Man Charged over Toddler's Rape, Torture Murder.

[MammothBlade]

This is why we have the death penalty.

This is why we must always have the death penalty.

No this is why there should always be a rehabilitating facility for the mentaly sick. Death penalty and other sentences that are designed to punish does nothing. You need sentences that are based on helping, not punishing to truly help society in every way.

You really want to rehabilitate scum like this? Why on Earth?

I don't want to co-exist with pedophilic child murderers, even after they are "rehabilitated". They are not the sorts society should waste time and effort helping. No-one like that deserves a second chance.

This bastard needs a bullet to the head.

Yes, I do think he should be rehabilitated. Everyone should get a second-chance. And before you ask, yes, I would actually live next door to him if he was rehabilitated. I was neighbour with an ex-murderer once, and he was like any other person. Sure, I was a bit scared when I was told, but it quickly passed. BUT! On to the topic at hand...

Now, let us say that he does not get the death penalty, but is imprisoned for... 25 years... Yeah, let us say that... What is to stop him from doing it again? Nothing (well, except going back to jail), so nothing have been accomplished.

Now, you said he should die, yes, that is a possibility, it would stop him from doing it, no need to waste money on him, etc, just pros here right? No, the Death penalty comes with a huge price.

Now, People know for sure he did it, with proof. But... What if he did not do it? Just hypotheticly, you would be killing an innocent man. Or maybe the next one is innocent. Is it really worth it? I do not think so.

Plus it has been shown death penalty does not act as a detergent for crime.
Why? Well, to put it like a professional; People who do these kinds of thingsare fucking crazy. Something is clearly wrong in this mans head. And as such, he needs need help. Sure, he might be locked up for 20+ years, but when he gets back out, he is (hopefully) a changed man.

Rehabilitating people acts as a better detergent than death penalty because it shows that everyone can get help.

I don't believe everyone deserves a second chance. Depends on the severity of the crime. Child murder-rape is unforgivable in my view. It's only something a very twisted and evil individual would do. Rehabilitating them doesn't make them any less of a bad person, just more "civilised". It is a disgrace to their victims to offer them another chance at life.

As for the argument that there is still a chance of killing an innocent man - this can easily be prevented with strict evidence requirements. Yes, I would rather let a guilty person go free than condemn an innocent person to death for the crimes of another... but there are plenty of innocents who have died in prison. Letting them rot in prison is just as inhumane as executing them, it wrongly ruins their life all the same. The only difference is that the victim of miscarriage of justice might be released after a few decades, when the prime of their life is behind them. The problem is with the way people are convicted without sufficient evidence, not with capital punishment.

 

[Smeatza]

Yes, I do think he should be rehabilitated. Everyone should get a second-chance. And before you ask, yes, I would actually live next door to him if he was rehabilitated. I was neighbour with an ex-murderer once, and he was like any other person. Sure, I was a bit scared when I was told, but it quickly passed. BUT! On to the topic at hand...

Now, let us say that he does not get the death penalty, but is imprisoned for... 25 years... Yeah, let us say that... What is to stop him from doing it again? Nothing (well, except going back to jail), so nothing have been accomplished.

Now, you said he should die, yes, that is a possibility, it would stop him from doing it, no need to waste money on him, etc, just pros here right? No, the Death penalty comes with a huge price.

Now, People know for sure he did it, with proof. But... What if he did not do it? Just hypotheticly, you would be killing an innocent man. Or maybe the next one is innocent. Is it really worth it? I do not think so.

Plus it has been shown death penalty does not act as a detergent for crime.
Why? Well, to put it like a professional; People who do these kinds of thingsare fucking crazy. Something is clearly wrong in this mans head. And as such, he needs need help. Sure, he might be locked up for 20+ years, but when he gets back out, he is (hopefully) a changed man.

Rehabilitating people acts as a better detergent than death penalty because it shows that everyone can get help.

I think for most people there is a big difference between a murderer and a child rapist.
The vast majority of people can conceivably be worked into a state where they would be prepared to murder another. Either for monetary gain or out of anger.
However for someone to sexually abuse a child, something has to be inherently wrong with them. Either they are biologically defective, they've had an incredibly unhealthy upbringing or most likely a combination of both.
Is it really worth expending resources and time on attempting to rehabilitate such an individual?
The humanist side of me wonders if it's dangerous to leave this individual alive and risk their defects being passed on to future generations.

 

[Aprilgold]

Potential is a pretty arbitrary factor. We can argue hypotheticals and theoreticals all we like. The fact is that at the time of death, that child was less capable of comprehending, and by extention suffering, than your average dinner.

We as humans can imagine the pain, regardless of the pain that happened. Have you ever cringed while watching something like Hell raiser or similar? Most likely its not only because it was scary but you were going "Oh that must have hurt."

Potential is a major factor if your going to want to talk about whether a cow is more valuable then a baby is to humans. A cow can supply food, give the baby 40 years and he very well could have been a life saving doctor, firefighter or cop. Give the cow 40 years and he would be munching away at the same grass patch.

Yes it is still a side factor, but a humans life is not on par with a cows, like your making it out to be.
------------------------------------

Yes, enter "OMGohmygoshdon'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg" comment.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

This is why we have the death penalty.

This is why we must always have the death penalty.

No this is why there should always be a rehabilitating facility for the mentaly sick. Death penalty and other sentences that are designed to punish does nothing. You need sentences that are based on helping, not punishing to truly help society in every way.

You really want to rehabilitate scum like this? Why on Earth?

I don't want to co-exist with pedophilic child murderers, even after they are "rehabilitated". They are not the sorts society should waste time and effort helping. No-one like that deserves a second chance.

This bastard needs a bullet to the head.

Yes, I do think he should be rehabilitated. Everyone should get a second-chance. And before you ask, yes, I would actually live next door to him if he was rehabilitated. I was neighbour with an ex-murderer once, and he was like any other person. Sure, I was a bit scared when I was told, but it quickly passed. BUT! On to the topic at hand...

Now, let us say that he does not get the death penalty, but is imprisoned for... 25 years... Yeah, let us say that... What is to stop him from doing it again? Nothing (well, except going back to jail), so nothing have been accomplished.

Now, you said he should die, yes, that is a possibility, it would stop him from doing it, no need to waste money on him, etc, just pros here right? No, the Death penalty comes with a huge price.

Now, People know for sure he did it, with proof. But... What if he did not do it? Just hypotheticly, you would be killing an innocent man. Or maybe the next one is innocent. Is it really worth it? I do not think so.

Plus it has been shown death penalty does not act as a detergent for crime.
Why? Well, to put it like a professional; People who do these kinds of thingsare fucking crazy. Something is clearly wrong in this mans head. And as such, he needs need help. Sure, he might be locked up for 20+ years, but when he gets back out, he is (hopefully) a changed man.

Rehabilitating people acts as a better detergent than death penalty because it shows that everyone can get help.

I support the death penalty under a few VERY strict conditions:

1. Evidence 100% points to the fact it would be impossible for the individual NOT to have commited the crime. All circumstances make ZERO sense and no alabis can account for the weight and accuracy of evidence proving beyond any doubt the person is the perp. If any doubt exists a life in prison is given.

2. The crime has NO motive, no matter how selfish, other than to bring serious pain and misery to another human being personal enjoyment. EI hitmen are payed, people in anger can murder, even theft. These motives indicate rational, if not sometimes fucked up, thought and as such these people can be helped and given a second chance. If the motive is a purely sadistic and inhuman display of brutality and torture no excuse can be given. No rational or even emotional mind can come to any conclusion in which this is a sensable course of action.

These people should be killed. Not for vengeance. You dont put down a dog thats rabid for "revenge". You COULD lock it away forever but why would you? Its fundamentally broken and its entire existance is spent in loathing and wishing to do violence unto other people for no real reason. Its broken. Its not a selfish act to destroy it, its a sad half existance that benefits no one and makes the world a worse place for its existance.

We kill them because they are a cancer on society. Criminals are an infection, it can be treated and controlled. These sociopaths are a cancer. It can only be destroyed. When another persons reason to be is just to hurt others in the cruellest ways imaginable why let them live?

I remember talking to you before and you said you had no empathy for anyone ever. I think? If this is true why do you care about this person at all? You surely wouldnt care if anyone was killed out of hand for any reason? I believe the example used was theft and you thought it was alright? Do you even view these actions as "wrong"? Sorry if this wasnt you, my memory is poor :S

 

[Woodsey]

This is why we have the death penalty.

This is why we must always have the death penalty.

It was in Australia, and this is not a reason why anywhere should have the death penalty anyway.

Casey Anthony killed her kid

She was found innocent.

OT: If he's proven guilty, then what a ****.

 

[manic_depressive13]

We as humans can imagine the pain, regardless of the pain that happened. Have you ever cringed while watching something like Hell raiser or similar? Most likely its not only because it was scary but you were going "Oh that must have hurt."

Potential is a major factor if your going to want to talk about whether a cow is more valuable then a baby is to humans. A cow can supply food, give the baby 40 years and he very well could have been a life saving doctor, firefighter or cop. Give the cow 40 years and he would be munching away at the same grass patch.

Yes it is still a side factor, but a humans life is not on par with a cows, like your making it out to be.
------------------------------------

Yes, enter "OMGohmygoshdon'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg" comment.

One cow isn't going to sustain a person for 40 years. Someone who eats cows would end up eating many cows, although they wouldn't need to eat any at all. I doubt the cow cares if a baby grows up to be a doctor. That just means more people who probably eat cows. You're using an anthropocentric justification to validate your anthropocentric view.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

This is why we have the death penalty.

This is why we must always have the death penalty.

I'm inclined to agree there.
Some criminals don't deserve a second chance, and they don't deserve to exist.

EDIT: and in case someone says "what if he's innocent", I'm just saying that the person who DID THIS shouldn't be allowed to live.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Casey Anthony killed her kid

She was found innocent.

Lots of guilty people are found innocent.

 

[Woodsey]

Yes, I do think he should be rehabilitated. Everyone should get a second-chance. And before you ask, yes, I would actually live next door to him if he was rehabilitated. I was neighbour with an ex-murderer once, and he was like any other person. Sure, I was a bit scared when I was told, but it quickly passed. BUT! On to the topic at hand...

Now, let us say that he does not get the death penalty, but is imprisoned for... 25 years... Yeah, let us say that... What is to stop him from doing it again? Nothing (well, except going back to jail), so nothing have been accomplished.

Now, you said he should die, yes, that is a possibility, it would stop him from doing it, no need to waste money on him, etc, just pros here right? No, the Death penalty comes with a huge price.

Now, People know for sure he did it, with proof. But... What if he did not do it? Just hypotheticly, you would be killing an innocent man. Or maybe the next one is innocent. Is it really worth it? I do not think so.

Plus it has been shown death penalty does not act as a detergent for crime.
Why? Well, to put it like a professional; People who do these kinds of thingsare fucking crazy. Something is clearly wrong in this mans head. And as such, he needs need help. Sure, he might be locked up for 20+ years, but when he gets back out, he is (hopefully) a changed man.

Rehabilitating people acts as a better detergent than death penalty because it shows that everyone can get help.

I think for most people there is a big difference between a murderer and a child rapist.
The vast majority of people can conceivably be worked into a state where they would be prepared to murder another. Either for monetary gain or out of anger.
However for someone to sexually abuse a child, something has to be inherently wrong with them. Either they are biologically defective, they've had an incredibly unhealthy upbringing or most likely a combination of both.
Is it really worth expending resources and time on attempting to rehabilitate such an individual?
The humanist side of me wonders if it's dangerous to leave this individual alive and risk their defects being passed on to future generations.

I wouldn't exactly describe the side of you that would consider putting down a potential victim of abuse and mental disorders as your 'humanist side', even if it is in an effort to protect their offspring, 'just in case'.

"Is it really worth expending resources and time on attempting to rehabilitate such an individual?"

If someone has suffered all of their life and they have some dangerous mental health issues, then they should be allowed the opportunity to rid themselves of it.

'For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.'

 

[Aprilgold]

One cow isn't going to sustain a person for 40 years. Someone who eats cows would end up eating many cows, although they wouldn't need to eat any at all. I doubt the cow cares if a baby grows up to be a doctor. That just means more people who probably eat cows. You're using an anthropocentric justification to validate your anthropocentric view.

That is a good one, a really good one. Yes, maybe I am being anthropocentric with putting a human over the life of a cow, but that doesn't mean that I do not love animals more then humans. I do love my dog more then I love many people. If I had to choose between saving a random stranger or saving my dog, then I will save the dog since that stranger could have very well been a serial killer.

I am open to killing a cow and then eating it since that cow could have very easily been a wolves meal, and the wolf wouldn't have been as kind to take it out in one hit. Humans are very important to other humans, were anthropocentric from birth. I bet that a wolf cares more about other wolves then a human, so it really is just natural to be more caring towards the same species.

 

[Woodsey]

Casey Anthony killed her kid

She was found innocent.

Lots of guilty people are found innocent.

I dare say the jury and judge on the day were far more aware of the inner workings of the case than you or I. You could make the case if she was acquitted based on a technicality, or if there was evidence of corruption, but as far as I'm aware, she had the trial, the jury found her innocent, she went free. So she's innocent.

We don't have the judicial process so that people's innocence can be determined by public consensus.

 

[manic_depressive13]

One cow isn't going to sustain a person for 40 years. Someone who eats cows would end up eating many cows, although they wouldn't need to eat any at all. I doubt the cow cares if a baby grows up to be a doctor. That just means more people who probably eat cows. You're using an anthropocentric justification to validate your anthropocentric view.

That is a good one, a really good one. Yes, maybe I am being anthropocentric with putting a human over the life of a cow, but that doesn't mean that I do not love animals more then humans. I do love my dog more then I love many people. If I had to choose between saving a random stranger or saving my dog, then I will save the dog since that stranger could have very well been a serial killer.

I am open to killing a cow and then eating it since that cow could have very easily been a wolves meal, and the wolf wouldn't have been as kind to take it out in one hit. Humans are very important to other humans, were anthropocentric from birth. I bet that a wolf cares more about other wolves then a human, so it really is just natural to be more caring towards the same species.

What if you had to choose between a random dog and a random stranger?

 

[Jegsimmons]

i know the aussies dont have the death penalty...but...FUCKING KILL HIM!!!!!

this is why we have corporal punishment! for suck fucks who deserve death and to burn in hell.

how about just a good old fashion lynch mob?

 

[RanD00M]

"The accused man's family were in court to support him."
I laughed at that line. That's all I'm going to say on the matter because if I open my big mouth I might end up getting death threats.

 

[JoJo]

Who the fuck rapes a 15 month old? How the hell does that even work? I mean the pedophile's victims at least have a chance of surviving such punishment and the ephebophile's are pretty much fully developed. But this... I didn't even know this existed.

What the hell happens in someones life that makes them sexually attracted to toddlers?

Usually something very traumatic in early childhood, especially if there's violence involved in the crime. Not that that lets the perpetrator off though as there's a big difference between attraction and real acts and he chose the latter.

OT: I'd really like to say death penalty right now but I oppose it on principle so (assuming he is guilty), I'll have to settle for hoping he spends the rest of his life suffering in jail.

 

[Aprilgold]

One cow isn't going to sustain a person for 40 years. Someone who eats cows would end up eating many cows, although they wouldn't need to eat any at all. I doubt the cow cares if a baby grows up to be a doctor. That just means more people who probably eat cows. You're using an anthropocentric justification to validate your anthropocentric view.

That is a good one, a really good one. Yes, maybe I am being anthropocentric with putting a human over the life of a cow, but that doesn't mean that I do not love animals more then humans. I do love my dog more then I love many people. If I had to choose between saving a random stranger or saving my dog, then I will save the dog since that stranger could have very well been a serial killer.

I am open to killing a cow and then eating it since that cow could have very easily been a wolves meal, and the wolf wouldn't have been as kind to take it out in one hit. Humans are very important to other humans, were anthropocentric from birth. I bet that a wolf cares more about other wolves then a human, so it really is just natural to be more caring towards the same species.

What if you had to choose between a random dog and a random stranger?

Well, I'm not quite sure. The person could be evil, and has the very potential to do so, same with the dog, but the dog would be justified for its actions.

Honestly, neither. Theres not enough evidence to do the 'right thing' or what I perceive as the right thing.

 

[redisforever]

I didn't know you could... rape a toddler.

Don't watch A Serbian Film then. It gets squicky with "Newborn Porn."

Not just that. Gets squicky with anything you can imagine. Again, yeah, don't watch it...

 

[tthor]

I heard about something similar to this on NPR, where an illness in young children can actually manifest itself as symptoms similar to that of abuse and even rape. A man in texas just recently got released from prison after serving time after being falsely accused of abusing, raping, and killing an infant; only later did an appeals court reverse the conviction, stating that the court never even brought in any medical examiners, and that the infant did have a serious health condition. This may not be the case here, but I think it is important not to charge in too hasty or headstrong over this kind of case, especially since this type of case automatically stirs up strong emotion in all of us.

 

[DarkRyter]

This is why we have the death penalty.

This is why we must always have the death penalty.

No.

He deserves worse.

 

[oktalist]

Reported for lack of discussion value.