ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/16/2018 10:28 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  13.662 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/13/2008 05:59 AM ID: 67623 Permalink   

Man Rapes Stepson for Raping Daughter

 

A 32-year-old Fort Worth, Texas, man called police and had his 18-year-old stepson arrested for aggravated sexual assault against the man's 8-year-old daughter. The 8-year-old had been anally raped.

Against the man's warning, the man's wife posted bail for the stepson. However, when the stepson called for a ride home, the man took the call. But, after the man picked up the stepson, he didn't drive straight home.

Instead, he took him to an abandoned house, assaulted him with a baseball bat, and anally raped him with a wrench. The man turned himself in for aggravated sexual assault. The man does have a criminal history which includes other assault charges.

 
  Source: www.star-telegram.com  
    WebReporter: nicohlis Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  95 Comments
  
  No Names  
 
Apologies, they have not released any names to protect the 8 yr-old girl, and as such the summary is a little clunky.
 
  by: nicohlis     01/13/2008 06:03 AM     
  Its not really rape is it?  
 
Its just a bit of payback, the guy just threw a spanner in his works. Tell you something though, he prolly left him in a better condition than I would have. I say that because theres no mention of an ICU ward or the 18 year old losing his bodily functions below his waist.

Pretty generous guy (the stepfather) in the grand scheme of things, no matter his history.
 
  by: AccessG     01/13/2008 06:22 AM     
  with a wrench!  
 
I was a little bit worried he was gonna actually rape him with his own tools but after reading the 3rd paragraph I totally agree with him and just like AccessG, I would've made sure he wouldn't be able to do anything of the sort ever again!
 
  by: pas content   01/13/2008 06:50 AM     
  O_O  
 
DAMMMM....
 
  by: lordclone   01/13/2008 07:46 AM     
  erm...  
 
he raped his 8 yr old daughter then he calls up for a ride home?!? id have run the f*%^&r over and reversed

the people in this world man
 
  by: bungholio   01/13/2008 07:47 AM     
  i had to read it all..  
 
but who better to give him payback than an expirenced assault & battery convict!
 
  by: zortona   01/13/2008 08:01 AM     
  Gladly  
 
Don't have either a daughter or a stepson, but I would gladly go to jail if I was that father to pay his stepson back.
 
  by: qwerty017   01/13/2008 08:24 AM     
  I've said it before...  
 
castrate all proven, convicted rapists. Take away the tools of the trade.
 
  by: BikerDude   01/13/2008 08:48 AM     
  ok good  
 
glad I'm not the only one who doesn't see much problem in this. Rapists tend to get away with a slap on the wrist if they ever get convicted at all. Then they are free to go out and do it again.

I would like to shake this man's hand....after he washes it.
 
  by: pariahpoet   01/13/2008 09:25 AM     
  Geez  
 
This web site is rapidly becoming an angry mob, who seem to get off on planning innovative ways of torturing or killing any and all criminals.

Do we really have to have dozens of posts on every violent crime news story detailing the specific sick ways of seeking revenge against the perp?

It's not big, and it's not clever to come up with fictitious ways to torture another human being. It doesn't matter how bad the crime, eye for an eye justice doesn't work. If you have sick fantasies about torturing or killing another human, then you are almost as bad as the person who committed the crime.
 
  by: ZCT     01/13/2008 10:00 AM     
  Self-inculcation  
 
"They need to allow the criminal justice system to work for them and although the process may seem long, it is the process that works."

Mindless law enforcement dogma.
 
  by: Malefice   01/13/2008 10:00 AM     
  Now comes the million dollar question  
 
Who now is going to rape the man? This is turning out to be a vicious circle.
 
  by: slayer06   01/13/2008 10:05 AM     
  Prison System  
 
The prison population in the USA is comprised out of predators and prey. It would be contingent on his race, associates, personality and financial clout, whether he ends up a predator or victim.

He'll probably end up hiring a 'lifer' to 'shank' his stepson. Aren't Discovery documentaries riveting?
 
  by: Malefice   01/13/2008 10:12 AM     
  its about  
 
self sacrifice not revenge.I would gladly give my life or freedom to protect my family.I would do what ever it took to have one less rapist or molester off the streets, because prisons don't work.
 
  by: kross10c   01/13/2008 10:41 AM     
  @ ZTC  
 
you said: "If you have sick fantasies about torturing or killing another human, then you are almost as bad as the person who committed the crime."
I'm going to have to disagree with that statement.

One of the things that separates humans from animals is our ability to reason and because of that ability, we are able to differentiate dreams from reality. While some find this a thin line, I for one know exactly where the line is and when its made of elastic and not titanium. I can dream of killing my neighbors because of house-shaking dance parties 'till 5am. It's my right. The day you say or anyone for that matter, what I can think in my own head, is the day I drop out of that race.
 
  by: RAD     01/13/2008 12:25 PM     
  Sentences....  
 
Awful what happpened....

What will be interesting to see who gets the longer sentence when this all goes to court...
 
  by: shimoda   01/13/2008 12:59 PM     
  A case of eye for an eye  
 
I hope he is not charged.
 
  by: captainJane     01/13/2008 02:44 PM     
  Can depend on him  
 
The company is not happy with his fellow inmates calling him Mr. Goodwrench.
 
  by: allbets     01/13/2008 03:30 PM     
  My prediction:  
 
Court will prosecute him to the minimum requirements of law for committing assault/sodomy. They won't push it, but he'll get some jail time and a hell of a lot of probation.

I knew a gal that shot a man in the knee after he beat up her husband. She got two years in the pen. She had a 1 year old daughter at the time. Yeehaw.

The truth is: the justice system doesn't like it when people take the law into their own hands, even in Texas. It makes them look bad.
 
  by: theironboard     01/13/2008 03:44 PM     
  @ZCT  
 
Personally, I am quite amused at what happened to the stepson. And I think it is enough. These kind of stories help remind us that there are consequences for our actions, but if you are suggesting that people these days come off as being way too vindictive at times...that I do agree with. We will get as we give.
 
  by: escalus84   01/13/2008 04:17 PM     
  I got a clue!  
 
It was the creepy old man, with a wrench, in the abandoned house.

Did I win?

He forgot to video it and put it on YouTube.
 
  by: valkyrie123     01/13/2008 04:33 PM     
  @RDA  
 
You are right of course. I was really just making the point that I think some people who post on this message board about revenge, torture, killing people, eye for an eye etc. are a little sick in the head.

My wife got her laptop stolen last week. I too have thought it would be fun to take a 44 and blow the guys head off, if I knew who did it. We often think of things like this, especially if we are the victim. However, I grow a little weary of having to read dozens of posts on every news article that involves a violent crime. Each of these posts detailing how the poster would like to see the criminal involved tortured and/or killed. It is one thing to think it, it is quite another to get into a competition to see who can come up with the most devious and unpleasant method of killing people.

The criminal justice system in America is barbaric enough, and it is not going to degenerate into the middle ages thankfully. That's really all I was saying.
 
  by: ZCT     01/13/2008 05:16 PM     
  Poor Girl  
 
Not only has she been raped but now her father is probubly going to jail or prison. This whole thing is a tragedy.
 
  by: ichi     01/13/2008 06:38 PM     
  I'm Going to need the man's name  
 
I've a little extra cash to contribute to his legal defense fund. If it'd been my daughter even though the boy's body might one day be found it would never be able to be identified.
 
  by: VermiciousG     01/13/2008 07:20 PM     
  hahaha!  
 
pwnt

i feel sorry for the little girl tho
 
  by: m.i.a.elite     01/13/2008 07:30 PM     
  Stupidity  
 
The man should have thought about his responsibility to be there for his daughter, especially after she's been through such a traumatic experience, and restrained his impulse for revenge. This just goes to show he cares more about punishing his sicko son than he cares about his own daughter's welfare.

And the police should never have released the son into the father's custody. Somebody should have had half a brain cell and realized that something like this could have happened.
 
  by: l´anglais     01/13/2008 07:45 PM     
  @Malefice  
 
No, it's the mentality that maintains civilization, and keeps Americans from routinely falling victim to mob justice, which, while perhaps temporarily satisfying to uninvolved bystanders, has far more flaws than the established system of justice.
 
  by: l´anglais     01/13/2008 07:50 PM     
  For  
 
The people, by the people.

after a democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.

 
  by: Reamensa   01/13/2008 10:26 PM     
  //////  
 
Instead of a wrench he should have used a loaded 8-gage shotgun and pulled the trigger.
 
  by: Lurker     01/13/2008 11:43 PM     
  I will be glad to give this man  
 
a clean handgun that he can use once then destroy it. Jail never protects society from a rapist They always get released so they can do it again. Death fixes that problem quite nicely.

 
  by: White Albino   01/14/2008 12:38 AM     
  Revenge, the mark of intelligence.  
 
“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”
- Confucius


"We can more easily avenge an injury than requite a kindness; on this account, because there is less difficulty in getting the better of the wicked than in making one's self equal with the good."
- Cicero

Yeehaw! Let's hurt this guy for hurting someone else! That way we will be right for hurting people and he will be wrong! C'mon ma, this is gunna be fun!
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/14/2008 02:51 AM     
  White Albino  
 
Death never fixes the problem. It just sweeps it under the rug until someone else commits the crime.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/14/2008 02:53 AM     
  ...  
 
"Death never fixes the problem. It just sweeps it under the rug until someone else commits the crime"

Im pretty sure this is very very very innacurate.

Lethal punishment will prevent THAT person from doing it again.

Its not like the human race is hurting in the population department. Ending the life of such people will have 0 negative consequences on society, but will prevent repeat offences.
 
  by: Pyronius     01/14/2008 03:20 AM     
  Pyronius  
 
You misunderstood what I was saying and what aspect I was referring to. I am talking of society as a whole. Even after death, the problem (aka crime) will be committed again by someone else. Therefore it is not cured. Prevention is the best cure and we're not doing it.

Also you don't need to kill someone to change them. If you kill someone because of what they do, you become a murderer. Then what do we do, kill you too?
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/14/2008 03:41 AM     
  part 2  
 
"Ending the life of such people will have 0 negative consequences on society"

Prove that it doesn't have one right now.

"It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed their own kind."
-George Bernard Shaw
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/14/2008 03:45 AM     
  Not sure....  
 
if it matters if it's preventative(death penalty) or not. It's punishment.

We have laws and if you break them you should be punished, different punishments for different crimes. Guess people need to leave that out.

Enjoy it or change the law. When Ted Bundy was fried I actually had a sht eating grin on my face, made my day. I do tend to not support it much anymore but if the quilt is obvious I wouldn't mind a good killing, er I mean execution once in awhile.
 
  by: allbets     01/14/2008 04:22 AM     
  Same Debate Again  
 
@George Bernard Shaw: Not true.

Death penalty has its use, plain and simple. The problem with it is that people try to push some irrational purposes on it. Revenge, punishment, satisfaction, etc. should have nothing to do with it. The death penalty should be an emotionless act with a single purpose and a single result: remove an offender permanently from the group.
 
  by: nicohlis     01/14/2008 04:53 AM     
  nicohlis  
 
How is Shaw's statement not true?

 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/14/2008 04:58 AM     
  The axe  
 
does violence to the tree, but in return the tree is doing violence to the axe.

Bit by bit, the tree wears off the edge of the blade, and the vibrations weaken the shaft.

 
  by: SoshiMaster   01/14/2008 05:13 AM     
  Response  
 
Murder is an individual-on-individual act where the murderer irrationally ends the life of the murderee for any of several individually selfish reasons, thus using the murderee as a mean to some kind of end.

Capital Punishment is a society-on-individual act where an individual is determined to be a permanent, severely detrimental, non-member of society and as such is permanently removed from the group for the greater good. Society is not "better" for the death, it's members are simply no longer harmed.

Those are by no means equivalent. In previous discussions I have shown that it is not just the deed that is important, but the context. You cannot say that just because a life is ended in both acts that they must be equivalently wrong. The context is very different, the players are very different, and the results are very different.

Likewise, an individual murdering another indivdual may "inspire" yet another muderer to act, but a society invoking a death penalty on an individual does not inspire more death penalties. Why? Because as stated, a murder is often a selfish, emotional, and irrational act with little standards observed by the perpetrator before committing the act, sometimes with random targets. A death penalty is issued for specific people for specific crimes with the greater good at interest. Not the same.

I could go on, but that should suffice for now.
 
  by: nicohlis     01/14/2008 05:20 AM     
  -nicohlis  
 
You have a sound arguement but I would side with QAs.
 
  by: JayWar   01/14/2008 05:58 AM     
  @JayWar  
 
QA is saying the act of ending a life is wrong no matter what because it is only the deed that matters and no life should ever be taken for any reason. Think of the same argument in a different situation. Say an innocent baby is drowning in a river and a serial killer child rapist is drowning next to the baby and the same effort would be required to save either. The deed (saving a life) is all that matters and if I save the serial killer child rapist but don't have time to save the baby, then I have still done the best possible deed that I could do in that moment. You agree, right?
 
  by: nicohlis     01/14/2008 06:31 AM     
  Sorry, QA  
 
I side with Nicholis on this one.

Here's an event that actually happened in California.

An man, an ex-con, kidnapped and raped a fifteen-year-old girl. Then he hacked off both her arms at the elbows.

My question is: If that girl was your sister, what would you prefer to happen to this individual?

Or, do you actually believe making him serve time then releasing a wolf back into the sheep herd is better than removing him from the gene pool?

This man was already a two-time loser. He payed for his ticket to the gas chamber. May he rest uncomfortably in hell.

 
  by: White Albino   01/14/2008 08:43 AM     
  This Also Happened  
 
A mans daghter said she was raped,and identified the man.
The riteous father killed the so called rapist. The daughter had lied.

Another: A mans daughter was raped . The accused was arrested and taken to jail. The father of the girl killed the accused rapist in frount of the police in the jail. It was an innocent man.

Point of this is that revenge is blind and has no part in justice.
If everyone took revenge there would be no one left.
 
  by: ichi     01/14/2008 09:31 AM     
  @ a few...  
 
ZTC: I agree, it does become a little tiresome reading of the varying ways in which people think up to punish people of violent crimes by being equally -- or more -- violent to them. It does seem a little backwards.

@nicholis
Well, to be quite honest the whole drowning scenario doesn't really apply. First off, saving one life over another is not the same as willingly destroying another (murder or capital punishment). A choice MUST be made. Secondly, most people would save the child over a man or woman, its just how it is -- so its not quite fair to compare the two. And finally, if it were between two different people one probably wouldn't know if one was guilty of a crime -- and also wouldn't take the time to sit there and ask each of them.

@albino
Thats just the thing. That isn't punishment, that isn't rehabilitative measures, that's revenge. Remove the people most affected by the crime and let the others dish out the verdict and punishment.

Hasn't anyone heard of 'two wrongs don't make a right'?
 
  by: datreic   01/14/2008 04:04 PM     
  Thanks, ichi  
 
That's the core of the problem with mob justice -- it assumes the guilt of the accused, rather than using a process to determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent.

I think that everybody entertains revenge fantasies -- you hear about someone doing something horrible and you think, "that should be done to him." It's part of our inate sense of fairness.

But without a process to determine guilt or innocence, anybody could be accused of anything for any reason and be brutally punished. It happened in the Soviet Union and during the French Revolution.

So formalized justice systems are really just society's impulse control. They're how we force society to first consider the propriety of its actions before it acts out its impulse to punish.

This is codified in American law and in Judeo-Christian values. Remember the commandment not to bring false witness against your neighbor?
 
  by: l´anglais     01/14/2008 04:26 PM     
  Odd balls  
 
Will take issue to the one's that somehow find it offensive to hear of thoughts of what should happen to or what they would do to a criminal.

What is it that brings you to a story of an 8 year old girl who was raped and not expect some outrage?

People like you need to just stay away if it's tiresome for ya. Knowing what you will get and not staying away seems a little odd to me.



 
  by: allbets     01/14/2008 04:33 PM     
  @ZCT  
 
You, once again, are seriously outvoted. It is quite evident your ideas are failures. You don't have any grounding in reality.

Doingt NOTHING to these creeps who hurt small children does NOT deter anyone. It only encourages them.

Counseling is laughable. Most of the counselors are charlatan empiricists (quacks) anyway.

You seem to think that the only reason liberalism such as you promote has never worked, is that the "correct" people have never been in charge.

Hogwash.

And, you seem to be as full of BS as a Christmas goose.

 
  by: LeePIII   01/14/2008 04:52 PM     
  @White Albino  
 
Actually, you are correct: Larry ***** DID hack off the girl's forearms and left her for dead. He was convicted. California LET HIM GO after a bit. He then went to Florida, where they don't tolerate such BS, and he did something really mean to a prostitute, and was killed for it later.

California: subsequently Let him go. He performs further depredations and murderous acts again.


Florida: DID NOT let him go. He can't do it again.

BAD California punishes ONLY its honest citizens. GOOD Florida PROTECTS its citizens from further depredations from known violent criminals.
 
  by: LeePIII   01/14/2008 05:01 PM     
  @LeePIII  
 
“You, once again, are seriously outvoted.”

- With all due respect, I don’t believe that a handful of kids posting on Short News constitutes flying in the face of public opinion.

“It is quite evident your ideas are failures.”

- My idea was simply that ass raping someone with a wrench is not reasonable in terms of a criminal justice program. It is eye for an eye justice which doesn’t work.

“You don't have any grounding in reality.”

- In that case show me a country that has extreme eye for an eye justice of the kind you are supporting. Show me evidence of a high quality of life and a happy population.

”Doingt NOTHING to these creeps who hurt small children does NOT deter anyone. It only encourages them.”

- At no point did I ever suggest that nothing be done here. I think you’ll find that anally raping a child will get you a pretty stiff penalty here in the US, and indeed in most other countries.

”Counseling is laughable. Most of the counselors are charlatan empiricists (quacks) anyway.”

- Notwithstanding your complete ignorance in the area of counseling, even the most liberal country is not going to offer counseling in lieu of a serious penalty for this kind of crime.

”You seem to think that the only reason liberalism such as you promote has never worked, is that the "correct" people have never been in charge.”

- Please don’t presume to tell me what I think. If you bother to do the research, as I suggested before, liberal principles have been applied in many countries, and they enjoy a markedly lower crime rate and re-offend rate. You don’t have to commit atrocities in order to lower crime.

”Hogwash. And, you seem to be as full of BS as a Christmas goose.”

- Is this what passes for intelligent discussion these days?

Fact of the matter is this. Girl gets raped, father attacks rapist. The rapist will no doubt have a pretty rough time during his prison stay. Child rapists are not the most popular of criminals. Odds are he’ll have his fair share of rape in jail. Sadly, this vigilante attack is going to land the father in jail. So not only does the girl get raped, but she will probably lose her father for a while too. There are no winners in this situation. Of course the deeper question here is how this man managed to raise his step child to be a child rapist, but that’s a question for another time and place.

The issue I have is how pathetic it is to see people posting such drivel on here about how we should hang the rapist up by the balls, and all this other nonsense. Countries around the world that practice medieval justice like this have massive social problems because of it. Angry revenge justice simply does not build a better society. But if you’d care to show me an example of a society that uses angry revenge justice, and has a better quality of life and lower crime rate than America I’d love to see your example. Of course you won’t find one, because these principles are just nonsense you cooked up in your mind that have no basis in reality or fact.
 
  by: ZCT     01/14/2008 06:01 PM     
  @ZCT  
 
So far, you have offered no constructive way to deal with any of this. Your input has been to glorify (European?) countries' methods. You say:
"But if you’d care to show me an example of a society that uses angry revenge justice, and has a better quality of life and lower crime rate than America I’d love to see your example".

There are folks in the Former Soviet Union, and in Islamic countries who are quite comfortable with low crime rates. Some large number of these inhabitants appear to long for the "good ol' days" in that sole respect. Unfortunately, those places have serious despotism and (had) almost no civil rights.

Every place on Earth has things which are tolerated, and things which are not. These vary from place to place. ALL are enforced by imprisonment or violence, and mostly (in terms of raw numbers) by violence or threat of violence. Rarely is any of this done by iindividuals or small groups. Instead it is done by governments.

It just so happens that in the U.S., people are imprisoned longer and more harshly for withholding money from the the Government that the Government thinks it should have than any other crime. 25 years for tax evasion contrasted with 7 yars for murder.

I sure am not about to contemplate killing anyone over a damned laptop computer.

I've got news for you: We did NOT like the European model in 1776, and created the Consitution and the Bill of Rights, somehting no other country in the world has. Get over it. We are NOT going back to that.

Cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions do NOT mean that guilty parties have to LIKE their punishment. It generally means that methods used by (for example) the Spanish Inquisition at the height of that reign of terror (such as burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, Iron Maidens, filling bored holes in the chest cavity with molten lead, impalement with red hot iron, etc) are proscribed. You can't hack off hands and legs. Branding is out. Flogging has been dimished to zero, along with stocks and pillory.
Public Hanging was the execution method of the day. Firing squad, electrocution (Ol' Sparky, in Alabama) have been used to good effect. Beheading by Guillotine has not caught on in this country, once thought to be reasonably humane.

So far, you are in serious denial about the situation. You assume that the stepson was in fact raised by the stepfather, and use that to further defame the stepfather. There is nothing in the source article which would support this. Admittedly, the stepfather has not protected either himself or his family by his chosen course of action. I would not have done what he did, nor have advocated such: The girl will survive, it seems, maybe without permanent physical damage. Rape is a terrible thing, nonetheless.

So far I've never comitted a felony. I have no present plans to commit one anytime soon. Evidently, though, the father has had a few transgressions, which do not mark him with favor. Evidently, the "system" was addressing the problem, in its ponderous way. Dad should be focused on the immediate needs of his daughter to the exclusion of most everything else. If his daughter had died, I would understand his actions more readily.

I don't tell you what you think. I tell you what it SEEMS as if you think, by your diatribes, ranting, and blithering and liberal blather.

Counseling is not going to end the antisocial/sociopathic tendancies of either criminally insane people or polar bears.

Can't we all just get along? (-Rodney King, worthy gentleman extrodinaire)

You have no idea what my background is. So, while you are entitled to your opinion (no matter HOW stupid it is), you are not qualified to comment on my education or lack of it with respect to such issues as "counseling", or law enforcement, or the legal system (the best in the world, but badly flawed, nonetheless). Moreover, when you are WRONG (as you are), the best you can do is to apply your wrong "facts" in a way to distort the appearance of reality in supporting your idiotic contentions, promoting circular arguments ad infinitum. Of course, I am discounting the possibility that your advanced education might exceed that of <gasp> such luminaries as Barbara Streisand. Please forgive me, if that is the case.

More evidence that, in your case at least, if may be better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

People rightfully are TIRED of legal systems and apologists for violent criminals who are freed to continue and perpetuate their depradations.

Civil Libertarians are TIRED of courts which wrongly convict innocent people of (serious) crimes, resulting in decades of inprisonment, resulting from icompetent/egotistical/overzealous/dishonest prosecutors and/or law enforcement.

For example, many people feel that O. J. Simpson was wrongly acquitted In California of murdering his ex-wife and her friend, Ron Goldman. Many people feel that Nevada will not to
 
  by: LeePIII   01/14/2008 07:59 PM     
  What I'd like to know is...  
 
where did the stepson learn this type of behavior? Did his violent stepfather do something to him when he was growing up? Further investigation necessary....
 
  by: reehaw     01/14/2008 08:03 PM     
  @LeePIII  
 
“There are folks in the Former Soviet Union, and in Islamic countries who are quite comfortable with low crime rates.”

- Are you seriously suggesting that you’d rather live in Russia or an Islamic country? Of course not. Such an argument is just ridiculous. As for talking about a place that no longer exists, I asked you about a country, not merely a memory people had. My memories of the Soviet Union are people lining up in the streets for hours to buy a loaf of bread, and civil rights trampled (for everyone, not just criminals). As for Islamic countries, women have little to no rights and you can get your head cut off for merely changing your religion.

So I guess the answer to my question is that no, you cannot suggest a good model in the world where brutal sadistic revenge style justice works well. I thought as much.

“I've got news for you: We did NOT like the European model in 1776, and created the Consitution and the Bill of Rights, somehting no other country in the world has. Get over it. We are NOT going back to that.”

- I never asked for any change at all. I merely pointed out that there is a reason that vigilantism is illegal in this country. This man, with a history of violence, took the law into his own hands. He will be punished under the American system for his actions. People like you are supporting the illegal actions of this man, and sorry but your view is not held by the majority of Americans. If it were the law would be changed and it would begin, “An eye for an eye…” Thankfully, it doesn’t work that way.

”Counseling is not going to end the antisocial/sociopathic tendancies of either criminally insane people or polar bears.”

- I’m not sure how you would know that. After all you clearly touted your views on mental health professionals earlier. I think you described them a charlatans and the field as quackery.

In terms of this case, I very much doubt that either party is going to claim themselves criminally insane as a defense. So you are rather getting off track here. I never stated that all the worlds problems could be cured if we gave criminals a foot massage and talked to them in a soft voice.

”You have no idea what my background is.”

- No, but so far you have demonstrated a complete ignorance (or denial) regarding the American criminal justice system and how it compares to other countries. And you appeared to dismiss the entire mental health profession. Those are some pretty dumb opinions.

“…or the legal system (the best in the world, but badly flawed, nonetheless).”

- I’m sorry, you are claiming that the American legal system is the best in the world? Please tell me how you arrived at this conclusion? Crime prevention? Homicide rate? Violent crime rate? Property theft? Criminal re-offend rate? Percentage of the population in jail? The difference between how rich and poor offenders are dealt with? The fact that a disproportionate number of black people are in jail? By what yard stick are you claiming America has the best legal system in the world, and what other countries have you studied to draw this conclusion? For that matter, have you even been to another country?

“People rightfully are TIRED of legal systems and apologists for violent criminals who are freed to continue and perpetuate their depradations.”

- The problem with this discussion is you are making certain erroneous assumptions about my opinion and then projecting this onto what I am really saying. As a result you are completely missing most of my points. I do not believe that we need to be soft on violent criminals, in any way. Just because I disagree with a vigilante ramming a wrench up someone’s ass doesn’t make me soft on crime.

The rest of your stuff got cut off. So I’ll have to comment on that another time.
 
  by: ZCT     01/14/2008 10:04 PM     
  @datreic  
 
You seemed to have missed my point. I was not trying to equate actively ending one life (murder, death penalty) and passively letting one slip away (only being able to save one of two drowning victims). These are obviously non-equal. The point I was making is that in either case you cannot make a judgment call as to whether the act was right or wrong without incorporating context into the judgement. Saying the act of ending a life is wrong no matter the situation or saving a life is right no matter the situation is to apply an absolute morality. If that's part of your spirituality, then believe it all you want, just as you can believe in whatever God you want. But absolute morality makes no sense on a societal level when trying to deal with real, severely disturbed, violent individuals.
 
  by: nicohlis     01/15/2008 01:06 AM     
  @ZCT  
 
This "kid" is 65 years old and I've been around the block a few times. Sometimes armed, for a good reason.
If you've never had a few rounds breeze past your head, try it sometime. It's quite exhilarating.
 
  by: White Albino   01/15/2008 01:42 AM     
  @White Albino  
 
"If you've never had a few rounds breeze past your head, try it sometime. It's quite exhilarating."

- As a matter of fact I have. I was fortunate to visit Pittsburgh close to gang initiation week.

It doesn't make me want to ass rape people with a wrench though. Perhaps I missed something...
 
  by: ZCT     01/15/2008 02:00 AM     
  paybacks  
 
I do not blame that man! These people do not get punished for their crime...rape is not taken seriously and I believe there is no rehab for people like this...the father should not be in trouble...an eye for an eye!
 
  by: aprilrainslayer   01/15/2008 06:41 AM     
  @ZCT  
 
I hope you don't have to go to Philly on a regular basis. It's not a city I ever felt comfortable in. My first trip there was to perform in a show with a band. I merely asked if there was a store close by where I could buy a battery. A lady warned me to be careful, as the muggers operated in threes. This in a supposedly nice area in broad daylight.

Dodge city.
 
  by: White Albino   01/15/2008 09:26 AM     
  @reehaw  
 
"where did the stepson learn this type of behavior? Did his violent stepfather do something to him when he was growing up? Further investigation necessary...."

I assume that the guy hasn't been married to this kid's mother for all that long. The guy has a daughter who is 8 years old, so I'd assume that he had this daughter to a previous wife or partner before he became this kid's stepfather, meaning he probably wasn't around when this kid was growing up. Also, if the kid had been his stepson for a long time, he'd probably view the little girl as his sister and would be less inclined to rape her.

Obviously this kid is sick in the head anyway if he raped a little girl, but he may not have done it if he had known her all her life and was used to treating her as a little sister.

 
  by: TabbyCool     01/15/2008 03:30 PM     
  @TabbyCool  
 
That does bring up another point, is he newly remarried to the woman with the teenager? Did he immediately trust the kid due to his faith in mankind, or was there a thought in the back of his head, "If this kid touches my daughter, I'll kill him." Or maybe he was expecting a red flag, a warning sign before such an event occurred. So much for the infallibility of suspicious activity.
 
  by: escalus84   01/15/2008 05:18 PM     
  @Tabbycool  
 
What I mean to say is that type of behavior is usually patterned after something in the past. As if the boy had been sexually abused when he was younger.
 
  by: reehaw     01/15/2008 06:02 PM     
  @ZCT  
 
I disagree with you. I think the stepson would now think twice about raping another young girl. If this had not happened I could imagine him doing this again in the future, especially with such (relatively) lenient sentencing with regards to rape cases.

If someone anally raped my 8yr old girl I could not even imagine what I would do to them if I had the chance and I will certainly not describe it here but only because then it could be called premeditated.

Just think of the little girl though. How she probably cries herself to sleep many nights. How she will never look at sex or males the same again. The mental impact is probably quite traumatic and boiling a punishment down to the physical act seems simplistic to me.
 
  by: yourown   01/15/2008 09:41 PM     
  @yourown  
 
I think ten years or so in jail will probably make him think twice about his crime too. Courts are generally not too lenient when it comes to child sodomy. So who knows, he could even be sentenced to longer.

Sadly, the law is the law, and so this girl will likely end up without her father, in jail. So as she grows up without a father, maybe she will begin to blame herself for the fact he is in jail too.

As you said yourself, sexually assaulting the rapist is simplistic. It is an eye for an eye mentality. As a result a second person will end up jailed and so the act of rape will have actually caused more pain, and more suffering for the victim and the family.

So you might argue that this revenge was justified and the man might go free. But seriously, where do you draw the line? If you key my car, is it okay for me to pour paint stripper on yours? If you drive into my car because you are using a cellphone and not concentrating, should I get out and beat the crap out of you to teach you a lesson?

Once the state starts to accept people taking justice into their own hands, you head down the slippery slope to anarchy and disorder. That's why we have a criminal justice system in the first place. According to one poster at least, the best in the world. Now while I think that claim is absurd, it is far better than lawless rampant vigilantism.
 
  by: ZCT     01/15/2008 10:50 PM     
  Americans are peace-loving people  
 
And anybody that thinks different better be prepared to back it up!

 
  by: White Albino   01/16/2008 12:28 AM     
  nicohlis  
 
Ok I can immediately see where our views diverge. The definition of murder that I am referring to is the following according to Princeton University’s website.

kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"

Of course, by this definition, it does not matter if it’s 1 on 1 or 30,000 on 30,000 as any intentional killing equals murder. In other words, I am encompassing more than just the one-on-one killings and using the broader version of the definition. Shaw likely was as well.

"A death penalty is issued for specific people for specific crimes with the greater good at interest. Not the same."

IMO it is. Does the individual murderer not also have a specific target? Does the individual murderer not also believe that he/she is being wronged in some way by having the murdered stay alive? Does the individual murderer not also believe that the world might be a better place by murdering? IMO all that we are doing here is substituting murderers (as the above definition would support). Instead of one person murdering the apparent bad guy, millions do instead.


"After all, every murderer when he kills runs the risk of the most dreadful of deaths, whereas those who kill him risk nothing except promotion."
-Albert Camus
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/16/2008 01:24 AM     
  No apology needed White Albino  
 
"My question is: If that girl was your sister, what would you prefer to happen to this individual?"

Initially the shock would make me angry (possibly), but after a while I would again come to my senses. I would want the state to get this man the help that he obviously needs.


"Or, do you actually believe making him serve time then releasing a wolf back into the sheep herd is better than removing him from the gene pool?"

No. I believe our justice system is severely damaged and ineffective in preventing crime.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/16/2008 01:29 AM     
  allbets  
 
"What is it that brings you to a story of an 8 year old girl who was raped and not expect some outrage?"

That is precisely the reason I click on these types of stories. After all, who in their right mind wants to read about a murder or a rape? Whatever floats your boat I guess.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/16/2008 01:33 AM     
  LeePIII  
 
I konw the following wasn't directed towards me, but I thought I would point something out.

"You, once again, are seriously outvoted. It is quite evident your ideas are failures. You don't have any grounding in reality."

Let’s remember that votes and public opinion does not determine reality. Let's remember that public opinion said that the sun was orbiting the earth several centuries ago. Also, a couple hundred years ago in the Southern US the majority thought that slavery was a good thing.

As we can see, the majority's opinion does not make it correct or reality.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." -Mark Twain
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/16/2008 01:40 AM     
  yourown  
 
Your theory of this stepson assumes that he is currently capable of thinking of the consequences before raping someone. If the law did not deter him in the first place, then what makes you think that someone else’s law will?

Forced learning is the worst and most ineffective way to teach. No, we need a new method because the current one is not working.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/16/2008 01:46 AM     
  White Albino  
 
LOL, I'm not so sure Americans are peace loving people. Ask the opinion of the rest of the world. Our actions are still very barbaric and war-like.

Something to back it up, wars that the US has been involved in (keep in mind that you cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time and that war is the opposite of peace):

http://en.wikipedia.org/...
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/16/2008 01:51 AM     
  @QuestioningAnswers  
 
"The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law."
"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
(http://dictionary.reference.com/...


"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice forethought."
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/...


From your source: "Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being"
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/...


By your broad definition, suicide, euthanasia, abortion, self-defense, war maneuvers, and defense of others all count as murder. I think you only use the word because it carries very negative connotations, and you would like those negatives to transfer to capital punishment in order to further your position. I suppose that's fair game, as I would obviously not want those connotations carried over. However, most definitions, and especially legal definitions, use the term "unlawful" and include "human against human" in some way or another. Either way, it boils down to an act: the ending of a (human) life. As I already said, if you want to say that's always wrong, then you are an absolute moralist. That's a difficult position to hold, especially when it makes self-defense "wrong".

Your other questions are loaded and cannot be simply answered with a "yea" or "nea". Some "murders" (by your definition) are justified (self-defense) whereby they are no longer "murders" (legal). So we're back at mincing words and absolute moralism.

@Albert Camus: Actually executions tend not to be the "most dreadful of deaths". Also, do you have a source showing that performing legal executions earns promotions for the executioner?
 
  by: nicohlis     01/16/2008 03:16 AM     
  @ Q % A  
 
It was the line about the son being raped as revenge that was good enough for me to read this report. I have refused to read the report about the boiling of the cild just recently posted.

Ellie Nesler went into a courtroom and killed a handcuffed man, shot him in the head 5 times for molesting her son as a young child and she got 10 years. 10 years? She had a defense fund of 40,000 sent in by the public.

The aftermath has spread from years ago about this but did the son kill because he was moleted or because his mother killed orother reasons, don't care.

As for me I will rejoice that people get payback and if the person doing it as to pay then so be it.

Just don't have the good old days like when Ted Bundy got fried and Gary Gilmore was killed by a firing squad. They stick a needle in your arm? pleaseeee. Let's bring back some public killings. Since most of you perfer the enemey over Bush then let's press for that.
 
  by: allbets     01/16/2008 04:30 AM     
  @ZCT & QA  
 
I appreciate both your responses. I guess I should state that I am one that believes there should be justice and that people should be accountable for their actions. Period. Now in reality that is not how I perceive life to be so when I read a story like this I can't help but sympathize with the father. I am not saying the judge would feel that way or that the years in prison the father will serve are better than time he could have spent with his daughter. I do however feel that some actual justice was served.

ZCT, I do not trust our judicial system in the slightest. Without priors I could see 10 years turning into 5 and out on good behavior in 2-3. That is, if he did not run which is not that crazy when looking at a possible decade in jail.

QuestioningAnswers, I understand your point but I disagree. I bet the father made sure it was something the stepson would remember. I am even willing to venture that it will be something he never, ever forgets. Now, I am assuming you do know what our penal system teaches the convicted. From my understanding, the only lessons learned are how to survive in a closed environment. As I stated to ZCT, I am not sure how it will actually turn out but I could see the stepson out on the streets before his 21st birthday. From my perspective, that would be the wrong lesson.

Both of you. My GOD! Are you forgetting the stepson anally raped an eight year old!!! You know what? This sick little shit deserves whatever bad happens to him. Consider it karma. You don't have want to kick the hell out of him yourself but you also don't have to sympathize with him. We are not talking the philosophy of violence and its orgins (although we can if you like). We are talking about a father so furious at some guy that did this to his little girl that he wanted to kill him but didn't. Instead he did what he perceived was done to his daughter. I smiled. Not at the violence but at the justice!

Don't use staw man or slipperly slope arguments when this is pretty straight forward. If I key your car, I hereby give you full permission to key mine. If I rape your daughter, you can find a bat and wrench and I will bend over. I am pretty confident I would be safe from either of those fates as I am sure most people with any sense of decency would be. Yes, even people who can associate with a furious father that wanted revenge. To group us into the category of the rapist is insulting and frankly I give you more credit than that.
 
  by: yourown   01/16/2008 04:31 AM     
  @yourown  
 
Haven't seen you around in a while!

Hey, I just skimmed these posts, but I don't see *anybody* sympathizing with the stepson. Just because you prefer justice to be carried out in a civilized, orderly fashion doesn't mean you feel a thing for the criminal. At least for me, wanting justice to be orderly, lacking passion, systematic and consistent stems from my concern for the character of my country, not any feeling for people who would rape, murder, etc.
 
  by: l´anglais     01/16/2008 04:41 AM     
  Funny  
 
"Ending the life of such people will have 0 negative consequences on society"

Really? We end the lives of murderers today, and are people sated? No, they want the next level of bad people killed, too, see above. One can only presume that once we start killing the sexual offenders, well, why not the thieves? Go back and read peoples' comments on the topic of the man who shotgunned the men who'd just robbed his neighbor's house, plenty of people were calling for blood there, too.

No effect? It's an obvious slippery slope, down which people who've taken our "lenient" justice system for granted their whole lives will happily plunge. Can any one of you supporting this man answer the question ZCT wisely asked and LeePIII dismally failed to answer - how many countries which would allow this kind of thing are a place you would like to live?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/16/2008 05:00 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
Hehe, I have been lurking :) Your point was well taken and I think “sympathizers” was an overreaction. I retract that statement, lol!

I think I was initially set off when ZCT said, "If you have sick fantasies about torturing or killing another human, then you are almost as bad as the person who committed the crime."

I have had some pretty damned sick thoughts. In the context of revenge for something like this, my thoughts have been downright criminal. Still, I do not consider my even remotely equitable with a child rapist or some of the other crazies we read about here. Judging ones actions is one thing but judging ones thoughts is completely different. Our actions are what make us who we are, not our thoughts. The suggestion of anything else riles my blood to no end. I guess that is a discussion for another day though since that could be a really long one :)
 
  by: yourown   01/16/2008 06:03 AM     
  Quick addendum  
 
Of course our thoughts actually do make use who we are but we have little or no control over them. What we do have control over are the thoughts we act one. I did not articulate that very well above.
 
  by: yourown   01/16/2008 06:09 AM     
  @yourown  
 
Ah, but bear in mind that posting to SN is done by action, not thought. If one doesn't want others to judge them by their thoughts here, then perhaps they ought to more carefully choose which thoughts they post, or how they post them. If one wouldn't be willing to stand right there with the stepfather, ready to hand him the wrench, maybe one ought not talk about how great his actions were or how they approve of them.

"This sick little shit deserves whatever bad happens to him. Consider it karma."

No, I consider it criminal assault, enacted upon one man by another who was not entitled by the laws of his nation to do so. Karma is an impersonal and impartial universal force. Considering this karma is like pretending your car is a personal jet.

"You don't have want to kick the hell out of him yourself but you also don't have to sympathize with him. We are not talking the philosophy of violence and its orgins"

No one is sympathizing with him, and yes, if you want to talk about why this sort of thing is NOT allowed, you have to talk about philosophies of violence, crime, and punishment, not just your own emotional satisfaction with the situation as you perceive it.

"We are talking about a father so furious at some guy that did this to his little girl that he wanted to kill him but didn't."

Wow. So, only beating and sodomizing a man with a wrench is laudable because at least he didn't kill him? Standards really have fallen, haven't they?

"Instead he did what he perceived was done to his daughter. I smiled. Not at the violence but at the justice!"

Can you define "justice" for me in a way that talks about people being able to do terrible things to others because they "perceive" themselves justified in doing so? Dictionary says...http://www.m-w.com/...

1 a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b: judge c: the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity2 a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c: the quality of conforming to law

There is no impartiality or rule of law in what you mention. What you smile at is thusly not justice, but rather your own emotional satisfaction of two wrongs making what seems to you to be a right. Finally,

"Don't use staw man or slipperly slope arguments when this is pretty straight forward."

I think we'll use whatever arguments we feel work to convey our opinions, not those which agree with yours. Some of us feel that there's an entire system of laws holding a civilization together here, though clearly some of us disagree and think this is a Schwarzenegger movie.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/16/2008 07:12 AM     
  Nice tool  
 
Hey, for the left wing nut cases, screwing eight year old girls is an "alternative lifestyle". Don't you folks get it?
 
  by: JayGrodner   01/16/2008 07:59 AM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
Thanks for the response. I agree with your assertions if you are talking about a larger social issue of violence but really I was focused on my own feelings regarding this case.

I truly understand your points about justice and karma. For me, I don't feel that justice would be served with prison time. I do think our penal system does little to serve actual justice. We may disagree on this. Karma to me is basically what you put out there, you get back. I was not involved so for me I saw it as Karma. If I was the person doing the deed I would see it as revenge and assault. I suppose it the stepson slipped and impaled himself on a broom it would have been closer to Karma but I still do not see how that would be even a close equivalent to the actions he performed.

To clarify, I have no problem with people judging me based off things I say or write. Everybody does and everybody always will. My issue was with the judgment of people who have certain thoughts. It was the implication that if someone had violent thoughts of revenge they are equivalent to a child rapist. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Regarding two wrongs not making a right, well that is only valid if you feel that the judicial system would make a right. If I honestly believed that I would be in agreement with you but I don't.

"I think we'll use whatever arguments we feel work to convey our opinions, not those which agree with yours."

I apologize for implying you could not use whatever arguments you would like and I am not trying to have you use only arguments that would agree with mine. However, they are called fallacious argument techniques for a reason. I honestly give people too much credit with regards to common sense. This went back to ZCT's post where he said, "So you might argue that this revenge was justified and the man might go free. But seriously, where do you draw the line? If you key my car, is it okay for me to pour paint stripper on yours? If you drive into my car because you are using a cellphone and not concentrating, should I get out and beat the crap out of you to teach you a lesson?"

To me, this was a prime example of a straw man argument. Of course I would not suggest you should beat the crap out of someone that rear-ends you because they are on a cell phone. This also tasted like the slippery slope argument which implied, where do you stop? These arguments do not work for me and although I am happy to read them, I see them as manipulating another persons words or thoughts to suit your point of view. If that works for you, great. That was however not my intention and if that was how my post was perceived it was just due to my inability to convey my thoughts in a cohesive manner.
 
  by: yourown   01/16/2008 08:00 PM     
  Pin the offending sapsuckers to the ground  
 
And force them to look at pictures of Zmethod in his sheep costume!

Now there is some sick punishment!
Makes me nauseous just thinking about it.

 
  by: White Albino   01/16/2008 08:20 PM     
  also  
 
Remember one mother who forgave her daughter's murderer, supposedly cause it's the most mentally healthy thing to do rather then to carry the anguish for the rest of her life.

I say kill yourself rather then to forgive the murderer. I know a little harsh but I have no sympathy for anyone who could forgive their daughters murderer.
 
  by: allbets     01/16/2008 08:59 PM     
  nicohlis  
 
Quite a discussion we have don't we? Posting the alternate definitions was not necessary as I already explained in my last post where they were different.

“By your broad definition, suicide, euthanasia, abortion, self-defense, war maneuvers, and defense of others all count as murder. I think you only use the word because it carries very negative connotations, and you would like those negatives to transfer to capital punishment in order to further your position.”

Let’s be reminded that this isn’t just my definition. Yes they are all forms of murder by the definition. I use the word because it is defined that way. I could just as easily say that you don’t use this definition just to further your position, but let’s spare ourselves of that nonsense.

“He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”
– Albert Einstein



“That's a difficult position to hold, especially when it makes self-defense "wrong".”

It’s the same position that Gandhi held. The same position the Martin Luther King Jr. held. The same that Mother Teresa held. The same that Jesus held. It’s the same position that people who care about other people, no matter who they are, hold.



“Some "murders" (by your definition) are justified (self-defense) whereby they are no longer "murders" (legal). So we're back at mincing words and absolute moralism.”

I believe you misunderstand. If you’re wise enough, I don’t believe that killing another person in self defense is even necessary (though that may seem impossible to some). Look at what Gandhi wanted the British to do in handling Hitler (it may seem absurd, yet his methods worked).


“@Albert Camus: Actually executions tend not to be the "most dreadful of deaths". Also, do you have a source showing that performing legal executions earns promotions for the executioner?”

I cannot really speak for him of course, though it does seem that you want me to. I believe you miss the point. We both know that “the most dreadful of deaths” is an opinion and as we know opinions vary. The following is an expansion of his opinion (not necessarily mine because I do not know which way to die is the worst):

"What then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated it may be, can be compared? For there to be an equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal, who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him, and who from that moment onward had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."


Plus, he did not say that it earns them promotions, but that all that they risk for killing is earning a promotion.



Consider these quotes:

“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
- Max Stirner


“It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislature to frame laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them.”
-Thomas Jefferson
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/17/2008 03:11 AM     
  yourown  
 
I appreciate that you appreciate my response. :P

I do understand your position; I used to be of the very same mindset. I thought that it was best to punish those who do wrong. Then I found out that the wisest of men found that same position unwise. I then had to reconsider. If you believe your position is the correct one, you probably also believe that the following wise men are wrong in saying:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

"We can more easily avenge an injury than requite a kindness; on this account, because there is less difficulty in getting the better of the wicked than in making one's self equal with the good."
- Cicero

"If you are affronted, it is better to pass it by in silence, or with a jest, though with some dishonor, than to endeavor revenge. If you can keep reason above passion, that and watchfulness will be your best defendants."
-Sir Isaac Newton

"In taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is superior."
-Sir Francis Bacon

"Tis more noble to forgive, and more manly to despise, than to revenge an injury."
-Benjamin Franklin

"All crime is a kind of disease and should be treated as such."
- Gandhi

“Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.”
-Gandhi

I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.
- Abraham Lincoln

Capital punishment is as fundamentally wrong as a cure for crime as charity is wrong as a cure for poverty.
-Henry Ford

As one reads history, not in the expurgated editions written for schoolboys and passmen, but in the original authorities of each time, one is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted; and a community is infinitely more brutalized by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime.
-Oscar Wilde

"Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire."
-Confucius

“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest ... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
-Albert Einstein


From another post:
Punishment is not the answer IMO. No amount of punishment will ever stop everyone from doing horrible things (as we can see in our current justice system and other ones). It may be best to remember that people who commit these acts are already tormented. If they were not already hurting, they would likely not hurt someone else. These horrible acts they commit are cries for help, not punishment.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/17/2008 03:37 AM     
  @QuestioningAnswers  
 
I don't use the word because it does not apply. Your definition was only an abbreviated verbiage definition, not the noun definition (ie - (v) to murder is to kill, (n) a Murder is an unlawful killing of a human by another human), so it barely counts, it just fits your position.

How does an Albert Einstein quote of his personal opinions on war have anything to do with the rationality behind a society using the death penalty as one instrument in dealing with certain violent offenders of its laws?

As an alternative, we would jail a person for life with no chance of parole such that they will die behind walls of old age, sickness, or a prisoner attack. We would strip their freedoms away and force them into a violent and maddening environment for the remainder of their lives much of which will be in isolation (which would qualify as a sort of torture by some). But for inflicting this lifetime of pain and stagnation, we should call ourselves good people for doing the right thing? What punishment could possibly be given to a repeat violent offender that doesn't harm him in some way?

The natural punishment is removal from society. There are two ways to approach this subject, the ideal solution and the real solution. Is it ideal to never execute? Absolutely. I believe in total social ostracism as the ideal solution to the most violent offenders. Send them away to fend 100% for themselves since they cannot obey simple laws. But this is simply not possible and thus not a real solution. Jail and executions are real options that satisfy this end goal.

@Max Striner: Laws are not violence. Laws are only rules. A crime is by definition, a violation of a law. If the law concerns the behavior of an individual, how can the state, which is not an individual, violate that law?

@Thomas Jefferson: Rights are human concepts. We give rights and we take them away. If one's Life should not be taken away, then neither should one's Liberty, as they are both natural rights. Yet, if we should not affect one's Life or Liberty, then what can we do to preserve, without limit, our own Life and Liberty from those criminals of nature that would take them away?

You use quotes from people that are not here to defend the rationality or applicability of their statements. If not you as the reissuer of the statement, then who else am I supposed to question when I disagree with the validity of the statement?

Regardless of everything else said, there are only two questions worth asking.

To me: Why is it not always wrong to kill?
Answer: Because "wrong" is only a human-created, subjective concept, not a universal condition. As such, it cannot be applied blindly to every situation. "Right" and "wrong" will have to be determined for each individual situation, independent of each other. In some situations, it will be "right" to kill. If you are under an unlawful attack such that your own demise would result from any action less than killing your attacker, then it is "right" to kill. Obviously, not all self-defense requires such lethality, and in those situations it would be "wrong" to kill.

To you: Why is it always wrong to kill?
 
  by: nicohlis     01/17/2008 06:46 AM     
  Kill 'em all! Let God sort the bodies!  
 
My favorite tee shirt.
 
  by: White Albino   01/17/2008 09:50 AM     
  @yourown  
 
I'm glad that we're agreeing on some levels, and I'll add a few responses. If you're only commenting on your own feelings, that's understandable. I'd go as far as to consider what happened to Jeffrey Dahmer as karma, but not an act of direct revenge. That's just a cycle of violence which should always be condemned, never condoned. It's just like the old guy I mentioned earlier who shotgunned robbers fleeing his neighbor's house. There was much applause by those eager to assume their guilt and take for granted that it all worked out that the bad guys got theirs. But what about the vigilante who gets the wrong guy? The one who screws up and harms innocents along the way? Enjoy it after the fact if you must, but I think one should NEVER call for the vigilante to be pardoned. Unless, that is, you want people to be empowered by subjective decision to be judge, jury, and torturer/executioner, inserting wrenches into whomever they dislike and blasting shotguns up and down our streets - messy business that's best avoided.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     01/17/2008 11:54 PM     
  nicohlis  
 
Would you rather I use the word violence so that we can finally find some common ground? LOL Ok, then replace murder with violence then. The underlying meaning of what I say remains the same.

"How does an Albert Einstein quote of his personal opinions on war have anything to do with the rationality behind a society using the death penalty as one instrument in dealing with certain violent offenders of its laws?"

Nothing to do with that, lol. It showed that Einstein also believed that war is murder in disguise (aka showing the same definition that I use for murder).

"But for inflicting this lifetime of pain and stagnation, we should call ourselves good people for doing the right thing?"

I don’t believe that alternative is the best one nor that we’re doing the right thing by simple imprisonment.

"What punishment could possibly be given to a repeat violent offender that doesn't harm him in some way?"

Not many punishments can IMO, if any. I don’t believe punishment to be the answer.

"But this is simply not possible and thus not a real solution. Jail and executions are real options that satisfy this end goal."

Not possible? That’s what many thought about human flight because it had not been done yet. Because one thinks something is not possible does in no way make it impossible to someone else. The end goal is for the crimes to never happen again, isn’t it? If jailing and execution were the solution, after centuries of doing so, wouldn’t we expect to be free of these crimes by now?


"@Max Striner: Laws are not violence. Laws are only rules. A crime is by definition, a violation of a law. If the law concerns the behavior of an individual, how can the state, which is not an individual, violate that law?"

Laws can very well be violence. Violence is unwanted force causing injury. Execution falls into that category, possibly even imprisonment. Do you also believe that slavery was the right thing to do a couple centuries ago simply because it was within the law?


"@Thomas Jefferson: Rights are human concepts. We give rights and we take them away."

If rights are human concepts, which they are, so is the definition of a criminal. If there are no criminals, then we would also have no rights (or an infinite number of them depending on how you look at it).


"If one's Life should not be taken away, then neither should one's Liberty, as they are both natural rights."

By that argument, if some guy wanted to kill someone else then we shouldn’t take away his life for doing so in the first place. But then if someone else wanted to take his life for him committing that murder, we also shouldn’t take away their right for doing so. But then if someone else wanted to take the 2nd murderer’s life for murdering the first we should, by that thinking, allow him to do so. It’s a slippery slope isn’t it? Killing leading to killing leading to killing leading to killing. IMO and seemingly Thomas Jefferson’s, we can stop it at 1 killing before we double that number.

"Yet, if we should not affect one's Life or Liberty, then what can we do to preserve, without limit, our own Life and Liberty from those criminals of nature that would take them away?"

Correct education is a preventative measure against people wanting to take another’s life. Without this we begin to revert to anarchy and/or barbarianism (which may or may not be a good idea).


"To me: Why is it not always wrong to kill?
Answer: Because "wrong" is only a human-created, subjective concept, not a universal condition. As such, it cannot be applied blindly to every situation. "Right" and "wrong" will have to be determined for each individual situation, independent of each other. In some situations, it will be "right" to kill. If you are under an unlawful attack such that your own demise would result from any action less than killing your attacker, then it is "right" to kill. Obviously, not all self-defense requires such lethality, and in those situations it would be "wrong" to kill."

OK, then by that argument it doesn’t have to be wrong to take someone’s life in the first place. Who is more qualified to determine what is right and what is wrong? Who gave them that qualification? Who was qualified enough to give that qualified person that qualification? Who then qualified that person? It’s a question that can endlessly be asked and I believe that, in the beginning, nature determined it.

"To you: Why is it always wrong to kill?"

It is not necessarily always wrong to kill depending on who you ask. Though I believe it’s unnecessary and barbaric to kill someone because they killed another. Reformation and implementation of better education is the more civilized option IMO. Though, if nature would determine right and wrong, nature would seem to dictate that it’s never wrong to kill simply because it’s possible. That, of course, would be anarchy and barbarianism at their purest.

I’m essentiall
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/18/2008 03:00 AM     
  wow that was long...continued...  
 
I’m essentially calling for advancement in the current state of civilization just as Gandhi, MLK Jr., Mother Teresa and Jesus were; in opposition to the continuance of the old concepts that are not working. These leaders’ concepts were thought of as crazy too in their times, so I’m not surprised when others think the same way of mine (which are almost exactly the same as theirs). I guess it’s a question of how civilized you would like humanity to be in opposition to our innate barbarianism.

It saddens me that so many good people say they want horrible things done back to those who have done horrible things; thinking that it is good.


"You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.”
-Jesus Christ
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/18/2008 03:05 AM     
  yourown  
 
"Of course our thoughts actually do make use who we are but we have little or no control over them. What we do have control over are the thoughts we act one."

I agree that we have control over our actions, but I did not realize that some people believed we have little to no control over our thoughts.

IMO our thoughts determine our actions. Our actions then determine our habits. Our habits then determine our character. Our character then determines our destiny.

If we had little to no control over our thoughts, we are also saying that we have little to no control over our own lives. If we had little to no control over our thoughts and lives, how are we to reasonably expect the criminal to have control over theirs?

IMO our thoughts are the only thing that we have complete, 100% control over in our lives. Though, it's not the easiest of tasks when we allow our emotions and mental habits to run wild.


"The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking."
-Albert Einstein
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/18/2008 03:18 AM     
  @QuestioningAnswers  
 
"Would you rather I use the word violence..."
- Just another negatively charged word. Why can't you just use the phrase "death penalty"? That's all we're talking about. Does that not stir enough of an emotional response?

"If jailing and execution were the solution, after centuries of doing so, wouldn’t we expect to be free of these crimes by now?"
- No. Jailing and execution are not the "cure" for crime. Saying they are would be like saying abortion is the "cure" to teenage pregnancy. Crime is a social problem with deep roots. Neither retaining nor abolishing the death penalty will prevent new violent crime. However, the death penalty does prevent a particular offender from reoffending. Stopping crime from happening and dealing with criminals after the fact are two entirely different topics. We are on the latter.

"Killing leading to killing leading to killing leading to killing."
- Yes, this is the case when individuals take revenge as you described. However, the death penalty is not an individual taking revenge, so it doesn't apply.

"Who is more qualified to determine what is right and what is wrong?"
- Individuals tend to feel justified in their actions; they do what is "right" for them. But it is hindsight of the group that determines whether or not their actions were "right" or "wrong" in a larger sense. Lethal self-defense is often "right" because, as a maximized rule, it makes sense. We should not all simply let ourselves be killed.

"It is not necessarily always wrong to kill depending on who you ask."
- Wait, isn't that my position?

"I’m essentially calling for advancement in the current state of civilization..."
- We would all like that. But, this does not start with overhauling the criminal punishment system. This isn't as hard as "the chicken or the egg". The criminal most certainly came before criminal punishment. If you want to stop crime, fix the social problems that lead to criminal action. Then, even if every crime were punishable by death, as long as no one committed any crime, there would be no need to debate the ethics of the death penalty because it would never be used.

Until we can fix the social problems that lead to crime, we cannot simply sit by and let ourselves become victims. Suppose a dog has been trained to be a fighting dog, and that dog attacks and kills an innocent child. Will punishing the dog bring back the child or stop dog fighting? Absolutely not. Can we let that dog continue to be in a position of harming innocent individuals? No. It is now known to be dangerous, under our supervision, and we must protect the innocent going forward. If we did nothing, we would be accomplices to any future harm the dog would do. Does the dog have to be executed? Maybe.

@Jesus Christ: Criminals are the snakes. We are the snake handlers.
 
  by: nicohlis     01/18/2008 06:56 AM     
  Good idea using the "-" for easier reading  
 
"Just another negatively charged word. Why can't you just use the phrase "death penalty"? That's all we're talking about. Does that not stir enough of an emotional response?"
- Simply because, by definition, the death penalty is an act of violence against the accused. The death penalty is a branch originating from the tree of violent acts.

"No. Jailing and execution are not the "cure" for crime. Saying they are would be like saying abortion is the "cure" to teenage pregnancy. Crime is a social problem with deep roots. Neither retaining nor abolishing the death penalty will prevent new violent crime. However, the death penalty does prevent a particular offender from reoffending. Stopping crime from happening and dealing with criminals after the fact are two entirely different topics. We are on the latter."
- Are we now? I’m on the same topic as you. Crime prevention. To me, that encompasses stopping it from happening in the first place and second place. The state killing the criminal is one of the, if not the most, extreme, easiest, and violent forms of crime prevention. In no way do we need to go to such extremes. I believe you might agree that preventative measures can be taken besides resorting to more violence. What I see that you’re saying is; ‘Let’s kill potential re-offenders before they even re-offend’. Their re-offense is not even guaranteed, but we might as well kill them anyway because it’s within the realm of possibility?

"Yes, this is the case when individuals take revenge as you described. However, the death penalty is not an individual taking revenge, so it doesn't apply."
- Nah, the death penalty is an act of revenge just as rehabilitation is. It doesn’t matter if it’s an individual or the masses, it’s still revenge. According to the Princeton University website revenge is an “action taken in return for an injury or offense”. Because these criminals did something we perceive wrong, we take action to prevent it again.

"Individuals tend to feel justified in their actions; they do what is "right" for them. But it is hindsight of the group that determines whether or not their actions were "right" or "wrong" in a larger sense. Lethal self-defense is often "right" because, as a maximized rule, it makes sense. We should not all simply let ourselves be killed."
- I agree that we don’t want people to kill us, but how is the criminal killing again guaranteed? How do we know that we’re not killing someone who wants to rejoin society peaceably? Though, that would not happen too often though with our current forms of justice, as punishment usually only strengthens the other sides position (which is also why many believe that criminals can't change).

"Wait, isn't that my position?”"
- Sure, it’s mine as well. If you believe that I think everyone believes that violence isn’t the answer then you’re nuts lol. The murderer obviously thought violence was the answer too.

"We would all like that. But, this does not start with overhauling the criminal punishment system. This isn't as hard as "the chicken or the egg". The criminal most certainly came before criminal punishment. If you want to stop crime, fix the social problems that lead to criminal action. Then, even if every crime were punishable by death, as long as no one committed any crime, there would be no need to debate the ethics of the death penalty because it would never be used."
- How are you to be so sure that overhauling the justice system wouldn’t lead to an advancement in civilization if it has not yet been tried? IMO children’s education is the first step though. The death penalty doesn’t need to be used in the first place just as the murderer doesn’t need to murder in the first place.

There is a tribe in Africa that, when someone does something to hurt someone else, will take the accused and surround him/her with a circle of tribspeople. They then go around the circle, one by one, proclaiming this person’s positive traits, completely ignoring the bad he/she has done. As a result, re-offense is almost non-existent. I wish I could remember the tribe’s name, but what an ingenious solution IMO.

"@Jesus Christ: Criminals are the snakes. We are the snake handlers.
- If we were good handlers then why do snakes keep biting us? Any snake handler knows that you work with the snake to make it do what you want it to…biting it back will only make the snake want to defend itself and bite even more. We do not have a handle on crime if all we do is “bite back” in response. It’s akin to taking a tylenol for a headache when everyone knows the headache’s cause was likely not the body’s lack of a tylenol. It’s a quick fix, but the underlying problem remains. The long term solution for crime does not include the death penalty. Besides, that’s totally missing the point of what Jesus said in the first place.

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."
-Gandhi

"Forc
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/18/2008 11:40 PM     
  Doh! cut off again  
 
"Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived."
-Abraham Lincoln

"There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit."
-Napoleon Bonaparte

All in all, you're arguing for the short term solution. I’m arguing for the long term solution. We could leave it at that or continue.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/18/2008 11:43 PM     
  @QuestioningAnswers  
 
Your South African Tribe is apparently the Babemba, or the Bemba, depending. Mostly all I could find was the same abbreviated story you wrote included in the agenda of religious sermons. I could not immediately find an anthropological study of the group that would provide better information.

(http://www.jeffersonunitarian.org/...
(http://www.sttimothy-cpc.org/...
(http://www.taosinstitute.net/...

While this is all well and good, how large was the tribe? How violent were the crimes committed? These examples say this procedure was used because the person acted unruly (stole a cow, bad attitude). Would they do the same if the criminal raped and slaughtered a family of people? Would they still welcome this person back if he slaughtered another family after the first ritual? Not enough information. It's one thing for something like this to work with a small group of 50 people that often depend on each other for survival, it's another for it to work with an anonymous and disconnected group of a few hundred million to do the same.

Obviously we differ on almost every point here, and I disagree with a lot of your last response, but I will not have the time to keep responding after this post, so I'll leave well enough alone for now and say "Thanks" for the debate.

Thanks
 
  by: nicohlis     01/19/2008 05:22 PM     
  I agree  
 
that it's best to leave it at that.

I'm not sure if it will work because I believe we would need to try it before we found out. I wasn't saying that tribe's actions were specifically the solution either, however I do know it falls along the lines of forgivness which all these wise men seem to be proclaiming as the best solution.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   01/19/2008 08:38 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com