14 year old rapist

Bathlazar is really scary 0_o I say thy should castrate him and stick him in prison for 10 years. And if he does any similar again lock him up for good. Killing him would be his easy way out. The same as if he went and raped someone and then commited suicide.

Alpha, you just missed the entirety of the points evil and I were making. You don´t know his guilt. You know nothing BUT what those couple of pasted paragraphs tell you. And yet you still condemn him to death and torture, giving into depravity and animality. We as humans have the capacity to transcend that, to do what is moral . Not to let fury and fear overtake our judgement and deal out cruel, barbaric tortures. Athena-- in truth, overwhelming studies have shown that as crime decreases, the reporting of crime in the media will increase, simply because murders, rapes, etc. become more rare. And balthazar, Aliens is right. Death is no deterrent for crimes. The United States in 2000 had over 10, 000 gun murders, Canada had slightly over 100. (If the numbers based on population were porportionate, Canada would have had 1000 murders, by the way.) The United States practices capital punishment, Canada doesn´t. Edited by - Wilde on 7/18/2005 10:46:35 AM

Aliens hit it right on the head. Put to death, but not because of his crimes. Wilde , I´m not talking about the sorry excuse for capital punishment the US has and my eagerness for my earlier suggestion is only partially fueled for a desire to keep public disorder to a minimum. And you´re right, if you institute the US version of capital punishment, nothing will change. Appeals coming out of taxpayers´ pockets, lengthy investigations and court sessions, protests and all that crap. Who would possibly be deterred by such an overly bureaucratic system? It´s more bark than bite. What I suggest is a deliciously unfair system. No appeals, execution within two weeks or the officials directly in charge of the execution are executed as well. When there is no death penalty applied, the sentance will instead be exaggerated, none of this prison or light community service stuff. Instead I´d have them toiling away in dangerous conditions contributing to the society and system they took from and/or damaged. Borrowing from previous societies, I would also have murderers´ properties confiscated by the state and a slice of the money or assests gained given to the victims. When people realise that a successful trial would have them living and working in dangerous and horrible conditions or result in their execution, that would deter them. What would be more important, robbing the local store and mugging people to get money and live better? Or avoiding the pain and possible death of conviction. Or what about when they realise that once they are convicted for killing someone, they will lose everything they own and be impovershed?

That´s an interesting point Balthazar, of course the human rights activists would have something to say to that. Then there´s always the propect of innocence. Say (hypothetically, here) that someone is accused of a particularly sick and depraved series of rape-murders. Let´s take him through your self-confessed unfair trial system and convict him. As punishment he has everything confiscated and is forced to spend the next twenty years slaving (literally) in the salt mines. After 15 years someone else decides to look over the case on a whim (no appeals, right?) and discovers indisputable proof (e.g. DNA) that he is innocent. What are we supposed to say? &quot;Ooops&quot;? Your system operates on &quot;Guilty until proven innocent&quot; whereas most systems operate on &quot;Innocent until proven guilty&quot;. Everything that punishes the evil-doers (to quote the world´s favorite president) looks good on paper but you have to account for everything. I´m not being deliberately abrasive or difficult by constantly disagreeing with you, I just like to play Devil´s Advocate. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>When people realise that a successful trial would have them living and working in dangerous and horrible conditions or result in their execution, that would deter them. What would be more important, robbing the local store and mugging people to get money and live better? Or avoiding the pain and possible death of conviction. Or what about when they realise that once they are convicted for killing someone, they will lose everything they own and be impovershed? <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Unfortunately, criminals tend not to think about the potential punishments. Some might, perhaps, but studies have shown (read <i>Burglars on the Job: Streetlife and Residential Break-Ins </i> by Richard Wright and Scott Decker for a better idea of how the &quot;criminal mind&quot; works) that mostly they are concerned only with immediate obstacles. Whatever is down the road just doesn´t factor into the equation. Evil - &quot;Ooops&quot;? No. We´ll execute those responsible for the mistake! <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> And I think in this case Balthazar is advocating the more Devilish proposals. But that´s just me. I still can´t understand why everyone is so freaking obsessed with the criminal though. He´s really not the one any of us should care about. I´ve seen a lot of anger in this thread and very little actual sympathy for the girls. That´s quite telling, I think.

Aliens, I´m far too busy being difficult to show overt sympathy <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>That´s an interesting point Balthazar, of course the human rights activists would have something to say to that. Then there´s always the propect of innocence. Say (hypothetically, here) that someone is accused of a particularly sick and depraved series of rape-murders. Let´s take him through your self-confessed unfair trial system and convict him. As punishment he has everything confiscated and is forced to spend the next twenty years slaving (literally) in the salt mines. After 15 years someone else decides to look over the case on a whim (no appeals, right?) and discovers indisputable proof (e.g. DNA) that he is innocent. What are we supposed to say? &quot;Ooops&quot;? Your system operates on &quot;Guilty until proven innocent&quot; whereas most systems operate on &quot;Innocent until proven guilty&quot;. Everything that punishes the evil-doers (to quote the world´s favorite president) looks good on paper but you have to account for everything. I´m not being deliberately abrasive or difficult by constantly disagreeing with you, I just like to play Devil´s Advocate. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Well most people seem to have this idea that it is better to let 20 guilty men go free so long as an innocent isn´t convicted. I see innocent people being convicted as a neccessary evil. That way people can be sure that even if they´re only marginally involved in the criminal act or associated with criminal types that they face the possibility of facing the full wrath of the state. Also having the amusing side-effect of people being more inclined to inform on close friends or family involved in an investigated crime out of fear. And yes, if it did turn out that someone was convicted by mistake the people involved in the &quot;mistake&quot; would be executed. That would encourage investigators not to make mistakes or convict the wrong person deliberately. Not so that innocent people don´t suffer, but more so that the guilty party don´t escape punishment. And as for human rights activists, what are they going to do? Protest at me?

Remind me again, why are you bothering with this idea? I mean, if you´re going to support state-sponsored murder, why not just let the criminals get on with it and do their thing? In the end you´re going to wind up with the same thing - a terrorized population.

Because criminal activity is detrimental to public order. My goal isn´t to terrorise the population (although that is one fun aspect), it´s to maintain order.

Balthazar It is a comfort to know that selfless people like you are more than happy to sacrifice their lives regardless of guilt in a bid to maintain public order. I only wish others were so generous. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15

If I were to become a casualty of said system, I would not take it lightly. Of course I would attempt escape from and possibly murder of my captors. Call me hypocritical if you wish, I´m allowed, I am human after all, albeit only grudgingly.

But you´ve also removed the deterrent effect of the death penalty. It doesn´t matter if you´re guilty or innocent, you´ll die regardless. So, if that´s the case, might as well just do something to deserve it in the first place. Nevermind the fact that you´d try to undermine the system if you got caught in it. If you´d do, then it´s not unreasonable to think that lots of other people would do it. Your precious &quot;order&quot; is looking more and more imperiled. And then there´s the question of why &quot;order&quot; is important at all. If it´s important because it keeps people safe, then this system destroys the foundation upon which it´s built.

How about the prosecution lawyers are charged with manslaughter if an innocent is put to death? I think that would more than help to reduce any possibility of an innocent being put to death; make them accountable for flawed or incorrect evidence used. Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/20/2005 9:45:18 AM

Prosecution lawyers cannot be held responsible for evidence gathering or processing. They just put it all into a coherent case. If anyone is guilty, it´s the jury. But then, they were only reacting to interpretations of evidence, so how are they at fault. Let´s blame the people responsible for collecting evidence. But this would only make them live in fear. They would be far more conservative and be willing to give people the benefit of the doubt lest they incurr the wrath of bad luck. Oh wait, we´re back to square 1. See it this way. Our judicial system has evolved over the years, even though fundamental priciples remain mostly unchanged. You can be sure it is how it is for a reason. Edited by - The Evil Thing on 7/20/2005 1:26:01 PM

The whole idea of a jury is whether the evidence collected is deemed good enough by impartial members of the society to convict isn´t it? Therefore they could only be liable where/if they biased against one or the other party upon their personal prejudice. If evidence is flawed, then its the investigators responsiblity I would imagine... so surely the method of presenting/arguing a case to conclusion would have significant impact upon whether the jury deems them guilty of the crime they are charged with, which would enable a certain leeway to press for a stiffer sentence than perhaps they should obtain when equally skilled/balanced lawyers? I have to admit, I have no real knowledge of proceedings - so I am just basing this on a presumption, and most recent cases are flawed through third party evidence - for which they are being punished it appears... so perhaps my natural dislike for lawyers is seeping through <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Hang them all!!! Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/21/2005 4:37:34 AM

Here´s my 2 cents on evidence. Prosecutors present finger prints on the murder weapon. They belong to the Defendant. The weapon was used to kill the victim. Ballistics match to a T. The defendant knew the victim, they argued in public and now, the victim is dead. He gets convicted based on this evidence. Now for the truth. The defendant sold the gun one year ago to a neighbor. 6 months ago it was stolen, though never reported to the police. The argument in question was over a foot ball game, nothing serious, the 2 men knew each other from high school. Now, with the new evidence, do you not see a reasonable doubt as opposed to Circumstantial Evidence? Jurys have to go by the evidence in front of them, not what may have really happened. Thats why Defendants need good lawyers. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Finalday on 7/21/2005 5:01:23 AM

Who cares? As long as SOMEONE got executed for it.

Would it be too much to ask for us to leave the dark ages alone and return to the twenty-first century? <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

At least someone died for it

Yeah, okay. Whatever. All you folks who were calling for castration can know that you´re not alone. <A href=´http://wpmi.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=22BF95E8-AA4D-4CED-A79A-BE18618D13B2´ Target=_Blank>Lawmakers in Alabama are currently debating the use of castration as punishment for violent sex-offenders who prey on children.</a> It will be interesting to see where this all goes.