Man Sentenced to 1300+ Years in Prison

I spose none of you would think the same way about brining someone to death if YOu where on the toaster
We are humans, we are not perfect but we cannot decide who has right to live or die, even if we think the person deserve it. If you think he must endure what he made to someone, well you arent better than him.
Its enjoying of someone suffering or death, its called sadism and maybe some kind of necrophilia for the death, and by all means , its murdering someone,but hiding yourself behind a so called justice.

hopefully for him he will probably kill himself after a few years

but thats all you peoples want right?

You need to take a prison tour if that is what you believe. People caged in 6 x 10 cells, 23 hours a day, for the rest of thier lives is no Sunday School picnic. If there are victims that endure that please let me know who they are.

Killing the muderer in no way relieves the victims torment as far as I know.

I'm seriously always torn when it comes to "life in prison" or "death". For many years after studying serial killers, I believed they should be the only criminals that would need to face the prospect of "death" as a sentence. And only them because they are "humans" that have no chance of changing. They are hard wired to be who they are from birth. At least in all the studies and research I have done. And other than them, most people would have a much harder deal if they had to LIVE with what they did rather than just die. That is of course also debateable based on what you believe happens after death.

So I remain on the fence about issues like this. A part of me wants this man dead, another part wants him to suffer but live. I guess I just hate that he gets to live off of my hard earned money. And gets to live the rest of his life better than a good many people in the US. I would rather my taxes go to a more worthy cause than a person that will never be a real human outside of a prison before they die.

Hard call though I know.

I know what prisons are, what they look like.. believe me, the person that is found guilty like this fellow isnt in there to be on a picnic. He deserves to be caged in something smaller.

Why dont you take a tour of the mental hospitals where people are put because of others like this man? Take a tour of their life, walk a mile in their shoes. I use to think like you, but no longer.

I've seen too much to ever feel sorry for a criminal in a 6 x 10 cell - which most really are not, they go to school, get college degrees, get free medical and dental rest of their lives. Why are you so gung-ho for protecting someone like this man? You seem to have more compassion for the criminal than the victim(s).

I feel for the people that are incarcerated when innocent, yet there has to be some form of punishment. Otherwise you are simply telling them to go ahead and hurt someone else.

I have never seen such a twisting of what I said! I hope you feel better tomorrow.

Not sure where I twisted what you were saying. You were for keeping a criminal like him out of jail or at least treating them better than deserved. Maybe you didnt mean it to come across like that, but it sure has. I don't believe in the death penalty because there is always always the possiblity of an innocent or relatively innocent person being condemned. I do believe in punishing criminals though. Some of the victims may not be in a '6 x 10 cage' but they are in a cage until they can work through what was done to them, and not one of their own making.

No she wasn't. She was for "no death penalty."

Sure, the victims go through awful psychological and physical trauma as a result of the crimes committed, but at least they're being helped in psych wards.

In prison, it sucks. It really does.

Child molesters are most targeted in prisons (other than, perhaps, "You belong to a different gang so I'm gonna stab you 32 times!!". People find out that you were convicted of child molestation and rape, you're gonna get killed. Or beaten savagely. For the rest of your life.

So, no, prison is no picnic.

I am sorry but where did I say to to keep that criminal out of jail?

Yes youre correct, you didnt say keep him out of jail and I do agree to no death penalty, yet I do believe the punishments should fit the crimes. Oh, and the ones in prison have the right for psychiatric care as well, maybe even easier for them to obtain it than the one on the outside.

That aside, the rest of your posting here shows more compassion for the criminal than for the victim. If I'm wrong, please point out where. I have no compassion at all for those that abuse children either. Children need to be protected.

Thank you. There is no treatment in any prison besides rapes and beatings. The treatment mode, and the educational programs, ended many years ago and now it is nothing more than warehousing of live bodies which I consider very severe punishment.

All I am saying is that I am against the death penality pure and simple.

I understand that the US prison system is in terrible shape, yet there are programs for those willing to take that step to use them while incarcerated. How do I know? I had a nephew in jail .. for theft. He went to prison because he was guilty. He had very good treatment there. Not in the holding cells no, but in prison, yes. Now I cant say thats true of all prisons. I have to admit that.

As someone who has been struggling with this issue for years, I beg you to not take it personal when I ask you this question. Because in all honesty, I am still trying to learn from others what they think on this issue because it gives me cause to think about my own feelings.

What you state above about prison being nothing more than "rapes and beatings". A "warehousing of live bodies". To me that means "torture". I doubt many would think otherwise of those words.

Yet you are opposed to the death penalty. Why?

Toruture is MUCH more inhumane than death in my eyes. I personally would rather be killed outright than tortured until I die.

So why would you be "ok" with a person being tortured for life. But be "pure and simp[ley]" opposed to the death penalty?

Again, I am genuinely curious and not asking this as an attack on you as a person with your own thoughts.

I know you didnt ask me that question, but I'm gonna say my thoughts. No one has the right to take the life of another person. NO ONE. The prison systems all through the world need to be restructured, yet with the way our world is today, I don't see that happening - in my lifetime at least. Torture is wrong no matter who does in and in what 'name' they do it in - from prisons to religeous fanatics - its wrong. Since we are only human, we can only put the criminals in a mangled system at this point and wait for the ultimate judgement that is going to waiting for us all in the end. BTW before you think I'm a religeous fanatic, let me assure you I'm not. I am only one person that wants badly to believe there will be a fairness to it all somewhere.. here or in eternity.

(*er, sorry, I still think that guy needs to be castrated for a start )

If you believe in reincarnation the death penalty is just recycling.

but then again murder is also recycling.....

Recycling is dumb

What about in self-defense? I personally know a few women in prison that are there simply because they happened to plunge the knife into their boyfriend or husband a few seconds before he was about to do the same to her. What if someone states that no matter what, they will kill innocent people again. Do you *really* believe that no person can take the life of another and it be justified? Where do we draw the line?



Castration of a male would be considered torture in my opinion at least. It seems you contridict your beliefs in these two statements. Granted I agree the guy deserves a castration , but, again.. I'm trying to get down to the issue of why one punishment is worse than another.

Am against corporal punishment

We could go on like this forever, but I'm not going to. No one has the right to take another person's life. Castration can be done in a humane way (surgeries are performed on a regular basis with no physical pain involved until its over) - castration would prevent him from doing what he did again. Castration would fit the crime. Castration might make the next one think before he does it. Not sure what they could do to a woman to fit the crime, sorry.

The biggest thing is not whether one has the 'right' or not, the biggest thing is the people that do these wicked things. Why is one person only happy when s/he makes another unhappy? Why is it some men can only get pleasure from beating on women? Why is it some women can only get pleasure from beating on a man? (or children or same sex,, etc, etc, etc)

As for my contradiction, all I can say is that I'm human. Guess each will have to decide what their beliefs are. I'm sure all faiths have an ultimate being that says what should and should not be done - maybe that can help you answer your questions you've struggled with.

Best of luck to you in figuring it out.

Pendari,

As someone who lives in a country which long ago abolished the so-called 'death penalty' I can see it from a somewhat different perspective.

I am surprised how so many people in this thread seem to be unable to separate their own feelings of anger and thirst for vengeance from the judicial system and the process of justice.

To me, the main function of putting someone in jail is to place them somewhere where they can no longer do any harm to society as a whole. I am not in favour of torture, and that goes for prison life as well as everywhere else. What is the difference, for example, between placing a serial killer in prison or in a secure mental hospital? Over here, the mental hospitals are where the serial killers tend to finish up; we now incarcerate psychopaths there, as well as psychotics. In a secure mental hospital, should life be made as miserable as possible for the patients, some of whom have committed horrendous crimes? I think most people would think not. Why, then, should prison be any different?

For those who have been affected by one of these crimes, the instinct for vengeance must be overwhelming. Should we then give the victims the implements of torture, and allow them to cut pieces off the offenders until they die? Would that be conforming with the ideals of justice? If you think not, then you have to analyse why you think not.

I think not, because in my view it would reduce the victim to the level of the perpetrator. And it would reduce society to the level at which it thought that acts like these were ok, given a particular set of circumstances.

The whole point of society is that it rests on certain moral principles which override individual feelings. If the person next door owns a nice car and we covet it, society tells us that it is wrong to steal it, and that if we do so we will be punished. In the same way, society tells us that torture is wrong, and that killing people is wrong, and that we will be dealt with firmly, but dispassionately if we commit these acts.

The problem with the 'death penalty' is that state killing diminishes the moral authority of the state concerned. Or at least, that is the problem when it is exacted on guilty people.

Sometimes, unfortunately, that is not the case.

That is fine, and I respect your choice not to disucss this further with me. It is a delicate subject, and as I stated myself, it is a "decision" I've struggled with for years. I love honest opinons though, and please know I do appretiate you taking the time to answer me.



No need to be sorry. I got a response once about this same question, and what would be done to a woman. I get ill thinking about it. But I agree that a punishment such as this would make a person think twice! I often take the side of "let the punishment fit the crime". Unfortunatly that often means a punishment worse than death in my eyes. So it is a harsh thing to really want to "see" come to pass.



I see what you are saying. And do agree about those who do it outright. I'm still not conviced that in the case of self-defense that it is wrong to kill another. I certainly know if I walked in on someone trying to abuse my daughter, I would not think twice before attempting to kill them. And I doubt anyone in the world could convince me I was wrong to try and do so. So I have an issue standing in judgment of others that would do the same against a person who had no affect on my own personal life.



Yes you are. And the fact we are human makes an issue like this much more difficult. If we were simply animals, it would be a non-issue. But we have more intelligence than that. More heart as well. And a huge part of the human instinct seems to be forgiveness and empathy. Of course, I'm learning to raise an autistic child who has no empathy for others, and it is a bizzare issue to deal with. While a different subject unto itself, it is something that makes me rethink daily how I react to certain situations.



Well, not everyone believes in a being that tells us right from wrong. Some believe that we as humans do that on our own. I suppose that is why some of us turn to other people when we are trying to sort things out. I belive in a god, but as again another subject all together, I know it is not in the same way that others do.



Thank you again for expressing your feelings! I do learn so much daily from others.

As someone raised by a Feminist, Athiest, Anarchist, I can say that it does not always take a different country to find those of differing perspectives. I was raised to doubt everything, question everything, and never to follow anyone. I could spend hours describing the stories of the protests and issues I delt with growing up. But those would not be something to go into now. Suffice it to say, I certainly understand that my views are not something I expect others to share.



I am not so surprised at this. Mainly because I think it is human nature to seek revenge for wrongdoings. Right or wrong, I think it is natural instinct of survial that makes many want to seek their own form of justice.



This I can agree with. Unfortunatly, most prisons (at least here in the US) are not a place where people go to be rehibilitated. They are nothing more than storage units to keep people out of the hair of the public. Most come out worse than they went in. Some *never* want to come out after being in prison for 30 years or more. Hell, some of the most minor cases keep a person from being able to get a home or a job. No, prisons here are not to help people. And they *do* become nothing more than a torture chamber.

At the same time, our lesser criminals get to be in prisons that allow them more ammenities than some of our working class citizens. Why should a criminal be allowed a TV, Internet, 3 meals a day, and a roof over their head. Off of mine and others hard work. When some honest person is out there barely able to keep a roof over their head? That is one issue I have yet to find an answer for.

Another is the fact that we have some in prisons who just seriously don't deserve to be there. Now if we would legalize drugs, we could half the prison population. I know that is another argument, but seriously, our prisons are overcrowded and they are NOT used to help anyone.

Serial Killers are a different breed of humans. They cannot be helped, no matter how wonderful a facilty may be. Thankfully, there are a only a handful of true Serial Killers in the world, and thus I think they are a seperate issue all together. To lump them in with "regular" prison population is wrong in my eyes.



Honestly I don't know how I feel about this. I think of a situation where a person walks in on someone commiting a crime such as this. If they had the ability to save a human by killing the person commiting the crime, I would not think ill of the person who "saved the day". But if they are a few minutes short. And the police get there first. That criminal goes to prison and our taxes pay to keep them alive despite what they did. In one case, a person is a hero. If that person falls short, someone else doing the same thing becomes a murderer. It confuses me.



I do not think there is an absolute right or wrong. Therefore I believe that individual cases must be looked at. Do you think it is wrong for someone to defend themselves and end up killing someone who would have killed them? To me this "which came first the chicken or the egg" scenario is the one that trips me up all the time.



I'm not quite sure what you mean by this statement. I'm not sure if it is the wording, or just my lack of knowledge. But I am wanting to understand what you are trying to say here. I'm sorry for my lack of vocabulary.

I don't believe we're judges of who can live or die. But regardless of the moral issue, the one thing that really cinches it for me is: are we really 100% sure the guy on the chair did it? In this case it seems pretty clear. But where do you draw the line? Courts are not all-knowing; the wrong people go to jail all the time. Prison sucks, but at least you have a chance to clear yourself if you're innocent.

If a destitute, shady character shows up in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets accused of murder, who is he going to pay to get him off, even if he's really innocent? Johnny Cochran? Or the lawyer appointed by the court who might have barely passed the bar exam?

Pendari Lorentz, you remind me of someone I talked to on a regular basis (whom also is raising an autistic child). She and I had very good conversations and never took each other's words as insulting to the other in any way. I hope that if we're ever in game at same time, that I get the chance to meet you.

Selador Cellardoor, I also would like someday to get the chance to meet you as well. Thank you both for reminding me of the things I use to try to think about but have allowed to become buried in the back of my mind.

Sounds to me a pretty good upbringing for a young woman!




I don't see the moral dilemma here. In the one case you are saving an innocent life at any cost. In the second case the police are able to contain the situation without undue violence. If in the first instance the person interrupting the crime had the means of preventing it without killing the attacker, then clearly that is the correct course for them to take. If they nevertheless went ahead and killed the attacker anyway, then they would be guilty of murder.



The law over here is very clear. You are entitled to defend yourself to the extent that is required. Cross that line, as did the man who shot a 16-year-old burglar in the back as he was leaving the premises, and you will find yourself in court on a charge of murder or manslaughter.



I'm not surprised you didn't understand what I meant - it was very badly expressed. What I meant to say was that even when killing someone who has killed, the state is thereby reducing its own moral authority. Killing is wrong, ok? So we punish it by killing. And when the person being killed is actually innocent, then it is difficult to distinguish the moral positions of the state and of any common or garden murderer.

The following link is to a series of pictures of someone who has just been electrocuted. PLEASE DON'T LOOK IF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH. Unless you have been arguing for the death penalty, in which case you should look.

I think everybody who supports the death penalty should be able to witness an execution. After all, it is being done in your name.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.patrickcrusade.org/wpeA.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.patrickcrusade.org/fryhim.htm&h=750&w=511&sz=33&tbnid=JwDpDUUVZzwJ:&tbnh=140&tbnw=95&hl=en&start=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Delectric%2Bchair%26start%3D100%26svnum

Yes, Pendari is lovely.

Hope to meet you too one of these days.

I AM OUTRAGED!!!!! 2,900 years would have been more appropriate dontcha think?