• Monster gets 422 years for 19-hour rape and torture of Columbia student
    1,020 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22691594]How am I on an emotional high horse? If the legal system wasn't so fucked up that putting this fucker down would cost millions in paperwork it would be a lot more efficient to just kill the damn guy[/QUOTE] Legal system is fucked altogether and IMO needs a total rewrite.
19 hours straight? Damn.
[QUOTE=johanz;22691608]Legal system is fucked altogether and IMO needs a total rewrite.[/QUOTE] You're right, but I don't see why everyone is so against just getting rid of this guy. Murder is rarely justified, and this would be one of those cases for a few reasons. 1. Is never going to be rehabilitated or re-integrated into society 2. If we're pretending our legal system is ideal and execution won't cost more than just leaving him alive, it would be a lot more efficient. 3. It's more merciful than leaving him in prison. (I don't really give a fuck if he receives mercy personally, but a big reason a lot of people are against capital punishment is because it seems cruel in some cases)
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22691594]How am I on an emotional high horse? If the legal system wasn't so fucked up that putting this fucker down would cost millions in paperwork it would be a lot more efficient to just kill the damn guy[/QUOTE] That inefficiency is what prevents innocent people meeting that fate. to some extent, anyways. edit: Read what you're posting. Not only do you want to give the state the power to kill people, but you want to take away people's ability to fight that judgment.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22691672]You're right, but I don't see why everyone is so against just getting rid of this guy. Murder is rarely justified, and this would be one of those cases for a few reasons. 1. Is never going to be rehabilitated or re-integrated into society 2. If we're pretending our legal system is ideal and execution won't cost more than just leaving him alive, it would be a lot more efficient. 3. It's more merciful than leaving him in prison. (I don't really give a fuck if he receives mercy personally, but a big reason a lot of people are against capital punishment is because it seems cruel in some cases)[/QUOTE] 1. Rehabilitation can't be ruled out completely, in any case. 2. If execution costs less than a life sentence, hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent people will start being killed. 3. Says who? It's not your decision. It's his. If he wants to kill himself, he will. You don't make that decision for him.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22691672]You're right, but I don't see why everyone is so against just getting rid of this guy. Murder is rarely justified, and this would be one of those cases for a few reasons. 1. Is never going to be rehabilitated or re-integrated into society 2. If we're pretending our legal system is ideal and execution won't cost more than just leaving him alive, it would be a lot more efficient. 3. It's more merciful than leaving him in prison. (I don't really give a fuck if he receives mercy personally, but a big reason a lot of people are against capital punishment is because it seems cruel in some cases)[/QUOTE] I know. There should only be the death penalty with overwhelming eyewitness, DNA, or video evidence of a brutal crime which could be a scenario like this or 1st degree murder of more than 1 person. If the death penalty worked like that then you should get one appeal and if there is any doubt of guilt during the appeal then life in prison, which is cheaper than having multiple appeals and staying on death row for decades. This is an overwhelming open and shut case of a disgusting display of human evil. What does putting him in a box for 23 hours a day and just forgetting about him accomplish other than allowing us to call those who want to actually get it over with "barbarians." There seem to be several types of people in the death penalty issue: 1. Life is a right for anyone, taking it away is barbaric 2. Life in prison is worse than the easy way out, he gets more pain out of life 3. Eye for an eye with maximum punishment being the death penalty 4. Literally eye for an eye complete with the same torture and maybe even going beyond what he did 5. People like Perfumly and I who think that it is rarely justified and only in certain situations I find it odd how the #1 people even bring up the issue of money at all because it shouldn't even factor in the life and death of human beings. This may seem to contradict what I said about the type of death penalty with one appeal and only for overwhelming evidence of guilt in barbaric crimes, but the inexpensive nature of it is simply a bonus. [editline]07:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Athena;22691967]That inefficiency is what prevents innocent people meeting that fate. to some extent, anyways. edit: Read what you're posting. Not only do you want to give the state the power to kill people, but you want to take away people's ability to fight that judgment.[/QUOTE] He should get to fight that judgment, but in the event of overwhelming dna and eyewitness evidence, he shouldn't get to fight the sentence for 20 years. I mean when there is literally no doubt of the crime it's pointless to drag it out. Most of the wrongful executions took place before DNA testing and other modern forensic technology, so with the criteria above, why should these types of criminals get as many appeals as they do. If you want to see what I mean by overwhelming evidence, I have two examples. One is this one, the other is this: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs[/URL] You might remember that video of the man being killed posted on FP a year ago or maybe you heard it in the news. To summarize they killed 21 people and took videos and pictures of themselves killing most of if not all of the victims. This is overwhelming evidence, why should these types of people get to stay on death row for 20 years appealing as much as they can? (It happened in the Ukraine, imagine if it happened in the U.S.) This is a question to you and anyone else who doesn't support the death penalty. What if the criminal doesn't want to fight the sentence or pleads guilty to these kinds of crimes? Would you support the death penalty in that case. Keep in mind prisons today will not allow the people to take their own lives, because suicide is technically a crime.
if it makes anyone feel better about the poor girl, her eyes weren't gouged out, but her eyelids were cut and she had to go through extensive eye repair surgery to help her regain full eyesight and the only real permanent damage she suffered was liver damage from the pills this demon forced her to swallow.
Why are we all acting like this is something new. People who were just as sick or worse have gotten off with less. Be happy he'll never be able to leave and let the justice system do its job.
[QUOTE=RBM11;22692300]I know. There should only be the death penalty with overwhelming eyewitness, DNA, or video evidence of a brutal crime which could be a scenario like this or 1st degree murder of more than 1 person. If the death penalty worked like that then you should get one appeal and if there is any doubt of guilt during the appeal then life in prison, which is cheaper than having multiple appeals and staying on death row for decades. This is an overwhelming open and shut case of a disgusting display of human evil. What does putting him in a box for 23 hours a day and just forgetting about him accomplish other than allowing us to call those who want to actually get it over with "barbarians." There seem to be several types of people in the death penalty issue: 1. Life is a right for anyone, taking it away is barbaric 2. Life in prison is worse than the easy way out, he gets more pain out of life 3. Eye for an eye with maximum punishment being the death penalty 4. Literally eye for an eye complete with the same torture and maybe even going beyond what he did 5. People like Perfumly and I who think that it is rarely justified and only in certain situations I find it odd how the #1 people even bring up the issue of money at all because it shouldn't even factor in the life and death of human beings. This may seem to contradict what I said about the type of death penalty with one appeal and only for overwhelming evidence of guilt in barbaric crimes, but the inexpensive nature of it is simply a bonus. [editline]07:04PM[/editline] He should get to fight that judgment, but in the event of overwhelming dna and eyewitness evidence, he shouldn't get to fight the sentence for 20 years. I mean when there is literally no doubt of the crime it's pointless to drag it out. Most of the wrongful executions took place before DNA testing and other modern forensic technology, so with the criteria above, why should these types of criminals get as many appeals as they do. If you want to see what I mean by overwhelming evidence, I have two examples. One is this one, the other is this: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs[/URL] You might remember that video of the man being killed posted on FP a year ago or maybe you heard it in the news. To summarize they killed 21 people and took videos and pictures of themselves killing most of if not all of the victims. This is overwhelming evidence, why should these types of people get to stay on death row for 20 years appealing as much as they can? (It happened in the Ukraine, imagine if it happened in the U.S.) This is a question to you and anyone else who doesn't support the death penalty. What if the criminal doesn't want to fight the sentence or pleads guilty to these kinds of crimes? Would you support the death penalty in that case. Keep in mind prisons today will not allow the people to take their own lives, because suicide is technically a crime.[/QUOTE] This sums up what I actually think basically, my post was clearly too brief seeing as how Athena makes it sound like I want innocents with no right to appeal killed or something. [editline]11:18PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Logidru;22692044]1. Rehabilitation can't be ruled out completely, in any case. 2. If execution costs less than a life sentence, hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent people will start being killed. 3. Says who? It's not your decision. It's his. If he wants to kill himself, he will. You don't make that decision for him.[/QUOTE] 1. Yeah this guy is going to get let out if he's been rehabilitated, good joke. 2. What 3. Yeah it should be his choice to mooch off taxpayers for the rest of his life without even a chance at parole.
[QUOTE=johanz;22690414]Similar stuff happen quite often, especially in less developed countries where people get tortured to reveal nonexisting secrets all the time. I read a news story where a father and a son where tortured and sexually abused so they would tell something they didn't even know.[/QUOTE] Yes but how was this mans childhood? There has to be something that made him do this cause... well, you just don't do this stuff.
[QUOTE=Mexican;22692659]Why are we all acting like this is something new. People who were just as sick or worse have gotten off with less. Be happy he'll never be able to leave and let the justice system do its job.[/QUOTE] We're not acting like it's new, that doesn't make it any less terrible.
The reason why I argued about the financial inefficiencies of it is simply because proclaiming constantly "It is wrong!" would be pointless. I, instead, chose to highlight the faults in other peoples arguments - something practically everyone struggled to respond to, since they knew it was true.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;22692698]Yes but how was this mans childhood? There has to be something that made him do this cause... well, you just don't do this stuff.[/QUOTE] Often, but not always childhood is the reason.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22691525]What good are we doing by keeping him alive? He's never going to be re-integrated into society, he has [b]no[/b] chance of getting out of prison.[/QUOTE] no one should have the right to decide who gets to live and die [QUOTE=Perfumly;22691525]Not to mention "murdering" this man would be the merciful thing to do.[/QUOTE] no, it wouldn't [QUOTE=Perfumly;22691525](Get off your moral high horse)[/QUOTE] you're an idiot moral high horse just because I don't support the government murdering its own people? [editline]07:38PM[/editline] and aren't you a libertarian? lol a libertarian who wants the government to murder its own citizen [editline]07:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Perfumly;22692670]3. Yeah it should be his choice to mooch off taxpayers for the rest of his life without even a chance at parole.[/QUOTE] uh, the death penalty costs more than life without parole and you're supporting the death penalty yet complaining about the tax money?
[QUOTE=Logidru;22692719]The reason why I argued about the financial inefficiencies of it is simply because proclaiming constantly "It is wrong!" would be pointless. I, instead, chose to highlight the faults in other peoples arguments - something practically everyone struggled to respond to, since they knew it was true.[/QUOTE] You can use logic and other reasons to try to convince people it's morally wrong and not bring money into it, but it's still an argument if the money supported my side I would use it to. I didn't disagree with you saying it was true because I know it is more expensive which is why my response was to have a death penalty with less appeals that can only be used in extremely terrible crimes with overwhelming evidence. This would lower costs and is a better solution then locking the guy up in a cage, feeding him, and prolonging the inevitable. This both lowers costs and, in my eyes, is a more fitting punishment because it is the only thing you can take from him that probably matters to him. He's clearly a psychopath and doesn't feel any emotion so his life will be the only thing he cares about. Not only is it a better punishment, but a limited appeals would be more cost efficient. Depriving him of social contact probably wouldn't matter at all because he simply does not care for anyone but himself. There are simply some people in this world that cannot be rehabilitated.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22693019]no one should have the right to decide who gets to live and die no, it wouldn't you're an idiot moral high horse just because I don't support the government murdering its own people? [editline]07:38PM[/editline] and aren't you a libertarian? lol a libertarian who wants the government to murder its own citizen [editline]07:40PM[/editline] uh, the death penalty costs more than life without parole and you're supporting the death penalty yet complaining about the tax money?[/QUOTE] I'm not a complete libertarian, I just am on many issues. If I was a libertarian I would probably be out there agreeing with Rand Paul saying that discrimination in privately owned shops is okay etc. With your third point, I'm stating this as if it was ideal and didn't cost millions to get rid of him. I am aware with the current situation that it's more efficient to just lock him up forever. Your first point is subjective, so arguments either way on that are nil.
[QUOTE=]blinded her with bleach, scalded her with boiling water, sealed her lips with crazy glue, made her cut off her hair - and demanded she gouge out her eyes before slicing her eyelids[/QUOTE] Wow... just imagining the pain she went through...
[QUOTE=RBM11;22693054]You can use logic and other reasons to try to convince people it's morally wrong and not bring money into it, but it's still an argument if the money supported my side I would use it to. I didn't disagree with you saying it was true because I know it is more expensive which is why my response was to have a death penalty with less appeals that can only be used in extremely terrible crimes with overwhelming evidence. This would lower costs and is a better solution then locking the guy up in a cage, feeding him, and prolonging the inevitable. This both lowers costs and, in my eyes, is a more fitting punishment because it is the only thing you can take from him that probably matters to him. He's clearly a psychopath and doesn't feel any emotion so his life will be the only thing he cares about. Not only is it a better punishment, but a limited appeals would be more cost efficient. Depriving him of social contact probably wouldn't matter at all because he simply does not care for anyone but himself. There are simply some people in this world that cannot be rehabilitated.[/QUOTE] There is never sufficient evidence. Regardless of how much caution you take, if you execute people you will eventually kill an innocent person. One innocent death is absolutely unacceptable. But, even if you found some magic way of finding absolute proof, it is still unacceptable to murder criminals. It denies the right to life and denies a person the ability to rehabilitate.
[QUOTE=Logidru;22693180]There is never sufficient evidence. Regardless of how much caution you take, if you execute people you will eventually kill an innocent person. One innocent death is absolutely unacceptable. But, even if you found some magic way of finding absolute proof, it is still unacceptable to murder criminals. It denies the right to life and denies a person the ability to rehabilitate.[/QUOTE] Why should the government have the right to imprison their own people man... it's denying them of their right to freedom...
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22693209]Why should the government have the right to imprison their own people man... it's denying them of their right to freedom...[/QUOTE] It's protecting society from them. I understand that certain rights have to be removed when you commit a crime - but removing the right to life is immoral and the increased rate at which countries are removing the death penalty shows that the majority of people in the civilized world believe it is immoral.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22693209]Why should the government have the right to imprison their own people man... it's denying them of their right to freedom...[/QUOTE] I'm imagining your avatar taunting him. But honestly, why bother with the monetary issue? Is it not worth some money to ensure that somebody as violent as this guy will never have the chance to do something so evil again? Why not free up prison space for people who have a chance of being rehabilitated? This guy is obviously far beyond any hope of changing his ways.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22693209]Why should the government have the right to imprison their own people man... it's denying them of their right to freedom...[/QUOTE] because they're a threat to others and it's the duty of the government to protect its people. terrible analogy really. coming from the guy who wants the government to murder its own people.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22693019]no one should have the right to decide who gets to live and die[/QUOTE] Criminals decide this when they choose to torture people for 19 hours straight or murder 20 people [quote]no, it wouldn't[/quote]You're right. Out of the two it is the least merciful, but it is more merciful than what he did to the girl and it's a fitting punishment [quote]you're an idiot moral high horse just because I don't support the government murdering its own people?[/quote]Yet you believe the government should give him free medical care, food, and shelter for the rest of his life while depriving him of human contact, which is something a psychopath cares little about, for this torture? And it's not murder. [quote]uh, the death penalty costs more than life without parole and you're supporting the death penalty yet complaining about the tax money?[/quote]See above where he said he agreed with me about the death penalty in that it should only be used in overwhelming evidence of crimes such as this or mass murder. The version I proposed would have fewer appeals with this kind of overwhelming evidence and if the evidence isn't overwhelming, it's life without parole. The death penalty in its current state is inefficient and used in far more crimes than it should be. Not to mention that forensic science and DNA testing, while not perfect, lower the number of wrongful imprisonment and execution dramatically.
[QUOTE=Logidru;22693254]It's protecting society from them. I understand that certain rights have to be removed when you commit a crime - but removing the right to life is immoral and the increased rate at which countries are removing the death penalty shows that the majority of people in the civilized world believe it is immoral.[/QUOTE] You're acting like morality is something that doesn't vary from person to person. Killing this guy doesmt sound very immoral to me. There's overwhelming evidence against hime and he's going to be locked up forever anyway.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;22693289]I'm imagining your avatar taunting him. But honestly, why bother with the monetary issue? Is it not worth some money to ensure that somebody as violent as this guy will never have the chance to do something so evil again? Why not free up prison space for people who have a chance of being rehabilitated? This guy is obviously far beyond any hope of changing his ways.[/QUOTE] 1. Under Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights * Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. 2. How do you know he cannot be rehabilitated? You have no knowledge of his past or psychological situation.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22693314]Killing this guy doesmt sound very immoral to me. There's overwhelming evidence against hime and he's going to be locked up forever anyway.[/QUOTE] no one should be murdered, unless they're an imminent threat to someone else life in prison without parole will get the job done in this case. depriving someone of life is wrong.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;22693314]You're acting like morality is something that doesn't vary from person to person. Killing this guy doesmt sound very immoral to me. There's overwhelming evidence against hime and he's going to be locked up forever anyway.[/QUOTE] Everyone has the right to life, without exception. We got over killing people unnecessarily here in Europe decades ago. Haven't you?
Why don't we just take all life criminals or above and just sort of well, drop them off on a unmarked island somewhere and let them fend for them selves. Call it, death row island.
[QUOTE=RBM11;22693310]Criminals decide this when they choose to torture people for 19 hours straight or murder 20 people[/QUOTE] nope blood thirsty people like you who decide that there is logic in murdering murderers [QUOTE=RBM11;22693310]You're right. Out of the two it is the least merciful, but it is more merciful than what he did to the girl and it's a fitting punishment[/QUOTE] no, it's not [QUOTE=RBM11;22693310]Yet you believe the government should give him free medical care, food, and shelter for the rest of his life while depriving him of human contact, which is something a psychopath cares little about, for this torture? And it's not murder.[/QUOTE] yes and yep, it's murder. downplay it all you want just because you lack empathy or any sense of what human rights is, but it's still murder [editline]08:02PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Logidru;22693335]We got over killing people unnecessarily here in Europe decades ago. Haven't you?[/QUOTE] unfortunately many of the US states are still in the medieval times [editline]08:02PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BlueSaint;22693354]Why don't we just take all life criminals or above and just sort of well, drop them off on a unmarked island somewhere and let them fend for them selves. Call it, death row island.[/QUOTE] australia
[QUOTE=Logidru;22693180]There is never sufficient evidence. Regardless of how much caution you take, if you execute people you will eventually kill an innocent person. One innocent death is absolutely unacceptable. But, even if you found some magic way of finding absolute proof, it is still unacceptable to murder criminals. It denies the right to life and denies a person the ability to rehabilitate.[/QUOTE] I agree with you that an innocent death is absolutely unacceptable but there can be absolute proof. The criminals gave up their right to life by murdering and/or torturing another, by depriving them of their lives except for no reason at all. Some people are literally so fucked up they will never rehabilitate. If we found some magic way to rehabilitate psychopaths to the point of being normal, then abolish the death penalty.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.