11 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderthe answer to your question is yes. It doesn't matter that he didn't kill anybody. He RAPED HIS OWN DAUGHTER. Stabbed her than sat there to watch her die. Shes only alive today becaude of some hikers. The man had enough time to have two cigarettes. I say fry his ass.
I don't have an article saying what he was convicted of, but apparently he didn't kill anyone. You believe that the State should have the power to execute people who don't commit murder?
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by CanadaguyThere'd be a lot of executions in the world if everyone who committed a rape or assault with a weapon was executed. Anything else you feel people should be executed for?
the answer to your question is yes. It doesn't matter that he didn't kill anybody. He RAPED HIS OWN DAUGHTER. Stabbed her than sat there to watch her die. Shes only alive today becaude of some hikers. The man had enough time to have two cigarettes. I say fry his ass.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIts not the rape or assult. Its the heinous nature of the crime. How can this man live with himself, and if he capable of doing this then its a good thing hes locked up. But I would be happier knowing he was dead.
There'd be a lot of executions in the world if everyone who committed a rape or assault with a weapon was executed. Anything else you feel people should be executed for?
11 Jan 06
If it was my daughter I would not try to get some sort of perverse "justice" through any court system. The man would die. No body, no crime. He might as well killed his own daughter for what she now has to live with for the rest of her life. Jail time obviously does not fix these people. He already served his sentence for a previous crime and it proved to serve no purpose. But go ahead, pay hard earned tax dollars to keep this piece of sh1t alive. But when the next guy gets out and comes from one of your sweet little children I would be interested to see how any of you would react.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by mokkoI'd rec that if I could.
If it was my daughter I would not try to get some sort of perverse "justice" through any court system. The man would die. No body, no crime. He might as well killed his own daughter for what she now has to live with for the rest of her life. Jail time obviously does not fix these people. He already served his sentence for a previous crime and it proved to serv ...[text shortened]... rom one of your sweet little children I would be interested to see how any of you would react.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by mokkoWhen someone is given two consecutive life terms in Idaho, they're not trying to "fix" him. And if he might as well have killed her, do you think the daughter should be executed, too? Of course not. She is still alive and the death penalty is reserved for murders and only murders with aggravating circumstances at that. If the girl had died, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten the death penalty. She didn't, so he got life imprisonment. Emotionalism is not a substitute for the law. The death penalty is the ultimate penalty and if it is to be applied at all, it can only be for the ultimate crime: murder.
If it was my daughter I would not try to get some sort of perverse "justice" through any court system. The man would die. No body, no crime. He might as well killed his own daughter for what she now has to live with for the rest of her life. Jail time obviously does not fix these people. He already served his sentence for a previous crime and it proved to serv ...[text shortened]... rom one of your sweet little children I would be interested to see how any of you would react.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, I tell you what. If he ever escapes from prison he can stay at your house. You can tuck him in with your daughter.
When someone is given two consecutive life terms in Idaho, they're not trying to "fix" him. And if he might as well have killed her, do you think the daughter should be executed, too? Of course not. She is still alive and the death penalty is reserved for murders and only murders with aggravating circumstances at that. If the girl had died, I'm pretty su ...[text shortened]... e penalty and if it is to be applied at all, it can only be for the ultimate crime: murder.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWell stabbing somebody and leaving them to die is intentional murder. Just by sheer circumstance that the poor girl survived at all. If raping and stabbing your own 12 year old daughter is not aggravated I don't know what is.
When someone is given two consecutive life terms in Idaho, they're not trying to "fix" him. And if he might as well have killed her, do you think the daughter should be executed, too? Of course not. She is still alive and the death penalty is reserved for murders and only murders with aggravating circumstances at that. If the girl had died, I'm pretty su ...[text shortened]... e penalty and if it is to be applied at all, it can only be for the ultimate crime: murder.
Two life sentences is a tax payers dream I am sure. I'm sure that when this little girl grows up she will be pleased to know a portion of her hard earned money is going to keep her dear loving father fed and alive after what he put her through. The courts and laws are a joke and imprisonment is not an ideal punishment in all matters of crime.
As I said before the only good thing about the existing laws is the brilliant clause of no body, no crime. Put some creative thought into it is all I'm saying.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by mokkoHow many executions per year would you like? Do you know how many murders there are? Rapes? Aggravated assaults? How much blood do you want before you feel there's sufficient "justice"?
Well stabbing somebody and leaving them to die is intentional murder. Just by sheer circumstance that the poor girl survived at all. If raping and stabbing your own 12 year old daughter is not aggravated I don't know what is.
Two life sentences is a tax payers dream I am sure. I'm sure that when this little girl grows up she will be pleased to know a porti ...[text shortened]... e brilliant clause of no body, no crime. Put some creative thought into it is all I'm saying.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think it comes in numbers I think it comes in the extent of the crime. You have to be able to admit on some level that certain people are unredeamable, their crimes beyond human understanding and their existance purely unjustifiable.
How many executions per year would you like? Do you know how many murders there are? Rapes? Aggravated assaults? How much blood do you want before you feel there's sufficient "justice"?
I simply cannot support such a bleeding heart society that wants and needs to redeem itself as a higher form of intelligence by blatently wasting money on the survival of criminals that can be better spent on the recovery of the victums. You do realize at one time it was the criminal themselves that paid for their stay in prison not the other way around. And it wasn't the life of luxurey it is now either.
We've become a society of weak and accepting people who allow the criminally insane to call the shots and threaten the lives of the innocent. It should always come down to individual circumstances and not all lumped together into some crime melting pot. Each person and each crime is unique and you can't expect a one cell solution to every problem.
12 Jan 06
I'm a little worried that no-one has asked exactly what is wrong with the guy. I mean medically. He's obviously not the full shilling. As far as I'm aware, you can only be convicted of a crime if you knew your actions would cause harm / suffering. I'm not condoning what he did - who would - but if this guy is hearing voices, or is simply unaware of what he is doing (and I do mean unaware) is he guilty of the crime?