US soldier gets 100 years for rape, murder

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your unsubstantiated claims bore me. More innocent civilians by far were deliberately killed in 10 seconds at Hiroshima then have been killed by all the Middle Eastern suicide bombers put together. I'm waiting for a government "denouncement".

The bombing of Hiroshima was in a different time and a different world. Does anyone believe that if the Japanese or the Germans or the Russians had had The Bomb in ww2 they wouldn't have used it? Japan fanatically continued to fight a lost war, one in which it had engaged in countless war crimes starting in Manchuria in 1936. The bomb saved thousands of American lives which would have been lost in an invasion of mainland Japan. No apology is necessary.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hmm. I can see your point, but I still think the fact that these guys dispensed 5 death sentences on others, in a pre-meditated manner, for no other crime than existing, suggests that it's going to take far more than 10 years to rehabilitate them. I don't believe they will be given sufficient time for that - would a civilian who commits the same crime be eligible for parole in 10 years?

Who's "they"? Two guys, neither of whom actually killed anybody, cooperated and got 90 and 100 year sentences. What do you think the guys who don't get a deal will get? I suspect that there will be at the very least life without parole sentences handed out. Will that be sufficient?

Originally posted by jakejjk
The bombing of Hiroshima was in a different time and a different world. Does anyone believe that if the Japanese or the Germans or the Russians had had The Bomb in ww2 they wouldn't have used it? Japan fanatically continued to fight a lost war, one in which it had engaged in countless war crimes starting in Manchuria in 1936. The bomb saved thousands of A ...[text shortened]... an lives which would have been lost in an invasion of mainland Japan. No apology is necessary.

Besides the fact that there is no such thing as "mainland Japan", the military leaders at the time felt the use of the bomb was unnecessary. I've covered this several times in threads, but the fairy tale you believe in is apparantly unshakeable.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't. There are 5 defendants with apparently varying degrees of culpability; 2 have been offered some degree of leniency to testify against the others to assure that the most culpable will be found guilty and suitably punished. Do you find that result "contemptible"? I don't; 10 years in prison isn't exactly a slap on the wrist.

If a parole board finds that after 10 years of being in prison he no longer presents any type of threat to society, what would be the point of keeping him in prison?

Granting of parole for violent offenders does not mean they no longer present any type of threat to society: From U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics 1986-1997, "Offenders convicted of a violent offense returned to prison at a higher rate (32% of releases)"

Parole is simply a money saver, as it costs less to monitor parolees as it does to keep them in prison, or solve prison overpopulation issues.

If a murderer pleads guilty, he should be imprisoned without parole, or, if parole cannot be 100% guaranteed as no option, he should be shot.

In this case, I would like to see each man that raped this girl, and the man that shot them all, killed in the cheapest manner available. "Reform" is a joke, why should they be given a chance to reform, their victims are dead.

Originally posted by no1marauder
10 years in prison isn't exactly a slap on the wrist.

Yes it is, it is a laughable little tap.

Originally posted by SJ247
[b]If a parole board finds that after 10 years of being in prison he no longer presents any type of threat to society, what would be the point of keeping him in prison?

Granting of parole for violent offenders does not mean they no longer present any type of threat to society: From U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics 1986-1997, "Off ...[text shortened]... e. "Reform" is a joke, why should they be given a chance to reform, their victims are dead.[/b]

So. SJ if one of these Soldiers were a brother of yours? would you want them shot in the cheapest possible way?

Originally posted by mochiron
So. SJ if one of these Soldiers were a brother of yours? would you want them shot in the cheapest possible way?

Absolutely. If a brother of mine admitted planning and committing these crimes, the only prayer I could muster is one for the victims' surviving family, and I would be grateful he was given a bullet, rather than torture, (which is what I would like to see, if my brother were the victim of a crime like this.)

Originally posted by SJ247
Absolutely. If a brother of mine admitted planning and committing these crimes, the only prayer I could muster is one for the victims' surviving family, and I would be grateful he was given a bullet, rather than torture, (which is what I would like to see, if my brother were the victim of a crime like this.)

Ok...

Originally posted by SJ247
[b]If a parole board finds that after 10 years of being in prison he no longer presents any type of threat to society, what would be the point of keeping him in prison?

Granting of parole for violent offenders does not mean they no longer present any type of threat to society: From U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics 1986-1997, "Off ...[text shortened]... e. "Reform" is a joke, why should they be given a chance to reform, their victims are dead.[/b]

I guess you missed the part where this guy didn't actually kill anybody. Killing him would be grossly disproportionate.

By your figures, 68% of parolees who have committed violent crimes in the past don't return to prison. Sounds like quite a few reform their behavior.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess you missed the part where this guy didn't actually kill anybody. Killing him would be grossly disproportionate.

The accusation is that they planned the rape and murder beforehand. Do you think he was planning on raping the girl and then letting her and her family go?

He should die.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Besides the fact that there is no such thing as "mainland Japan"

Yes there is. It's called Honshu.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Besides the fact that there is no such thing as "mainland Japan", the military leaders at the time felt the use of the bomb was unnecessary. I've covered this several times in threads, but the fairy tale you believe in is apparantly unshakeable.

from Wikipedia:

".....Mainland Japan is defined to consist of several major islands (Honshū, Kyūshū, Shikoku) and many minor ones. The term mainland Japan is also sometimes used to translate Honshū, the largest island, though naichi not.''............

Your statement that the A-bomb was not necessary is in a way correct since Japan could have been bombed into submission using conventional bombs, (the Tokyo firebombing killed more people than Hiroshima) but as the survey below states, conventional bombing would have prolonged the war unti Nov. or Dec.

....."
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[68][67]
The survey assumed that continued conventional bombing attacks on Japan—with additional direct and indirect casualties—would be needed to force surrender by the November or December dates mentioned"....

Originally posted by no1marauder

By your figures, 68% of parolees who have committed violent crimes in the past don't return to prison. Sounds like quite a few reform their behavior.

Not so. They most likely committed dozens of crimes before getting caught (see statistics on crimes committed vs. sentences served) and will commit dozens more after release. The 32% were just dumb enough to get caught again.

Originally posted by jakejjk
from Wikipedia:

".....Mainland Japan is defined to consist of several major islands (Honshū, Kyūshū, Shikoku) and many minor ones. The term mainland Japan is also sometimes used to translate Honshū, the largest island, though naichi not.''............

Your statement that the A-bomb was not necessary is in a way correct since Japan c ties—would be needed to force surrender by the November or December dates mentioned"....

There were two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in the Second World War, not one. They had already tested the implosion bomb and knew it's capabilities. They were sufficiently sure that the gun type bomb used on Hiroshima would work that they didn't test it, but knew what such weapons could do from the Trinity test and on theoretical grounds. The bombs were dropped above cities, in such a way as to maximize the resultant firestorm. The Geneva convention is quite clear about the use of military force against civilians, which is that you can't do it. The use of the bombs against Japan was a war crime. The blitz was a war crime, and was started by the British to deflect the German air attacks on the beleagured RAF airfields. Germany and Japan's war crimes are well documented, but I really think that you aren't going to get far suggesting that the US and Britain are not also guilty of war crimes. The difference between then and now is that I can't think of a war crime committed by either the Japanese or the Germans. It's a rather different matter with the British and US forces over the last sixty years.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess you missed the part where this guy didn't actually kill anybody. Killing him would be grossly disproportionate.

By your figures, 68% of parolees who have committed violent crimes in the past don't return to prison. Sounds like quite a few reform their behavior.

you probably wouldn't be so blase if that 32% was a drop in your retirement portfolio.