Two sisters murdered in Krailling, uncle arrested

448 posts in this topic

 

There's a huge difference between turning the other cheek and killing someone. People who do wrong should be punished, not murdered. In my perfect world anybody who takes anothers life deliberately should be locked up forever and only leave prison in a box, when they die of natural causes.

 

How natural? Where do you draw the line? Should James Earl Ray have received a liver transplant after getting hepatitis C from a blood transfusion that was necessary after he was knifed in prison? Or would it have been right to let him either bleed to death or die of multiple organ failure after the attack?

 

The state has the duty to protects its citizens, and that means all of them. It's too late to protect the girls but not too late to prevent whoever did it from committing such a crime again. However, once he's in prison the state has to protect him from being attacked by other inmates or even guards, and the state has the obligation to provide decent care.

 

Would you really let someone die of colon cancer without the benefit morphine because he killed someone?

 

Once again, we realize: Morals and law don't mix.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I wouldn't do any of those things. The only thing that would be denied a guilty prisoner would be their freedom. If you deliberately kill someone you should lose your right to live amongst normal soceity. In other words life means life, it doesn't however mean left to die.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shouldnt all the parents who are apparently more 'superior' in terms of feelings regarding children also realise the alleged culprit is also someone's child? what can have happened to make this person do such a thing? I'm not saying one should feel sorry him or anything, but justice should just do its thing - after the initial shock of the event I personally find it difficult to get worked up about as it is nobody I know personally

 

good reason for not having juries

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been raised to believe something more radical. And that is that when you commit crime against society you forego the rights that society bestows on law-abiding citizens. And that means more than foregoing only the right to freedom of movement.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not. However if the kid committed murder and death was the punishment, well so be it. Obviously I would not enjoy that any more than seeing my kid behind bars for ever more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I should probably leave this thread alone, but I'm curious - do you share the same belief where the mentally ill is concerned? If they commit murder because of an untreated/undiagnosed mental illness/inadequate healthcare, should they also be killed slowly and painfully? Where would you draw the line?

 

I just can't understand it. I understand the outrage, the disbelief that anyone can do anything that horrible. What I can't understand is the people who jump in and imagine in how many different ways they could make that person suffer for what they did, cause pain, kill themselves. Isn't that just as bad but with a nice added dose of self-justification? Is that not closing the gap between the awful things that people do that are supposedly unfathomable to us? Or are they just unthinkable for people unless it's someone who 'deserved' it. Who decides who 'deserves' it? WE do??

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, but I think I would be more devastated by the fact that my child brutally murdered someone... mainly because I would also wonder what went wrong along the years that would make them capable of such a thing (and would probably blame myself on a large part).

 

I personally am fine with captial punishment...more so when guilt can be more "accurately" determined via dna, etc. and when the crime is heinous/the person is a repeat offender of a capital crime. I don't think society needs to bear the very large burden of keeping some people locked up for life. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime...capital punishment included. I didn't think capital punishment was legal here though, so, somewhat of a mute point.

 

PS -- I think when most folks talk about what "should be done" to the criminal, they are thinking of what they would want to do to someone that hurt one of their own...so, not so weird or scary. Wanting and doing are not the same thing. I doubt most people would actually be able to inflict that punishment on someone themselves...even if it was to retaliate for the murder of a loved one. Thankfully, rational heads usually prevail.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your ps and think (hope) it's no doubt true. But would those same people be ok with not actually doing it themselves but 'allowing' someone else to do it? Say the state designated killer? Would they feel ok giving the go-ahead? Do they think they can make that choice?

 

Edit: and what about children who torture and kill? They're children, people who kill children should be tortured and killed, but what if it's the children who killed other children? Does the same rule apply? Do those children then deserve to be slowly killed? General populace seems to think so if a very prominent case from the UK (from yrs ago) is anything to go by. Again, where do you draw the line?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you'd be ok seeing your child put to death then?

 

I think this is a very good question. I must admit I find it hard not to wish the death penalty upon a person who brutally murders children, but your question shows that the death penalty actually punishes innocent people more than anyone else. What about the parents and and family of the murderer - do they deserve to witness the execution of a person they love? In a way that would be an eye for an eye, even though they themselves are innocent.

 

I would think differently if I believed the execution of the murderer would give anything back to the parents who lost their children, or that it would prevent any such crimes in the future.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it give me anything back to see my child's murderer to be killed? Sure not, revenge is no consolaton in my view. It's just revenge, a hate-thing.

 

Does the capital punishment prevent such crimes? So then the crime rate, murder, in countries with capital punishment would be lower than in countries without. Not the case, rather the opposite.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think captial pushishment was ever allowed for children (and, it is rarely a slow and painful death...usually the prisoner is sedated when it happens...at least in the US). I think that is very sad when a child does something like this because you KNOW that they are either certifiably insane, but more likely they had a horrible childhood...full of really traumatic events. The thing is, in the latter case (adult or child), they typically know the difference between right and wrong and have no respect for life...how do you fix that? Rehabilitation is not very successful and prison is rarely a place full of happy, positive people helping you see a new side to life. I just tend to think there is no point in keeping people that will never be returned to society in jail for decades.

 

On your last question though, it is hard to say where to draw the line. Which is why I am glad we have a justice system where calmer heads prevail. I may not always agree with the outcome, but at least they are doing their best to follow the law instead of their emotions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't think captial pushishment was ever allowed for children (and, it is rarely a slow and painful death...usually the prisoner is sedated when it happens...at least in the US).

 

 

Yes it was. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional just a few years ago. Until then 16 was the minimum age for execution and hundreds of children have been executed in our illustrious history...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I wasn't referring to capital punishment in general with 'slow and painful' but the comments from other people saying that it SHOULD be slow and painful.

 

edit: I would also love to go into the whole "they're so f*** up now anyway so what else can be done but kill them really" thing but I don't want to turn this into a thread on capital punishment. My posts were merely questions in relation to other posts that were made on this thread that I just couldn't read and ignore.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with all these issues is agreeing what we understand to be the purpose of law in repect of punishment v prevention/deterance.

 

If we lock a violent criminal away from society then, clearly, we are preventing them from repeating their crimes. For the protection of everyone, this is the minimum that should happen.

 

Would anything have deterred them - personnally, I doubt it as their crimes were not rational. I don't think any of us can understand the warped mind of someone who could do such a terrible thing as this.

 

Whjen it comes to punishment then we are in a more difficult area. A terrible crime like this makes people feel that punishment is justified but could any sane person do such a thing? If the person was insane then how should they be punished?

 

The big danger I see is that, if people are given 'punishment' sentences rather than 'preventative' sentences then they can be released to society after they have 'paid' for their crime and pose a further risk. Also, how can you really 'pay' for such a crime. I don't support capital punishment for some of the reasonsa stated earlier in this thread and some others - but that is another debate.

 

So, to summarise, someone who did such a terrrible thing is not safe to be released to society, ever, but that does not mean we should compromise our own humanity by inflicting pain and suffering on them. For our sake - we need to be above that.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Assuming that they've got the right guy. Of course once you've strung him up it will be too late if they discover they've got the wrong man. I find it interesting how many of you seem to be prepared to condemn this guy, even though none of you have any access to any real evidence. Luckily we live in a country where the process of law is how things are done and mob rule is not what holds sway. You'll all look pretty stupid if it turns out the mother did it after all. I've always thought that the jury system is quite a good one and that here it's a bit odd that they don't do that, but if you're an example of the kind of people who get onto juries I'm beginning to doubt it.

 

 

Don't know if you were referring to my post here - but when I said "string together enough evidence to nail the guy" I didn't mean anything about hanging or otherwise - and perhaps string wasn't the right word here. I just mean that I hope they can produce enough evidence to convict whoever did this (and I assume it is the uncle...), and put him behind bars. I am not against judge trials, in general. I think jury trials are a bit bazaar, actually. Why should the fate of the person be determined by peers? I would much rather it were by people who were trained in the law and able to be rational in their decision. I am against capital punishment, btw.

 

I would also not mind if people who are in jail had to do some sort of work/service to society to "pay" for their crimes. Of course, I think I am living in la-la land on that one.

 

In the US if you are rich enough and can hire the best lawyers, justice does not always prevail. Justice should be blind to race, gender and size of bank account, but alas, in the US at least, it is not always so. Remember OJ? To me, the glove did fit...but yet he was found criminally not guilty in those murders.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OE, I completely agree. The only thing I have left to say is that, although I also doubt that anything can be done to deter irrational people from committing horrid crimes, I think there are other things that can be done to prevent. Especially on the mental health front.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with all these issues is agreeing what we understand to be the purpose of law in repect of punishment v prevention/deterance.

 

For anyone who may have missed it:

 

 

Brief explanation of penal systems and the German approach:

 

You can follow that back to another post of mine with an in-depth explanation of the German system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sarabyrd: No, I didn't miss that. My point was not about what the SYSTEM says but about what people FEEL. <BR><BR>The key words being 'what we understand'

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean you specifically. I explicitly pointed out my other posts, one of which says that punishment is not meant for revenge.

 

 

None of these three theories, however, cover the basic human craving for revenge.

 

This is a long discussion, and I don't expect anyone to recall all the contents. When you mentioned the intent of punishment I linked back to the previous discussion of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now