NationStates Jolt Archive

:)

We need to have better death penalties. These guys should get raped to death slowly over a few days. :)

CHESHIRE, Connecticut (CNN) -- A hostage who was being forced to withdraw money at her bank managed to tip off a teller to call police, authorities said, before she was found dead at her family home.


Hostage Jennifer Hawke-Petit managed to signal a bank teller, police sources have said.

Police in Cheshire, Connecticut, who are holding two suspects in the case, said Wednesday they expect the men to face murder charges in the home invasion and fire that left a mother and her two daughters dead.

An unidentified official told The Associated Press that doctor's wife Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 58, was taken hostage and forced to withdraw money at a local bank. Police told CNN the hostage at the bank was a female.

"The member of the residence was able to relay to the bank teller that they were being held captive," said police Lt. Jay Markella. "The bank teller notified the police department."

Autopsy results released Wednesday revealed that Hawke-Petit was strangled to death, and her two daughters -- Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11 -- died from smoke inhalation, according to the state's Department of Public Safety. Watch how a family was terrorized while neighbors slept »

The state's chief medical examiner ruled all three deaths were homicides.

Prosecutor Michael Dearington told the AP that he had not yet decided whether to pursue the death penalty in the case. "I know the public consensus is they should be fried tomorrow," he told AP.

The girls' father is the sole survivor of the attack. Dr. William Petit escaped after being tied up in the basement, said a source close to the investigation. Dr. Petit was in stable condition at a hospital as of Tuesday night. See photos of how police say the crime unfolded »

"We're absolutely devastated by the tragedy that's rocked our community and rocked the town of Cheshire," said Sandy Wirth of Cheshire Academy, where Hawke-Petit worked. "Jen was more than a teacher here, she was more than a nurse here, she was part of our family she was part of the community."

Steven Hayes, 44, and Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, were apprehended at the scene and face dozens of additional charges, including aggravated sexual assault, burglary and arson.

The men reportedly have extensive criminal records and are on parole, according to CNN affiliate WTNH. Komisarjevsky's residence is less than two miles away from the victims' home, according to a police report.

"I feel horrible," said Wirth. "Obviously, I wish they would not have been out on parole, I wish that they weren't in Cheshire, and I wish that they weren't in any town."

Each was being held on $15 million bond. Neither entered a plea during their arraignment at Meridien Superior Court.

William Petit's pastor, the Rev. Stephen Volpe, told The Associated Press the doctor is "doing OK physically. Emotionally he is devastated and still worried about others."

The incident began about 3 a.m. Monday, when police said the two forced their way into the home.

Police said the suspects tied the family up and, about 9 a.m., drove one of the female family members to a Bank of America branch, where the teller was tipped off and called authorities.

By the time police arrived, the house was on fire. Authorities believe it was an apparent attempt by the suspects to destroy evidence. A source close to the investigation told CNN that Hayley Petit's charred body was found at the top of a staircase in the home; Michaela Petit's body was found tied to her bed; Jennifer Hawke-Petit's body was found on the first floor.

William Petit, who police said was assaulted and sustained serious head injuries, managed to get up the stairs from the basement and outside the burning home.

"All I can say is that Dr. Petit should be considered a courageous individual," Markella said. "To go through what he did and come out the way he did is amazing."

Among the challenges faced by investigators are multiple crime scenes, he said. "We have a crime scene that was burned so a lot of evidence is difficult to recover."

Other crime scenes include the bank where the family member was taken and the scene of an accident with a police cruiser -- an accident authorities said occurred as the two suspects were trying to flee the burning home in the family's SUV.


Markella said police do not know why the suspects chose that house, but "all I can say is, it has been determined to be an isolated incident." He would not comment on whether weapons had been found or on a possible motive.

Markella said Komisarjevsky had previously been arrested by Cheshire police and served time. "To be released and have something like this happen -- as a police officer, it just disgusts you."

They should let the father/husband who family was raped and murdered by these guys hire the men to rape them to death over a few days.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/25/home.invasion/index.html

I've become less and less enamored with the death penalty as I get older and my political views have shifted...but these two need the Vlad-the-Impaler treatment...sans grease.

Watch how you word that. DCD all over again is not a recommended course of action.

Also, "The age of enlightenment, as people say, wanted to suppress the death penalty on the pretext that man was naturally good. Of course he is not (he is worse or better). After twenty years of our magnificent history we are well aware of this. But precisely because he is not absolutely good, no one among us can pose as an absolute judge and pronounce the definitive elimination of the worst among the guilty, because no one of us can lay claim to absolute innocence."

:)

We need to have better death penalties. These guys should get raped to death slowly over a few days. :)

They should let the father/husband who family was raped and murdered by these guys hire the men to rape them to death over a few days.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/25/home.invasion/index.html

Wow, I didn't know you were for the death penalty.

I am also for the death penalty, but not out of vengeance (it doesn't bring any victims back), or deterrence (you deter by the certainty of capture AND conviction).

I believe it's only use is to prevent recidivism. Someone imprisoned for life doesn't guarantee he won't kill again (he can kill in prison), or guarantee he'll never be released (governments change and get sympathetic to killers).

The only reason the US system costs so much is the inane system of appeals. While there need to be safeguards on imposing the death penalty (I think that it should take far more than eyewitness testimony), the appeals process should have two steps and that's it. 30 days between each hearing.

If, for example, you're caught on video shooting someone, and they have your DNA evidence that you raped the victim, and the victim's blood is on your clothing (DNA again), AND there are survivors who witnessed the whole thing - well, give him his fair trial, his two step appeal, and take him out back and shoot him in the head.

If there's reasonable doubt - not guilty. If there's a guilty verdict, but it doesn't meet the standard of "we have him six ways to Sunday" then a life sentence without parole.

Really, you can't do to these people as much as they did to their victims. Why waste the time and money?

Watch how you word that. DCD all over again is not a recommended course of action.Do you mean Drunk Commies Deleted? What happened to him?

Also, "The age of enlightenment, as people say, wanted to suppress the death penalty on the pretext that man was naturally good. Of course he is not (he is worse or better). After twenty years of our magnificent history we are well aware of this. But precisely because he is not absolutely good, no one among us can pose as an absolute judge and pronounce the definitive elimination of the worst among the guilty, because no one of us can lay claim to absolute innocence."

Yeah...

but...

These guys raped and murdered an 11-year-old, a 17-year-old and their mother and then beat the father nearly to death, set their house on fire with them still alive inside and fled in their car.

Some additional deaths wouldn't solve anything.

they deserve to rot in jail, but i can't support the death penalty. it doesn't even begin to solve anything but the bloodlust of vengeance.

they deserve to rot in jail, but i can't support the death penalty. it doesn't even begin to solve anything but the bloodlust of vengeance.

Dead men can't be repeat offenders.

Do you mean Drunk Commies Deleted? What happened to him?
DoS, for suggesting that people should be raped as punishment for their various doings, in addition to generally pushing the line a bit.

A bit sad, really.

Dead men can't be repeat offenders.

the only way to justify the death penalty is if the justice system as a whole is infallable and if it was possible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the criminl would definitely reoffend. that's never going to happen, you may as well just shoot everyone at birth just in case they ever murder or rape someone. and even then i would have a moral objection to it, as Dakini said above, more deaths solve nothing.

It doesn't even begin to solve anything but the bloodlust of vengeance.

Since the husband can't reclaim his wife and daughters, I believe he at least has the right to sate his vengence.

It's about appropriate punishment. I have no vengence, they did not do this to me.

These guys:

http://images.ibsys.com/2007/0725/13753397.jpg
Who's lives aren't really worth anything at all, raped and murdered this woman and these two young girls:

http://www.wfsb.com/2007/0724/13744037.jpg

Whoes lives were full of promise and were and would have continued to make the world a better place and left their dad nearly beaten to death about the head to die.

Since the husband can't reclaim his wife and daughters, I believe he at least has the right to sate his vengence.

since when do we have a right to vengeance? i've never seen that in any bill of rights.

It's about appropriate punishment. I have no vengence, they did not do this to me.
Then why do you make a pathetic appeal about people who are already dead who the death penalty will absolutely not bring back?

DoS, for suggesting that people should be raped as punishment for their various doings, in addition to generally pushing the line a bit.

A bit sad, really.

That sucks. Did he just start going whacky? I remember him and he was pretty funny. Didn't seem to push too hard back in the day... Has he changed his monicker and tried again?

Then why do you make a pathetic appeal about people who are already dead who the death penalty will absolutely not bring back?

It's in the first part of what you quoted.

That sucks. Did he just start going whacky? I remember him and he was pretty funny. Didn't seem to push too hard back in the day... Has he changed his monicker and tried again?
Yeah, he was Sadisco Room for a while - think Jesussaves but a 'Muslim'.

But he's DoS, so he doesn't get away with it for long, since he can't resist posting wacky news stories and generally playing the satire game, which absolutely marks him out within about 100 posts.

It's in the first part of what you quoted.
The second part, however, makes it completely pointless...

It's about appropriate punishment. I have no vengence, they did not do this to me.

These guys:

http://images.ibsys.com/2007/0725/13753397.jpg
Who's lives aren't really worth anything at all, raped and murdered this woman and these two young girls:

http://www.wfsb.com/2007/0724/13744037.jpg

Whoes lives were full of promise and were and would have continued to make the world a better place and left their dad nearly beaten to death about the head to die.

who are you to determine the relative worth of individual human lives? try comparing a nice family shot of either of the killers with the one of this family and i'm sure it won't be quite so clear cut in you mind.

And people wonder why I answer the door with a pistol in hand...

Must make you popular around Girl Scout Cookie time.

And people wonder why I answer the door with a pistol in hand...

And people wonder why I answer the door with a pistol in hand...

extreme paranoia?

who are you to determine the relative worth of individual human lives? try comparing a nice family shot of either of the killers with the one of this family and i'm sure it won't be quite so clear cut in you mind.

It's not just photos.

Hayley Petit had received an early acceptance to Dartmouth, her father's alma mater. She was a fundraiser for multiple sclerosis and captain of the basketball and crew teams. She was also devoted to her school, so much so that even while she was recovering from a collapsed lung, she attend commencement.

Dr. Petit, 50, the president of the Hartford County Medical Association, is a noted specialist in diabetes and endocrinology and the medical director of the Joslin Diabetes Center Affiliate at The Hospital of Central Connecticut in New Britain.

Jennifer Hawke-Petit was a nurse and co-director of the health center at Cheshire Academy, a private boarding school.

Komisarjevsky has 18 burglary charges on his criminal records and Hayes was arrested 26 times for charges of burglary, larceny, drugs and issuing bad checks. Hayes also was arrested on charges of stealing a firearm.

extreme paranoia?

Nope. There have been home invasions in our area before.

I also have a special door stop mounted in the floor. If you try to force the door after I've opened it part way, the door stop will prevent you from opening it more than a foot.

The stop is welded to a steel beam in the floor. The peg is removable by lifting it out, but only if you stop pushing on the door and are on my side of the door.

And people wonder why I answer the door with a pistol in hand...
You're a pure nutter?

Nope. There have been home invasions in our area before.

I also have a special door stop mounted in the floor. If you try to force the door after I've opened it part way, the door stop will prevent you from opening it more than a foot.

The stop is welded to a steel beam in the floor. The peg is removable by lifting it out, but only if you stop pushing on the door and are on my side of the door.
To make it even better, perhaps you could hook a shotgun up to the door so that unless you twist your key 3 times instead of just the once, it goes off in your face when the door opens?

Nope.

Home invasions happen here. See the original article.

I forget - you're from a country where self-defense is illegal.

a place where killing people is illegal, not self-defence.

And people wonder why I answer the door with a pistol in hand...

Yeah...


That's pretty rednecky...

In fact that's a little more than rednecky, it's hideout-in-the-woods-Montana-militia-y.

You're a pure nutter?

Nope.

Home invasions happen here. See the original article.

I forget - you're from a country where self-defense is illegal.

since when do we have a right to vengeance? i've never seen that in any bill of rights.

It is restitution for the husband's grief and suffering. What will be gained by keeping these men alive?

I don't believe the state, or the public as a group can claim the right to take lives. This case is an exception in my opinion. They took something from the husband that can never be repaid. If, he wanted to kill these men only to briefly statisfying his anger then I feel he is owed that much. However, this is not the law, it is only my perception of justice. I, in no way, support how Texas or Florida kill off hundreds of people a year for a slightly skewed perception of justice. I believe in rehabilitation, but these men are clearly beyond any kind of help.

I feel that protecting these men is simply "ego masturbation". "We will keep these men alive because vengence is wrong!"

Yes, blind retribution for crimes is wrong for a lack of due process. However, I feel that the doctor has earned a right to decide on these men's lives if they are thoroughly convicted. (appeals and all). By then he will have probably lost his desire of vengence, but if not then he deserves psychological restitution.

I forget - you're from a country where self-defense is illegal.
Actually incorrect.

If they have a weapon, you can use anything on them you like. I still wouldn't, but you'd get away with it.

On the other hand, if they don't have a weapon and you shoot / stab / burn them to death, that's your fault and you're going down for manslaughter for acting in haste.

It is restitution for the husband's grief and suffering. What will be gained by keeping these men alive?
What will be gained by killing them?

Absolutely nothing, just like killing of the family. No point in either, they're both stupid, callous acts.
I don't believe the state, or the public as a group can claim the right to take lives. This case is an exception in my opinion. They took something from the husband that can never be repaid. If, he wanted to kill these men only to briefly statisfying his anger then I feel he is owed that much. However, this is not the law, it is only my perception of justice. I, in no way, support how Texas or Florida kill off hundreds of people a year for a slightly skewed perception of justice. I believe in rehabilitation, but these men are clearly beyond any kind of help.
Get that man some fucking councilling, don't let him start killing people, or he might take a liking to it, and what has a man with no family left got to lose by killing a few more people, eh?
I feel that protecting these men is simply "ego masturbation". "We will keep these men alive because vengence is wrong!"

Yes, blind retribution for crimes is wrong for a lack of due process. However, I feel that the doctor has earned a right to decide on these men's lives if they are thoroughly convicted. (appeals and all). By then he will have probably lost his desire of vengence, but if not then he deserves psychological restitution.
... you're just wrong.

Yeah...


That's pretty rednecky...

In fact that's a little more than rednecky, it's hideout-in-the-woods-Montana-militia-y.

Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes.

Kellermann AL, Westphal L, Fischer L, Harvard B.

Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, Atlanta, Ga 30322, USA.
OBJECTIVE--To study the epidemiology of home invasion crimes and determine the frequency with which firearms are used to resist these crimes. DESIGN--Prospective case series. SETTING--Atlanta, Ga (population 402,877). METHODS--Between June 1 and August 31, 1994; Atlanta Police Department reports were screened to identify every case of unwanted entry into an occupied, single-family dwelling. Cases of sexual assault and incidents that involved cohabitants were excluded. RESULTS--A total of 198 cases were identified during the study interval. Half (99 cases) involved forced entry into the home. The victim and offender were acquainted in one third of cases. A firearm was carried by one or more offenders in 32 cases (17%). Seven offenders (3.5%) carried knives. In 42% of cases, the offender fled without confronting the victim. Victims who avoided confrontation were more likely to lose property but much less likely to be injured than those who were confronted by the offender. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance. Forty cases (20%) resulted in one or more victims' being injured, including six (3%) who were shot. No one died. Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property. CONCLUSION--A minority of home invasion crimes result in injury. Measures that increase the difficulty of forced entry or enhance the likelihood of detection could be useful to prevent these crimes. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose.

I use mine for that purpose. I don't care if I lose property, but I'm not going to be in the 20% that were injured or the 3% who were shot.

Ok?

It is restitution for the husband's grief and suffering. What will be gained by keeping these men alive?


they get to suffer their punishment. whereas your way, a doctor gets to violate the code of his profession and one of the most basic morals of his society so that he can sate his anger for one moment and then probably feel shit about it, on top of the grief he already feels, for the rest of his life.

I use mine for that purpose. I don't care if I lose property, but I'm not going to be in the 20% that were injured or the 3% who were shot.

Ok?

Paranoia much?

Actually incorrect.

If they have a weapon, you can use anything on them you like. I still wouldn't, but you'd get away with it.

On the other hand, if they don't have a weapon and you shoot / stab / burn them to death, that's your fault and you're going down for manslaughter for acting in haste.

Usually, here in the US, when someone wanting to rob you has no weapon other than his size and strength (and perhaps his friends), and he sees that you have a pistol, they leave.

"Using" a pistol does not always imply shooting.

they get to suffer their punishment. whereas your way, a doctor gets to violate the code of his profession and one of the most basic morals of his society so that he can sate his anger for one moment and then probably feel shit about it, on top of the grief he already feels, for the rest of his life.

Who says it needs to be a doctor? What's wrong with hanging, or shooting, or throwing them from an aircraft in flight at 35,000 ft?

I support the death penalty in principle, but not the "torture penalty" as some here seem to.

If you kill someone unjustly, your actions indicate that you have given up any claim to your own life and self defense, and as a matter of fairness and respect for your decision should be put down.

I don't think the death penalty is especially practical, and do not really trust our judicial system to administer it correctly 100% of the time, so am not necessarily in favor of it being implemented.

Usually, here in the US, when someone wanting to rob you has no weapon other than his size and strength (and perhaps his friends), and he sees that you have a pistol, they leave.

"Using" a pistol does not always imply shooting.
Yeah, well here in the UK, home invasions hardly ever happen because hardly anyone has a weapon of any kind. Which makes us far safer.

Incidentally, if someone tries to break in and you've got a knife, or, say, a dog, the same is much true in your case where the assailants haven't got a weapon.

If you start pulling weapons out, then things get a bit heavy, quickly.
Who says it needs to be a doctor? What's wrong with hanging, or shooting, or throwing them from an aircraft in flight at 35,000 ft?
What's right with it?

What will be gained by killing them?



What is gained by keeping them alive?

What is gained by keeping them alive?
A degree of humanity that sets you apart from the bastards.

Who says it needs to be a doctor? What's wrong with hanging, or shooting, or throwing them from an aircraft in flight at 35,000 ft?

you misunderstand my post. Luporum was advocating that the husband and father who survived the attack (who is incidentally a doctor) be allowed to murder the two men who did these horrific things to him and his family. i have already given my response to your reasons for advocating the death penalty.

Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes.

Kellermann AL, Westphal L, Fischer L, Harvard B.

Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, Atlanta, Ga 30322, USA.


I use mine for that purpose. I don't care if I lose property, but I'm not going to be in the 20% that were injured or the 3% who were shot.

Ok?

In orde to be the 205 that are injured or the 3% that are shot you must6 first be among the 0.001% who experience a home invasion robery while you are at home.


Dude, just stop and think about it for a second...

You answer the door with a gun drawn. That's fuckin' psycho, man. That's like, roll around naked in peanut butter psycho. That's like, hear the dog next door tell you to kill your neighbor's chickens crazy.

they get to suffer their punishment.

Is that not a means of vengence?

whereas your way, a doctor gets to violate the code of his profession.

That is for him and his associates to deal with.

and one of the most basic morals of his society.

Why is it a moral?

so that he can sate his anger for one moment and then probably feel shit about it, on top of the grief he already feels, for the rest of his life.

Kind of difficult for us to predict as we've never been in such a situation.

That's fuckin' psycho, man. That's like, roll around naked in peanut butter psycho.

Because a man would have to be a psycho to want to do that...

:(

Kind of difficult for us to predict as we've never been in such a situation.
Erm see the post-WW2 experiences of the British for where this has happened. They were bombing us and such, and we killed a whole lot of them. And a lot, and I mean a lot, of people that have brought it up with me (I consider it somewhat distasteful to ask about it) have said that they felt terrible for killing people afterwards, and could hardly sleep with the memories of the men they'd killed afterwards.

This would be kind of similar.

A degree of humanity that sets you apart from the bastards.

I disagree, suffering those people alive, and moreover on the dole, is inhuman.

No torture involved, just dope them up on barbiturates or opiates or something else that puts them to sleep, and be done with it.

I disagree, suffering those people alive, and moreover on the dole, is inhuman.

No torture involved, just dope them up on barbiturates or opiates or something else that puts them to sleep, and be done with it.
OK, well this is simply something that we disagree on. That's all. Both have our positions and probably will until the end of our days.

In orde to be the 205 that are injured or the 3% that are shot you must6 first be among the 0.001% who experience a home invasion robery while you are at home.


Dude, just stop and think about it for a second...

You answer the door with a gun drawn. That's fuckin' psycho, man. That's like, roll around naked in peanut butter psycho. That's like, hear the dog next door tell you to kill your neighbor's chickens crazy.

That's .00003%!

A degree of humanity that sets you apart from the bastards.

Humanity is a matter of opinion.

We do not hesitate to kill an animal deemed a threat to people.

-edit do to id10t error-

So what is the solution?

In orde to be the 205 that are injured or the 3% that are shot you must6 first be among the 0.001% who experience a home invasion robery while you are at home.

Dude, just stop and think about it for a second...

You answer the door with a gun drawn. That's fuckin' psycho, man. That's like, roll around naked in peanut butter psycho. That's like, hear the dog next door tell you to kill your neighbor's chickens crazy.

Home invasion is becoming more common. Additionally, it has several aspects that make it far more terrifying. Unlike traditional burglars who break in when you're not there, these people are in it for more than just the property they take.

Home invasion robbers, in contrast, work more often at night and on weekends when homes are more likely to be occupied. The home invader will sometimes target the resident as well as the dwelling. The selection process may include a woman living alone, a wealthy senior citizen or a known drug dealer, for example. It is not unheard of for a robber to follow you home based on the value of the car you are driving or the jewelry you are wearing. Some home invaders might have been in your home before as a delivery person, installer or repair vendor. Home robbers rarely work alone and rely on an overwhelming physical confrontation to gain initial control and instill fear in you. The greatest violence usually occurs during the initial sixty seconds of the confrontation and home invaders often come prepared with handcuffs, rope, duct tape, and firearms. Some in-home robbers appear to enjoy the intimidation, domination, and violence and some even claim it’s a "rush."

The act of committing a home invasion is escalating much like carjacking. The reason for the increase seems to follow a similar pattern. Much like automobiles, the traditional commercial targets for robbers like convenience stores and fast-food restaurants have hardened themselves against criminal attack and have reduced available cash. Technology has allowed commercial establishments to install affordable video surveillance systems, silent alarms, and other anti-crime deterrent devices. A residence, by comparison, is now a more attractive choice.

Home invaders know that they won't have to overcome alarm systems when the home is occupied or be worried about video cameras and silent alarms. Unlike robbing a retail store, home invaders expect privacy once inside your home and won’t have to deal with the police suddenly driving up or customers walking in. Once the offenders take control of a residence they can force the occupants to open safes, locate hidden valuables, supply keys to the family car, and PIN numbers to their ATM cards. Home invaders will try to increase their escape time by disabling the phones and sometimes will leave their victims bound or incapacitated. It is not unheard of for robbers to load up the victim’s car with valuables and drive away without anyone in the neighborhood taking notice.

So, because we've made it fucking hard to rob the 7-11, or the gas station, or even the bank, robbers are turning to the softest place they can find.

It's been going up in the DC area for some time now, while other forms of robbery are going down or staying level.

Erm see the post-WW2 experiences of the British for where this has happened. They were bombing us and such, and we killed a whole lot of them. And a lot, and I mean a lot, of people that have brought it up with me (I consider it somewhat distasteful to ask about it) have said that they felt terrible for killing people afterwards, and could hardly sleep with the memories of the men they'd killed afterwards.

This would be kind of similar.

However, knowing the men who raped and murdered your wife and kids are living on your tax money is another shitty feeling.

I suppose there's no magic way to feel good after your family was murdered.

A degree of humanity that sets you apart from the bastards.

What sets me apart from teh bastards is that I am a productive member of society that has a job that allows me to buy my own things rather than stealing them from others, I treat people I meet with a modicrum of respect and I don't rape and murder children - or anyone for that matter.

Is that not a means of vengence? depends on the motives for incarceration. if the judge says they are being ut away simply for the crimes they have committed then yes that is vengeance. if the judge says they are being put away so that they can reflect on what they have done a learn remorse and pay the price of breaking the moral codes of their society so flagrantly then that is not vengeance. that is just deserts.



That is for him and his associates to deal with.
he'd be struck off if he chose to murder, simple as that.



Why is it a moral?
though shalt not kill is a pretty basic one i think and has stood the test of time pretty well up til now.



Kind of difficult for us to predict as we've never been in such a situation.

indeed, and nor wil he have til after he's done it. i can't see a sane and rational being going along with such a plan. and lets face it, the victim and sole survivor of such a horrific series of crimes is not a sane a rational being (at least temporarily) and such a potentially sole destroying decision ought not to be forced on such a person.

Home invasion is becoming more common. Additionally, it has several aspects that make it far more terrifying. Unlike traditional burglars who break in when you're not there, these people are in it for more than just the property they take.

I know where this is heading...

Back in the Good 'Ol Days(tm), robbers would come in and leave you a tip depending on how clean your house was. I swear burglers today are so rude, they're all illegal muslim Canadian faggot black hispanics on welfare in college because of affirmative action.

:D

:)

We need to have better death penalties. These guys should get raped to death slowly over a few days. :)



They should let the father/husband who family was raped and murdered by these guys hire the men to rape them to death over a few days.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/25/home.invasion/index.html

I can't bring myself to answer barbarity with barbarity, nor can I justify the execution of innocent people simply so we can execute people like this. Better to lock them away for the rest of their lives.

However, knowing the men who raped and murdered your wife and kids are living on your tax money is another shitty feeling.

I suppose there's no magic way to feel good after your family was murdered.

Probably not.

He's probably thinking "what did I do to deserve this?"

and

"is there something I could have done to prevent this?"

Home invasion is becoming more common. Additionally, it has several aspects that make it far more terrifying. Unlike traditional burglars who break in when you're not there, these people are in it for more than just the property they take.

Home invasion robbers, in contrast, work more often at night and on weekends when homes are more likely to be occupied. The home invader will sometimes target the resident as well as the dwelling. The selection process may include a woman living alone, a wealthy senior citizen or a known drug dealer, for example. It is not unheard of for a robber to follow you home based on the value of the car you are driving or the jewelry you are wearing. Some home invaders might have been in your home before as a delivery person, installer or repair vendor. Home robbers rarely work alone and rely on an overwhelming physical confrontation to gain initial control and instill fear in you. The greatest violence usually occurs during the initial sixty seconds of the confrontation and home invaders often come prepared with handcuffs, rope, duct tape, and firearms. Some in-home robbers appear to enjoy the intimidation, domination, and violence and some even claim it’s a "rush."

The act of committing a home invasion is escalating much like carjacking. The reason for the increase seems to follow a similar pattern. Much like automobiles, the traditional commercial targets for robbers like convenience stores and fast-food restaurants have hardened themselves against criminal attack and have reduced available cash. Technology has allowed commercial establishments to install affordable video surveillance systems, silent alarms, and other anti-crime deterrent devices. A residence, by comparison, is now a more attractive choice.

Home invaders know that they won't have to overcome alarm systems when the home is occupied or be worried about video cameras and silent alarms. Unlike robbing a retail store, home invaders expect privacy once inside your home and won’t have to deal with the police suddenly driving up or customers walking in. Once the offenders take control of a residence they can force the occupants to open safes, locate hidden valuables, supply keys to the family car, and PIN numbers to their ATM cards. Home invaders will try to increase their escape time by disabling the phones and sometimes will leave their victims bound or incapacitated. It is not unheard of for robbers to load up the victim’s car with valuables and drive away without anyone in the neighborhood taking notice.

So, because we've made it fucking hard to rob the 7-11, or the gas station, or even the bank, robbers are turning to the softest place they can find.

It's been going up in the DC area for some time now, while other forms of robbery are going down or staying level.

what i take from this is you are either a known drug dealer or you really are dangerously paranoid. if you're not even in one of the demographics that are at the greatest risk then your chances of having your home invaded are even lower that the 0.003% that someone gave earlier.

I take away my former position of being given the option of executing these men. My logic was flawed out of mere compassion for the doctor. Essentially, all we can do is keep these men out of society.

Home invasion is becoming more common. Additionally, it has several aspects that make it far more terrifying. Unlike traditional burglars who break in when you're not there, these people are in it for more than just the property they take.

Home invasion robbers, in contrast, work more often at night and on weekends when homes are more likely to be occupied. The home invader will sometimes target the resident as well as the dwelling. The selection process may include a woman living alone, a wealthy senior citizen or a known drug dealer, for example. It is not unheard of for a robber to follow you home based on the value of the car you are driving or the jewelry you are wearing. Some home invaders might have been in your home before as a delivery person, installer or repair vendor. Home robbers rarely work alone and rely on an overwhelming physical confrontation to gain initial control and instill fear in you. The greatest violence usually occurs during the initial sixty seconds of the confrontation and home invaders often come prepared with handcuffs, rope, duct tape, and firearms. Some in-home robbers appear to enjoy the intimidation, domination, and violence and some even claim it’s a "rush."

The act of committing a home invasion is escalating much like carjacking. The reason for the increase seems to follow a similar pattern. Much like automobiles, the traditional commercial targets for robbers like convenience stores and fast-food restaurants have hardened themselves against criminal attack and have reduced available cash. Technology has allowed commercial establishments to install affordable video surveillance systems, silent alarms, and other anti-crime deterrent devices. A residence, by comparison, is now a more attractive choice.

Home invaders know that they won't have to overcome alarm systems when the home is occupied or be worried about video cameras and silent alarms. Unlike robbing a retail store, home invaders expect privacy once inside your home and won’t have to deal with the police suddenly driving up or customers walking in. Once the offenders take control of a residence they can force the occupants to open safes, locate hidden valuables, supply keys to the family car, and PIN numbers to their ATM cards. Home invaders will try to increase their escape time by disabling the phones and sometimes will leave their victims bound or incapacitated. It is not unheard of for robbers to load up the victim’s car with valuables and drive away without anyone in the neighborhood taking notice.

So, because we've made it fucking hard to rob the 7-11, or the gas station, or even the bank, robbers are turning to the softest place they can find.

It's been going up in the DC area for some time now, while other forms of robbery are going down or staying level.

1. None of that dealt with the fact that you are extremely unlikely to face a home invader in your life time. I mean, more likely to face bear or something. maybe not a bear, but you get the point.

2. Do home invaders in the DC area knock on the door? You said you answer the door with a gun...

2. Do home invaders in the DC area knock on the door? You said you answer the door with a gun...

>.<

I can't bring myself to answer barbarity with barbarity, nor can I justify the execution of innocent people simply so we can execute people like this. Better to lock them away for the rest of their lives.

Time to bring out Mark Twain again:

THE TEN Commandments were made for man alone. We should think it strange if they had been made for all the animals.

We should say "Thou shalt not kill" is too general, too sweeping. It includes the field mouse and the butterfly. They can't kill. And it includes the tiger, which can't help it.

It is a case of Temperament and Circumstance again. You can arrange no circumstances that can move the field mouse and the butterfly to kill; their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it.

Butterflies and field mice are common among men; they can't kill, their temperaments make it impossible. There are tigers among men, also. Their temperaments move them to violence, and when Circumstance furnishes the opportunity and the powerful motive, they kill. They can't help it.

No penal law can deal out justice; it must deal out injustice in every instance. Penal laws have a high value, in that they protect--in a considerable measure--the multitude of the gentle-natured from the violent minority.

For a penal law is a Circumstance. It is a warning which intrudes and stays a would-be murderer's hand--sometimes. Not always, but in many and many a case. It can't stop the real man-tiger; nothing can do that. Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.

Holmes, the Chicago monster, inveigled some dozens of men and women into his obscure quarters and privately butchered them. Holmes's inborn nature was such that whenever he had what seemed a reasonably safe opportunity to kill a stranger he couldn't successfully resist the temptation to do it.

Justice was finally meted out to Slade and to Holmes. That is what the newspapers said. It is a common phrase, and a very old one. But it probably isn't true. When a man is hanged for slaying one man that phrase comes into service and we learn that justice was meted out to the slaver. But Holmes slew sixty. There seems to be a discrepancy in this distribution of justice. If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice.

But the phrase is wrong, anyway. The word is the wrong word. Criminal courts do not dispense "justice"--they can't; they only dispense protections to the community. It is all they can do.

Yes, that's the point of home invasion.

They knock and get YOU to open the door.

Actually most home invasions are done without the person being home. It simply complicates things. It is MUCH easier to take stuff while the person's out.

Despite the horrible nature of the crimes, I still cannot support the death penalty.

1. None of that dealt with the fact that you are extremely unlikely to face a home invader in your life time. I mean, more likely to face bear or something. maybe not a bear, but you get the point.

2. Do home invaders in the DC area knock on the door? You said you answer the door with a gun...

Yes, that's the point of home invasion.

They knock and get YOU to open the door.

Yes, that's the point of home invasion.

They knock and get YOU to open the door.

I don't want to claim I know the stats, but I am sure that the vast, vast, vast majority of home invasions involve breaking a window ro finding un unlocked window or door.

Also, they are probably mostly at night. Do you answer the door with a gun at 3 in the afternoon?

1. None of that dealt with the fact that you are extremely unlikely to face a home invader in your life time. I mean, more likely to face bear or something. maybe not a bear, but you get the point.

2. Do home invaders in the DC area knock on the door? You said you answer the door with a gun...

1. Probably won't get in a car wreck either, no reason I take it then to wear a seatbelt. Probably won't get badly injured, so no reason to buy health insurance.



2. Yes, that's the whole point. They knock on the door, either confirm you are home by talking to you through the door or getting you to open it, then burst in.

If you actually open the door, you have no chance at all of stopping them short of a gun. That includes if you open it and have one of those useless chain locks - once the door is open, a couple of kicks is enough to defeat it.

I don't want to claim I know the stats, but I am sure that the vast, vast, vast majority of home invasions involve breaking a window ro finding un unlocked window or door.

Also, they are probably mostly at night. Do you answer the door with a gun at 3 in the afternoon?

No, those are regular burglaries. Those are NOT home invasions.

The very definition of home invasion is coming in through the front door.

Don't you read my posts?

The most common point of attack is through the front door or garage. Sometimes the home invader will simply kick open the door and confront everyone inside. More common is when the home invaders knock on the door first or ring the bell. The home invader hopes that the occupant will simply open the door, without question, in response to their knock. Unfortunately, many people do just that.

Home invaders will sometimes use a ruse or impersonation to get you to open the door. They have been known to pretend to be delivering a package, flowers or lie about an accident like hitting your parked car. Once the door is opened for them, the home invaders will use an explosive amount of force and threats to gain control of the home and produce fear in the victims. Once the occupants are under control the robbers will begin to collect your valuables.

Despite the horrible nature of the crimes, I still cannot support the death penalty.

Because our nature views causing death as a crime, backed by our fear of ever being hypocritial.

Its really a sad story what happened, I was going to go to college with the elder daughter, I think some people are going to try to set up a memorial or something like it in remembrance.

2. Do home invaders in the DC area knock on the door? You said you answer the door with a gun...
Man, now you're going to get him doing everything with a gun. He'll be watching tv drunk one day and go to grab his remote and end up shooting his television. He'll be showering with it and nestling it in his arms while he sleeps...

1. Probably won't get in a car wreck either, no reason I take it then to wear a seatbelt. Probably won't get badly injured, so no reason to buy health insurance.Not true. Statistics say everyone who drives will eventually get into an accident. Also, I myself have been injured many times in my life. I don't think I know anyone who has never been injured or sick. I don't, however, know anyone who has ever been teh victim of a home invasion robbery.

That was a bad analogy.



2. Yes, that's the whole point. They knock on the door, either confirm you are home by talking to you through the door or getting you to open it, then burst in.

If you actually open the door, you have no chance at all of stopping them short of a gun. That includes if you open it and have one of those useless chain locks - once the door is open, a couple of kicks is enough to defeat it.

So you answer the door with a gun in your hand?

Wow, I didn't know you were for the death penalty.

I am also for the death penalty, but not out of vengeance (it doesn't bring any victims back), or deterrence (you deter by the certainty of capture AND conviction).

I believe it's only use is to prevent recidivism. Someone imprisoned for life doesn't guarantee he won't kill again (he can kill in prison), or guarantee he'll never be released (governments change and get sympathetic to killers).

The only reason the US system costs so much is the inane system of appeals. While there need to be safeguards on imposing the death penalty (I think that it should take far more than eyewitness testimony), the appeals process should have two steps and that's it. 30 days between each hearing.

If, for example, you're caught on video shooting someone, and they have your DNA evidence that you raped the victim, and the victim's blood is on your clothing (DNA again), AND there are survivors who witnessed the whole thing - well, give him his fair trial, his two step appeal, and take him out back and shoot him in the head.

If there's reasonable doubt - not guilty. If there's a guilty verdict, but it doesn't meet the standard of "we have him six ways to Sunday" then a life sentence without parole.

Really, you can't do to these people as much as they did to their victims. Why waste the time and money?
I can definitely see where you're coming from. Our prison system is screwed up beyond belief right now.

But should we really kill people? Wouldn't it make more sense to rehabilitate them? For that matter, wouldn't it make even more sense to target the causes of crimes in the first place and eliminate those rather than the criminals? After all, every criminal has a reason, and anyone can change for the better. Even the mentally ill, such as those eager to rape due to lusts for power, can change through therapy. (Those few exceptions for which we cannot cure should, however, be placed in confinement for their own safety, but only for their safety and the safety of others. They shouldn't be treated poorly and should definitely have entertainment options available and decent food. They are only being confined until we CAN cure their mental illness, after all.)

Currently, all our prison system does is encourage those released to commit more crimes, because it just imprisons them without giving them any new skills, without doing anything to show them how to get out of whatever situation caused them to commit the crime in the first place and fosters hate and anger that brews and bubbles within, begging to be released. That alone is why we have prison violence to begin with.

We could spend the same amount of money we spend on imprisoning the--what, at least 2,000,000 people?--people we do on rehabilitating them instead, and we would save a lot of money in the long run for so many parts of government, from public funding of services like hospitals, police departments, and so on, to the prison/rehabilitation system itself, which shouldn't need to rehabilitate anyone again.

Rehabilitating violent felons doesn't work often. The best method so far is "aging out" where you keep them until they're too feeble to do anything physical.

fixed.

I can definitely see where you're coming from. Our prison system is screwed up beyond belief right now.

But should we really kill people? Wouldn't it make more sense to rehabilitate them?

Rehabilitating violent felons doesn't work. The best method so far is "aging out" where you keep them until they're too feeble to do anything physical.

So you answer the door with a gun in your hand?

Yes. You obviously did not read my post on that.

The door will open only part way, no matter who pushes on the other side.

There's an elaborate safety device that prevents full opening of the door, unless I release it.

The gun is not visible when I open the door with the left hand.

The pistol (a Les Baer 1911) is in my right hand, in the small of my back.

Not true. Statistics say everyone who drives will eventually get into an accident. Also, I myself have been injured many times in my life. I don't think I know anyone who has never been injured or sick. I don't, however, know anyone who has ever been teh victim of a home invasion robbery.

That was a bad analogy.





So you answer the door with a gun in your hand?

If it seems a suspicious time for someone to be at my door, I'm not expecting anyone, &c, I will usually take a .38 revolver out of my desk drawer and put it in my pocket before going to the door.

Rehabilitating violent felons doesn't work. The best method so far is "aging out" where you keep them until they're too feeble to do anything physical.

Perhaps so. I cannot say as I've not investigated the matter.

So why not simply prevent them from becoming violent felons in the first place? One of the best ways we can do that is making better education available to the impoverished and lower middle class.

Consider this situation, for example:

Juan Carlos is a 20 year old male who lives in the ghettos of New York. He has grown up without access to decent education--what education he could access he was unable to take advantage of as he was forced to drop out of high school so he could get a job to help his family pay the rent on their meager home.

Frustrated with the system, Juan Carlos robs a gas station for every bit of cash they have on hand. Finding it an easier way to gain money, he continues to do so until caught.

Current system would toss him in jail to rot for several years while he continues to burble up that frustration and hatred. Once he gets out, he commits crimes again, possibly even murdering an innocent person. He's then tossed onto Death Row and executed.

My system would see him educated, rehabilitated, paying his debt to society while learning new skills and being far more capable to help himself once he gets out, perhaps even helping him find a job. So he gets out and instead of committing more crimes and killing that innocent person, he helps people. Perhaps he becomes a nurse, or an engineer, or hey, even if he's just another office worker, he's still making a better life for himself and the people he affects through his work.

See how keeping these people around helps?

Not true. Statistics say everyone who drives will eventually get into an accident. Also, I myself have been injured many times in my life. I don't think I know anyone who has never been injured or sick. I don't, however, know anyone who has ever been teh victim of a home invasion robbery.

That was a bad analogy.





So you answer the door with a gun in your hand?

If it seems a suspicious time for someone to be at my door, I'm not expecting anyone, &c, I will usually take a .38 revolver out of my desk drawer and put it in my pocket before going to the door.

I can definitely see where you're coming from. Our prison system is screwed up beyond belief right now.

But should we really kill people? Wouldn't it make more sense to rehabilitate them?

Been there, done that.

Komisarjevsky has 18 burglary charges on his criminal records and Hayes was arrested 26 times for charges of burglary, larceny, drugs and issuing bad checks. Hayes also was arrested on charges of stealing a firearm.

Rehabilitating violent felons doesn't work. The best method so far is "aging out" where you keep them until they're too feeble to do anything physical.

Perhaps so. I cannot say as I've not investigated the matter.

So why not simply prevent them from becoming violent felons in the first place? One of the best ways we can do that is making better education available to the impoverished and lower middle class.

Consider this situation, for example:

Juan Carlos is a 20 year old male who lives in the ghettos of New York. He has grown up without access to decent education--what education he could access he was unable to take advantage of as he was forced to drop out of high school so he could get a job to help his family pay the rent on their meager home.

Frustrated with the system, Juan Carlos robs a gas station for every bit of cash they have on hand. Finding it an easier way to gain money, he continues to do so until caught.

Current system would toss him in jail to rot for several years while he continues to burble up that frustration and hatred. Once he gets out, he commits crimes again, possibly even murdering an innocent person. He's then tossed onto Death Row and executed.

My system would see him educated, rehabilitated, paying his debt to society while learning new skills and being far more capable to help himself once he gets out, perhaps even helping him find a job. So he gets out and instead of committing more crimes and killing that innocent person, he helps people. Perhaps he becomes a nurse, or an engineer, or hey, even if he's just another office worker, he's still making a better life for himself and the people he affects through his work.

See how keeping these people around helps?

Been there, done that.

How does that show any sort of rehabilitation? All it shows are large numbers of crimes.

Juan Carlos is a 20 year old male who lives in the ghettos of New York. He has grown up without access to decent education--what education he could access he was unable to take advantage of as he was forced to drop out of high school so he could get a job to help his family pay the rent on their meager home.


I like how you have correctly identified the teachers unions as a major contributor to this problem.

Yes. You obviously did not read my post on that.

The door will open only part way, no matter who pushes on the other side.

There's an elaborate safety device that prevents full opening of the door, unless I release it.

The gun is not visible when I open the door with the left hand.

The pistol (a Les Baer 1911) is in my right hand, in the small of my back.

You should make sure you know who I'm asking before you answer. :)

How does that show any sort of rehabilitation? All it shows are large numbers of crimes.

It shows they aren't interested in being rehabilitated.

Perhaps so. I cannot say as I've not investigated the matter.

So why not simply prevent them from becoming violent felons in the first place? One of the best ways we can do that is making better education available to the impoverished and lower middle class.

Ok - let's say we're all PhDs now.

There aren't enough jobs for all the PhDs. Someone has to clean toilets.

I agree that most crime is due to poverty, but I believe that most violent crime in the US is associated with specific types of drug use and drug distribution.

Want a violent freak in your house? Try a meth head who needs more cash so he can continue his habit. He and his friends want to take your card to the ATM and fuck the wife and kids.

We've already made a major step in reducing violent crime in the US, and that was by decentralizing public housing. A 64% reduction over 10 years.

Want to reduce it more? Legalize all drugs, and hand out meth, crack, and heroin free to any user who wants it.

The only criteria I would have for getting the free drugs is that you test positive for at least one of them.

I like how you have correctly identified the teachers unions as a major contributor to this problem.
As a member of a teachers union, I'd like you to kiss my fucking ass.

I like how you have correctly identified the teachers unions as a major contributor to this problem.

Funding is the problem, not teachers unions. The schools aren't getting the funding they need to provide decent education...schools that do get enough funding will often spend it on athletics and sports equipment rather than text books and other tools of the teaching trade...it's a messed up system, and has been that way for some time.

Education is essential to any modern society. Hell, we bloody evolved to learn everything we need to know about life from others rather than knowing such thing instinctively...it was a requirement for our large brain capacity. Without education, all we have are our basic survival and tribal species instincts. Education can prevent bigotry. Education can prevent criminal activity. Education makes the difference between making enough to support your family comfortably or barely making ends meat. Education is essential to life.

Ok - let's say we're all PhDs now.

There aren't enough jobs for all the PhDs. Someone has to clean toilets.

Well we don't all have to be PhDs....simply enough people need to be educated so they can have those better jobs.

Oh, and I'm all for wages for jobs like janitorial work being raised significantly so they too can be living wages.


I agree that most crime is due to poverty, but I believe that most violent crime in the US is associated with specific types of drug use and drug distribution.

Want a violent freak in your house? Try a meth head who needs more cash so he can continue his habit. He and his friends want to take your card to the ATM and fuck the wife and kids.

We've already made a major step in reducing violent crime in the US, and that was by decentralizing public housing. A 64% reduction over 10 years.

Want to reduce it more? Legalize all drugs, and hand out meth, crack, and heroin free to any user who wants it.

The only criteria I would have for getting the free drugs is that you test positive for at least one of them.

Drug abuse is definitely a problem, but let's not be hasty in making correlations. We have to look at why people turn to those drugs and abusing them before making any hasty decisions.

That said, I'm all for legalizing and regulating most drugs. The really dangerous stuff, like Ecstasy or Crystalline Methaphetamine, should still be illegal, though, because such stuff is ridiculously harmful.

As a member of a teachers union, I'd like you to kiss my fucking ass.

Teachers Unions, lol.

Let's look at Newark, New Jersey as an example.

School district records show that in a four-year period (school years 2001-02 through 2004-05) only one or two tenured teachers were fired each year -- a total of five teachers fired in four years.

The Newark school district has about 3,850 tenured instructional staff. Many of them are hard-working, committed educators. But can it be true that no more than .032% of tenured teachers are unfit to teach school?

If it were really true that the union only kept good teachers from getting fired, then the district’s .032% firing rate would mean that the overwhelming majority of Newark kids go through the entire school system without ever encountering a bad tenured teacher.

Ok - that's fine, as long as the students are doing well. After all, they have such great teachers, who when tenured are nearly impossible to fire!

The Newark Public Schools official graduation rate in 2005-06 was 75.9%, but don't let that number fool you. Almost half (48.9%) of the students in that class “graduated” via the Special Review Assessment, a test that the state education commissioner proposed abolishing in 2005, saying that its easy availability “cheats students out of a high school education.” Put another way, last year only 38.8% of Newark seniors graduated with a normal high school diploma. Averaged over the previous four years, it turns out that a mere 30.6% of seniors have walked with that same diploma.

And it's not because they're poor in Newark (although some are).
On 13 out of 16 performance measures, Newark schools fare worse than schools in the same District Factor Groups (DFGs, which compare schools with the same socioeconomic status), as measured by the state:

Is it expensive?

In exchange for a low-quality Newark education, the government spent $18,035 per student in the 2004-05 school year, 38% more than the $13,050 spent on the average New Jersey student statewide. Taking the district's graduation rate into account, it costs $758,589.29 to produce one normal high school diploma.

All of this is from the Newark Star-Ledger.

Oh, and does tenure and the union really protect you if you're a shithead? Yes!

One teacher, according to documentation filed with the state, allegedly summoned a ten-year-old student to the front of her class and called her “a liar.” She then allegedly followed her student out of the class and told her “I am going to kick your a--, b--ch” before punching the student in the chest. Among other physical abuse episodes, the teacher reportedly also slapped a student in the face after the student accidentally caused her a minor injury.

This teacher was not fired -- the union negotiated that, in exchange for quitting, she was given nine months of pay, plus money for each unused vacation and sick day. The district promised not to tell any future employers of hers why she left -- even if she were working with kids again.

One gym teacher’s tenure is best described in his own quotes, allegedly said of girls (and their physical attributes) in his class: “You should get that now before she gets older” and “Look at those things.” After these obviously inappropriate episodes and attitudes were brought to light, the union negotiated that the teacher would be allowed to draw down another four months’ pay before leaving. And the district promised not to tell any future employers of his why he left -- even if he were working with young girls again.

Yeah, teachers unions are great at making crap schools and making sure that child abusers get rewarded.

It shows they aren't interested in being rehabilitated.

OR, it shows the system is failing.

Man, now you're going to get him doing everything with a gun. He'll be watching tv drunk one day and go to grab his remote and end up shooting his television. He'll be showering with it and nestling it in his arms while he sleeps...

or worse he could think he's answering the phone and shoot himself in the head. if my mum can answer the phone with a mug of tea...

Perhaps so. I cannot say as I've not investigated the matter.

So why not simply prevent them from becoming violent felons in the first place? One of the best ways we can do that is making better education available to the impoverished and lower middle class. Huey...

Consider this situation, for example:

Dan is a 38 year old male who lived in a lower class neighborhood in Los Angeles. He has grew up without access to decent education--what education he could access he was unable to take advantage of as he droped out of high school.

Frustrated with the system, Dan enrolled in Jr. College and got educational loans to pay bills and tuition. He lived in horrible places, at one point a garage even, and at one point an apartment so small he could not have both a bed and a couch so he just put the couch cusions on the floor and slept on them.

he worked menial jobs - dishwashing, washing boats, etc... to get money for food and beer, but the whole time he studied hard and maintained a GPA above 3.5. He became a reporter, news editor and eventually editor in chief of his school newspaper. Finally, he transferred to a four year college, California State University Long Beach and graduated magna-cum-laude with a BA in film. Today he works in the film industry making $80,000+/year and is moving up quickly.

Fixed.

It's all about choices.

OR, it shows the system is failing.
Exactly. Right now we don't have a comprehensive rehabilitation system set up. We have vague bits and pieces mixed into a system designed to punish without ever doing anything to help the criminals become better people and actually truly pay their debt to society. You don't pay a debt by rotting in a jail cell. You pay it by helping others, by having a job that can help you, your family, and society in general.

As a member of a teachers union, I'd like you to kiss my fucking ass.

They are a large part of the reason why so many schools are so shit. Still, you have to live in fucking lala land to actually believe that schools were run for the benefit of students in the first place.

Huey...



Fixed.

It's all about choices.

the difference between your example and the one you 'fixed' is that your guy has no dependants. having dependants fucks with your choices even if you choose to be an arsehole and leave them.

Huey...



Fixed.

It's all about choices.
And if it was that simple we wouldn't have the problem at all.

Yes, you pulled through. Guess what? Not everyone can with what they have on hand. You were lucky in many ways, and due to that luck you were able to put in a lot of hard work to get to where you are.

It's all about choices.It is all about choices--but generally, it's the choices that the parents make, not the choices the kids make. Your story is a great one, but like most fantasy stories, it only rarely comes true.

And if it was that simple we wouldn't have the problem at all.

Yes, you pulled through. Guess what? Not everyone can with what they have on hand. You were lucky in many ways, and due to that luck you were able to put in a lot of hard work to get to where you are.

No, it's more about choices than luck. The fact is that most kids who grow up in lower class neighborhoods, DON'T become crminals. Most Don't rape and murder children. Even kids who grow up and become alcoholic messes still don't rape and murder 11-year-olds during home invasion robberies.

There were 4 kids that I grew up with who were my everyday hang around kids we were all highschool drop outs.:

Martin: Went through drug abuse, mostly cocaine with the rest of us, ended up driving the car for an ATM robbery that ended up with the victim being shot and killed. He's still in prison after almost 20 years.

Steve: Same until the robbery. He would never do anything like that. They had actually asked him to come along once and he said no. Now he's a raging alcoholic who rents space at a trailer park in Eugene Or.

Mike: Same drug abuse, et. al... Worked menial jobs like me. Went to truck driving school. Has been driving for Pepsi or Coke or some shit now for 15 years and clears about $60,000. I'm the best man at his wedding in two months. She's not much to look at, but neither is he I guess. She's very, very cool, though, and she's an investment banker making $100,000 +.

Tony: Worked crappy jobs. Was actually homeless for a while, couch surfing as they call it. i put him up on the floor of the garage I lived in for two months. Got a job at a warehouse and through a long, tortured trail that had to do with learning the computers there and getting jobs becaue of that he now works for Perot Systems (yes, Ross Perot's company) and spent two weeks in India last month training people to take American jobs.

Aside fomr them, some of the more periphery people in the neighborhood kinda did the same things. Some of us ended up doing well, some of us not us well, none of us raped and murdered any children. It is about choices much more so than luck. By the way, having children when your 15 is a choice, and all of the four listed above were children of divorce and Tony was bounced from house to house his whole life. Steve was not a child of divorce, he was adopted by a family that was lilly white, ginger people and he was obviously Hispanic - there were self esteem issues there.

Sad story. I still won't support the death penalty though. Possibility of killing an innocent and all that. We've been through this before.

Glad nobody is attempting to claim that the death penalty would have stopped this, since it obviously didn't.

Also: WTF?!
Autopsy results released Wednesday revealed that Hawke-Petit was strangled to death, and her two daughters -- Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11 -- died from smoke inhalation, according to the state's Department of Public Safety. Watch how a family was terrorized while neighbors slept
:eek:

They are a large part of the reason why so many schools are so shit. Still, you have to live in fucking lala land to actually believe that schools were run for the benefit of students in the first place.

You left out the districts who play a HUGE part in this.

Take for example one district. They set up a million dollar computer center. It has 5 employees running it. Each one is a manager. Their job is mainly wandering the country going to conferences. The computers do nothing.

The teachers were asked to make sacrifices and yet the district allows crap like that go on.

Another example form awhile ago. The local university had funds cut buy the chancellor of the system. The chancellor then turned around and bought 6 Bronco II's (did I say this was awhile ago) as company cars for her and her staff.

The union does have a hand in the problem no doubt. But to suggest they are the problem is rather simple minded.

For pretty much all the reasons listed by previous posters, I'm still anti death penalty.

And Black Forest, I can't believe you sigged Molly Ivins. If I were to get religion I'd worship her.

The union does have a hand in the problem no doubt. But to suggest they are the problem is rather simple minded.

It's why I said large part. It is not solely to blame.

Anyway, that's exactly the type of thing the a teachers union should be raising hell about, and isn't apparently. I don't believe that teachers unions actually have the interest of the majority of teachers at heart either - never mind students.

Also, government employees shouldn't be unionized in the first place.

And Black Forest, I can't believe you sigged Molly Ivins. If I were to get religion I'd worship her.

:D I found that gem. And after listening to the cons here use the "bush hater" dismissal a little too often; it seemed a good signature to have.

It's why I said large part. It is not solely to blame.

Anyway, that's exactly the type of thing the a teachers union should be raising hell about, and isn't apparently. I don't believe that teachers unions actually have the interest of the majority of teachers at heart either - never mind students.

Well? In this climate of "unions are da ebil" I can see why they don't or nobody listens.

Teachers around here bitched about the joke of "no child left behind" lacking sufficient funds but nobody listened.

The blame can be pointed at everybody. Schools are supposed to be great but don't you dare raise my taxes!.

Or the shrubs answer "Buy stuff and heres another tax cut for the Rich...." ;)

Wow, nice to see some 'Justice by emotion' advocates on here.

These guys should never *EVER* be given the death penalty, way too easy a way out for them. Spent a couple of years in jail, squirt some bad mojo in theyre veins and end of punishment for them.
Pieces of vile trash like thes guys should be kept alive at all possible cost, just so they can reflect on how utterly fubar theyre lives are now that theyre locked up forever.

This is also one of 2 reasons why i'm against the death penalty, the other being the fact that i'd rather see 10 guilty men walk free then 1 innocent man put to death.

He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth.

My starsign combined with my moonsign tells me to kill my neighbours. Is it my fate? Can I resist fate? Should I be killed before I fulfill my fate?

I expected more from Mark.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

O Rly?

The death penalty lowers us to the level of criminals.

No not rly. But an exception has to be made in the case of the death penalty.

It is humanly impossible to be 100% accurate with every judgement we make. Taking that into account, it creates a grey area between criminals who we KNOW committed the crime and we KNOW deserve to die for it, and those who we're uncertain committed the crime or are uncertain they deserve to die for it. Drawing the line anywhere along that area is irresponsible, so it's best to err on the side of keeping people breathing in every case. Every once in a long while you hear of someone in jail being released because with the advent of DNA testing, or a confession by the true criminal, they are exonerated. So there's that.

I think Fleckenstein said something along these lines on page 1; we're not perfect, so we can't judge perfectly, and death is something you can't take back.

Having said all that, the two guys who are the subject of this post probably deserve to die. But we shouldn't kill them.

...

Having said all that, the two guys who are the subject of this post probably deserve to die. But we shouldn't kill them.
Agreed. I orlyed just because we all have heard it (an eye for an...) way too many times.

no one among us can pose as an absolute judge and pronounce the definitive elimination of the worst among the guilty, because no one of us can lay claim to absolute innocence

This is such a bullshit argument. You don't need to be absolutely innocent to sign the death warrant for a child murderer, who is absolutely not innocent. If we don't have the right to decide certain people should die then we shouldn't have the right to decide what is an acceptable system of laws or moral code or anything.

If you're so into shirking moral responsibility then isn't your whole "no one can judge anyone else" thing a judgement itself?

Forgive me for not contributing properly to the actual discussion of the death penalty, but I'm just shocked that something like this would happen in Cheshire. I live in that area (everything is kind of close to everything else in CT) and I've been to Cheshire...it's not the kind of place where these things happen(...at least until now, I guess).

The death penalty lowers us to the level of criminals.

Why? The death penalty for the wicked is lawful (and therefore not criminal), just, and the result of specific criminal actions. Kicking an old lady to death in the street for the purpose of robbing her is not lawful, unjust and is carried out in a callous, cruel and indifferent manner and has nothing to do with what the victim has "done".

I mean, come on. It's like the difference between shooting a baby in a pram and shooting a man rushing you with a butcher knife while shouting death threats.

Why? The death penalty for the wicked is lawful (and therefore not criminal), just, and the result of specific criminal actions. Kicking an old lady to death in the street for the purpose of robbing her is not lawful, unjust and is carried out in a callous, cruel and indifferent manner and has nothing to do with what the victim has "done".

I mean, come on. It's like the difference between shooting a baby in a pram and shooting a man rushing you with a butcher knife while shouting death threats.
That could be a proper argument if the justice system never failed.

If the penalty for extinguishing a human life is death, who executes the executioner? If you don't, that means you have justified murder in certain circumstances. As soon as you start making rules for when a human life is worthless, your own humanity is compromised. If you are prepared to murder given the right circumstances, should you be executed before you do it, to protect society?

Why? The death penalty for the wicked is lawful (and therefore not criminal), just, and the result of specific criminal actions. Kicking an old lady to death in the street for the purpose of robbing her is not lawful, unjust and is carried out in a callous, cruel and indifferent manner and has nothing to do with what the victim has "done".

I mean, come on. It's like the difference between shooting a baby in a pram and shooting a man rushing you with a butcher knife while shouting death threats.


I fail to see why we must lower ourselves to their level just because
'DERE 3VILZZ!!!!11111!!1one'

Some additional deaths wouldn't solve anything.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

since when do we have a right to vengeance? i've never seen that in any bill of rights.

Its a natural right, it doesn't need to be in any bill of rights.

That sucks. Did he just start going whacky? I remember him and he was pretty funny. Didn't seem to push too hard back in the day... Has he changed his monicker and tried again?

He's DOS. Delete on sight. If the mods find anyone that could be him, they have the license to kill.

Yes, yes, by all means just shoot the %#&*ers. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I do not feel like arguing; to each his own.

It's not whether or not they "deserve" to die (which, they obviously do), but simply a matter of improving society. Society is better-off without them; true, once in a while these people reform and become productive members of the nation, but statistically speaking, the death penalty is far superior to jail or rehab if you can eliminate the obscene cost.

Its a natural right, it doesn't need to be in any bill of rights.

Correct. The right to defaecate isn't specified in there either.

I fail to see why we must lower ourselves to their level just because
'DERE 3VILZZ!!!!11111!!1one'

Tsk-tsk. It's simply practical to kill criminals (of these types). If I were emotional, I'd torture them, but I'm practical.

Its a natural right, it doesn't need to be in any bill of rights.

Bloody true. The desire for vengeance is every inch as natural a desire and emotion as love or compassion, the great watchwords of our age.

Its a natural right, it doesn't need to be in any bill of rights.

and that's stupid. One can argue anything is a "natural right". In a full state of nature everything a natural right.

State of nature however is a rather horrible place to live. And that's why we created governments and society to protect us. We left the state of nature and agree that in order to have protection, to have laws, to have society, we give up our right to beat up someone who called us a nasty name.

the death penalty is far superior to jail or rehab if you can eliminate the obscene cost.

Superiour...how?

Superiour...how?

It is SUPERIOR insofar as it is cheaper, and avoids the tiresome process whereby murderers receive parole, and then proceed, for the most part, to reoffend.

:)

We need to have better death penalties. These guys should get raped to death slowly over a few days. :)

They should let the father/husband who family was raped and murdered by these guys hire the men to rape them to death over a few days.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/25/home.invasion/index.html

I've become less and less enamored with the death penalty as I get older and my political views have shifted...but these two need the Vlad-the-Impaler treatment...sans grease.

Ditto here.

Wow, I didn't know you were for the death penalty.

I am also for the death penalty, but not out of vengeance (it doesn't bring any victims back), or deterrence (you deter by the certainty of capture AND conviction).

I believe it's only use is to prevent recidivism. Someone imprisoned for life doesn't guarantee he won't kill again (he can kill in prison), or guarantee he'll never be released (governments change and get sympathetic to killers).

The only reason the US system costs so much is the inane system of appeals. While there need to be safeguards on imposing the death penalty (I think that it should take far more than eyewitness testimony), the appeals process should have two steps and that's it. 30 days between each hearing.

If, for example, you're caught on video shooting someone, and they have your DNA evidence that you raped the victim, and the victim's blood is on your clothing (DNA again), AND there are survivors who witnessed the whole thing - well, give him his fair trial, his two step appeal, and take him out back and shoot him in the head.

If there's reasonable doubt - not guilty. If there's a guilty verdict, but it doesn't meet the standard of "we have him six ways to Sunday" then a life sentence without parole.

Really, you can't do to these people as much as they did to their victims. Why waste the time and money?

Ditto here, and THAT is the chief reason for the death penalty - to prevent recidivism. Because an executed criminal has no prison to esacape from, no chance of winning an appeal, no opportunity to become a repeat offender.

But I also agree with the "reasonable doubt" thing, because this IS somebody's LIFE we're talking about ending here, therefore we should be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it is a GUILTY person, not an innocent one, that is being sent to the chair/gas chamber/gallows/whatever.

It is SUPERIOR insofar as it is cheaper, and avoids the tiresome process whereby murderers receive parole, and then proceed, for the most part, to reoffend.

YES. THIS is the bone I have to pick with the anti-death penalty crowd, because I get the distinct impression that they want these offenders to have as many chances as possible to commit as many crimes/offences as possible, so they claim the death penalty is "cruel" or "barbaric", when what they really mean is "we want these people back on the streets as soon as possible so they can rob/assault/rape/kill/whatever you and yours and (any/every)-body else they want to", all in the name of "social justice".

He's DOS. Delete on sight. If the mods find anyone that could be him, they have the license to kill.

What does "DOS" mean? Besides "Disk Operating System", I mean? :D

*Grew up in '80s; still remembers "MS-DOS"*

It is SUPERIOR insofar as it is cheaper, and avoids the tiresome process whereby murderers receive parole, and then proceed, for the most part, to reoffend.

And shooting any and all suspects involved in a crime is cheaper and less tiresome than that.

Your point?

It is SUPERIOR insofar as it is cheaper, and avoids the tiresome process whereby murderers receive parole, and then proceed, for the most part, to reoffend.

Do me a favor. Please point out to me those prisoners who are eligible for death penalty who would otherwise, but for the death penalty, get a term of years sentence.

Maybe it exists in some jurisdictions, however, in my knowledge, anyone who could possibly receive a penalty of death would, as the only other alternative, receive life without possibility of parole.

So really, when you have a "murderer who receives parole" if they were granted parole at all then they didn't commit an offense punishable by death.

To my knowledge, and admittedly I may be wrong and if I am please show me, the only alternative to death is life without parole.

Ditto here.



Ditto here, and THAT is the chief reason for the death penalty - to prevent recidivism. Because an executed criminal has no prison to esacape from, no chance of winning an appeal, no opportunity to become a repeat offender.

But I also agree with the "reasonable doubt" thing, because this IS somebody's LIFE we're talking about ending here, therefore we should be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it is a GUILTY person, not an innocent one, that is being sent to the chair/gas chamber/gallows/whatever.

YES. THIS is the bone I have to pick with the anti-death penalty crowd, because I get the distinct impression that they want these offenders to have as many chances as possible to commit as many crimes/offences as possible, so they claim the death penalty is "cruel" or "barbaric", when what they really mean is "we want these people back on the streets as soon as possible so they can rob/assault/rape/kill/whatever you and yours and (any/every)-body else they want to", all in the name of "social justice".

Don't get me wrong here; what I'm talking about is repeat violent offenders who are "recidivizing" or however you say it (i.e. they've commited serious offenses in the past, and have been released from prison on parole or technicalities or whatnot).

YES. THIS is the bone I have to pick with the anti-death penalty crowd, because I get the distinct impression that they want these offenders to have as many chances as possible to commit as many crimes/offences as possible, so they claim the death penalty is "cruel" or "barbaric", when what they really mean is "we want these people back on the streets as soon as possible so they can rob/assault/rape/kill/whatever you and yours and (any/every)-body else they want to", all in the name of "social justice".

and the bone I have to pick with the pro-death penalty crowd is either their willingness to mis-state the law, or their complete ignorance of it.

I'll offer you the same challenge, please find me one convicted criminal, convicted of a crime for which he could have received the death penalty, but was given a term of years with a parole option.

Because to my knowledge, in EVERY state that has the death penalty, the alternative punishment for a capital offense is life in prison.

The second bone I have to pick with this pro death position is that somehow it creates the ludicrus proposition that those of us who don't support killing other people somehow are not in favor of life in prision. Because frankly there's one hell of a big, stupid, and massivly illogical leap to go from "I don't support killing people" to "I think criminals should be out on the street ASAP"

Ditto here.



Ditto here, and THAT is the chief reason for the death penalty - to prevent recidivism. Because an executed criminal has ... no chance of winning an appeal

But I also agree with the "reasonable doubt" thing, because this IS somebody's LIFE we're talking about ending here, therefore we should be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it is a GUILTY person, not an innocent one, that is being sent to the chair/gas chamber/gallows/whatever.

Frankly your first statement in no way jives with your second, and is also a pretty stupid point, for two reasons:

a) the whole point of "winning an appeal" is that, if you win an appeal, it means somebody on the other side, *gasp*, did something wrong. The prosecution violated procedure. The only time there is real, true, reversable error is that the revelation of that error calls into question the defendant's guilt. The idea that we should execute people so that they can't win an appeal is not only stupid, it's barbaric. You basically say that we should execute people, once convicted, so they don't have a chance to show error at trial and demonstrate that they might not in fact be guilty.

That statement is staggeringly mind boggling. An executed person does not have a chance of winning an appeal, this is true. However by definition, if they could have won their appeal they should not have been executed in the first place!

b) we don't actually allow the death penalty in this country until every single possible appeal is exhausted, including a special appeal that only those sent to death get. For reasons why, see section A.

:)

We need to have better death penalties. These guys should get raped to death slowly over a few days. :)



They should let the father/husband who family was raped and murdered by these guys hire the men to rape them to death over a few days.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/25/home.invasion/index.html

Wait... where in the article does it say the family were raped? Not that that would change the horridness of the crime, but you seem to be going for the eye for an eye thing and I didn't read rape in the article.

And I could never be for the death penalty. Why should we sink to he level of these creeps and give them the satisfaction of a quick death? Isn't it much more of a punishment to die slowly in prison thinking every day of what they did and what they have to pay for it? Plus, it has been said before and I will say it again: what good does another death do?

And, no offense, but putting a smily next to a suggestion that someone be raped is... just slightly sickening.

What does "DOS" mean? Besides "Disk Operating System", I mean? :D

*Grew up in '80s; still remembers "MS-DOS"*

Delete on sight.

And shooting any and all suspects involved in a crime is cheaper and less tiresome than that.

Your point?

Well, for one thing, we're paying the Government to protect us from crime, not harm us. The death penalty hurts merely the guilty party, and protects the innocent parties. However, "shooting any and all suspects" harms innocent parties.

:)

We need to have better death penalties. These guys should get raped to death slowly over a few days. :)


What a nice person you are. :rolleyes:

What a nice person you are. :rolleyes:

You really should address that sarcasm to one of the guilty party rather then this fellow.

You really should address that sarcasm to one of the guilty party rather then this fellow.

Why? PD doesn't seem all that different from them. Well, apart from them actually raping and killing people and him just wanting people to be raped and killed.

...them actually raping...

And they didn't do that in this case...granted, they deserve punishment, but PsychoticDan's method is more barbaric than the crime itself. Like "an eye for a head".

Well, for one thing, we're paying the Government to protect us from crime, not harm us. The death penalty hurts merely the guilty party, and protects the innocent parties. However, "shooting any and all suspects" harms innocent parties.

Fine, we won't shoot the suspects, just those proven guilty.

Of anything.

Littering? Dead. Jaywalking? Bullet to the face. Adultery? Head chopped off.

Why? PD doesn't seem all that different from them. Well, apart from them actually raping and killing people and him just wanting people to be raped and killed.

Right. And Christians say thinking the crime is as bad as committing it. Are you a Christian?

Fine, we won't shoot the suspects, just those proven guilty.

Of anything.

Littering? Dead. Jaywalking? Bullet to the face. Adultery? Head chopped off.

I'm happy with anyone convicted of a violent felony, as long as there is hard evidence (read: confessions and eyewitness testimony alone sucks). Video, DNA, good chain of custody of evidence, solid technical evidence.

And they didn't do that in this case...granted, they deserve punishment, but PsychoticDan's method is more barbaric than the crime itself. Like "an eye for a head".

Ah, I haven't caught up with the thread yet.

Right. And Christians say thinking the crime is as bad as committing it. Are you a Christian?

No, why?

Fine, we won't shoot the suspects, just those proven guilty.

Of anything.

Littering? Dead. Jaywalking? Bullet to the face. Adultery? Head chopped off.

Not unless you're my brother, who concurs. :p No, the death penalty for murder, and castration for rape.

No, why?

Because you're acting like one. If you think PsychoticDan is as bad as the fellows we're talking about, you're very Christian. Christians believe thinking the crime is as bad as committing it.

Because you're acting like one. If think PsychoticDan is as bad as the fellows we're talking about, you're very Christian. Christians believe thinking the crime is as bad as committing it.

Erm...so if you believe that thinking about committing the crime is as bad as committing the crime itself, that makes you an automatic christian?

Forgive me for the confusion, but that really, honestly makes no sense.

Erm...so if you believe that thinking about committing the crime is as bad as committing the crime itself, that makes you an automatic christian?

Forgive me for the confusion, but that really, honestly makes no sense.

It makes you a lot more Christian then me my friend. Another example: you think we should refrain from the death-penalty. So does Jesus Christ. You're getting more Christian by the minute!

you think we should refrain from the death-penalty.

I don't recall saying that...

I don't recall saying that...

Oh, you don't? Well, it's true you didn't say it, I just assumed.... But, I'm guessing you're anti-death-penalty. If you're not, then you're taking steps away from the Savior. Tsk-tsk-tsk.

Oh, you don't? Well, it's true you didn't say it, I just assumed.... But, I'm guessing you're anti-death-penalty. If you're not, then you're taking steps away from the Savior. Tsk-tsk-tsk.

*step* *step* *step* *step*

Oh, man. I made this thread and now you guys have splattered your poo all over it. :(

*step* *step* *step* *step*

STOP!!! Haven't you read Dante's Inferno?

STOP!!! Haven't you read Dante's Inferno?

Nope. :D

And PsychoticDan, I just thought that your decided way on the death penalty was...in my own words, more barbaric than the crime itself.

Death Penalty is good if you believe in heaven and hell, 'cause then the guys are 'going to hell'.

But, I don't, so don't agree with it, I mean...let 'em rot in hell, death is the easy way out. ;/

Because you're acting like one. If you think PsychoticDan is as bad as the fellows we're talking about, you're very Christian. Christians believe thinking the crime is as bad as committing it.

No, I'm making a point. PD wants some people to die because they killed someone, and apparently he can't see the ridiculousness in that. Nor can you.

No, I'm making a point. PD wants some people to die because they killed someone, and apparently he can't see the ridiculousness in that. Nor can you.

It's ridiculous to compare the death by lethal injection of a convicted murderer to the death of an 11 year old girl who was raped and murdered in her home. Of all the anti death penalty arguments that is by far the stupidest. The fact that I have no problem seeing the criminals in this story fry does not in any way make my like them. I did not, nor would I ever, rape and murder an 11-year-old girl.

On another note, here's the next one to die! :) I'm happy about it and it doesn't make me like him at all!

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/law/08/07/couey.law.ap/art.couey.gi.jpg

Bound and buried near her home, possibly while still alive, Jessica cradled in her arms a stuffed toy dolphin, the documents say.

It was the same stuffed animal that was missing from the girl's home in Homosassa, Florida, when she disappeared, police have said. Her father won the toy for her at a fair shortly before she was abducted February 23.

In a letter found by investigators, convicted sex offender Couey confessed to killing the girl, law enforcement sources told CNN. In a previous confession to authorities, Couey said he buried the girl alive, sources have said.

Police said Couey confessed March 18, a day after he was arrested, and helped them find Jessica's body. A large-scale search involving hundreds of volunteers had failed to find the site, only a few hundred yards from the Lunsfords' home.

Jessica's body was found buried behind a house where Couey lived with his half-sister. Her body was covered by garbage bags, documents said, and her hands were bound with what appeared to be stereo wire.

Authorities have charged Couey, 46, with capital murder, burglary with battery, kidnapping and sexual battery on a child younger than 12 in Jessica's abduction and death. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. A judge has ordered him to provide handwriting and DNA samples to prosecutors.

A preliminary autopsy report has said Jessica died after being sexually assaulted, but Hernando County Medical Examiner Steven Cogswell said Wednesday that the final report is pending and the cause of the child's death might never be known.

It's ridiculous to compare the death by lethal injection of a convicted murderer to the death of an 11 year old girl who was raped and murdered in her home. Of all the anti death penalty arguments that is by far the stupidest.
Since you appear to only value the lives of young girls I'm sure you wouldn't understand an argument that centers on the idea that all life is to be valued equally and highly.
The fact that I have no problem seeing the criminals in this story fry does not in any way make my like them. I did not, nor would I ever, rape and murder an 11-year-old girl.
No, the fact that you take pleasure in the suffering of another makes you like them. Hide it behind all the appeals to emotion you want, if it helps you sleep at night, but nobody is fooled.

On another note, here's the next one to die! :) I'm happy about it and it doesn't make me like him at all!
Of course it doesn't. *pat pat*

Since you appear to only value the lives of young girlsI value the lives of people who deserve their lives to be valued. You don't really have to do much to deserve it. Just don't murder innocent people.


I'm sure you wouldn't understand an argument that centers on the idea that all life is to be valued equally and highly.You're right. I don't understand the stupidity that says that these criminals who have done nothing but rob, steal from and ultimately murder innocent people have lives that are as valuable as the people they murder. At all.

No, the fact that you take pleasure in the suffering of another makes you like them. Hide it behind all the appeals to emotion you want, if it helps you sleep at night, but nobody is fooled. I don't take pleasure in their suffering. I'm just glad to see them go.

What nobody is fooled by is the stupid argument that says that someone who has no problem with the death penalty is somehow the moral equivalent of someone who would abduct, rape and bury alive Jessica Lundsford... or Lacy Peterson or the guy behind the counter at teh 7-11 that Tookie Williams robbed.

Seriously... Make a better argument. Tell me that the Death Penalty is wrong because you may put innocent people to death by accident. Tell me that it costs too much money to implement becaue the necessary system of appeals is too costly. Tell me that jurers in a capital case are less likely to convict a guilty person if they know that they may be signing his death warrant. Tell me that it is unevenly applied to racial minorities. Anything but the assinine comparison that me sitting here thinking that I hope the people who shot those kids execution style in Newark a couple days ago get the death penalty means I'm like the people that pulled the triggers. That's stupid.

I don't take pleasure in their suffering. I'm just glad to see them go.

Bullshit you don't.

What nobody is fooled by is the stupid argument that says that someone who has no problem with the death penalty is somehow the moral equivalent of someone who would abduct, rape and bury alive Jessica Lundsford... or Lacy Peterson or the guy behind the counter at teh 7-11 that Tookie Williams robbed.

Let me make sure, and all I want from you is a yes or a no. No rhetoric, no bullshit, just a yes or a no.

Do you support the taking of human life?

but the assinine comparison that me sitting here thinking that I hope the people who shot those kids execution style in Newark a couple days ago get the death penalty means I'm like the people that pulled the triggers. That's stupid.

Again, answer my question. Do you, or do you not advocate taking of human life?

yes or no?

:)

We need to have better death penalties. These guys should get raped to death slowly over a few days. :)

They should let the father/husband who family was raped and murdered by these guys hire the men to rape them to death over a few days.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/25/home.invasion/index.html

Are you allowed to say that? :confused:

Bullshit you don't.If I was eating corn flakes and watching reruns of I love Lucy and you told me they were putting these guys to death I would only stop chewing long enough to tell you not to interupt my television program.



Let me make sure, and all I want from you is a yes or a no. No rhetoric, no bullshit, just a yes or a no.

Do you support the taking of human life?



Again, answer my question. Do you, or do you not advocate taking of human life?

yes or no?

I have no problem with the taking of these lives. I have a big problem with the taking of the victims lives.

Now let me ask you a question. Would you support the taking of Karl Rove's life? Dick Cheney's? George Bush's? What if you had the chance to take their lives before 2000?

Are you allowed to say that? :confused:

I think the flame rule applies to members here.

If I was eating corn flakes and watching reruns of I Love Lucy and you told me they were putting these guys to death I would only stop chewing long enough to tell you not to interupt my television program.

No. You may not use that show to justify yourself. Anyone else would do the same. Pick another show.

I think the flame rule applies to members here.

I meant that if you had added "while their children watch", and mentioned AIDS, you would be so outta here.

I meant that if you had added "while their children watch", and mentioned AIDS, you would be so outta here.

I think that depends. I think if I wrote, "I hope George Bush dies from AIDS while Iraqi children watched," it wouldn't be a problem. :)

No. You may not use that show to justify yourself. Anyone else would do the same. Pick another show.

The DVD release of all teh episodes of the great Saturday morning cartoon "Hong Kong Phooey."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfeAqlYv2wQ


http://www.graphicmail.com/members/3104/ftp/Pictures/hong_kong_phooey.jpg

This sums-it-up: all lives are not equal in my eyes. Some are worth more then others. When a life is worth less then nothing, as is the case with these guys, it must go. It is simply red-ink for society. It goes around doing damage, taking black-ink lives and must be dealt with accordingly.

I think that depends. I think if I wrote, "I hope George Bush dies from AIDS while Iraqi children watched," it wouldn't be a problem. :)

I was referring to DCD's raison de ne pas être.

Now let me ask you a question. Would you support the taking of Karl Rove's life? Dick Cheney's? George Bush's? What if you had the chance to take their lives before 2000?

absolutly not. The only time it is acceptable to take a human life is in defense of self, defense of others or defense of nation. None of those situations qualifies.

Now if you want to ask if I would support the right of a now dead innocent iraqi civilian to take the life of George Bush if that individual had some precognitive awareness of what was going to happen....maybe. But that's because it is in direct defense of that own individual's life.

absolutly not. The only time it is acceptable to take a human life is in defense of self, defense of others or defense of nation. None of those situations qualifies.

Now if you want to ask if I would support the right of a now dead innocent iraqi civilian to take the life of George Bush if that individual had some precognitive awareness of what was going to happen....maybe. But that's because it is in direct defense of that own individual's life.

Well then, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe an individual should have the right to summarily take a person't life for any reason other than the reasons you outline above, but I do believe that a court of law should be ableto sentence a person to death who has taken another person's life under aggravating circumstances, i.e. to rape them or to rob them or for sport or because they like the feeling of someone dying in their hands. Further, the fact that I do belive that, in my opinion, does not make me comparable to a rapist/murderer, a home invasion robber who kills his victims to remain unidentified or a serial killer.

I do have to admit, though, I would take the opportunity to kill George Bush. Not because I hate him and want to see him suffer, but because in hidsight his election may very well turn out to be one of the worst things that has vere happened to our country and our world.

I do have to admit, though, I would take the opportunity to kill George Bush. Not because I hate him and want to see him suffer, but because in hidsight his election may very well turn out to be one of the worst things that has vere happened to our country and our world.

That would be rather dumb; then Cheney would be in office.

absolutly not. The only time it is acceptable to take a human life is in defense of self, defense of others or defense of nation. None of those situations qualifies.

Now if you want to ask if I would support the right of a now dead innocent iraqi civilian to take the life of George Bush if that individual had some precognitive awareness of what was going to happen....maybe. But that's because it is in direct defense of that own individual's life.

I can see you're no idiot. But, let me ask you this: if someone were planning on assassinating Bush today, and you could warn him, would you?

That would be rather dumb; then Cheney would be in office.

No way. Gore could beat Cheney. He actually did beat Bush.

Further, the fact that I do belive that, in my opinion, does not make me comparable to a rapist/murderer, a home invasion robber who kills his victims to remain unidentified or a serial killer.

You support the taking of someone's life when there is no necessary reason to do so. You support killing someone when there is no defensive reason to do so.

You support killing. You can play that any way you want, twist it any way you want, but at the end of the day you support taking of a human life when there is no necessary reason to do so. How does that not make you as bad as any other murderer?

So if an innocent person is unjustly executed should their families be allowed murder the judges, witnesses, executioners etc.?to make themselves feel better. The US is in great company with other death penalty fans like China,North Korea,Saudi Arabia and Iran

So if an innocent person is unjustly executed should their families be allowed murder the judges, witnesses, executioners etc.?to make themselves feel better. The US is in great company with other death penalty fans like China,North Korea,Saudi Arabia and Iran

:D
I'm so using that first line someday.

You support the taking of someone's life when there is no necessary reason to do so. You support killing someone when there is no defensive reason to do so.

You support killing. You can play that any way you want, twist it any way you want, but at the end of the day you support taking of a human life when there is no necessary reason to do so. How does that not make you as bad as any other murderer?

That's a moral equivalency that you subscribe to. I don't. Would you rather live next door to me or the guys in the OP? You can spin it any way you want also. No matter how you do, though, I still will never agree that death penalty advocate is the moral equivalent of a pedophile murderer. Any further argument will just be going around in circles. That's why I said we'll just have to agree to disagree. You'll not change my mind anymore than I can change yours.

So if an innocent person is unjustly executed should their families be allowed murder the judges, witnesses, executioners etc.?to make themselves feel better.

No more than I would support you right to kill someone who accidentally backed over your son while he was playing baseball in the street.

Do me a favor. Please point out to me those prisoners who are eligible for death penalty who would otherwise, but for the death penalty, get a term of years sentence.

Maybe it exists in some jurisdictions, however, in my knowledge, anyone who could possibly receive a penalty of death would, as the only other alternative, receive life without possibility of parole.

So really, when you have a "murderer who receives parole" if they were granted parole at all then they didn't commit an offense punishable by death.

To my knowledge, and admittedly I may be wrong and if I am please show me, the only alternative to death is life without parole.

Not in the UK. Sadly, we make a habit of releasing murderers fater as little as 30 years at times.

Sorry for any misunderstanding; unlike the US, our criminal justice system has no spine.

No more than I would support you right to kill someone who accidentally backed over your son while he was playing baseball in the street.

But you're assuming it's an accident. Many of these recent cases show that prosecutors have gone after the death penalty in situations where they know the evidence is shaky, or have pressured witnesses to make statements they weren't originally willing to make. This isn't just casual error we're talking about here--it's cases of prosecutors or DAs who want to advance their careers by getting death penalty convictions and who are willing to ignore ethical considerations to do it.

But you're assuming it's an accident. Many of these recent cases show that prosecutors have gone after the death penalty in situations where they know the evidence is shaky, or have pressured witnesses to make statements they weren't originally willing to make. This isn't just casual error we're talking about here--it's cases of prosecutors or DAs who want to advance their careers by getting death penalty convictions and who are willing to ignore ethical considerations to do it.

Now that's an argument I can sink my teeth into. It's got merit, and unlike the moral equivalency bullshit it's one I can understand and so wrestle with sometimes. Obviously in any case like that I think a DA should at the very least do time and if the death penalty is actually carried out I think the DA is culpable to murder and should be tried for it. I still don't think that that reaches the level of depravity that the two stories I posted in this thread do, but I think in that case at least a life sentence is probably warrented. It's hard when you're not giving me a specific case like the two I posted in here. For example, did the DA do what he did as part of over zelously prosecuting his case or did he do it because he's screwing the guy's wife and he wants him out of the way? In any case, this is the kind of anti death penalty argument that is persuasive to me. Probably the most persuasive to me is the argument that guilty people may go free in the face of strong evidence because a jury is less likely to convict if they know they're basically killing the guy.

Now that's an argument I can sink my teeth into. It's got merit, and unlike the moral equivalency bullshit it's one I can understand and so wrestle with sometimes. Obviously in any case like that I think a DA should at the very least do time and if the death penalty is actually carried out I think the DA is culpable to murder and should be tried for it. I still don't think that that reaches the level of depravity that the two stories I posted in this thread do, but I think in that case at least a life sentence is probably warrented. It's hard when you're not giving me a specific case like the two I posted in here. For example, did the DA do what he did as part of over zelously prosecuting his case or did he do it because he's screwing the guy's wife and he wants him out of the way? In any case, this is the kind of anti death penalty argument that is persuasive to me. Probably the most persuasive to me is the argument that guilty people may go free in the face of strong evidence because a jury is less likely to convict if they know they're basically killing the guy.Well look--I'm not playing any moral equivalency games here. I'm opposed to the death penalty because the chances that we will execute an innocent person are too great to satisfy me--assuming it hasn't already happened, and there's strong reason to believe it has. Given the number of people released from death row on DNA evidence alone in the last ten years, the probability approaches certainty that it has already happened, and more than once. I don't care why the innocent person was executed--whether through carelessness, incompetence or malice--that innocent person is still dead and our society killed him or her. I have a major problem with that.

So here's the equation--we can either execute people like the ones you mentioned and accept that there are going to be innocents executed as well, because the system will always be fraught with doubt, or we can execute no one, and say that justice will be served by removing people like the ones you mentioned from society for the rest of their lives--life without parole--but we won't execute anyone unjustly. I know what I want my society to pick.

And people wonder why I answer the door with a pistol in hand...you started doing that the day after you gave me your address.. didn't you? :D

Well look--I'm not playing any moral equivalency games here. I'm opposed to the death penalty because the chances that we will execute an innocent person are too great to satisfy me--assuming it hasn't already happened, and there's strong reason to believe it has. Given the number of people released from death row on DNA evidence alone in the last ten years, the probability approaches certainty that it has already happened, and more than once. I don't care why the innocent person was executed--whether through carelessness, incompetence or malice--that innocent person is still dead and our society killed him or her. I have a major problem with that.

So here's the equation--we can either execute people like the ones you mentioned and accept that there are going to be innocents executed as well, because the system will always be fraught with doubt, or we can execute no one, and say that justice will be served by removing people like the ones you mentioned from society for the rest of their lives--life without parole--but we won't execute anyone unjustly. I know what I want my society to pick.

Well, I'm going to the bar right now to meet a nice girl and listen to this great band play some Motown oldies so I can't keep debating, but I do wrestle with that. To be honest, I posted this thread as a visceral reaction to the crime in question which is why I said the perps should be raped to death. That's more of a feeling of the revenge I'd like to see the poor father and husband in this case have than because I honestly think our courts should be handing out "rape to death sentences." From what I read about the victims they seemed like very nice, productive and altruistic people who balanced a sense of community resposibility and charity with ambition and drive. From what I read about the perps we'd probably all be better off if they were removed from the gene pool. That's the main reason I left the thread. I only hopped back in because the debate had turned into the "doesn't that make you just like them" debate and that's just such bullshit, as far as I am concerned. So, in short, I admit I waffle on the death penalty at about the same rate I waffle between my empathy for victims and my dispassionate observance of how the death penalty is applied, but if I were to ever doan the anti-death penalty activist mantle, these particular criminals would not be my poster children for mercy. I'll not shed a tear when they're gone.

Well, I'm going to the bar right now to meet a nice girl and listen to this great band play some Motown oldies so I can't keep debating, but I do wrestle with that. To be honest, I posted this thread as a visceral reaction to the crime in question which is why I said the perps should be raped to death. That's more of a feeling of the revenge I'd like to see the poor father and husband in this case have than because I honestly think our courts should be handing out "rape to death sentences." From what I read about the victims they seemed like very nice, productive and altruistic people who balanced a sense of community resposibility and charity with ambition and drive. From what I read about the perps we'd probably all be better off if they were removed from the gene pool. That's the main reason I left the thread. I only hopped back in because the debate had turned into the "doesn't that make you just like them" debate and that's just such bullshit, as far as I am concerned. So, in short, I admit I waffle on the death penalty at about the same rate I waffle between my empathy for victims and my dispassionate observance of how the death penalty is applied, but if I were to ever doan the anti-death penalty activist mantle, these particular criminals would not be my poster children for mercy. I'll not shed a tear when they're gone.

Enjoy the music, and when you have some time, if you've never read The Oresteia by Aeschylus, read it. If you have read it, reread it. It's relevant today because it's a great set of plays about the folly of revenge when it's mixed with the system of justice.

Hail Satnan
i think that the ancient eye by eye law must be completly accepted, because come on lets be honest :sniper: someone kill your son what you want to happen to the criminal, laws must controll people thats what i think and i defenitly now it is the only way :headbang: why be so stupid and let muredes keep going stop them in a permanent way thats the option

Not in the UK. Sadly, we make a habit of releasing murderers fater as little as 30 years at times.

Sorry for any misunderstanding; unlike the US, our criminal justice system has no spine.

A refusal to kill criminals does not show a lack of spine, it shows rigid adherance to principles of Justice as opposed to Vengeance.
Also I would bet that that the perps won't be executed if they are White based on the numbers of Black people on death row

While many people here are raving on about how good they think the death penalty is, there's also one small point (that someone else may have made, but I haven't read all of the posts).

There's still some poor bastard who has to flick the switch, pull the lever or whatever to end someone else's life IN COLD BLOOD. Killing someone in war or as self-defense is one thing, but killing someone who is strapped down in a chair, or on a table is a whole different matter.

Dead men can't be repeat offenders.

Dead men also can't be released when proven innocent.