Should We Have The Death Penalty For Child Killers?

[oldjones]

You said it yourself

Mr jones

I do not immangine the chld killers refered to here were concerned with the ramifications before commiting their crimes. Most are aware at the worst they may get is 25 to life if caught and out in 12 for a plea.

For those who call this justice I pray they are never victums of any crimes.

If those evil doers aren't concerned with spending even 12 days locked up with guys who think they're the scum of scum, and who think making knives out of toothbrushes is working on their anger management, then drawing and quartering them, fr'instance, is unlikely to get their attention any better. The trouble is nothing much gets their attention, except their vicious desires.

FWIW that guy maybe out in twelve, but I believe he's on parole—and can be sent back—till the bitter end of his sentence. And we do put people like Colin Thatcher in for more than twenty years without parole. I think David Milgard actually did twenty years when he might have been paroled after ten or so, because he refused to 'admit his guilt'.

Never mind rehabilitation, never mind punishment, the one good thing to be said about prisons is they're a place to keep the guys you don't want next door. But you still have to come up with the laws to put them there, and bad, cruel laws do no one any good.

Now can we please get back to hobby matters, and the bad laws there. Way less depressing. BTW they used to brand SPs—the ones they didn't turn into Aussies, and we know how effective that was at controlling the 'problem'. Oops! Sorry, sorry!

 

[aka Danielle]

Re: Re: Public registry?

I'm sure you're a fine citizen aka and nothing personal, but this depressing thread is making people express some very ugly thoughts. You might look for a movie made during the McCarthy era called The Ox-Bow Incident if you wonder why this sort of bloodthirsty chorus upsets me. [/B]

Excuse me?
As for comparing my thoughts to the Nazis... I take that personal

With all the advances they have made in forensic science there is no longer a question of guilt or innocence.
Find a grown mans DNA inside a murdered child and whatever happens to that man is nothing compared to the terror and agony that child went through the last moments of thier life.

So you think these men should just be housed, fed and paid in jail, that being in jail is enough of a punishment for thier crimes?
It's not, they owe something to society and advancing medical science is one way of paying back. These men are not innocents so don't compare my thoughts to what sadistic racist pigs ,did to innocent people.

 

[pool]

I'm opposed to the death penalty. Most of the reasons have already been addressed and very articulately by Oldjones, Muddy, Zog etc ...

When I heard of this "atrocity" my rage came into play and without elaborating it is not a pretty picture. I could not rationalise my reasoning behind opposing the death penalty, over the last few days, before reading some of the initial hostile posts in this thread. The fact that those people and myself are reduced to such a barbaric instinct scares the shit out of me.

Thanks, for showing me the mirror. My vote is "no".

 

[PatMurphy]

Castration and life behind bars comes to mind. Repeat offenders obviously cannot fix what's going on in their minds. Death penalty -well maybe YES!

 

[Cave Carson]

Danielle!

It appears that the others on this board are too polite to tell you. But I will. You're an idiot.

"Then whenever a child is murdered or molested, we pick two(three, four five) child molesters off the list and execute them in public. (I know pretty harsh, but what is more brutal? That or the rape and murder of a child?) You take one of ours, we take up to five of yours. Eye for an eye."

So killing five others would help to catch the perp? Or are you assuming that there's some kind of solidarity between child molestors - that someone who's willing to kill a child would be deterred by the thought of what would happen to other's that had offended in some way previously?

Let's extend your argument, however. We've already got lists of speeders. Therefore, whenever a police officer sees another car speeding, he just writes out speeding tickets to five previous perps! Beats hell out of perhaps spilling his coffee while chasing down the fellow currently doing the speeding.

And just the other day some annoying woman was screaming at her kids and woke me from my pleasant nap. I'll just have to take vengeance on five mothers at random I guess!

I like your idea of saving animals from experimentation by using humans in their place though. I've always advocated that any testing be done first on the executives and directors of the company doing the testing. (After all, the buck stops with you guys, doesn't it? And if you can't take the heat, methinks you should have stayed out of the kitchen.) Elected officials and their employees would be next on my list of experimental subjects.

One detail though. If I'm so empowered as to have the ability to decide upon appropriate subjects to be used for purposes of scientific experimentation, are you sure that at some point I won't decide that you're an appropriate subject?

 

[oldjones]

Sorry you're taking it personal aka Danielle

But just as murder is murder, experimenting on unwilling subjects as a punishment is apalling no matter whose law it`s done in the name of. It`s barbaric torture you`ve proposed, and fine person though you are , you might look at the other folks who`ve done as you proposed. Not a nice bunch to hang with.

Not that you said it, but: Torture the baby-killers, eh? No parole for murderers, let the other inmates take care of them? I say: Donald Marshall, Hurricane Carter, Guy Paul Morin, David Milgard. Oh, and Susan , who TO`s finest were so positive was a baby-killer. We must never forget that all—every stinking one— of those wrongful convictions that might have put an innocent under your experimenter`s knife was decided by a judge and jury absolutely convinced there was no reasonable doubt that they had the right guy.

But they didn`t.

BTW DNA, if the killer left any (safe sex=little or no DNA), is just another numbers game: ``the odds of someone other than the subject showing this pattern are___________``, and the expert witnesses argue over filling in numbers from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in millions. If they`re not lying or incompetent like the police labs in Texas and, was it Virginia? who had two years of false DNA evidence discovered and overturned. Don`t forget one of Ontario`s own lab techs cooked DNA results a coulple of years ago. Sorry, it wasn`t determined whether she was clever enough to intentionally cook`em or just stupid.

So what`s the magic number that distinguishes your experimenters from the Nazi monsters, so that ``now there is no longer a question of guilt or innocence``? 1 in 10,000? That sounds pretty certain in tiny Newmarket, but is it just as certain when the population`s 5,000,000 within a 20 minute drive? What if everyone in your small town is related? Lotsa of their DNA traces would match. Still so confident the system will do your judging for you?

One last time: You can not make the world better by being as bad or even worse than the guys you`re trying to stop. You won`t stop them, you`ll just teach their next generation. If you really think about it: Isn`t the thing that distinguishes us from the animals the constant questioning and deciding of right and wrong, guilt or innocence in matters big and small? I can`t imagine a system so certain of rightness that it can toss a person on the experimenter`s table that would still leave me or you any room to be human.

And I sure wouldn`t want that doctor for my GP.

Anyway, minds aren`t being changed here, no matter how brilliant your argument or mine, and I`ve said my piece, as you have yours. It`s been a swell wrangle and I got to fire up the Thesaurus and release the Dogs of Discord and Argument, but I`m not coming back to this thread. See ya in happier topics. Next time, let`s have a giggle.

 

[Speedo]

Not trying to sit on a fence here, but...

I originally brought up frontier justice -- which was easy to do in the safety of my computer room, just hours after her body was found.

My preference for these monsters would be life in prison. And life means life. Y'see, once my initial rage subsided a bit, I asked myself one very simple question: Could I be the one: injecting the needle; throwing the switch for the lethal laz-ee-boy; pulling the rope; shooting the rifle, etc.? The answer was no. Many of you could, and our differences are what make the world go 'round. But I think I'd be the biggest hypocrite alive if I was for capital punishment just as long as someone else was doing the deed. Just my take -- yours may be different, and that's fine.

 

[blofeld]

Isn't the bottom line a question of: do we want a correctional system or do we want a penal system? The former believes that people can be rehabilitated. The former segregates undesireables from society (either by imprisonment or capital punishment). The problem with the former is that malevolent people can beguile authorities into thinking they've been rehabilitated. But no one can see into his/her soul to see if that is true. The problem with the latter is that it is imperfect. Ideally I'd like the former; isn't one thing that sets humans apart is hope, in this case, hope that people can become good?

If you believe in the afterlife, there will be a day of reckoning. I couldn't bring myself to kill someone. Vengeance is mine sayeth....

 

[aka Danielle]

Danielle!

It appears that the others on this board are too polite to tell you. But I will. You're an idiot.

"Then whenever a child is murdered or molested, we pick two(three, four five) child molesters off the list and execute them in public. (I know pretty harsh, but what is more brutal? That or the rape and murder of a child?) You take one of ours, we take up to five of yours. Eye for an eye."

So killing five others would help to catch the perp? Or are you assuming that there's some kind of solidarity between child molestors - that someone who's willing to kill a child would be deterred by the thought of what would happen to other's that had offended in some way previously?

First off, cave carson..you don't know me, you may not like what I have to say , MY opinions or MY views, so go ahead and dispute them, it's your right. Calling me an idiot is just plain rude, it's not that people on here are too "polite" to say anything, we are not here for personal attacks, get it?

Furthermore, I am not saying that killing five other child killers will help catch the perp, but it is one hell of a deterrent. People that do this do it again and again, they cannot help it. I am also not talking about speeders, mother who let thier kids cry and wake you up from your pleasant little nap, or any other group, I am talking about men who rape and murder children! Yes, it's US and the safety of our children against THEM So stop getting off topic.

 

[torex]

I have to agree with Danielle
personally if some motherf***** killed my child I in return would kill him and do life standing on my head!!or if need be they the system can kill me to but at least I will die knowing I made him suffer as he did my child!
I know some of you soft hearted criminal loving people won't agree but we ARE different.
people seem to think the death penalty and killing someone to get their jollies are the same? personally I don't agree!
If you want to go out and kill someone there should be severe punishment! DEATH
I don't believe in second chances.
reminds me of John Grisham's "A time to kill"
BTW CC calling Danielle an idiot isn't very nice. she is just voicing her opinion which is her right and yours , so stop being an idiot please!

 

[Garrett]

I am actually surprised there are not more "acts of revenge"... and I am not sure if it is a case of opportuinity or when it actually hits your family, your reaction is not what you would expect (e.g. murder of a child often splitting up the parents... in some sense you would think it would bring you closer together).

I think instead of going for the death penalty (which I do not agree with... for reasons many have already cited) we should go for simple, basic reform of our criminal justice system. I also do not think you can rehabilitate sex offenders... and unless they are willing to undergo chemical castration their whereabouts should be published (I was horrified at the number of sex offenders in the young girl's area...).

I think the problem is we all bitch about this... but who ever does anything about it. The police are notably pushing for changes...I wish them luck in making them happen.

 

[Paul Waters]

Guy Paul Moran

David Milgarde

Donald French

 

[zog]

This makes no sense!

I am not saying that killing five other child killers will help catch the perp, but it is one hell of a deterrent.

How will killing five former child molesters (who may or may not have re-offended) have any impact on stoping the first-time perpetrator?

Do you want to live in a society where we kill past offenders to ease our desire for revenge on an unknown criminal?

Some child molesters are chronic offenders who should not be at liberty. I agree that our system is flawed to let some of these people back into the general population. However, there are also some offenders who do not re-offend. Many can learn to overcome their unhealthy urges. Should these people remain subject to execution after twelve years of normal life because some other criminal committed a heinous crime?

On the matter of the deterrent factor that you seem to think is such a big selling point for your theory...I really don't get it. If some person is sick and perverted and has urges to molest a child, how will the thought that five strangers may be executed going to mitigate his (or her) actions in any way?

I won't use some of the language of previous posters but I must agree that this solution seems completely unsuited to an intelligent and civilized society.

Zog.

 

[torex]

I think you guys are taking her comments far to seriously. I think Danielle was just stating a wild remedy such as I did(sending them to the Taliban).
Paul I totally agree with you, but for the 3 you mentioned how many others where truly guilty and have got away?
We'll never know.
so the systems not perfect but in most cases where the evidence is overwhelming (Paul Bernardo&Karla) I think the death penalty should be in order.
JMHO

 

[zog]

How do you know it's really overwhelming?

in most cases where the evidence is overwhelming (Paul Bernardo&Karla) I think the death penalty should be in order.

I think that this is a dangerous way of approaching the subject.

First of all, I'm not convinced that the evidence is overwhelming in most cases. We know of several false convictions but we don't know how many others have not been discovered.

Remember, a false execution would be horrible for the innocent person who was killed by mistake but it would also mean that there would be virtually no chance of reopenning the investigation to find the true criminal who then remains at liberty for life.

As for overwhelming evidence, that is very hard to define. A few months ago, George W. Bush convinced half the world that Iraq was harbouring vast stores of chemical and biological weapons. He even used the phrase "overwhelming evidence". Now I'm not trying to reopen the discussion as to whether the attack on Iraq was appropriate, but this is an example where apparent overwhelming evidence turned out to be a misleading term.

theo point is that in times of anger (however justified) there is always the danger taht a wrong decision will be made in anger. By substituting life in prison (real LIFE, mind you!) we give ourselves the opportunity to reverse errors in the future.

Zog.

 

[torex]

As for overwhelming evidence, that is very hard to define

zog Paul Bernardo videotaped his crimes.
is that not overwhelming evidence?

 

[zog]

Good point

Paul Bernardo videotaped his crimes.
is that not overwhelming evidence?

Yes. Of course it is. However, unfortunately, we rarely get evidence that is this clear.

I am still against the death penalty on the grounds that if murder is wrong...it should always be wrong. But I admit that, even after all this time, some part of me would still like to see Bernardo die for his crimes.

I guess I am just as human as the rest of us.

Zog.

 

[torex]

it's a tough subject, I can see both sides.
I would hate to see an innocent person put to death.

I loose my common sense when I think what these poor children went through.
brings so much anger inside of me!
maybe I'm a sadist? but someone like Bernardo I would like to see him die a slow agonizing death.

 

[papasmerf]

it's a tough subject, I can see both sides.
I would hate to see an innocent person put to death.

I loose my common sense when I think what these poor children went through.
brings so much anger inside of me!
maybe I'm a sadist? but someone like Bernardo I would like to see him die a slow agonizing death.

You are not a sadist. You need to ask what justice is served by his inprisoment? What closure is there for family members of the victums (his wife excluded)? Did the prosecuter screw up when Carla was offered a lighter sentence in return for her testomeny???? Did the tape evidence speak volumes on both of them???? Will either ever be rehabilitated??? Is the best interest of the people of the provence served by spending tens of thousands every year on them?

Are you SADIST???? Hell no you are human.

 

[pool]

Human's have a long way to "evolve".

But we have to ask ourselves, if, as individuals we could actually carry out these fantasy, torturous "punishments" ourselves and feel no remorse.