Trial for 19 hour rape and torture case begins

[Maxxthepenguin]

I used to support the death penalty and I still agree with it on a theoretical basis; there are some crimes (this is a good example of one) in which the person who committed it doesn't deserve to live anymore. The problem we have, though, is taking that theory and applying it to real life. In the real world, the death penalty is usually given to poor minorities because they don't have the money to afford a good attorney. Plus, this is the one mistake that once committed, can't be reversed.

I agree with what you but oh man oh man what a quote I found in there.

The problem we have, though, is taking that theory and applying it to real life.

[pohibaba]

I used to support the death penalty and I still agree with it on a theoretical basis; there are some crimes (this is a good example of one) in which the person who committed it doesn't deserve to live anymore. The problem we have, though, is taking that theory and applying it to real life. In the real world, the death penalty is usually given to poor minorities because they don't have the money to afford a good attorney. Plus, this is the one mistake that once committed, can't be reversed.

I agree with what you but oh man oh man what a quote I found in there.

The problem we have, though, is taking that theory and applying it to real life.

I don't think I get what you mean.

[jmc]

A lifetime of being a victim to anal rape would be too kind for him.

Your sig fits perfectly with this story.

Thats so FUCKED UP FOR A TOPIC LIKE THIS!

However..... I thought the same thing when I saw it

[Heian]

I'm a little late to this thread but I personal believe when you are found guilty by your peers of a crime this heinous, you Forfeit your rights as a human being, much less any other living creature.

[miokomioko]

Execution needs to be thrown around a bit easier these days... mostly for repeat offenders that are in for multiple life sentences. What's the point? When no one would notice when someone left the face of the planet and they've done nothing but put other people in pain/danger/death because of their psychopathic tendencies and social malfunctioning, off them. There's grey areas, but just as often as it's grey, there's black and white, clear as day.

[Abraxas]

If it's a poor, black man or a wealthy, land-owning white man, they should both be killed for something like this.

[Poopfacekilla]

I like how civilized is always synonymous with non-violent

Same.

Whether people think a civilized society should promote non-violence or not is entirely up to them. It's an organic term. No such utopia as ever existed in history and violence will always be a part of life.

The other thing to note is reconciling people in this "civilized society" who commit the violent crime VS the people reacting to said crime w/ disgust and outrage. Obviously, the latter group is justified but they share the same society w/ the violent offenders.

So when does this civilized society manifest? When we're pointing fingers? I think there is a threshold for acceptable behavior but to say violences doesn't belong in our society when it's on our terms (ie death penalty) is hypocritical.

As long as we feel the killing is morally justified (war) it's ok to do so. But when we're judging one person, it's become different all of a sudden?

Is it because it's more personal? If it's judging one person, it becomes more complex than judging 5000? The latter is a statistic and the former is a made-for-TV movie.

[Suburbanelite]

I like how civilized is always synonymous with non-violent

Same.

Whether people think a civilized society should promote non-violence or not is entirely up to them. It's an organic term. No such utopia as ever existed in history and violence will always be a part of life.

The other thing to note is reconciling people in this "civilized society" who commit the violent crime VS the people reacting to said crime w/ disgust and outrage. Obviously, the latter group is justified but they share the same society w/ the violent offenders.

So when does this civilized society manifest? When we're pointing fingers? I think there is a threshold for acceptable behavior but to say violences doesn't belong in our society when it's on our terms (ie death penalty) is hypocritical.

As long as we feel the killing is morally justified (war) it's ok to do so. But when we're judging one person, it's become different all of a sudden?

Is it because it's more personal? If it's judging one person, it becomes more complex than judging 5000? The latter is a statistic and the former is a made-for-TV movie.

She didn't rape and torture him for 19 hours. He did that.

Armies attack because they are attacked. In most cases.

[pohibaba]

I like how civilized is always synonymous with non-violent

Same.

Whether people think a civilized society should promote non-violence or not is entirely up to them. It's an organic term. No such utopia as ever existed in history and violence will always be a part of life.

The other thing to note is reconciling people in this "civilized society" who commit the violent crime VS the people reacting to said crime w/ disgust and outrage. Obviously, the latter group is justified but they share the same society w/ the violent offenders.

So when does this civilized society manifest? When we're pointing fingers? I think there is a threshold for acceptable behavior but to say violences doesn't belong in our society when it's on our terms (ie death penalty) is hypocritical.

As long as we feel the killing is morally justified (war) it's ok to do so. But when we're judging one person, it's become different all of a sudden?

Is it because it's more personal? If it's judging one person, it becomes more complex than judging 5000? The latter is a statistic and the former is a made-for-TV movie.

I find it silly that you can't tell the difference between protecting your country from a serious and immediate threat (which is all war should be about) and for killing someone out of some ridiculous notion of retribution which does no actual good. Sounds logical to me.

[Day]

I like how civilized is always synonymous with non-violent

Same.

Whether people think a civilized society should promote non-violence or not is entirely up to them. It's an organic term. No such utopia as ever existed in history and violence will always be a part of life.

The other thing to note is reconciling people in this "civilized society" who commit the violent crime VS the people reacting to said crime w/ disgust and outrage. Obviously, the latter group is justified but they share the same society w/ the violent offenders.

So when does this civilized society manifest? When we're pointing fingers? I think there is a threshold for acceptable behavior but to say violences doesn't belong in our society when it's on our terms (ie death penalty) is hypocritical.

As long as we feel the killing is morally justified (war) it's ok to do so. But when we're judging one person, it's become different all of a sudden?

Is it because it's more personal? If it's judging one person, it becomes more complex than judging 5000? The latter is a statistic and the former is a made-for-TV movie.

I find it silly that you can't tell the difference between protecting your country from a serious and immediate threat (which is all war should be about) and for killing someone out of some ridiculous notion of retribution which does no actual good. Sounds logical to me.

I don't know... I don't find that too silly. In the end you are taking someone else's life. People barely bat an eye when we kill enemy soldiers en masse, who like most of our soldiers are not directly at fault for whatever reason it may be that we are fighting. This topic on the other hand we have someone directly at fault here, and everyone gets a hornets nest in their panties when you say you want to just off the guy.

I think everyone understands that at war you are "protecting" your country, (for current US war situation that could be argued), but if you look at really whats happening, people are dying, and for reasons not up to the people of either country. Someone, (a group of people), decide we are to go to war, and we follow, and we kill, but that's ok right, I mean we are killing for a purpose?

I completely agree with the poster you quoted. It's all too easy to say "well we are just defending our country so it's ok" ... but killing someone that raped an innocent girl for 19 hours is just insane and immoral? It's real hard for me to swallow that logic.

[thestalkmore]

I'm a little late to this thread but I personal believe when you are found guilty by your peers of a crime this heinous, you Forfeit your rights as a human being, much less any other living creature.

This. Anyone who believes differently is wrong.

[Aerin]

I find it hard to believe that people read what happened to her, read how much evidence they have against the guy (so you know your aimed at the right person), and don't want this guy to suffer an ill fate.

[BerenTebogo]

I like how civilized is always synonymous with non-violent

Same.

Whether people think a civilized society should promote non-violence or not is entirely up to them. It's an organic term. No such utopia as ever existed in history and violence will always be a part of life.

The other thing to note is reconciling people in this "civilized society" who commit the violent crime VS the people reacting to said crime w/ disgust and outrage. Obviously, the latter group is justified but they share the same society w/ the violent offenders.

So when does this civilized society manifest? When we're pointing fingers? I think there is a threshold for acceptable behavior but to say violences doesn't belong in our society when it's on our terms (ie death penalty) is hypocritical.

As long as we feel the killing is morally justified (war) it's ok to do so. But when we're judging one person, it's become different all of a sudden?

Is it because it's more personal? If it's judging one person, it becomes more complex than judging 5000? The latter is a statistic and the former is a made-for-TV movie.

I find it silly that you can't tell the difference between protecting your country from a serious and immediate threat (which is all war should be about) and for killing someone out of some ridiculous notion of retribution which does no actual good. Sounds logical to me.

I don't know... I don't find that too silly. In the end you are taking someone else's life. People barely bat an eye when we kill enemy soldiers en masse, who like most of our soldiers are not directly at fault for whatever reason it may be that we are fighting. This topic on the other hand we have someone directly at fault here, and everyone gets a hornets nest in their panties when you say you want to just off the guy.

I think everyone understands that at war you are "protecting" your country, (for current US war situation that could be argued), but if you look at really whats happening, people are dying, and for reasons not up to the people of either country. Someone, (a group of people), decide we are to go to war, and we follow, and we kill, but that's ok right, I mean we are killing for a purpose?

I completely agree with the poster you quoted. It's all too easy to say "well we are just defending our country so it's ok" ... but killing someone that raped an innocent girl for 19 hours is just insane and immoral? It's real hard for me to swallow that logic.

This country hasn't been in a War to 'Protect our Country' since 1945, if the current war was specifically to 'protect our country' it'd have been over 2-3 years ago.

Also, an 'ill-fate' to me would be spending the rest of your life in prison, not death penalty, as we've already discussed over a week ago. Death isn't the only punishment, period, and it's not even remotely unanimous that it's the best.

[Brill Weave]

I'm for the death penalty in extreme cases, this being one of them. This guy will get what's coming to him. The sad thing is just how much damage has been done to this girl? Her entire life will always echo what happened to her. Walking home somewhere. Waking up in the middle of the nights while the lights are off always a little panicked. Every aspect of her life will forever be influenced.

He didn't murder her, but he did kill her.

[Pamelita]

Though I'm not exactly 100% sure, I also tend to be against the death penalty. Not only because there would be a chance for a mistake (I'm aware that chance is almost insignificant), more importantly because killing him does absolutely nothing.

Being a victim of sexual abuse as a child and having a stalker as a teen (let's not mention either ever again), I can relate a tiny bit. These peoples' absence (in fact the perpetrator of the abuse is dead) have not, in any way, made me feel safer whatsoever, and I will always think 10 times before I leave my possible future children under the care of someone else. What has made me feel safer, is the support from my family and friends.

That being said, sure these people will adapt to jail conditions with time...even so, their life will never ever ever ever be the same it was before, and that is almost never good. I also think he'll either be sent to solitary confinement (I'm not sure anyone can be by themselves for that long and not be fucked up), or to a max-security prison with other inmates. As soon as other inmates find out what he did, he will get it (think of jeff whatshisface -the one who drugged, killed and dismembered people). In the chance that they pull through with the insanity claim then he'd have to be turned into a mental institution or program which will also change his life forever.

So yeah...

***Edit: If anything, our efforts would be much better spent coming up with preventative measures and educating people on being safer than in being angry and wanting to kill this douche. This will do nothing to stop this atrocity from happening again.

[Poopfacekilla]

I like how civilized is always synonymous with non-violent

Same.

Whether people think a civilized society should promote non-violence or not is entirely up to them. It's an organic term. No such utopia as ever existed in history and violence will always be a part of life.

The other thing to note is reconciling people in this "civilized society" who commit the violent crime VS the people reacting to said crime w/ disgust and outrage. Obviously, the latter group is justified but they share the same society w/ the violent offenders.

So when does this civilized society manifest? When we're pointing fingers? I think there is a threshold for acceptable behavior but to say violences doesn't belong in our society when it's on our terms (ie death penalty) is hypocritical.

As long as we feel the killing is morally justified (war) it's ok to do so. But when we're judging one person, it's become different all of a sudden?

Is it because it's more personal? If it's judging one person, it becomes more complex than judging 5000? The latter is a statistic and the former is a made-for-TV movie.

I find it silly that you can't tell the difference between protecting your country from a serious and immediate threat (which is all war should be about) and for killing someone out of some ridiculous notion of retribution which does no actual good. Sounds logical to me.

In war, we're not simply fighting to protect our country. In fact, there is NOTHING simple about war whereas we can intellectualize killing a rapist/child molestor/blah blah as "uncivilized". Why?

The ongoing Iraq War is a great example. After 9/11 the public was in mourning and angry/frustrated/despaired/etc. Countless videos have shown members of the Bush admin. and Bush himself linking Al Qaeda and 9/11 to Saddam and Iraq. Now, this was easy to refute even back then and there was a lot of resistance to this accusation. I don't have much confidence in the American public though because even now we still don't know much about the war.

'Nearly two thirds of all Americans do not know in what year US invaded Iraq, and less than half have an idea about the US casualty figures in Iraq, latest Pew Research poll shows.'

Anyways, that's my point. I don't find debate on the death penalty worthwhile. It's so fucking trite to say it makes society "uncivil."

In war, we're fighting and killing others for various reasons. War is not always waged for idealistic reasons, in fact, MOST of the time it's merely SOLD to the public as an idealistic war.

World War II and Nazi Germany were the result of socio-economic factors (the Great Depression) and the effects of WW I on Germany. Stopping the Nazis IMO was part-idealistic (for obvious reasons) but it wasn't the only one.

WW I was the result of 1 assassination that pulled in alliances to several different countries. It forced people to fight each other. It was purely a political war.

There are countless other examples. Vietnam? And not just war, but American military operations and instigations. These things get so complex and have such far-reaching consequences I don't think even 50% of the public have a clue about it.

In the end, it's EASY to get people to think about 1 person, 1 crime, 1 aftermath scenario VS all the complexities of War.

[pohibaba]

In war, we're not simply fighting to protect our country. In fact, there is NOTHING simple about war whereas we can intellectualize killing a rapist/child molestor/blah blah as "uncivilized". Why?

The ongoing Iraq War is a great example. After 9/11 the public was in mourning and angry/frustrated/despaired/etc. Countless videos have shown members of the Bush admin. and Bush himself linking Al Qaeda and 9/11 to Saddam and Iraq. Now, this was easy to refute even back then and there was a lot of resistance to this accusation. I don't have much confidence in the American public though because even now we still don't know much about the war.

'Nearly two thirds of all Americans do not know in what year US invaded Iraq, and less than half have an idea about the US casualty figures in Iraq, latest Pew Research poll shows.'

Anyways, that's my point. I don't find debate on the death penalty worthwhile. It's so fucking trite to say it makes society "uncivil."

In war, we're fighting and killing others for various reasons. War is not always waged for idealistic reasons, in fact, MOST of the time it's merely SOLD to the public as an idealistic war.

World War II and Nazi Germany were the result of socio-economic factors (the Great Depression) and the effects of WW I on Germany. Stopping the Nazis IMO was part-idealistic (for obvious reasons) but it wasn't the only one.

WW I was the result of 1 assassination that pulled in alliances to several different countries. It forced people to fight each other. It was purely a political war.

There are countless other examples. Vietnam? And not just war, but American military operations and instigations. These things get so complex and have such far-reaching consequences I don't think even 50% of the public have a clue about it.

In the end, it's EASY to get people to think about 1 person, 1 crime, 1 aftermath scenario VS all the complexities of War.

Please, don't try to fucking argue the history of American interventionism with me. You obviously don't understand politics all that well if you're trying to convince the guy with a Libertarian Party sig that the Iraq War is a bad idea. But getting back on topic, your argument is pretty retarded. We should continue killing (mostly) poor people who may have committed a crime simply because war is a bad thing? What does one have to do with the other? Why can't you separate our foreign policy with the death penalty? Just because you don't agree with one makes the other trite? What if we had elected someone like Ron Paul who would've pulled all our troops home (and yes, I mean from all countries, not just Iraq) would you then have agreed with abolishing the death penalty?

[Rhinox]

http://www.radiojunior.com/images/babar2.jpg

Babar for president bitches

[pohibaba]

http://www.radiojunior.com/images/babar2.jpg

Babar for president bitches

Wow, what an insightful and original political commentary. My hat's off to you, good sir. =D>

[Rhinox]

np. since you helped derail the thread bringing up the Libertarian party stance on the war (Party/candidate that has less of a chance to win as your previous Ron paul Revolution did) I'll rerail it.

I'm for the death penalty in extreme cases, this being one of them. This guy will get what's coming to him. The sad thing is just how much damage has been done to this girl? Her entire life will always echo what happened to her. Walking home somewhere. Waking up in the middle of the nights while the lights are off always a little panicked. Every aspect of her life will forever be influenced.

He didn't murder her, but he did kill her.

totally agree with this. Unless hes gonna be in a Super max Prison the rest of his life he does not deserve to live