+Dave 2,322 Posted June 25, 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25367455 That's too bad because that is what those who do that deserve. But then of course once the prison population finds out they usually take care of the problem anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 25, 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25367455 That's too bad because that is what those who do that deserve. But then of course once the prison population finds out they usually take care of the problem anyway. I was outraged when I read this earlier. I am angry beyond words. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DWCAce 19 Posted June 25, 2008 I'm not even going to post what should be done to those people. A relatively painless death should be the least of their worries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+JSF_Aggie 1,292 Posted June 25, 2008 "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. I would argue that death is not penalty enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jimbib 747 Posted June 25, 2008 "Court rejects death penalty for raping children" Pussies, let 'em fry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) when one man that commite that here go to jail, he get another name.... "barbie" i think this worse than death penalty Edited June 25, 2008 by Silverbolt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ironroad 218 Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) Ok, so they do not want to cut down on the allready overcrowded prison population which cost 50K a year to house. Ok, so they want to put axe murders, serial killers, gang leaders, drug lords, and baby rapist in the same cell blocks with lesser criminals like petty thieves, small time robbers, etc. (who could be rehabilitated and join society) so said high risk/high security criminals can go ahead and victimize the other prisoners and turn the small time prisoners in grade A nut cases who get released into society due to their short time. Ok, so they rather give Hanibal Lecter the same time as a someone who stole a pack of bubble gum. Yet states and the federal government complain that there is not enough room in prisons and that they need new ones. They complain that recidivism is high and small time and harmless criminals go into jail but come out hardened serial killers (Humm I wonder why...) Prisons (and the governments that run them) have to spend time and money investigating and cracking down on rings of gang leaders, murderers, and rapist who have influence (and control) inside and outside the prison. Now I do believe in fair and just punishment, I believe in treating people humanely, I whole heartily believe in protecting rights and I believe that once you serve your time/punishment then you have served it. But come on..., they are giving some of the most deranged and evil people a "pass" for their wrong doings. The death penalty is completely justifiable. Makes me madder than the people who protested about the murders and terrorist locked up in Gitmo! Rant off... Edited June 25, 2008 by ironroad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stick 773 Posted June 25, 2008 I thought the Indian Legal System had lost all hope... seems like the legal system all round is keeping up the farce. And justice for all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted June 25, 2008 If anyone touched one of my kids......that person would never make it to trial. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted June 25, 2008 If anyone touched one of my kids......that person would never make it to trial. it happened yesterday here....the father spot the rapist when he almost was doing....so the father put the rapist in coma than both was arrested Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emp_Palpatine 501 Posted June 25, 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25367455 That's too bad because that is what those who do that deserve. But then of course once the prison population finds out they usually take care of the problem anyway. I pity you, my dear american friends. I do, because your élites seems to follow the same stupid path we took decades ago in Europe. Nowadays, monsters like Fourniret or Dutroux (multi-rapist who slaughtered their victims, wether child or women) are just in jail. And within french judicial system, they are supposed to stay there for life. The fact is they are released after ten to 20 years. Don't let this happen in your country. Don't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted June 25, 2008 I pity you, my dear american friends.I do, because your élites seems to follow the same stupid path we took decades ago in Europe. Nowadays, monsters like Fourniret or Dutroux (multi-rapist who slaughtered their victims, wether child or women) are just in jail. And within french judicial system, they are supposed to stay there for life. The fact is they are released after ten to 20 years. Don't let this happen in your country. Don't. already has. Life is 20 with parole. We get child molesters released daily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 25, 2008 already has. Life is 20 with parole. We get child molesters released daily. And all reputable psychologists agree that sex offenders cannot be reformed. They will offend again, its just a matter of time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 25, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371344,00.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jimbib 747 Posted June 25, 2008 I sense the flames of all humanly unleashing hell licking his ankles already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted June 25, 2008 You know, this viewpoint makes absolute no sense by any means. Why is it that the people (not all the time) who have no problem with killing a baby because it's 'a bad time' to have one are typically the same people who let scumbags like child rapists who have caused harm to society and others continue to be a burden to society. In other words, why is it okay to kill someone who hasn't started life yet, but it isn't okay to kill someone who has squandered their life with irrepairable harm to others? Personally, if I ever found out someone hurt my kids...there is not enough pain in the world to equal what that person would suffer if I got the chance. As far as that defense attorney/state rep goes...did he think using language like that was going to help his cause? Okay, we get it, he's a defense attorney...he may have to be put in the situation where he does have to cross examine a child. But that speech, he sounded like he would sadistically enjoy the issue. Guess he's not going to be in office much longer... I think part of the problem with the legal system is that it used to be that a courtroom was supposed to be a crucible to find out the truth of what happened and act appropriately. Now it seems, it's morphed into a way to obfuscate the truth instead to one's own advantage. Rant off... FastCargo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 25, 2008 Why is it that the people (not all the time) who have no problem with killing a baby because it's 'a bad time' to have one are typically the same people who let scumbags like child rapists who have caused harm to society and others continue to be a burden to society. Because liberalism is a mental disorder. It seems scizo because it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted June 25, 2008 Because liberalism is a mental disorder. It seems scizo because it is. absolutely correct!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emp_Palpatine 501 Posted June 25, 2008 You know, this viewpoint makes absolute no sense by any means. Why is it that the people (not all the time) who have no problem with killing a baby because it's 'a bad time' to have one are typically the same people who let scumbags like child rapists who have caused harm to society and others continue to be a burden to society. In other words, why is it okay to kill someone who hasn't started life yet, but it isn't okay to kill someone who has squandered their life with irrepairable harm to others? You stress a very important point there. In Europe, most of the death penalty haters are also vehemently pro-abortion and pro euthanasia (think that a few weeks ago, an act allowing euthanasia for kids was passed in Belgium...). These things are even described as basic human rights! That's a paradox I just can't understand. Those people seems to enjoy a sort of "culture of death", where a criminal is nothing but a victim of the society structures (common nonsense often heard) that shall be helped and where you may kill babies or elder ones "for mercy". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
serverandenforcer 33 Posted June 26, 2008 You stress a very important point there. In Europe, most of the death penalty haters are also vehemently pro-abortion and pro euthanasia (think that a few weeks ago, an act allowing euthanasia for kids was passed in Belgium...). These things are even described as basic human rights! That's a paradox I just can't understand. Those people seems to enjoy a sort of "culture of death", where a criminal is nothing but a victim of the society structures (common nonsense often heard) that shall be helped and where you may kill babies or elder ones "for mercy". And that's why I'm so looking forward to Heaven when I die. Get away from this crappy planet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted June 26, 2008 In other words, why is it okay to kill someone who hasn't started life yet, but it isn't okay to kill someone who has squandered their life with irrepairable harm to others? You know, I could take that statement, reverse the players, and it would still be just as unanswerable. Like, how is it many right to lifers (for example) can be so pro-life in regards to a child, but so pro-death when it comes to criminals? Sorry, didn't mean to pick on your FC, but it's a bastard of a question (both are). :yes: I think the big problem is the assumption that humans are meant to be treated with a certain level of dignity and respect, irrespective of their crimes. As though our behaviour towards them reflects our own civility. What a crock, and a huge generalisation, might I add! Personally, I believe if you commit a grievous crime like this sick bastard, you've forfeited your right to your humanity and should be treated as such. The problem with something like that is that some places may choose minor, politically motivated things to outlaw. Especially if the church gets in their ear... The only plus to come out of this is that he'll be around for a while to be on the receiving end of quite a few beatings... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreyCap 0 Posted June 26, 2008 Since when do rapists get the death penalty? I agree with the supreme court. We are not, after all, some kind of islamic nut country. Something else to realise, when somebody dies, he is gone. No pain for him, no regrets, no nothing. He's just gone. So lock up his ass forever. In my opinion that will be much more painful for him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreyCap 0 Posted June 26, 2008 Ok I just though of this a little more... There is something very 'painful' about getting the death penalty. That is, the wait (knowing you will die soon but not exactly when must not be enjoyable) and the actual excecution (must also not be a very enjoyable feeling). So maybe the death penalty is a painful penalty... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted June 26, 2008 Ok I just though of this a little more...There is something very 'painful' about getting the death penalty. That is, the wait (knowing you will die soon but not exactly when must not be enjoyable) and the actual excecution (must also not be a very enjoyable feeling). So maybe the death penalty is a painful penalty... I guess that person shouldn't of raped a child then. Too bad, I will not feel sorry for the anguish the rapist goes through waiting to be executed. Should of kept his wee wee in his pants. He is not the victim. He should die. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreyCap 0 Posted June 26, 2008 I guess that person shouldn't of raped a child then. Too bad, I will not feel sorry for the anguish the rapist goes through waiting to be executed. Should of kept his wee wee in his pants. He is not the victim. He should die. I just want what's more painful for him. I'm just not sure if it's executing him or locking him up for the rest of his days. btw Dave you A NIN fan too? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
