|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
The Sniper
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
Anyone else agree that the sniper and his step son should be tortured 3 days straight? 
Posted by: Shalome
Because as we all know, it's been proven that violence makes up for and even solves violence.
Posted by: justinious
 Quote:
Originally posted by Shalome
Because as we all know, it's been proven that violence makes up for and even solves violence.
|
It's sad, but people want to see blood to make it ABSOLUTELY impossible for the alleged (innocent until guilty even if there's heaps of evidence) snipers to hurt, kill, or maim anyone again.
It's even sadder (more sad?) that one human would shoot another at all.
Posted by: uh...ok
Can we even be SURE that those are the snipers? From what little I saw of the news, they were identified at a lineup... and usually those aren't entirely reliable.
-uh...ok
Posted by: EOT(US)
Quote:
Originally posted by Shalome
Because as we all know, it's been proven that violence makes up for and even solves violence.
|
hmmn! Interesting!  Is the gas chamber or lethal injection considered violence?
And finding a rifle in the car that mathces with bullets found in the victums bodies .... sounds like pretty good evidence to me!
Posted by: Shalome
I forgot the <sarcasm> tags.
He said they should be tortured for three days. *shrug* Killing someone is violent, whether it's done quietly in the gas chamber or with a sniper rifle in the streets. Violence doesn't solve anything and obviously does not act as a deterrant. If it did, we wouldn't have psycho snipers running around offing random people.
Public executions didn't make people not kill each other, either. It didn't make the streets any safer then, and it won't now.
There's no right answer. There's just a lot of sadness and pain for a lot of families. That won't go away no matter what's done to the sniper. I don't feel sorry for this psycho, whatever happens to him, but I just don't believe causing death is a solution to causing death.
I hate human nature. The violent and vengeful nature I see every day (in the news, on TV, in the attitudes and casual comments of gun-carrying people where I work) makes me want to crawl away in a hole and cry.
I'm gonna shut up now.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Shalome,
Your statement was a little vague.
Do you believe that one or both of the snipers, if convicted on all of the beltway sniper attacks, should not be put to death as punishment?
Posted by: Shalome
I don't believe in the death penalty.
I believe court-mandated murder is just as cold-blooded as any other kind.
Call me a ****ing liberal bleeding heart hippie tree hugger if you must. It won't be the first time it's happened.
Posted by: EOT(US)
Quote:
Originally posted by N.W.A_Kid
Anyone else agree that the sniper and his step son should be tortured 3 days straight?
|
Ok ...... I will go along with *dis-agreeing* with torturing them for 3 days ....... but I vote for standing them up and firing from a fairly close range .... without *blind-folds* ..... if the gas chamber or lethel injection is too much of a cruel and unusual punishment!
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Shalome,
I was just wondering what you thought was an appropriate punishment for someone that does something like that?
I mean, you want me and everyone else to feed and clothe them for the rest of their life? Provide high security to reduce the risk of them performing the same actions? Take the small risk that someone else maybe subjected to their actions?
I'm not really trying to offend you. I don't understand taking such a risk with other peoples lives.
Posted by: justinious
Quote:
Originally posted by Shalome
Call me a ****ing liberal bleeding heart hippie tree hugger if you must. It won't be the first time it's happened.
|
Yer just a ****ing liberal bleeding heart hippie tree hugger Shal. 
Posted by: EOT(US)
Kane ........
Don't forget! There is always ......... "rehabilitation"
Posted by: Freak
It would be sad if they executed these 2 suspects, and then 1 week later the sniper starts shooting again.
The media is very powerful, they can influence what you think. Maybe the so called 'evidence' isn't as solid and reliable as they make it sound like.
Posted by: Null Actor
I don't believe in trials. I think every suspect should be instantly put to death, just to make sure.
And to be super extra certain it doesn't happen again, we'll take anyone who talks a certain way, and put them to death as well.
And I believe that anyone who doesn't agree with the way this would work, should also be put to death.
Be patriotic: Don't question.
Oh, and I would just like to say Hooray! that the sniper is an ex-military war vet. If, indeed, he is the one.
Posted by: Null Actor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2002Oct24.html
Some quotes of note:
Quote:
|
Contrary to a theory that prompted wide speculation, no evidence has emerged that Muhammad or Malvo is connected to a terrorist organization, law enforcement sources said.
|
Great, that's the first thing I'd assume
Quote:
|
But detectives are examining reports from acquaintances that Muhammad may have sympathized with Osama bin Laden and applauded the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon
|
Yeah, hearsay is always great evidence. Especially when
Quote:
"At this point, we have every intention of seeking the death penalty in this case for the adult," he added.
Malvo is too young to be sentenced to death in Maryland, but Gansler said a sentence of life without parole is "certainly very much on the table."
|
I mean, after all, it's a lot easier to arrange the death of someone when you whip the public up about it.
And this bit is priceless:
Quote:
|
Prosecutors from Maryland, Virginia (where juveniles are eligible for the death penalty) and the federal government were maneuvering yesterday for the first chance to try the sniper case, with a high-level debate centering on which venue has the best chance of carrying out the death penalty.
|
As long as they are killed, not much else matters.
I honestly wonder how long the media will ignore the fact that he's a gulf war vet, and try and blame the entire thing on the elusive 'terror'.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Shalome, I asked you the questions because I wanted to know your answers. I'll admit, the questions are difficult. And I'm opting for the easy answer. The questions I asked are hard and I don't know what "the other side" thinks about it. At least, not from your generation.
If you don't have a good answer, I'm not going to blame you. Or pick on you. 
Posted by: Chako
Heh. Killers deserve killers. I have no doubt in my mind about that statement.
Now, if they are guilty, then yes..do the same to them. It may not stop others from doing it...but it gives the victims some satisfaction for a life lost, and it ensures that they don't escape some time later and do it all over again.
I don't have any bleeding heart sympathies when it comes to cold hardened murderers.
Posted by: EOT(US)
Good to see this back on track.
This thread should be for "opinion's" ... it may have started off with the wrong question .... it is good to see it back the way it is going now.
Just because some of us do not agree with another is no reason for it to turn into a agrument or the opportunity to "antagonize".
Just stand up and say what you believe in, or do not belive in. Even .....
Quote:
Originally posted by Shalome
I don't believe in the death penalty.
Call me a ****ing liberal bleeding heart hippie tree hugger if you must. It won't be the first time it's happened.
|
.... opinions are non-combative and interesting to hear.
Posted by: Tweaker
If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
The death penalty assumes that there is a perfect system of justice ... since the latter is non-existent, the death penalty is much like medicine - you always hope it solves the problem but you're never always sure it won't come back...
It's a matter of choosing which is a lesser evil ...
Posted by: redwench
particularly since in many cases, said system is so imperfect as to allow innocent people to be convicted, and lose all appeals.
Posted by: Xtren
These people clearly aren't innocent, I think the police have sufficient evidence to work this case out. It's just a question of who did all the killing. Don't you guys think that the Sniper(s) deserves the death penalty after all the innocent lives he took?
Posted by: EOT(US)
Laggy ....... is it too late to add a poll to this thread? It might be really interesting to have a poll ...... for those that do not wish to have their name/handle attached to this. But ............ if it is possible, (the poll), it should be about "this particular" case. Not the death penalty, in general.
Posted by: redwench
im rather ambivalent towards the death penalty in theory, but in practice, its discriminatory and faulty. so no, i dont.
Posted by: Tweaker
There is something within us that instinctively says that man has such a value, dignity and greatness that one who murders does not deserve to live. This natural intuition of the heart is something we need to confirm and cherish.
Posted by: Xtren
From my point of view anybody that takes somebody elses life with the intention to do so deserves to have his life taken from him. It seems to be only fair.
Posted by: Spider
Quote:
Originally posted by Xtren
From my point of view anybody that takes somebody elses life with the intention to do so deserves to have his life taken from him. It seems to be only fair.
|
Who will be the executioner's executioner?
Posted by: AltronHGX
▀Touché!
Posted by: scorpion_gold
what these "people" need (i use the term people in a literal sense, not an ethical sense) is to be put in a rubber room, with nothing but a straitjacket for company. if, in fact, they are criminally insane, as opposed to flat-out insane, then they should have some sort of cruel punishment. like a slow death by radiation poisoning. or perhap's spellchecking my essays. or they could toss them into the middle of the pacific ocean and see how long they survive. it would be a betting event. heh heh. i have a sick mind
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Really I don't know why some people think life behind bars is a better alternative of a punishment to the death penalty. I mean what kind of life could they ever have anyway? Life behind bars is nothing more than a living death. Maybe it's more morally based. Either way, is it really more humane to imprison someone for life over the death penalty?
Either way, you can't call either life in prison or the death penalty a solution. Example:
Punishment: A penalty inflicted by a court of justice on a convicted offender as a just retribution, and incidentally for the purposes of reformation and prevention.
There is nothing this guy could get that would ever be benificial to his mind or soul. Reformation is a null point because life=life. Basically it ends up being just for revenge and prevention.
Now torturing him would be an immoral thing IMO. One way or another his life is taken away from him. At least leave him in peace if he dies or gets life in prison.
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Xtren
From my point of view anybody that takes somebody elses life with the intention to do so deserves to have his life taken from him. It seems to be only fair.
|
So since you are advocating the taking of someone's life, who gets to take yours? By supporting the death penalty, you are contributing to a murder of your own.
Posted by: Shalome
Quote:
Originally posted by Spider
Who will be the executioner's executioner?
|
Amen, Spider.
Kane, I don't have the answers, and I won't pretend to. I'm just relaying what's in my heart. We live in an imperfect world. The processof justice has proven to be inherently flawed, especially in capital cases, if you hadn't noticed lately. Then again, we have psychos running around and horribly wasteful tax expenditure and prisons that are more country club than rehabilitative structure (not that anything's proven to work anyway). We have cities in shock that feel their pain should be avenged by taking from someone what he took from them -- life. What to do with all this? Who knows? I don't.
Hell, maybe you're all right. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out, right? The whole "our job to arrange the meeting" thing?
For those of you who rabidly disagree with me, I apologize for attempting to display the human principles of "understanding" and "forgiveness" in the face of the bloodthirsty masses who believe only death and violence makes up for death and violence. Sorry.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Thanks for the response. 
I also believe that wars are sometimes necessary. It would be hard for me to reconcile this while saying the death penalty is wrong.
So, I can understand if someone totally adverse to war would also be totally against the death penalty.
Posted by: redwench
im not into forgiveness :P
but one should show compassion for people, however rotten they may be. doesnt mean you let them roam around free. but torturing is a bit much.
Posted by: Chako
I don't show compassion to murderers.
Posted by: Lord_Buttplug
Bullet to the back of the head. Cheap, easy, and efficient.
Posted by: Shalome
Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe the sniper should be locked in a hole of a prison with no chance of parole, ever.
Posted by: Chako
Delicious irony.
Death would be a kinder penalty then being given 100+ years in jail with no chance of seeing parole.
Posted by: EOT(US)
Guess I will wait around, for the trial, and listen to his/their blood thirsty excuse for making all the families suffer.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
I didn't say anything about killing them. To torture someone and leave them alive is more painful than kiling them. Killing someone ends their pain and suffering, and having to remember living with what they did. Although I doubt they regret what they did, that's why I say the U.S.A. gets taken advantage of. Fair trials let 100% pure criminals off the hook, not all the time, but sometimes. And it seems a lot of innocent men have been spending time in jail for crimes they didn't commit recently. I say let me be dictator of this country and see what happens. There wouldn't be a country left to run! 
Posted by: Shalome
I never said I was against harsh punishment for horrendous crime.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
sorry, just seemed like you were when you mentioned you forgot the sarcasm thingies
Posted by: Shalome
Harsh punishment != torture and/or death.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
I have said it before and I'll likely say it again: There are fates much worse than death.
And it doesn't take much of an imagination to devise any such fate. If these two individuals do in fact turn out to be behind these slayings, they deserve a 'just retribution' but killing them makes the state and the democracy behind the state nothing but a nation of hypocrites. I believe that a life of absolute imprisonment coupled with earnest efforts to rehabilitate these two would be the most fitting punishment. If these guys could get close to center again and see how F'ed up their actions are, living with that would be a torturuous anguish befitting a crime of this gravity. That and their meals during their lifetime incarceration should consist of unflavored oatmeal prepared with semi-warm urine and eaten with an Epilady.
Posted by: NightMage
this is all very interesting, I see it like this, the very same government that trained him to kill wants to kill him for doing what he was trained to do? I agree that they didn't intend him to kill his own countrymen but it still doesn't add up. Also where I come from (australia) a few years ago we had a guy go crazy and killed over 30 people at a tourist attraction, we don't have the death penalty so he has gotten 30 yrs for every person he killed and is in prison at the governor's pleasure.... why? you might ask, because it is believed there will be no governor stupid enough to let him go free. Also as a result we had a huge fire-arms reform, the result: homicide by firearms dropped by 65 %. So here's a question why don't American's take the initiative and start enforcing stricter gun laws.
and in response to who it was that asked what the difference between the death penalty and being sentenced to life is, simple, life imprisonment gives the person a chance to start regretting, and knowing that it was his/her actions that put him there. Personally I think they should both be shackled on a remote island.
Nuff said, by the way, there is no difference between war, cold blooded murder, and court mandated killing.
Posted by: justinious
I agree that there are fates worth than death, and that the bastards should pay for their actions if guilty. I just want to make a point: Where is the line between "just retribution" and torture?
Torture:- Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
- An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
- Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
- Something causing severe pain or anguish.
Where should we as a society draw the line? Is caning appropriate? Is hard labor in Death Valley it? Scraping a persons tongue w/ an Epilady? (good one Angst )
I personally would like some way for the criminal to experience the physical and mental torture he/she inflicted on the victim or victims family. I also would like to see the re-institution of pointless hard labor for Class A felonies (rape, murder, etc.). As for the death penalty, I see it as a cheap way out. Killing violent offenders just shortens the time needed for them to realize that they f'ed up big time. Also the argument of it being too expensive to feed, clothe, shelter lifers is BS. The reason it's so expensive is that we coddle them too much. There's a Sheriff in Arizona (I forget which county) who set up an inventive, cheap, and IMHO appropriate way to "rehabilitate" his inmates. This Sheriff yanked ALL privileges, makes them live inside a tent outside and feeds them bologna sandwiches. The are uncomfortable and humiliated, but still are healthy and sheltered. I can't remember the exact figures, but the number of repeat offenders is waaaaay below the national average. All of his methods cost pennies compared to other correctional facilities.
Anyway, that's my opinion, what do y'all think?
Posted by: Xtren
As long as the punishment for the Sniper's crime is as brutal and painful as possible I guess it doesn't have to be the death penalty to satisfy me. I'm never pitious to murderers, and I don't believe they deserve to live without burden, even behind bars if they aren't feeling bad about what they did. The Sniper should have to pay very dearly, emotionally and physically for what he did. This guy doesn't deserve to rehabilitate, or even be able to socialize with anyone in prison. Sitting in a dark hole all alone seems like it would serve him right. Seems like a dark enough punishment.
Posted by: redwench
what makes you think that he did this as a lark? he certainly didnt do it for profit. the man is obviously mentally deranged. he even might be insane, although thats doubtful. but from what ive heard, from his relatives and news, is that he was a perfectly upstanding citizen until now. which leads to the obvious speculation that hes flipped. not in the same category as sam berkowitz.
Posted by: Xtren
So because this guy flipped you're saying that he doesn't deserve a harsh penalty? Maybe he did need mental help, and was suffering from depression or something. However, there were two of these guys, and normally you wouldn't take your fury out with someone else by your side. The murders seem pretty cold-blooded to me, I'm pretty sure the sniper knew very well what he was doing.
Posted by: redwench
i didnt say he didnt deserve to be locked up, perhaps for the rest of his life. and not every form of mental illness means you cant think or plan. one of the things that makes me think theres something suddenly wrong with him is the inclusion of his stepson. he obviously cares for the boy, and its returned, or they wouldnt be together. and yes, 17 is still a boy, just a large one.
he, for some strange reason, thought this was the right thing to do, or he wouldnt have had the boy with him. now, unless something has come out that i havent seen, hes been a normal, law abiding citizen for 40 or so years. suddenly, this year he turns criminal, and a rather nasty one at that. my thoughts are a sudden mental illness or a brain tumor.
whether hes criminally insane, or truely had no control, is beyond me. thats up to the justice system to decide. but i have no doubt that theres a mental disturbance there, and he deserves pity for that.
Posted by: Xtren
You have to remember he does have a violent history either way. The guy's wife divorced him because he was abusive, and you never know what else this guy was into. He could have a history with drugs an alcohol as well. The whole thing with the 17 year old is wierd, and logic in why he tugged the kid into this is hard to find. I suppose he must have had a big influence on him though.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
My my, but don't the thronging masses love to see a good ol' fashioned execution?? I tell you, if it doesn't have enough blood or seared flesh to satisfy that overpowering bloodlust that gettin' a good rage on gives you, well, then it's just not punishmennt enough. Ain't that right, Xtren??
People have no sense of understanding anymore, even for their own tendencies. This guy is condemned for following his own inclinations without reasoning it out (obviously because he no longer has the ability to reason) and this makes him a criminal, because it resulted in the death of others. However, any thought of rehabilitation for these two is thrown out the window and people are crying out for his blood because people just love to see power weilded and they love to see some poor bastard get crushed under the titan heel of Just Punishment. But what they don't see is they are doing the same thing: following their instincts (wanting him dead) without a moment of reason (such as considering rehabilitation) resulting in the deaths of others (the sniper and his male companion). Now admittedly, his victims were innocent and he is guilty, this is true. But the point is: what is the difference between him and the millions of people who want to see him fry?? He can't reason. . . .most people just don't bother to reason. I'm not saying he's not guilty of grisly acts and I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. What I am saying is before you start getting your blood-soaked Jimmy of Death all hard, think about what it says about yourself when you beat your sword on your shield and bellow with condemnation like a goddamned barbarian.
Posted by: AK47
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
the man is obviously mentally deranged
|
The only thing he obviously is, is guilty.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Calling them insane and mentally unstable is quite presumptuous. Not any different than other people calling for their execution.
They could have easily been religious zealots with a clear mental picture of what they desired.
Different cultures have different ideas about what is right and what is wrong. That's one of the reasons wars are fought.
Posted by: redwench
if hes a religious zealot, its also quite recent, since hes a gulf war vet. and while i believe i heard he wasnt happy with the gulf war, then would be the time to do this stuff if it were a lifelong thing.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Well...
Some people work on their own timeline, not yours.
Posted by: Null Actor
Ehh, when people are trained to kill for a living, I don't find it a big step to see them just snapping and deciding that if killing is what they do best, killing is what they'll do.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read that the average cost of executing a death row prisoner is more costly than imprisoning him for life. Which should toss the whole 'kill him to save money' argument out the window. If it's correct.
However, I find the fact that economics influence people to kill absolutely detestable.
Posted by: TotalRecall
The two guys were not intelligent. The letters they left the police showed whoever writing them was not fluent in English. My local newspaper had them reprinted.
They demanded $10 million be sent to a bank account, apparentlly not considering how they would remove it without being caught. The phone numbers of people they had talked to were given, ultimately leading to their arrest. The consequences of this may have been much greater had they shown some sort of higher thought process.
Is it unjust to link killing to entertainment? I've often thought entertainment is what spawns most human actions.
As for their punishment, I don't see much of a point in locking them up and allowing them to live only on the bare necessities. Rehabilitation where they are allowed to interact with positive influences to society would be the best decision, in my opinion.
Posted by: Null Actor
In this case, I'd say military training had far more influence on his actions than any form of entertainment.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Not to mention that the military will take just about anyone despite previous criminal background or other mental problems. I think the Air force is the only branch with strict screening.
I could be wrong though. Maybe someone with military background can chime in. All I know is, I know some people who went into the service. And they are people who have no business getting trained to be a professional killing machine.
Posted by: Shalome
Ion, it totally depends on what you'll be doing once you get into the military.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
I think for some people, basic training is more than they should be taught.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
All I know is the sniper and his son are guilty, and I've heard some stupid stuff before. If that kid gets off easy I'm going to be really pissed. I was once watching the Justice Files and I belive it was in Arkansas, there was a rumble going on between the skater/freak kids and the jocks. The jocks had started the whole thing and threw the first punch blah blah blah. Well the skater kids started beating the crap outta the jocks, and the main jock that started the whole mess got in his car, ran the skater kid over that he had a grudge against and killed him. The jock was 17 and because it was his first offense they gave him probation. He even admitted to killing him and shouting "I'm a ninja, b***h!" Obviously thats some ICP crap right there. They're the only ones I know who shout that stupid saying.
I got 2 years probation at age 11 for just assault and battery! If that kid gets anything less than life I'm leaving this God forsaken country and moving to England where stabbing is common, but at least cameras are all over the place inside and out!!!
Posted by: TotalRecall
Quote:
Originally posted by Null Actor
In this case, I'd say military training had far more influence on his actions than any form of entertainment.
|
The military may have trained him, but I don't see how they can be blamed for his actions. There has to be a level to which people can be trusted with information. Teachers who give information that can harmful can't be expected to stop teaching.
I did not mean entertainment as in a computer or paintball game. I meant it as if he had nothing better to do, and simply wanted to entertain himself. I really think the same for any terrorist organization. What better way to make a name for yourself? I'm sure it's exciting for them.
Posted by: Chako
Well, although I am pro death penalty for the most horrendous crimes. I don't much like the news lately. Good grief. Jurisdictions are huddling like children fighting for a toy everyone wants. I find is abhorrent how they are crowing and ordering themselves to see who can get a 100% successful death penalty conviction. No decency in the hustling and battles within the system. Makes one wonder if these guys will get a fair trial.
Posted by: scorpion_gold
i dont think they have a chance of a fair trial. the jury will all be extremely biased angainst them, and i'd say most people would get a kick out of saying "guilty"
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!! They treated human beings like animals and killed so many innocents, so now they should be treated like animals and be beaten down in the streets, have their fingers chopped off, resuewn on in different order, and then...THEN....THEN....well I can't say it on this site.
Posted by: redwench
i think someone has a biochemical imbalance.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
hey now! That's not very nice!!! And I am totally balanced. And I also hope you are referring to me otherwise I will feel like a dang fool 
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
Originally posted by N.W.A_Kid
they should be treated like animals and be beaten down in the streets, have their fingers chopped off, resuewn on in different order,
|
Quote:
Originally posted by N.W.A_Kid
I am totally balanced.
|
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
it's an expression of anger, the only way I would be off balance is if I did it myself, convinced or forced someone else to do it, or paid someone to do it. otherwise I am fine, i haven't killed anyone yet
Posted by: EOT(US)
"rehabilitation" ...... get real!
Anyone that thinks rehabilitation for scum like this needs to get their head out of the sand ..... or someplace where it is most likely darker!
Posted by: Xtren
That's exactly what I think, the Sniper doesn't deserve to rehabilitate...
Posted by: scorpion_gold
rehabilitation might work... if they have a gun pointed at them at all times...
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
thank you guys very much. I now rest my case
EDIT: although I did think for a second you were talking about me because of rolling eyes until I read the very last post
Posted by: EOT(US)
No ........... N.W.A_Kid ...... I was not talking about you!
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
i got it under control now, ellen hehe
Posted by: EOT(US)
Oooo wow! Another case for "rehabilitation"??
Internet 'Slavemaster' on trial for capital murder
John Edward Robinson, Sr., stands trial for murdering two women whose bodies were discovered on his rural property, and another woman who disappeared with her infant daughter. Robinson, who allegedly met women online under the screename "Slavemaster," is accused of a total of six murders in two states.
John Edward Robinson Sr., who is accused of luring women on the Internet and killing six over 15 years, faces the death penalty for three murders in Kansas.
Slavemaster Case!
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Can't you just simply disagree without stating that everyone who thinks differently has their head up their ass? I personally do think he deserves death, but I don't demean anyone else who believes differently about it. Show some class.
Posted by: Xtren
You know what I think was the most inspiring thing abour the sniper shootings? It was what the guy that caught the culprits did with the reward he got. The man was an ordinary truck driver, living off of welfare, who did not make a lot of money at all. You would think that a reward of half a million dollars would be very helpful to a man like this. However, the money did not concern this man, and unlike many would have thought he did not spend even a cent of it on himself. Instead the man sent all of the money to the families of the victims of the sniper shootings. I thought this was a very good idea... probably wouldn't even have occured to me, especially if I needed the money that much...
Posted by: redwench
um....xtren, theyre still arguing over who gets the money. the truck driver is most likely out, since he wasnt even the first to call it in.
Posted by: Xtren
Hmm... that's not what I heard... my sources have leaks... as usual...
No but seriously I thought I was right in saying this...
Posted by: redwench
oh, thats what he said hed do if he got it. but it takes weeks to months to hand out reward money, and thats if no one is fighting over it.
Posted by: Xtren
Ok well thanks for clearing that up, I wouldn't have known otherwise...
Posted by: Null Actor
You have a news link for that?
Edit: Nevermind, found one.
Posted by: Null Actor
I'd love to know where you got the idea that they were living off welfare and made almost no money... from what I've read, him and his wife just purchased a 'winter home' in florida to retire to.
Doesn't sound like the kind of thing a welfare person could afford, IMO.
Posted by: EOT(US)
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
Can't you just simply disagree without stating that everyone who thinks differently has their head up their ass? I personally do think he deserves death, but I don't demean anyone else who believes differently about it. Show some class.
|
Whatever! Oh and welcome back, Ion .... you were missed!
Posted by: Xtren
Quote:
Originally posted by Null Actor
I'd love to know where you got the idea that they were living off welfare and made almost no money...
|
I priest brought it up at a sermon on the weekend... he did mention the whole retirement thing too though...
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by ELLENOFTROY
Whatever! Oh and welcome back, Ion .... you were missed!
|
As were you Ellen. As were you.
Posted by: AngstMerchant
Quote:
Originally posted by Xtren
That's exactly what I think, the Sniper doesn't deserve to rehabilitate...
|
You people obviously missed the point. Xtren, you are too young to know but Ellen, you should know better. You don't take a point out of context, refute it and then expect to hold any ground. That's wack.
Look at the context: I'm not saying we should rehabilitate this guy and release him. I am saying we should rehabilitate this guy so he can see what he has done and realize how severely f*cked up it is and live with that. He should remain incarcerated. To make him see the value of the lives that he has erased, the depths of the dementia that governed the course of his actions, the loss these deaths represent and that he is responsible for all of it would sow the seeds of an anguish that he would live with for the rest of his life. That is a just punishment and one befitting the crime. The pain of death is fleeting and once hes dead, his suffering is done. Mental anguish can hurt a person in ways that there really aren't words for. If anyone out there lacks the imagination to understand the significance of this, that's unfortunate. No amount of explanation on the part of others can change that.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
I understand that Angst, that's why I like torture. Although your menthods would probably work better, I don't see anything wrong with causing physical pain as well as emotional and mental.
Posted by: Kdr Kane
Why some people insist that only physical punishment is "cruel and unusual", I'll never understand.
I've always thought words are more harmful than a physical attack. After all, it's not usually the physical attack that causes the most harm, it's usually the trauma and shock. Then again, people are different and react differently. Some are more sensitive than others.
Posted by: Null Actor
So why then, are you pro-death penalty, the ultimate physical attack, when the ultimate mental attack (being caged for life) would be more painful in the long run?
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
I agree with Kane. Never underestimate the power of words.
Posted by: Tweaker
Here's an idea, why don't we give the victims of these crimes the money we would spend keeping these animals alive.
Posted by: redwench
ah, yes, youth. values life above all else. i was young once.
Posted by: NightMage
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
ah, yes, youth. values life above all else. i was young once.
|
yes and don't you think that once we (the youth) control this world, it'll be a much nicer place seeing as we value life?
less war, less killings, it'll never happen though because we learn from our elders and all they have taught us is 'forget violence as a last resort, use it as first resort'
Posted by: redwench
roffle
you missed my point.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
You forget that everyone was young once...
No, the youth will not necessarily make it a better place just coz they value life while they're young ... why? coz they get old, and realize what the real world is like ...
Naivete will be replaced by Cynicism ... it's a vicious cycle ...
Posted by: NightMage
that's my point, though I like to think that one day a generation will go against the past..... not likely but you can hope hey?
Posted by: redwench
has nothing to do with history or the past. it has to do with human psychology and physiology.
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
nothing will ever change. Some things get better with the younger generation involving me, I mean look at racism. That has toned down quite a bit, at least I think it has. Caging them for life is an excellent idea, and I definately agree that words are more harmful than anything else, after all... "Bruises heal, but the harmful truth will last a lifetime."
Posted by: NightMage
depends on how you look at it.... would you believe in God if someone thousands of years ago hadn't said that there was one. Would you believe that man was the first living being on Earth if you weren't told. (sorry for any assumptions being made).
What we know/think today is because our ancestors thought/knew before us.
Philosophy/theology is one of my strong points. I understand it a lot better than most other things.
Posted by: scorpion_gold
inspiring. i wonder why this guy decided to go around killing people anyway. what good would it have done him? how would he, or someone else, profit by this?
Posted by: NightMage
Many things... if he has a problem with the American Government a court case will let him tell his story and be heard, and then there's people who just enjoy killing, look at hunters they kill for the sport, only dif between them and these guys is what they were hunting
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Please stay on topic... do not open yet another can of worms in a thread that already has a gazillion wrigglies...
edit: I have already removed unrelated posts, and will continue to do if the situation calls for it...
Posted by: redwench
there are worse things than death, which you tend to realize as you get older. so true punishment, particularly in the case of a religious zealot, is not death. its a miserable life.
Posted by: NightMage
exactly i've always taken that death is more a release than a prison
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Tweaker
Here's an idea, why don't we give the victims of these crimes the money we would spend keeping these animals alive.
|
Because it costs more money to execute them:
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
Posted by: AK47
Quiet you! It's not coming out of your Canadian pocket.
*waits for link proving me wrong*
Posted by: Null Actor
Yeah, and I'm glad that I don't pay for people to be killed.
Posted by: Chako
Heh.
Actually, the reason why those death penalty cases are far more costly in the States is simply the elaborate failsafe mechanisms involved with appeals, etc.
If they wanted to, they could make it cheaper then housing for life.
Lets see, chemicals used in a lethal injection procedure cost less then $90. ^^
Ergo, don't talk economics when discussing this. Frankly, putting a price or saying that you save money in housing them for life is a sad poorly thought out argument against it.
Rather, talk about the moral grounds of the whole thing without the economics if you must.
As I have mentioned, I am pro death penalty for only the most heinous crimes because I know these sick depraved predators can not be rehabilitated (I am talking about serial killers and other extreme wack jobs...not the poor guy who kills someone in a heated bar room brawl)...and housing them in jail for 100+ years isn't moral or ethical in my books.
Posted by: Tweaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Null Actor
Yeah, and I'm glad that I don't pay for people to be killed.
|
We all pay one way or another.
Quote:
Blame the system on that, as Chako pointed out it doesn't have to cost that much. Bottom line if they didn't sit on death row for 10 years, and have dozens of appeals, the death penalty would be a very cheap method for dealing with society's scum.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
The death penalty assumes that there is a perfect system of justice ...
|
If everyone who gets sent to death row is truly guilty, then abolish the appeals system - just kill em right after the trial. Why wait, right?
Posted by: Chako
Quick, let me dive in the pool of sarcasm to rescue your words Laggy.
I hope that everyone in here is knowledgeable about how flawed the system is. That wasn't my point. My point is that I am getting tired about people talking about the economics on both the for and against sides. Frankly, cost should not be a supporting issue.
It should boil down to justice, morality, and punishment fitting the crime.
There are some people, I feel deserve death. On the flip side of the coin, I was looking at some death penalty stats, and am shocked at California and Texas. 600+ in California and 400+ in Texas alone. That is too high, and I think they have a serious problem in this regard.
Posted by: Xtren
I'm sure most of those people haven't committed crimes as bad as the sniper's either, yet we're debating whether or not he deserves the death penalty...
Posted by: Chako
Oh, I am not debating.
He deserves death if he is guilty.
Posted by: scorpion_gold
hm... i coulda sworn i had just posted here... was it a glitch or did a moderator delete it?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I already warned about opening a can of worms ... stay on topic and be relevant please ...
Posted by: scorpion_gold
well, what i was planning on saying was, even as he had no right to take another's life, we have no right to take his
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Chako
Ergo, don't talk economics when discussing this. Frankly, putting a price or saying that you save money in housing them for life is a sad poorly thought out argument against it.
|
That was my point chako, a lot of people use economics as an argument for the death penalty, because they think it's cheaper to execute them. I agree - economics have no place in a discussion about the death penalty. Which is why I was pointing out that fact that not only do people use it as an argument... they are wrong in using it.
Posted by: Chako
Point well taken.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
To avoid the emergence of redundant views and rehashing of various opinions, let's have this thread go the way of the macarena, shall we
|
|
|
|
|
