

It IS evil to kill someone.

But, if you want to hear from the non-moral part of my brain, it's deliberate and violent crime with no purpose other than to entertain the perpetrator. The same charge against someone who is 18 would have netted the death penalty in many states.

I suppose 15-year-olds should have the right to vote then, yeah?

Right and wrong do not necessarily denote the ability to comprehend complex politics.

However, 18 is an arbitrary age, so that's a whole different debate.

He , a boy weighing over 300 lbs, intentionally jumped on this guys chest while him and others were beating on him. Are you trying to say he didn't intend to severely hurt the guy?

yes considering I didn’t know you could actually kill someone doing that until now

He didn't regret it then because he had yet to experience prison. He saw no point in lying at the time. Prison is doing its job, to make him sad and to keep him away from other helpless innocents.

or maybe the limited rehabilitation programmes have worked?

Yes, there is a reason to put people in prison who commit crimes. It's to prevent them from committing more crimes, especially of the dangerous variety

actually originally prisons were meant to rehabilitate (though originally they were unintentionally torture) it was only as media grew that people began demanding retribution and pernamatly locking people away

If you can get a skilled mental health professional to clear the kid of being a sociopath or dangerous, then let him rot for another year to make sure it sticks and then put him on parole.

why another year?

Group think is not a defense for murder. Try again.

it is however something that must be taken into account

Did I ever kill anyone? Nope.

luck maybe?

"Trying to look tough" would be shoving the guy around and threatening him. Not jumping on his chest trying to severly injure him. Are you able to see the difference?

no not really your mates are beating him so you go a step further and so on

Right and wrong do not necessarily denote the ability to comprehend complex politics.

However, 18 is an arbitrary age, so that's a whole different debate.

If he can pick the right person or the wrong person. :p

so you never did anything wrong when you was young especially when in a group

think he’s just the poor kid who went too far other than that he was being just your ordinary hoodlum trying to look tough in front of his friends

I'm guessing he never beat a man to death then told the judge he didn't regret his actions.

yes considering I didn’t know you could actually kill someone doing that until now

It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Good. I'm glad he's whining about it, too.

Maybe this will deter future murders by whiny teenagers.

If someone is fucked up enough to kill someone out of bordem I doubt hearing about someone whining about jail is going to deter him

yes considering I didn’t know you could actually kill someone doing that until now



or maybe the limited rehabilitation programmes have worked?



actually originally prisons were meant to rehabilitate (though originally they were unintentionally torture) it was only as media grew that people began demanding retribution and pernamatly locking people away



why another year?



it is however something that must be taken into account



luck maybe?



no not really your mates are beating him so you go a step further and so on

Maybe the rehabilitation programs did work on him, that's fine with me. If a licensed mental health professional says he's fine, then put him on parole and watch him for awhile.

The reason I'm so up in arms over this is because he killed someone because he was bored. We're not talking about your typical child-hood rebellious crime here. He didn't steal some playing cards, or even break into someone's house. He killed somebody.

And it's ridiculous to think that jumping on someone's chest wouldn't kill the person. You break ribs and crush the heart and lungs, he's not going to stand up and go "Oh wow, that sucked."

It's not luck that we didn't kill people when we were kids. We never chose to beat someone to death. If this had been vehicular manslaughter, for instance, then he could be forgiven.

The group defense isn't really making me buy that he's somehow more innocent than his friends who are serving harder sentences. That's like pardoning, forgive the hyperbole, every Nazi other than Hitler, because they were just going a step farther to look good.

I can't find a source right now for all this, but I'll take a child psychology course next semester and get back to you. I'm not doing 2 hours of research for an online forum.

If he can pick the right person or the wrong person. :p

I see your point, but again, that's for a different thread altogether. :D

I see your point, but again, that's for a different thread altogether. :D

Mwaha, now I can exit semi-gracefully from this thread. *departs*

Maybe he should; maybe prison is the wrong place for him.

exactly at the very most he has some sort of mental issue that allowed him to kill otherwise we would all be doing it

If you're saying that part of normal development is the commission of violent or serious crimes, then...I dunno what to say to that.

I'm saying that doing stupid shit that you will regret later is what kids do

But suddenly going from "I don't care" to "Wow, prison sucks, I learned my lesson!" is suspicious.

not really a few months is a long time especially for a kid

It IS evil to kill someone.

evil is a thing for bedtime stories this is the real world

But, if you want to hear from the non-moral part of my brain, it's deliberate and violent crime with no purpose other than to entertain the perpetrator. The same charge against someone who is 18 would have netted the death penalty in many states.

I think the crime was beating the guy I seriously doubt the kid wanted to kill the man

yes considering I didn’t know you could actually kill someone doing that until now

Really? You didn't know that forcefully slamming 300lbs onto someones chest could break ribs and collapse lungs?





luck maybe?

Nothing even close.



no not really your mates are beating him so you go a step further and so on

Still not justified. "Boys will be boys" doesn't change the fact that he intentionally tried to severely injure someone even if it was to "impress" his friends. Like I said, if he didn't know better, he should be put away.

It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

you think about ways that might kill someone?

Maybe the rehabilitation programs did work on him, that's fine with me. If a licensed mental health professional says he's fine, then put him on parole and watch him for awhile.

we are in agreement then if the rehabilitation has worked there is no reason to keep him

The reason I'm so up in arms over this is because he killed someone because he was bored. We're not talking about your typical child-hood rebellious crime here. He didn't steal some playing cards, or even break into someone's house. He killed somebody.

I think I need to reiterate that he most likely didn’t intend to

And it's ridiculous to think that jumping on someone's chest wouldn't kill the person. You break ribs and crush the heart and lungs, he's not going to stand up and go "Oh wow, that sucked."

you do know we are talking about 15 year old grasp of anatomy whilst out with friends

If someone is fucked up enough to kill someone out of bordem I doubt hearing about someone whining about jail is going to deter him
If you're bored, are you likely to risk prison just to alleviate that boredom?

I'm certainly not.

Really? You didn't know that forcefully slamming 300lbs onto someones chest could break ribs and collapse lungs?

yep you tend not to think about things like that

Nothing even close.

lucky you

Like I said, if he didn't know better, he should be put away.

so now we imprison people for not knowing?

exactly at the very most he has some sort of mental issue that allowed him to kill otherwise we would all be doing it



I'm saying that doing stupid shit that you will regret later is what kids do



not really a few months is a long time especially for a kid



evil is a thing for bedtime stories this is the real world



I think the crime was beating the guy I seriously doubt the kid wanted to kill the man

Normal stupid shit kids do usually involves small crimes. Killing people is a different league altogether. I'm sure he regrets that decision. Wait, no he doesn't he said so at his trial and changed his mind. He didn't care until he faced the consequences of his actions. This is so much more serious than stealing something, or paintballing a house, or so many other youthful indiscretions. You can't slap the victim on the back and go "Wow man! Killing you sure was stupid of me! HAHAHAH!" BECAUSE THE MAN IS DEAD.

If evil is a thing for bedtime stories, then many MANY famous politicians have told them to the general public. If you want to tell me evil is an outdated mode of thought, then take that to a different thread and convince me there's no such thing as good and evil.

yep you tend not to think about things like that



lucky you



so now we imprison people for not knowing?

Yes, we do put people away for not knowing. Have you ever heard "Ignorance is not a defense?" They execute mentally handicapped people in Texas.

Did you kill someone when you were a kid on purpose? You seem to be saying how lucky we are to not have committed serious crimes as children, and I'm having a hard time buying it. You make it seem like the majority of people have killed people, as a normal part of growing up.

If you're trying to appeal to some sort of pity, that makes no sense either. He did it on purpose, not accident.

Something that a lot of people seem to be missing:
He didn't "beat" the man, nor did he kill him out of boredom, a few friends brought him in to deliver the killing blow after the man had already been captured and beaten by several others. That doesn't mediate what he did, but it doesn't deserve over 20 years either.
And before anyone has the right to be self-righteous about punishing this kid, they should consider how much they complained when the victim was dumped out into the street to be the victim to passing gangs of bored sociopaths and the elements. My guess is, "not at all."

you do know we are talking about 15 year old grasp of anatomy whilst out with friends
I don't see how his being "out with friends" is relevant.

But under US law, he doesn't need to know the behaviour will kill the man. As a direct result of his felony assault, someone died. That's felony murder. As long as he was intentionally assaulting the guy (which he was), his death counts as murder.

If you're bored, are you likely to risk prison just to alleviate that boredom?

I'm certainly not.

whats the chase that this person did not already know assaulting someone else was illegal?

Moral versus ceremonial. The ceremonial law was fulfilled. The moral law is still binding.

Moral law is still binding, but the Old Testament morality has been replaced by a superior morality given to us by Christ. We are called to forgive, not execute.

For this reason I don't believe people who choose to comit homosexual acts should be harassed, they should be treated as brothers and sisters and someday they may see how these acts stand against God and creation and will ask forgiveness and enter into a more personal relationship with God.


I definitely think that wearing colors of cloth would be considered ceremonial rules or something that specifically referenced the current culture. There is nothing morally wrong with wearing pieces of cloth of different colors.

yep you tend not to think about things like that
lucky you
so now we imprison people for not knowing?

Not knowing not to kill or try to kill someone, Yes, he needs to be institutionalized. If he didn't "think" that jumping on this guys chest wouldn't severely hurt him, there's something wrong w/ the kid and he needs to be put away.

I'm "lucky" in that I, and the wide majority of 15 year olds out there, know not to try and kill someone or to try and severely maim someone because they're bored.

I love the apologists on this board. "The poor boy didn't know that dropping large weights onto people might kill them and he feels REAL sorry for it so he should be forgiven."

you think about ways that might kill someone?



we are in agreement then if the rehabilitation has worked there is no reason to keep him



I think I need to reiterate that he most likely didn’t intend to



you do know we are talking about 15 year old grasp of anatomy whilst out with friends

1. He's seen movies I bet. He knows that people can die, and I bet he knows that if you stomp and hit things long enough, it'll die.
2.I did not agree that rehab worked, I said if it did then he should be checked by professionals and then watched closely for some time.
3. Intention doesn't bring back the dead man.
4. Since this kid seems to be a total innocent out for a laugh, can we decide on what he DOES know? Because it seems like you're saying he's fresh out of the womb and didn't even know he was hurting someone.

you do know we are talking about 15 year old grasp of anatomy whilst out with friends

Who are you? His mom? Group think and stupidity are not defenses for murder.

He's lucky he only got 22 years. He should probably be submitted for mental health evaluation as well.

I definitely think that wearing colors of cloth would be considered ceremonial rules or something that specifically referenced the current culture. There is nothing morally wrong with wearing pieces of cloth of different colors.

Not colors, materials.

BECAUSE THE MAN IS DEAD.

so now that he has changed his mind and no longer a threat to society it doesn't change a thing

I say again 'retribution has no place in justice'

If evil is a thing for bedtime stories, then many MANY famous politicians have told them to the general public.

politicians lie and bears shit in the woods

If you want to tell me evil is an outdated mode of thought, then take that to a different thread and convince me there's no such thing as good and evil.

go ahead I'm a bit too busy occupied at the moment with this thread

Moral law is still binding, but the Old Testament morality has been replaced by a superior morality given to us by Christ. We are called to forgive, not execute.

For this reason I don't believe people who choose to comit homosexual acts should be harassed, they should be treated as brothers and sisters and someday they may see how these acts stand against God and creation and will ask forgiveness and enter into a more personal relationship with God.


I definitely think that wearing colors of cloth would be considered ceremonial rules or something that specifically referenced the current culture. There is nothing morally wrong with wearing pieces of cloth of different colors.

It's not the color, it's the material.

And I am referring to what the civil government's responsibility is. Should we form lynch mobs and go after these people? No. But the civil government has been given responsibilities and they are to uphold them. One of the reasons I'm a theocrat (probably the chief reason). Are we to love and forgive? Yes, it is a sin not to. But loving and forgiving are not the same as shirking our responsibilities or letting them do whatever they want. It's wishing them the best and hoping and praying they will repent and working toward that goal.

Something that a lot of people seem to be missing:
He didn't "beat" the man, nor did he kill him out of boredom, a few friends brought him in to deliver the killing blow after the man had already been captured and beaten by several others. That doesn't mediate what he did, but it doesn't deserve over 20 years either.
And before anyone has the right to be self-righteous about punishing this kid, they should consider how much they complained when the victim was dumped out into the street to be the victim to passing gangs of bored sociopaths and the elements. My guess is, "not at all."

He's serving less of a term than his friends, seems fair enough to me.

I give to charities and try my best to help the homeless. What else should I do?

so now that he has changed his mind and no longer a threat to society it doesn't change a thing

I say again 'retribution has no place in justice'



politicians lie and bears shit in the woods



go ahead I'm a bit too busy occupied at the moment with this thread

He "says" he changed his mind. That's nice. Now show some evidence he actually has.

so now that he has changed his mind and no longer a threat to society it doesn't change a thing

I say again 'retribution has no place in justice'



politicians lie and bears shit in the woods



go ahead I'm a bit too busy occupied at the moment with this thread

Why should he walk free when he changed his mind? Do we put him back if he changes his mind again? And then let him out when prison sucks again?

think he’s just the poor kid who went too far other than that he was being just your ordinary hoodlum trying to look tough in front of his friendseven worse, the death was not caused by someone defending themselves, but because someone was trying to "look tough."

Group think is not a defense for murder. Try again.agreed.

yes considering I didn’t know you could actually kill someone doing that until nowpeople have died by haveing massive trauma (a blow for instance) to the chest. just saying it's possible. heck, one hard punch is enough to cause the heart to go into cardiac arrest.

or maybe the limited rehabilitation programmes have worked?could be, but he should still stay in for the full term or untill he's released on good behavior.

actually originally prisons were meant to rehabilitate (though originally they were unintentionally torture) it was only as media grew that people began demanding retribution and pernamatly locking people awayno, originally Prisions were ment to lock people away, not for rehabilitation. look up the Bastille. that was a dungeon. that's what prisions were originally used for.

why another year?why take him out when HE says he's learned his lession. keeping him in for at least another year will make the time stick in his mind and really drive the lesson home.

luck maybe?or being raised properly.

no not really your mates are beating him so you go a step further and so onwhich is still as bad.

Something that a lot of people seem to be missing:
He didn't "beat" the man, nor did he kill him out of boredom, a few friends brought him in to deliver the killing blow after the man had already been captured and beaten by several others. That doesn't mediate what he did, but it doesn't deserve over 20 years either.
And before anyone has the right to be self-righteous about punishing this kid, they should consider how much they complained when the victim was dumped out into the street to be the victim to passing gangs of bored sociopaths and the elements. My guess is, "not at all."except the friends were beating on him when he was taken to the homeless man. he still could've refused to participate. and the fact that all of em didn't feel sorry or regretful for their act untill they spent some time in Juvie.

and considering he got the LIGHTEST sentence, means the judge did take into account that Messner did not participate in the majority of the beating but was still held accountable for the death.

He keeps his nose clean and he might be released early.

He was already given less than they ought to have given him.

Leviticus 24:17 "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death."

Ok when does the killing stop? The person who kills the killer must then be killed.....

Ok when does the killing stop? The person who kills the killer must then be killed.....

The Bible makes says that excecution, war, and self-defense can be justified (or rather that they are justified; if they are not justified, they are no longer war, excecution, or sefl-defense). That's why taking one verse out of the context of the whole is dangerous.

Yes, we do put people away for not knowing. Have you ever heard "Ignorance is not a defense?" They execute mentally handicapped people in Texas.

are you saying that because its US law its the right thing to do?

Did you kill someone when you were a kid on purpose?

1) where is this piece of information that tells you he did it on purpose?
2) as a kid I gave a few beatings that I regret I'm guessing this kid was just an American CHAV

You seem to be saying how lucky we are to not have committed serious crimes as children, and I'm having a hard time buying it. You make it seem like the majority of people have killed people, as a normal part of growing up.

no I'm saying that gis kid was just unlucky if he had just knocked the guy out nobody would of known and he would just feel guilty later in life

He did it on purpose, not accident.

proof?

I don't see how his being "out with friends" is relevant.

in groups people as a rule tend to be more asshats it comes from a feeling of invulnerability you get from being in a group


But under US law, he doesn't need to know the behaviour will kill the man. As a direct result of his felony assault, someone died. That's felony murder. As long as he was intentionally assaulting the guy (which he was), his death counts as murder.

so its US law thus its right?

Not knowing not to kill or try to kill someone, Yes, he needs to be institutionalized. If he didn't "think" that jumping on this guys chest wouldn't severely hurt him, there's something wrong w/ the kid and he needs to be put away.

no he needs rehabilitation why lock him away for years for anything other than petty retribution

I'm "lucky" in that I, and the wide majority of 15 year olds out there, know not to try and kill someone or to try and severely maim someone because they're bored.

where does it say they did this because they where bored?

I love the apologists on this board. "The poor boy didn't know that dropping large weights onto people might kill them and he feels REAL sorry for it so he should be forgiven."

so now you have run out of ideas so you choose to use insults instead?

1. He's seen movies I bet.

what well known movie was this in?

2.I did not agree that rehab worked, I said if it did then he should be checked by professionals and then watched closely for some time.

to show that he was rehabilitated otherwise what your suggesting is monitoring every reasonably sane criminal which as novel as it sounds would cost far too much money

3. Intention doesn't bring back the dead man.

And retribution does?

4. Since this kid seems to be a total innocent out for a laugh, can we decide on what he DOES know? Because it seems like you're saying he's fresh out of the womb and didn't even know he was hurting someone.

I have no doubt he knew he was hurting this man but how was he to know that he would kill him?

Who are you? His mom? Group think and stupidity are not defenses for murder.

Yes get those mental patients what kind of defence is accidental!

He's lucky he only got 22 years. He should probably be submitted for mental health evaluation as well.

No he should be evaluated on his mental health and if he turns out to be a regular teen released if not then that means he is mentally ill and thus needs treatment not punishment

The Bible makes says that excecution, war, and self-defense can be justified (or rather that they are justified; if they are not justified, they are no longer war, excecution, or sefl-defense). That's why taking one verse out of the context of the whole is dangerous.

True. Quoting Leviticus can cause all sorts of problems.

No, he shouldn't be let out. You kill someone, you get thrown in jail. You can't just become sorry and get let out when you want. It doesn't work that way.

True. Quoting Leviticus can cause all sorts of problems.

Now, now! Don't take me out of context. :p

are you saying that because its US law its the right thing to do?



1) where is this piece of information that tells you he did it on purpose?
2) as a kid I gave a few beatings that I regret I'm guessing this kid was just an American CHAV



no I'm saying that gis kid was just unlucky if he had just knocked the guy out nobody would of known and he would just feel guilty later in life



proof?



in groups people as a rule tend to be more asshats it comes from a feeling of invulnerability you get from being in a group




so its US law thus its right?



no he needs rehabilitation why lock him away for years for anything other than petty retribution



where does it say they did this because they where bored?



so now you have run out of ideas so you choose to use insults instead?



what well known movie was this in?



to show that he was rehabilitated otherwise what your suggesting is monitoring every reasonably sane criminal which as novel as it sounds would cost far too much money



And retribution does?



I have no doubt he knew he was hurting this man but how was he to know that he would kill him?



Yes get those mental patients what kind of defence is accidental!



No he should be evaluated on his mental health and if he turns out to be a regular teen released if not then that means he is mentally ill and thus needs treatment not punishment

I cannot seriously debate with you anymore, so I'm bowing out before I say something stupid.

Yes get those mental patients what kind of defence is accidental!
Is that english?


No he should be evaluated on his mental health and if he turns out to be a regular teen released if not then that means he is mentally ill and thus needs treatment not punishment
Yes, let's release him because he is a teenager. Let's release anyone younger than 18 who committed murder, they were just kids, they didn't know what they were doing!

You realize how fucking stupid that sounds? He should get a mental evaluation and either stuck in prison for a longer amount of time or put into a mental institution. The kid is obviously a psychopath. Some one died as a result of his actions and he felt no remorse and no regret. Now that he is in jail and having to deal with the consequences of his actions, he is whining and crying. He doesn't feel remorse or regret now, he just doesn't like being in jail.

even worse, the death was not caused by someone defending themselves, but because someone was trying to "look tough."

and you’ve never tried to look tough?

could be, but he should still stay in for the full term or until he's released on good behavior.

why?

no, originally Prisions were ment to lock people away, not for rehabilitation. look up the Bastille. that was a dungeon. that's what prisions were originally used for.

that was a dungeon there is a difference

the first prisons where created to teach the word of God, prisoners were left in a blank cell with a bible to think about what they had done for a few days (obviously this had some horrible results)

why take him out when HE says he's learned his lession. keeping him in for at least another year will make the time stick in his mind and really drive the lesson home.

A year is a hell of a long time though why not just a month?

or being raised properly.

Which somehow makes him guilty?

which is still as bad.

Nope if anything he committed manslaughter

he still could've refused to participate.

It takes maturity to say no though especially when mob violence is shown even in adults

While I don't think prison should be brutal or dehumanizing, I do think he should do his full 22 years. He should get mental health care and schooling. But I'm quite skeptical about his sudden remorse. And his lack of taking responsiblity for his actions obviously was encouraged by his parents. Too bad they can't be sentenced to a little time too.

no he needs rehabilitation why lock him away for years for anything other than petty retribution

"Institutionalized" /= prison

where does it say they did this because they where bored?

Read the OP. Really. Try it.

"Warren Messner and three other teens pled guilty to killing the man because they were bored, but Messner said prison is too hard."

so now you have run out of ideas so you choose to use insults instead?


So you deny that you're making every excuse in the book to justify this kid killing someone?

Is that english?

:rolleyes:

Yes, let's release him because he is a teenager. Let's release anyone younger than 18 who committed murder, they were just kids, they didn't know what they were doing!

how could any sane person go out and commit murder?


The kid is obviously a psychopath.

I seriously hope your joking

Some one died as a result of his actions and he felt no remorse and no regret. Now that he is in jail and having to deal with the consequences of his actions, he is whining and crying. He doesn't feel remorse or regret now, he just doesn't like being in jail.

proof?

The truly sad part is that he'll only be 40 when he gets out. 40 and still just as sociopathic, and with the added kicker of rage at the system that he believes unjustly punished him, and with 22 years of planning for another killing...

how could any sane person go out and commit murder?

S if he's violently insane, he needs to be institutionalized. Do you disagree w/ this?


proof?

"I can't think of some reason to change the sentence. I'm going to deny the motion," said the Hon. Joseph Will."

The judge thinks he's FOS.

The truly sad part is that he'll only be 40 when he gets out. 40 and still just as sociopathic, and with the added kicker of rage at the system that he believes unjustly punished him, and with 22 years of planning for another killing...Fortunately statistics show men get less violent with age. And perhaps by that time he really have learned his lesson.

So you deny that you're making every excuse in the book to justify this kid killing someone?

no I'm saying that to commit murder you have to be insane which if this kid isn't means there has to be more to this never mind the fact that this is obviously manslaughter

S if he's violently insane, he needs to be institutionalized. Do you disagree w/ this?

if he’s violently insane he needs professional help and thus should go to a mental institution not a prison institution

The judge thinks he's FOS.

so you never question the decision of a judge?

1) where is this piece of information that tells you he did it on purpose?in the article itself.

One of the teenagers responsible for beating a Holly Hill homeless man to death asked a judge to reduce his 22-year prison sentence Monday. Warren Messner and three other teens pled guilty to killing the man because they were bored, but Messner said prison is too hard.

Messner is a big boy. He was 15 at the time he was brought into the woods to see the homeless man his friends had been beating. Even at that young age, he outweighed the victim, Michael Roberts, by 200 pounds when he jumped on his chest, crushing his ribcage. Roberts died.

"Did you feel bad when you are doing it?" Messner was asked during questioning.

"Not really, no," he replied.

He didn't feel bad then, but he does now. He has been in juvenile detention for eight months, locked in a small cell and occasionally allowed to go to class.no indication it was nothing but deliberate actions. no accidents.

2) as a kid I gave a few beatings that I regret I'm guessing this kid was just an American CHAVdid you kill anyone?

no I'm saying that gis kid was just unlucky if he had just knocked the guy out nobody would of known and he would just feel guilty later in lifeerr... dude, he said he didn't feel bad during questioning. where he would've been told that Roberts died because of his actions. and he feels bad not because he killed a man, but because "Jail is hard"

proof?
again, from the article.
One of the teenagers responsible for beating a Holly Hill homeless man to death asked a judge to reduce his 22-year prison sentence Monday. Warren Messner and three other teens pled guilty to killing the man because they were bored, but Messner said prison is too hard.

Messner is a big boy. He was 15 at the time he was brought into the woods to see the homeless man his friends had been beating. Even at that young age, he outweighed the victim, Michael Roberts, by 200 pounds when he jumped on his chest, crushing his ribcage. Roberts died.

"Did you feel bad when you are doing it?" Messner was asked during questioning.

"Not really, no," he replied.

He didn't feel bad then, but he does now. He has been in juvenile detention for eight months, locked in a small cell and occasionally allowed to go to class.no indication it was nothing but deliberate actions. no accidents.


in groups people as a rule tend to be more asshats it comes from a feeling of invulnerability you get from being in a group
agreed, so they all should receive the same amount of punnishment... as a group... 35 years each. so his sentence of 22 years should be upped to 35 years. that's fair.


so its US law thus its right?yep. for US citizens... which this kid is.

no he needs rehabilitation why lock him away for years for anything other than petty retributionexcept he's not in jail for petty retribution, he's in jail for remorselessly killing a defenseless man.

where does it say they did this because they where bored?
you really better read the article...
One of the teenagers responsible for beating a Holly Hill homeless man to death asked a judge to reduce his 22-year prison sentence Monday. Warren Messner and three other teens pled guilty to killing the man because they were bored, but Messner said prison is too hard.

so now you have run out of ideas so you choose to use insults instead?well, you're not reading the article...

to show that he was rehabilitated otherwise what your suggesting is monitoring every reasonably sane criminal which as novel as it sounds would cost far too much moneyerr...you do realize that's what guards are there for, they monitor the behavior of the prisioners and they also are asked about a prisioner's behavior in jail. but I agree, it costs too much money. glad to see you support the death penalty.

And retribution does?what retribution... it's seperating dangerious elements from society.

I have no doubt he knew he was hurting this man but how was he to know that he would kill him?so in your mind, hurting someone is ok... that's assault, it's still against the law... well here in the US. maybe not where you're from.

Yes get those mental patients what kind of defence is accidental!Group Think (mob mentality) and ignorance is not the same as Insanity.

No he should be evaluated on his mental health and if he turns out to be a regular teen released if not then that means he is mentally ill and thus needs treatment not punishment
and if he is a regular teen then he knew right from wrong, thus he's just as guilty for assulting that homless man as well as for murder/manslaughter.

no I'm saying that to commit murder you have to be insane which if this kid isn't means there has to be more to this never mind the fact that this is obviously manslaughter

So if he's insane he needs to be locked away.

It's not "manslaughter".

"They admitted to beating Roberts, returning to the scene three times over a three-day period, kicking and punching him, beating him with sticks and rocks, and jumping on him, continuing to do so even though Roberts begged them to stop."

It was 2nd degree murder.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html

a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Fortunately statistics show men get less violent with age. And perhaps by that time he really have learned his lesson.

Somehow I don't see that happening with this kid. The flip manner with which he treats this is one factor, having the gaul to ask a judge to reduce a murder sentence for the reasons he gives. And, the apparent total lack of remorse, which obviously continues today. Those factors make me untrustworthy of the idea that he should have been allowed to take a deal.

never mind the fact that this is obviously manslaughter

How on earth is deliberately beating and stomping someone to death "obviously manslaughter"? :confused:

if he’s violently insane he needs professional help and thus should go to a mental institution not a prison institution

Now go back and read my posts.

so you never question the decision of a judge?

Seems you do even though the kid committed murder and admitted it.

CTP, I am seriously about to lose all respect for you.

The details of the case may not be absolutely clear, but it is pretty evident what happened, given the kid's own behavior and testimony. He's out with some friends, is presented with a severely beaten homeless man, and delivers the last few mortal blows, killing him.

This is morally wrong. I can't believe I have to say this.

You don't have to be religious or irrational to recognize that this act is morally wrong, either. It's common sense. This kid valued looking tough in front of his friends more than human life. That alone is enough to preclude him from participating in civil society for the time being. The fact that he showed no remorse long after his crime is further indicative of his dangerous and sociopathic nature, and more reason to lock him up.

And don't deal out all this namby-pamby "groupthink", "ignorance", or "boys will be boys" crap. I don't care if he was surrounded by a jeering crowd. Murder is wrong. He knows it. He did it anyway. And don't even try acting like he didn't intend to kill him. You don't need a Ph.D. to realize that jumping up and down on an injured person's chest will deal serious damage to their vitals. That, like so much in this case, is common sense. And, like many have pointed out, he is still responsible even if he didn't intend to kill the man.

Finally, the whole "rehabilitation" angle is laughable. Face it: the kid was remorseless throughout the trial, was in juvenile detention for a few months, and is now grousing about the inconvenience of it all. Well boo-hoo. What, does he think he should be pampered after committing this, the most heinous of crimes? Does he have no shame? And don't tell me he's rehabilitated. That is just stupid, to be frank. Do you really think that a murderer can just say they're sorry and they can walk free, without consequence? Is their word alone enough to clear their actions? I'll keep that in mind the next time I decide to commit murder -- oh, I'm sorry -- stumble into murder innocently at the behest of my friends.

I suggest you reexamine your beliefs about justice, CTP. Seriously.

How on earth is deliberately beating and stomping someone to death "obviously manslaughter"? :confused:

according to CTP... because they (the teens) didn't know that the purposeful beating of three large teens on one homeless man would result in death. :rolleyes:

no I'm saying that to commit murder you have to be insane which if this kid isn't means there has to be more to this never mind the fact that this is obviously manslaughter

.....

Insanity is a defense to a criminal conviction. If the only people who could murder are insane, this would mean that nobody, ever, is guilty of murder.

And since this is obviously false, your entire claim is silly.

He was already given less than they ought to have given him.

Leviticus 24:17 "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death."

Oh, blow Leviticus out your ass, unless you avoid shellfish, never wear two kinds of fabrics together and never handle the flesh of a pig. All that horseshit was supposedly obviated by the New Testament.

CTP, I am seriously about to lose all respect for you.

The details of the case may not be absolutely clear, but it is pretty evident what happened, given the kid's own behavior and testimony. He's out with some friends, is presented with a severely beaten homeless man, and delivers the last few mortal blows, killing him.

This is morally wrong. I can't believe I have to say this.

You don't have to be religious or irrational to recognize that this act is morally wrong, either. It's common sense. This kid valued looking tough in front of his friends more than human life. That alone is enough to preclude him from participating in civil society for the time being. The fact that he showed no remorse long after his crime is further indicative of his dangerous and sociopathic nature, and more reason to lock him up.

And don't deal out all this namby-pamby "groupthink", "ignorance", or "boys will be boys" crap. I don't care if he was surrounded by a jeering crowd. Murder is wrong. He knows it. He did it anyway. And don't even try acting like he didn't intend to kill him. You don't need a Ph.D. to realize that jumping up and down on an injured person's chest will deal serious damage to their vitals. That, like so much in this case, is common sense. And, like many have pointed out, he is still responsible even if he didn't intend to kill the man.

Finally, the whole "rehabilitation" angle is laughable. Face it: the kid was remorseless throughout the trial, was in juvenile detention for a few months, and is now grousing about the inconvenience of it all. Well boo-hoo. What, does he think he should be pampered after committing this, the most heinous of crimes? Does he have no shame? And don't tell me he's rehabilitated. That is just stupid, to be frank. Do you really think that a murderer can just say they're sorry and they can walk free, without consequence? Is their word alone enough to clear their actions? I'll keep that in mind the next time I decide to commit murder -- oh, I'm sorry -- stumble into murder innocently at the behest of my friends.

I suggest you reexamine your beliefs about justice, CTP. Seriously.

Absolutely. I usually find myself agreeing with CTP, but not in this case.
I get annoyed with people who say we coddle criminals, but I think he got a pretty good deal.
They need to improve mental health care in our prisons, but letting this kid out because he's now started deciding he's sorry would be a crime. And probably very dangerous. It would just teach him that he can get away with that sort of behavior.

no I'm saying that to commit murder you have to be insane which if this kid isn't means there has to be more to this never mind the fact that this is obviously manslaughterno, to commit murder is to willingly take a life.

now if those teens said they were only roughhousing with the man and didn't mean to cause his death, then that might be manslaughter. but they didn't they admitted that they were bored and they beat him for no other reason than because they were bored. Murder 2.

At least he gets 3 squares a day. Better than the homelss guy had.

A very good point.

did you kill anyone?

I didn't know that you could kill someone by jumping on there chest so I could of (never did though)

err... dude, he said he didn't feel bad during questioning. where he would've been told that Roberts died because of his actions. and he feels bad not because he killed a man, but because "Jail is hard"

if that’s true then he belongs in a mental institution not prison

again, from the article.
no indication it was nothing but deliberate actions. no accidents.

so he didn't accidentally fall on his chest doesn't mean he intended to kill him

agreed, so they all should receive the same amount of punnishment... as a group... 35 years each. so his sentence of 22 years should be upped to 35 years. that's fair.

35 years is far too long especially for a 15 year old child

yep. for US citizens... which this kid is.

aren't there still sodomy laws in the U.S? is that as well?

except he's not in jail for petty retribution, he's in jail for remorselessly killing a defenseless man.

accidentally

you really better read the article...
well, you're not reading the article...

are you a record player because saying the same thing twice in a row seems to indicate so

err...you do realize that's what guards are there for, they monitor the behavior of the prisioners and they also are asked about a prisioner's behavior in jail.

and there’s me thinking prison was about punishment and deterrent :rolleyes:

glad to see you support the death penalty.

killing a potential tax payer costs a tad as well

what retribution... it's seperating dangerious elements from society.

a putting a criminal in a cage for a few years will do this?

so in your mind, hurting someone is ok... that's assault, it's still against the law... well here in the US. maybe not where you're from.

no I'm not saying its okay I'm saying that its the only crime he can be punished for


Group Think (mob mentality) and ignorance is not the same as Insanity.

indeed but a mixture of both could be the case

and if he is a regular teen then he knew right from wrong, thus he's just as guilty for assulting that homless man as well as for murder/manslaughter.

yep doesn't mean I think he should get 22 years for it though

no, to commit murder is to willingly take a life.


Overly simplistic. Murder in general is to:

1) willingly and with premeditation
2) willingly but without premeditation
3) with depraved indifference/reckless disregard
4) without willingness but as a result of other felonious actions

I didn't know that you could kill someone by jumping on there chest so I could of (never did though)

Irrelevant. It's an assault and battery, which is a felony. If in the commission of a felony someone dies the one who committed the felony is guilty of that individual's murder.

so he didn't accidentally fall on his chest doesn't mean he intended to kill


Irrelevant. It's an assault and battery, which is a felony. If in the commission of a felony someone dies the one who committed the felony is guilty of that individual's murder.

aren't there still sodomy laws in the U.S? is that as well?

No, declared unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas.


no I'm not saying its okay I'm saying that its the only crime he can be punished for


Irrelevant. It's an assault and battery, which is a felony. If in the commission of a felony someone dies the one who committed the felony is guilty of that individual's murder.


yep doesn't mean I think he should get 22 years for it though

That is an issue for the legislature not the judge.

*snip*

Jeez Call, you trying to cover up for something? I see no reason you'd be this irrational about it. "Oh, well he accidentally intended to jump on his chest and kill him."

I didn't know that you could kill someone by jumping on there chest so I could of (never did though)

...
What did you think would happen then ?

aren't there still sodomy laws in the U.S? is that as well?








Not anymore. The Supreme court declared them unconstitutional. About time.

How the hell do you NOT know that jumping up and down on a person's chest has the potential to kill them?

CTP, I call BS on your entire argument.

Not anymore. The Supreme court declared them unconstitutional. About time.

feh, beat you to it.

SNIP

okay instead of picking apart that post for the next 10 minuets here is what I will do:

the boys where assholes that’s clear now does this mean they could of beaten a homeless guy every day and still be mentally sane? I say no so why not just make them sane (or at the very least outright brainwash them) 22 years in prison is not good for a 15 year old or anyone and anything other than fixing what seems to be wrong with the boys is irresponsible


.....
Insanity is a defense to a criminal conviction. If the only people who could murder are insane, this would mean that nobody, ever, is guilty of murder.

so it does

Absolutely. I usually find myself agreeing with CTP, but not in this case.

nobody has ever said that...

feh, beat you to it.Just because my cat can type faster than I can. He just won't type what I tell him to.

so it does


That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read about the criminal justice system and is completely an anathma to the current system. What you are suggesting is a the total removal of the crime of murder.

That's inane.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read about the criminal justice system and is completely an anathma to the current system. What you are suggesting is a the total removal of the crime of murder.

yep instead its clear the person is insane and thus is sent to be rehabilitated they come out being the Ned Flanders of law and get on with there lives

yep instead its clear the person is insane and thus is sent to be rehabilitated they come out being the Ned Flanders of law and get on with there lives

You have defined any person who ever murders someone as insane. First off, that's a ludicrus proposition and second you suggest that an insane killer is going to get all fixed up after some rehabilitation time.

Both are inane.

yep instead its clear the person is insane and thus is sent to be rehabilitated they come out being the Ned Flanders of law and get on with there lives

Why does one need to be insane to commit murder ? One can just value other things higher than the lives of certain humans. That is not insanity, just a different system of values.

the boys where assholes that’s clear now does this mean they could of beaten a homeless guy every day and still be mentally sane? I say no so why not just make them sane (or at the very least outright brainwash them) 22 years in prison is not good for a 15 year old or anyone and anything other than fixing what seems to be wrong with the boys is irresponsible
Alrighty then... so what is your measure of "sanity"? At what point is the boy "rehabilitated", in your mind? When he says he's sorry? Or when he simply starts complaining about prison life?

You're basically saying that murderers should either say they're sorry and go free ("An apology? BAM! Rehabilitated! Now, let's break for lunch."), or refuse and go to psychotherapy for awhile. What is wrong with you?

Something that a lot of people seem to be missing:
He didn't "beat" the man, nor did he kill him out of boredom, a few friends brought him in to deliver the killing blow after the man had already been captured and beaten by several others. That doesn't mediate what he did, but it doesn't deserve over 20 years either.
And before anyone has the right to be self-righteous about punishing this kid, they should consider how much they complained when the victim was dumped out into the street to be the victim to passing gangs of bored sociopaths and the elements. My guess is, "not at all."

Perhaps, but only because neither you nor we know that the victim was "dumped out into the street" at all. That's an appeal to emotion with regard to the cause of one man's homelessness.

On the other hand, the whiner's parents seem to be begging leniency not only with the "he's just a kid" ploy, but with a more insidious and subtle appeal for justice based on the notion that it was "only" a homeless guy who was murdered. I'd be willing to bet that if the victim weren't homeless, the story would skew in a completely different direction.

I agree that 22 years is too much. There's very little rehabilitation happening in prison, and the system should make an attempt to save this overgrown proto-thug with institutionalization and parole. However, in this instance, prison seems to be doing its job. The system should recognize that and switch tactics, using prison as the threat/deterrent for his treatment.

yep instead its clear the person is insane and thus is sent to be rehabilitated they come out being the Ned Flanders of law and get on with there lives

And you believe these 'insane' people will come out of rehab all happy and ready to rejoin the rest of society?

Seriously?

Alrighty then... so what is your measure of "sanity"? At what point is the boy "rehabilitated", in your mind? When he says he's sorry? Or when he simply starts complaining about prison life?

when a qualified psychiatrists says he's sane have I not already said this?

What is wrong with you?

your getting a tad emotional now

And you believe these 'insane' people will come out of rehab all happy and ready to rejoin the rest of society?

the mind is a very powerful tool once you have cracked it you can make people think there chickens let alone turn them into perfectly functional members of society

1. He's seen movies I bet. He knows that people can die, and I bet he knows that if you stomp and hit things long enough, it'll die.

But movies also show humans taking all kinds of abuse and then getting up and fighting on (not just "superheroes" -- think about the punches and blows, say, Bruce Willis absorbs without fatal internal bleeding in movies like "Die Hard"), so that premise is no good. He's probably seen pro wrestling, too, as well as video games and all kinds of conflicting images about what kind of abuse the human body can take. No, this point is invalid.

2.I did not agree that rehab worked, I said if it did then he should be checked by professionals and then watched closely for some time.

Agreed.

3. Intention doesn't bring back the dead man.

Agreed.

4. Since this kid seems to be a total innocent out for a laugh, can we decide on what he DOES know? Because it seems like you're saying he's fresh out of the womb and didn't even know he was hurting someone.

A felony is a felony. The time to consider extenuating circumstances was during the trial and sentencing. However, 22 years is too long and will likely do far more harm than good if he's in the wrong cell block in the wrong prison (getting conjugal visits from some large, sweaty man he doesn't want them from). Some felons come out with skills they learned inside, and come out having read or educated themselves in some way, but it sure isn't any kind of majority.

when a qualified psychiatrists says he's sane have I not already said this?

And what happens when a qualified psychiatrist says he was sane when he killed the man in the first place?

You can't have it both ways. You claim that "only an insane person can murder" so you absolutly ignore expert testimony in basically EVERY SINGLE murder case where an expert says he was sane at the time of the murder.

Yet you will defer to that expert when they say they're sane later.

Which is it? Do you believe in experts enough to respect them when they say "he was sane when he did it".

the mind is a very powerful tool once you have cracked it you can make people think there chickens let alone turn them into perfectly functional members of society

Sure, if you condone torture. How else would you go about doing it?

And what happens when a qualified psychiatrist says he was sane when he killed the man in the first place?

simple he won't

You can't have it both ways. You claim that "only an insane person can murder" so you absolutly ignore expert testimony in basically EVERY SINGLE murder case where an expert says he was sane at the time of the murder.

to murder in cold blood you have to be insane it is not natural for an animal to go round killing other members of its species for no apparent reason and its no different for people

when a qualified psychiatrists says he's sane have I not already said this?
*what Arthais101 said*

your getting a tad emotional now
It's a valid question. Why are you trying so hard to defend this kid with convoluted (and somewhat illogical) psychological arguments when it is so obvious that he deserves to be punished?

simple he won't

In virtually every murder trial there is a psychiatric evaluation.

You lose your argument preemptively. It happens all the time.

to murder in cold blood you have to be insane it is not natural for an animal to go round killing other members of its species for no apparent reason and its no different for people

And on what expert evaluation are you basing your opinion on?

You argue he won't, my question is simple. What happens when he does? Would you, untrained, reject an expert's opinion because you, untrained, disagree with it? Rather damned arrogant of you, don't ya think?

to murder in cold blood you have to be insane it is not natural for an animal to go round killing other members of its species for no apparent reason and its no different for people

The 'apparent reason' seems to have been boredom. You'll figure that out when you stop ignoring the article to protect yourself :p

simple he won't

So you're going to force him to declare the murderer insane???

so now that he has changed his mind and no longer a threat to society it doesn't change a thing


He is a sociopath, pure and simple. He showed no remourse for his actions. The ONLY reason he is making this hogwash is because he does not want to face the consequences, not because "he learned his lesson". This is blatantly obvious. Had he not been a sociopath, he would have showed some regret during the trial, which he showed NONE. He is a danger to society on release. What if he gets bored again? Kill another person? I'd rather in this case, he sit in jail. He obviously has no concept of empathy, and no concept of what is right or wrong. This is a very dangerous cocktail.

A felony is a felony. The time to consider extenuating circumstances was during the trial and sentencing. However, 22 years is too long and will likely do far more harm than good if he's in the wrong cell block in the wrong prison (getting conjugal visits from some large, sweaty man he doesn't want them from). Some felons come out with skills they learned inside, and come out having read or educated themselves in some way, but it sure isn't any kind of majority.

If they're still dangerous, why are we letting them out?

when it is so obvious that he deserves to be punished?

to me it isn't and for the record I don't think any punishment is right for anything

if you commit a crime you should learn and understand why it is such a bad thing if you persist anyway you have a problem

simple he won't



to murder in cold blood you have to be insane it is not natural for an animal to go round killing other members of its species for no apparent reason and its no different for people

Now you're just being a troll. Less than .25% of murderers are found not guilty by reason of insanity.

So you're going to force him to declare the murderer insane???

Call has some...convincing friends he can call up.

He is a sociopath, pure and simple. He showed no remourse for his actions. The ONLY reason he is making this hogwash is because he does not want to face the consequences, not because "he learned his lesson". This is blatantly obvious. Had he not been a sociopath, he would have showed some regret during the trial, which he showed NONE. He is a danger to society on release. What if he gets bored again? Kill another person? I'd rather in this case, he sit in jail. He obviously has no concept of empathy, and no concept of what is right or wrong. This is a very dangerous cocktail.
Not to mention the fact that going easy on him will only encourage his fellows to behave even more violently, knowing there's virtually no consequence...

to me it isn't and for the record I don't think any punishment is right for anything

So what exactly is it you did you don't want to be punished for, huh? *nudge nudge, ;) ;)*

Let that peice of shit fry. Litterally, lets deep fry that fat fucking kids ass.

Here you go:

You murder someone, you get locked up. It pretty much sucks for you. You can't do anything you want to do, and you're probably bored as hell, not to mention put up with the other inmates, who are all pieces of work... So you whine and say you don't want to be there. That doesn't change a bit. All this kid has is self pity. He doesn't want to go through this, it has nothing to do with realizing that stomping a man to death is wrong.

I don't think any punishment is right for anything

if you commit a crime you should learn and understand why it is such a bad thing if you persist anyway you have a problem
This stance would only encourage and perpetuate crime. Other potentially violent people would look and such a verdict and think, "Gee, I can [insert violent crime here] and get off with a lecture on morals. Sweet!"

Proceed with the crime waves.

Here you go:

You murder someone, you get locked up. It pretty much sucks for you. You can't do anything you want to do, and you're probably bored as hell, not to mention put up with the other inmates, who are all pieces of work... So you whine and say you don't want to be there. That doesn't change a bit. All this kid has is self pity. He doesn't want to go through this, it has nothing to do with realizing that stomping a man to death is wrong.

That's the impression the Judge got.

Not to mention the fact that going easy on him will only encourage his fellows to behave even more violently, knowing there's virtually no consequence...

Indeed. Normally, I am empathic to some cases, given the circumstances, but in this, it is rather simple:

The Kid was bored.
The Kid decided to get in on beating a guy.
The Kid decided to jump on the guy, which resulted in his death(Who in their right mind at age 15 doesn't think this is going to hurt someone? You don't even need an understanding of anatomy at all).

The mear fact that this was done because the kid was bored shows exactly how dangerous he is.

Indeed. Normally, I am empathic to some cases, given the circumstances, but in this, it is rather simple:

The Kid was bored.
The Kid decided to get in on beating a guy.
The Kid decided to jump on the guy, which resulted in his death(Who in their right mind at age 15 doesn't think this is going to hurt someone? You don't even need an understanding of anatomy at all).

The mear fact that this was done because the kid was bored shows exactly how dangerous he is.
Don't forget the complete lack of remorse during the trial and the blatantly, transparently selfish "remorseful" attitude he displayed once in prison.

If they're still dangerous, why are we letting them out?

Uh...when did I say we should let them out? I said that SOME felons COME OUT of prsion (having served their time) with skills or education earned while inside. I also said that those people are not a majority in any way whatsoever, but it does happen.

proof?

I am done with this, Call to power is either related to the accused or living in an alternate universe, unless he is just stupid and didn't read the article.

whats the chase that this person did not already know assaulting someone else was illegal?
Doesn't matter. Each citizen is responsible to know the law governing his behaviour.
are you saying that because its US law its the right thing to do?
-snip-
so its US law thus its right?
Partly.

The point of the law is to deter bad acts. Deterrence only works if the punishments are consistently and predictably applied. Thus, since the law defined the crime as it did, the appropriate punishment is the one for murder. Otherwise the law isn't being applied predictably.
if he’s violently insane he needs professional help and thus should go to a mental institution not a prison institution
This is only something I'll accept if we have a very clear definition of insanity. I'm sympathetic to the neurodiversity movement, so I'm not willing to declare some people insane just because they have idiosyncratic points of view.

I am done with this, Call to power is either related to the accused or living in an alternate universe, unless he is just stupid and didn't read the article.

Well, we know he didn't read the article.

I didn't know that you could kill someone by jumping on there chest so I could of (never did though)could have, but you didn't. did Messner kill someone?

if that’s true then he belongs in a mental institution not prisonWhy? he was deemed fit to stand trial, and he was deemed mentally stable when he killed the man. they admitted that they were bored, or are you now going to say that boredom is a mental defiency?

so he didn't accidentally fall on his chest doesn't mean he intended to kill himthat's not what you argued. you wanted proof that it was done on purpose. they were beating him. do you deny this? three large teens were beating one man. did they say that the teens were defending themselves? no. Did they say it wasn't their intent to kill? no. they were, with this purpose in mind, beating a man. that man died because of the beating. he purposly jumped on the man's chest, it was not an accident that he jumped on his chest. thus the beating was not an accident. and so the death was not an accident.

35 years is far too long especially for a 15 year old childbut if your defense is that they were acting as a group then they should be punnished the same. as a GROUP. so 35 years each. the same sentence matching the maximum handed out. or are you going to retract your Group mentality argument.


aren't there still sodomy laws in the U.S? is that as well?nope, there's still Rape Laws.

accidentallyburden of proof is on you. prove it was an accident. Prove that those teen accidentally killed him.

are you a record player because saying the same thing twice in a row seems to indicate soif my saying things twice in a row means I'm a record player, then you are obviously illiterate, please tell the person reading this to you to read every word and stop paraphrasing. :rolleyes:


and there’s me thinking prison was about punishment and deterrent :rolleyes: oh yeah, I forgot the daily floggings the guards do also the moldy bread and water they feed the prisioners... :rolleyes:

killing a potential tax payer costs a tad as wellso... your point then? it cost money to monitor them, it cost money to kill them... oh that's right, you want them free and without punnishment.

a putting a criminal in a cage for a few years will do this?seems to be working in this case.

no I'm not saying its okay I'm saying that its the only crime he can be punished forand that man died because of the injuries sustained by the beating. so he's being punnished for the appropriate crime. Murder 2

indeed but a mixture of both could be the casenope, it's not.

yep doesn't mean I think he should get 22 years for it thoughFor murder? yeah, it's light but then he did take responsibility for his actions, so I agree with 22 years.


Overly simplistic. Murder in general is to:

1) willingly and with premeditation
2) willingly but without premeditation
3) with depraved indifference/reckless disregard
4) without willingness but as a result of other felonious actionsTrue, but according to CTP, your definitions #2-4 isn't murder, but manslaughter.

On rehabilitation:

I fail to see why anyone would think rehabilitation would work. If I'm a rational agent, what exactly is rehabilitation going to tell me that I didn't know before I committed the crime?

Don't forget the complete lack of remorse during the trial and the blatantly, transparently selfish "remorseful" attitude he displayed once in prison.

Indeed. I do believe that criminals can be reformed. But never do they complain about jail being to hard. Usually they come out knowing exactly why they went to jail, and possibly even believign they deserved their stay.

However, this is just some whiny ass kid who after tasting the consequences of his actions, doesn't like the bitter taste left in his mouth(No pun intendended). He needs to own up, and man up.

This is ridiculous, he should do the time.

Here you go:

You murder someone, you get locked up. It pretty much sucks for you. You can't do anything you want to do, and you're probably bored as hell, not to mention put up with the other inmates, who are all pieces of work... So you whine and say you don't want to be there. That doesn't change a bit. All this kid has is self pity. He doesn't want to go through this, it has nothing to do with realizing that stomping a man to death is wrong.

Indeed -- it seems to be "all about" him, the kid in prison. Because the victim was homeless, nobody even stopped to think about who would miss him or what he was worth.

This proto-thug's attitude had help from the perception of homeless people as somehow less than human. Dehumanization is necessary for the mind to accept committing acts of grievous harm or murder on another person. I'm not saying the kid was in any way not culpable, but the attitude society can have toward the homeless played a role in this case.

True, but according to CTP, your definitions #2-4 isn't murder, but manslaughter.
CTP is wrong. Manslaughter is a much weaker crime. If I kill someone accidentally while doing something else that wasn't a felony, and can't reasonably be characterised as reckless (like if I run down a pedestrian in my car because I was on the phone or driving a bit too fast on icy roads), that's manslaughter.

On rehabilitation:

I fail to see why anyone would think rehabilitation would work. If I'm a rational agent, what exactly is rehabilitation going to tell me that I didn't know before I committed the crime?Rehab does work if the person wants to change. just saying he wants to change is not the same.

CTP is wrong. Manslaughter is a much weaker crime. If I kill someone accidentally while doing something else that wasn't a felony, and can't reasonably be characterised as reckless (like if I run down a pedestrian in my car because I was on the phone or driving a bit too fast on icy roads), that's manslaughter.I think everyone knows that... except CTP.

True, but according to CTP, your definitions #2-4 isn't murder, but manslaughter.

Well...fuck him. He's neither a judge nor a legislator.

Rehab does work if the person wants to change. just saying he wants to change is not the same.

Indeed. There are plenty of rehabilitated criminals, whom are truly rehabilitated, in the world. And they never, but never, complain that jail is to hard for them.


I think everyone knows that... except CTP.

He does seem to be in his own world.

Rehab does work if the person wants to change.
Change from what? To what? I don't understand even what rehabilitation claims to do.

Well...fuck him. He's neither a judge nor a legislator.

I posted the requirements from Findlaw. Still waiting for the "obviously manslaughter" justification.

I am done with this, Call to power is either related to the accused or living in an alternate universe, unless he is just stupid and didn't read the article.

I prefer my theory. *nodnod*

I posted the requirements from Findlaw. Still waiting for the "obviously manslaughter" justification.

meh, I don't need findlaw, I went to lawschool....

Well...fuck him. He's neither a judge nor a legislator.
Eewwwwww... Do I really have to?

I'm not that desperate... :p

Change from what? To what? I don't understand even what rehabilitation claims to do.some people do want to find an alternative to the life they found themselves in. say a theif may be a Kleptomaniac, so he seeks help for that. a guy in for chopping up cars can be given a chance to work for a legitimate body shop. Some rehab shows people how to turn their skills from crime to honest work and even assists them finding those jobs.

meh, I don't need findlaw, I went to lawschool....

Be that as it may, there's no "proof" of that (it being the internet after all) but a recognized legal source is something he has to contend w/ beyond your say so.

Be that as it may, there's no "proof" of that (it being the internet after all) but a recognized legal source is something he has to contend w/ beyond your say so.

while true enough, findlaw itslef isn't binding legal authority. It is, at best, a general statement. Individual states define things as they do which may not always fit the definitions that findlaw proports.

For real true proof he's equally as free to look up the relevant state statutory schemes as you or I am.

Change from what? To what? I don't understand even what rehabilitation claims to do.

From someone whom willfully commits criminal acts to a member of society with a bit of respect for other people. And in these instances, these people tend to actually understand why they are serving their sentences, and understand why they must serve their sentence, and although they deeply regret their actions, the understand that this will not undo what they have done.

This, however, is a case of a whiny little kid who just wants to get out of the consequences.

some people do want to find an alternative to the life they found themselves in. say a theif may be a Kleptomaniac, so he seeks help for that. a guy in for chopping up cars can be given a chance to work for a legitimate body shop. Some rehab shows people how to turn their skills from crime to honest work and even assists them finding those jobs.
From someone whom willfully commits criminal acts to a member of society with a bit of respect for other people.
Here are two answers to my request to explain how rehabilitation might work on a rational criminal.

Seangoli's is the explanation I usually see, and it doesn't work. If I'm a rational criminal, I fail to see how you could impart a respect for other people if I didn't already have one.

JuNii's is much better. A rational agent is aware of his own motivations and goals, and if he examines society and sees crime as appealing, he'll commit crimes. JuNii is suggesting that for many of them they've incorrectly examined society, and in fact there are better avenues they might follow to achieve their goals. Well done, JuNii.

But, what happens if the criminal hasn't made a mistake? What if the best course of action is crime? Do you lock him up forever because he has an unusual combination of skills and values?

Apparently a Teen who killed a homeless man now says that Jail is too hard, and wants a reduction in his sentance of 22 years. Jeez is this guy for real? (whiny voice) Oh Jail is too hard, it's cold, and drafty, and can you just reduce my sentance for me, I mean after all it was just a homeless man, am I right?(/whiny voice)



http://www.wftv.com/news/10458584/detail.html

There should be a mandatory death sentence for 1st degree murder. No exceptions!

They should have increased his sentence just for asking to be let out early.:D

There should be a mandatory death sentence for 1st degree murder. No exceptions!

unconstitutional.

I think everyone's missing the point.
He should get let off because, obviously,
Homeless people aren't really people.

/sarcasm.

If this had been a man who had a family with a steady job, people would've unanimously agreed he deserved to serve his already reduced sentence. Killing a man is a very serious thing to do, and with a reason like "being bored" that's not a very good excuse. It's too bad that he didn't have the kind of parents that could've avoided this sort of behavior.

And it's also very sad that this kind of brutality exists in children in their teens.

For the record to the people talking about how they didn't know that stomping on the chest can kill someone, that's just plain silly. But then, since wrestling is real, I bet all people can survive a backflip off of a turnbuckle :rolleyes:.

I don't think that 8 months of juvenile hall is enough. Not for taking away a man's basic right to live. I don't even think 20 years is enough. But maybe then he'll have a better understanding of what he did and become wiser for it.

unconstitutional.

How so? Ammendment 8 does not forbid the death penalty. Even if the homeless man had survived, the point is that the kid deliberately tried to cause serious harm to a defenseless man whom he had no prior contact with and who did not provoke him in the least bit. It was done simply for enjoyment. People like that cannot be allowed to exist in our society. Even if the man survided, I would still advocate the death penalty to rid the world of this kind of scum.

If I saw that kid I'd kill the bastard myself.

Is the title supposed to be a pun?

He was already given less than they ought to have given him.

Leviticus 24:17 "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death."

Kyroneas 1:1 "The Bible is bullshit and its morals should not be part of law."

We should not legislate based on anyone's morals, actually.

As for the kid, though, fuck him: if he's not sorry, killed the homeless man because he was bored, and all that, he deserves prison.

He was already given less than they ought to have given him.

Leviticus 24:17 "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death."
There are numerous verses in the Bible which advise the death penalty for murderers. But how do you think they should be reconciled with passages like

Matthew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

or

John 8:7 "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Well, pardon him for not having money.

How do we know what the homeless man was doing? Maybe the homeless man was raping him when he killed him?

We should not legislate based on anyone's morals, actually.

The idea that murder should be punished is a moral belief.

The law is just the expression of publicly supported morality.

The idea that murder should be punished is a moral belief.

The law is just the expression of publicly supported morality.

Actually, no. There are civil reasons for murder to be declared illegal. For instance, consider the detriment to the economy if people were knocked off left and right.

The idea that murder should be punished is a moral belief.
No. Widespread murder would have detrimental consequences, so we deter murder by punishng those who do it. There's no necessary moral component.

There are numerous verses in the Bible which advise the death penalty for murderers. But how do you think they should be reconciled with passages like

Matthew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

or

John 8:7 "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Both were instances where the civil power was being usurped by the people. The first is against revenge. The second is against the Church/Synagouge and people using the sword to enforce the Law. Revenge is never supposed to happen and the civil government is the only government which has been given the power of the sword of God.

Actually, no. There are civil reasons for murder to be declared illegal.
Based on human rights, which is based on morality.

How so? Ammendment 8 does not forbid the death penalty.

I did not say the death penalty was unconstitutional.

You stated:

There should be a mandatory death sentence for 1st degree murder. No exceptions!

The death penalty is not unconstitutional. Mandatory death sentences, however, are.

The respect for human dignity underlying the Eighth Amendment, requires consideration of aspects of the character of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of imposing the ultimate punishment of death. The North Carolina statute impermissibly treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the death penalty

Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976), in overturning a mandatory death penalty statute in North Carolina.

As I said, mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional.

Based on human rights, which is based on morality.
You haven't shown that at all.

An amoral society wouldn't necessarily be constant chaos.

I did not say the death penalty was unconstitutional.

You stated:


The death penalty is not unconstitutional. Mandatory death sentences, however, are.



Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976), in overturning a mandatory death penalty statute in North Carolina.

As I said, mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional.

But... what about the man who has already, in essence, been sentenced to death at the hands of these bored kids? Isn't that the issue here? There was a man killed without the jury and trial. There was a man here who has already had his constitutional rights forcibly taken from him (in death). Why should a person who breaks these constitutional rights be allowed to keep his? In this case, a reckless 15 year old?

(ack, saw your position more clearly. I understand your stance on mandatory-ness *foot in mouth* )

He was already given less than they ought to have given him.

Leviticus 24:17 "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death."
Leviticus 24:17 ftw... the kid's a prick.

Leviticus 24:17 ftw... the kid's a prick.

Well, just because we have to punish him, doesn't mean we stop loving him.

We should wish him best and hope that he repents and work toward that end with him.

Well, just because we have to punish him, doesn't mean we stop loving him.

We should wish him best and hope that he repents and work toward that end with him.
Hippie.

Well, just because we have to punish him, doesn't mean we stop loving him.

We should wish him best and hope that he repents and work toward that end with him.

Yes... I'll go kill my neighbor and you can send me some flowers, ok?

But, what happens if the criminal hasn't made a mistake? What if the best course of action is crime? Do you lock him up forever because he has an unusual combination of skills and values?
hasn't made a mistake or doesn't see anything wrong by him commiting crimes.

two courses of action.
1) death sentence, that scum cannot learn to live according to the rules society has set down.
Pros:
no longer a threat to society.
no upkeep to be spent on scum, no food/shelter/manpower to be wasted on scum.

cons:
won't be given a chance to learn... even old dogs learn new tricks.


2) put away for life. no parole, no getting out.
Pros
no longer a threat to society,
still has a chance to learn to live with society

Cons
Constant manpower needed to keep an eye on person.

and that is the eternal debate. what to do with such people.

But... what about the man who has already, in essence, been sentenced to death at the hands of these bored kids? Isn't that the issue here? There was a man killed without the jury and trial. There was a man here who has already had his constitutional rights forcibly taken from him (in death). Why should a person who breaks these constitutional rights be allowed to keep his? In this case, a reckless 15 year old?

(ack, saw your position more clearly. I understand your stance on mandatory-ness *foot in mouth* )


Thanks for the clarification on point, but I would like to make a correction. The constitution and the amendments deal with the powers of the government. It deals with what the government may or may not do to you, and what powers the government does, and does not have.

As such the constitution deals only with the rights of the citizenship in relation with the government. A private individual can not violate the constitutional rights of another private individual. Only the government can violate a constitutional right.

However a private person can certainly violate another private person's legal rights, but rights under the constitution only deal with the relations between state and government, with the possible exception of the 13th amendment.

Yes... I'll go kill my neighbor and you can send me some flowers, ok?

LOL... the flowers will be sent and you will see them as they perform the lethal injections.

after all, just because we love them, doesn't mean they still cannot be punnished. :p

we love them so much, we make sure the needles are sterile.

hasn't made a mistake or doesn't see anything wrong by him commiting crimes.

two courses of action.
1) death sentence, that scum cannot learn to live according to the rules society has set down.
Pros:
no longer a threat to society.
no upkeep to be spent on scum, no food/shelter/manpower to be wasted on scum.

cons:
won't be given a chance to learn... even old dogs learn new tricks.


Your problem is you miss two "cons" that us anti death penalty folks state.

he is still human, and how is killing him any better than the death he caused? It is still killing a human being
it is irrevocable and you can never be absolutly, 100%, beyond any doubt what so ever, be sure he is guilty.

that scum cannot learn to live according to the rules society has set down.
But he is living according to the rules. He's choosing the face the punishment associated with the crimes he commits.

I object to your suggestion that you should somehow remove from society those people who don't agree with you on questions of morality.

Your problem is you miss two "cons" that us anti death penalty folks state.

he is still human, and how is killing him any better than the death he caused? It is still killing a human being
it is irrevocable and you can never be absolutly, 100%, beyond any doubt what so ever, be sure he is guilty.

How is the criminal any better than the people the criminal killed? why should scum live while the scum's victims don't.

and this is assuming that the question...
But, what happens if the criminal hasn't made a mistake? What if the best course of action is crime? Do you lock him up forever because he has an unusual combination of skills and values?means that
1) the person is unrepentant and unwilling to use his/her skills for nothing else but crime.
2) a repeat offender with a 100% certainty that he did do the crime (DNA testing, eye witnesses, Video proof, not even a .001% chance that someone else did it.)
3) he's been released from prision and still does the crime without trying to follow societies laws.


and I gave two opitions. how can you say putting that person away for life is any better? you're reducing that person to an animal in a zoo without the visitors. Restricting his freedoms, his liberties and attaching to his name, the stigma of the crime? and should the guards grow lax, that person could escape and perform his acts again upon the public. would you like your child raped from a rapist who is serving Life and managed to escape?

I gave two extreme solutions for one extreme situation. if YOU don't want the death penalty, then you have to live with the consiquences of that choice. if someone wants the death penalty, then they have to live with the consiquences of their choice. (including the mistakes made for both choices.)

But he is living according to the rules. He's choosing the face the punishment associated with the crimes he commits.

I object to your suggestion that you should somehow remove from society those people who don't agree with you on questions of morality.

no he's not, he's accepting the punnishment. if he was living according to societies rules, he wouldn't be committing the crimes.

Hippie.

No, Christian.

Anyone else notice the line in the OP article that said the kid outweighed his victim by 200 pounds?
Even if we assume the homeless guy to weigh just 100 pounds (and let's face it - that's a very skinny man there), that 15 yr-old was one big fat ass.

a 300+ pound 15yr-old. :eek:
what were his parents feeding him?

My bet is that the main reason he wants out is cause they don't give him unlimited twinkies and oreos in prison.
The poor thing will prob next claim cruel and unusual punishment cause he's not allowed to scoff down a party bucket of buffalo wings every couple of hours.

1) death sentence, that scum cannot learn to live according to the rules society has set down.
Pros:
no longer a threat to society.
no upkeep to be spent on scum, no food/shelter/manpower to be wasted on scum.

cons:
won't be given a chance to learn... even old dogs learn new tricks.

You're missing one major con. The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.

You're missing one major con. The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.

that's up to debate, while monetarily it's more expenseive, it's not when you consider the subjective value of the space taken by one person who's never getting out legally, vs that space being used by someone who might actually learn something. that's why I only clarified Manpower effort and value.

How is the criminal any better than the people the criminal killed? why should scum live while the scum's victims don't.

Because he is human and as human has a fundamental right to his life. How are those who kill him thus any better than he is?

His actions were monsterous yes, barbaric yes, horrificly violent yes.

But he is still human.



how can you say putting that person away for life is any better? you're reducing that person to an animal in a zoo without the visitors. Restricting his freedoms, his liberties and attaching to his name, the stigma of the crime?

Because it is not murder.

My heart just bleeds for this murderer. :rolleyes:

First of all, I am neither advocating nor condeming the death penalty, I just accept that some places in the world still use them.
Because he is human and as human has a fundamental right to his life. How are those who kill him thus any better than he is?

His actions were monsterous yes, barbaric yes, horrificly violent yes.

But he is still human. again, he played Judge, Jury and Executioner for someone (or a group of someones) his crime can be a simple Gunning down a person, to torturing them first before killing them slowly. either way, he took something that can never be returned, for the price of state funded room and board, healthcare, fame, Cable television, free internet access, and at first chance... Freedom.

Because it is not murder.nope, it's not, it's reducing your HUMAN to the level of an Animal. jumping through hoops at the command of his keepers (when to eat, when to exercise, where to sleep, who can visit him, under constant watch...) you know, the stuff people accuse George Bush of doing to others with the labels of "Unconstitutional," "removing of liberies and freedom."

and should that "Animal" escape, he's free to do what ever he wants, kill, rape, maime... and should he be caught, what then.. another costly hunt, followed by a costly trial (Should he commit more crimes of a heinous nature, say raping and killing children,) then put right back where he will paitently wait for his/her next chance to escape at the taxpayers expense. As long as he knows that if he doesn't give the police an excuse to shoot him during arrest, he will be put back in his nice little cell and he can again amuse himself by thinking up new ways to escape...

the only option is to remove more freedoms, say Isolation (solitary), which, if done by soldiers has be called torture... something others also say shouldn't be done. Put more guards on him, (a costly procedure) maybe even have him confined to only one section of the prision (Where you run into health problems.) So you subject this person to near torture conditions, strip him of his humanity just so that you can say "It's not murder" and "he is human and as human has a fundamental right to his life."

I'm saying that doing stupid shit that you will regret later is what kids do
Most kids don't kill. And his family gets to regret that he's dead for the rest of their lives; why shouldn't the kid have a long time to think about being a murderer?

I think since he and his friends passed a death sentence on a helpless man that they attacked like a fucking wolfpack, the least they could do is serve their time. They should be doing life: they deprived a man of life.

no he's not, he's accepting the punnishment. if he was living according to societies rules, he wouldn't be committing the crimes.
We clearly disagree about what the law is. You seem to think it lists things people aren't allowed to do.

But I think that's an absurd position, because the law has no power to control people's behaviour. What the law does is establish consequences for certain types of behaviour. Whenever you choose an action, you're choosing to face the consequences of that action.

He was already given less than they ought to have given him.

Leviticus 24:17 "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death."

If we enforced that, we would run out of people pretty quick.

Chiming in late, I'd like to comment on the idea that he "wouldn't know" that he'd kill somebody that way. I think that idea is stupid. I mean, it's pretty much common knowledge that your chest contains some vital organs. That's elementary school level anatomy, I mean, come on. 300 pounds, concentrated into half a square foot or so is rather a lot of pressure. And that's assuming he hit evenly, with the entirety of both his feet at once. At 15, if you're that stupid, I weep for the world. I could have told him that that'd kill the guy at the age of 10 or younger. It's obvious.

If we enforced that, we would run out of people pretty quick.

Infinite loop!