Friday, August 01, 2008

No, not that outrage ... the OTHER outrage!


Shorter "culture of life" fetus fetishist SUZANNE: "Given the appalling recent murder of Unitarians by a homicidal madman who hated liberals, I am now going to shriek horrifically about ... something else."

73 comments:

Chimera said...

Notice that she immediately introduced Jesus into the issue? Can't leave her religion out of anything, can she?

CC said...

Well, it was God's will that that poor bastard was murdered and beheaded, wasn't it? Credit where credit is due, I always say.

Well, OK, I don't always say that.

LuLu said...

I'm just astonished that SHE hasn't tried to link it the abortion holocaust!1!!1!!1!!1

deBeauxOs said...

Give HER time. SHE will.

jj said...

Even as we speak, SUZANNE is googling feverishly... "Vince Weiguang Li + Planned Parenthood"... "Vince Weiguang Li + Abortion Rights Coalition".... "Vince Weiguang Li + Henry Morgentaler"... "Vince Weiguang Li + Birth Pangs"...

E in MD said...

I love the responses here...

DP is a very serious penalty. Some of you might be very angry and wants the criminal to be sentenced to death, but what good does it do?

Even if it deters nobody from murder, it removes an obviously out of his nut crazy murderer guy from society and prevents him from ever harming anyone ever again.

The criminal is likely to be a maniac, so what's the good of killing him?


See above answer.

How do you think it will affect and improve our society?

See above answer.

Death isn't the answer to these questions.

Sure it is. This dude has officially gave up the right to live so he could brutally murder a sleeping kid. I'd say calling for his death is a pretty damned good answer.

The criminal himself probably doesn't have any soul or life left in him anyhow. ....

What the fuck difference does that make? He fucking gutted a sleeping person, cut off his head and dropped it at the feet of onlookers. I'd like you to go and verifiable quantify this guy's soul right now.

This guy is obviously far to dangerous to be allowed to continue breathing. I don't believe in all that soul/hell crap. But I do believe I don't want this asshole getting accidentally released from prison, climbing in through my window and murdering my child. Or worse, getting released on some bullshit technicality and running for President/Prime Minister/King.

Fuck that. Dead men don't kill anybody.

James Bow said...

No, I'm opposed to the death penalty. There's no real deterrant, and in this case, it's going to be like trying to try a hurricane for murder. Yes, there seems to be no hope of rehabilitation, or even getting through to him to make him understand what he did was wrong, which means that the focus shifts solely to the protection of society. Locking him away for the rest of his life serves that need. Anything else is beyond what we need, and gives us a response which is more in keeping with his actions, than the rationality that sets us above people like him.

Chimera said...

"...I'm opposed to the death penalty. There's no real deterrant..."

I've never understood the argument that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I'm assuming that what is meant by that is that it doesn't serve as a warning to other potential murderers.

So what? Capital punishment serves one purpose and one purpose only: it gets rid of the immediate transgressor, whose identity in this case cannot be argued. I could care less about "warning" other potential murderers, crazy or sane. If they ever act our their murderous fantasies, we'll deal with them, too, when the time comes.

I don't care if he understands that what he did was wrong. I don't want him to be able to get the rarest of opportunities to do it again!

James, are you seriously suggesting that we are on the same level as this lunatic? I dunno 'bout anyone else, but I'm seriously insulted by such an inference.

KEvron said...

"Dead men don't kill anybody."

why arbitrarilly stop at murderers? dead men don't jaywalk, either.

kill 'em all and end crime for good.

KEvron

KEvron said...

"Locking him away for the rest of his life serves that need."

absolutely. how many has li killed since his detainment?

"Anything else is beyond what we need"

well, there's always the ignoble satisfaction of bloodlust. li could testify to that.

KEvron

jj said...

Throw him in jail in General Pop, throw away the key and let nature take its course.

The state should never never ever! have the right to decide who lives & dies, no matter how heinous their crime.

KEvron said...

"Throw him in jail in General Pop"

great admirer of those in gen pop, are you?

KEvron

E in MD said...

No, I'm opposed to the death penalty. There's no real deterrant, and in this case, it's going to be like trying to try a hurricane for murder.

You can be against capital punishment all you want. Your oppinon is your own.

Answer me one question.

If this guy is put to death... is he EVER going to kill someone again?

No.

Therefore capital punishment is a deterrent. The best deterrent, in fact. It might not stop the next guy who wants to disembowel a kid on a bus. But this one sure as hell isn't going to do it ever again.

The same cannot be said if he is put in prison because as long as he draws breath there is a chance of him escaping and doing it again.

KEvron said...

"The same cannot be said if he is put in prison because as long as he draws breath there is a chance of him escaping and doing it again."

the same for jaywalkers, the dirty fuckers.

KEvron

liberal supporter said...

Now hold on a minute. We can't call for death for this guy until we know if he is a liberal or a conservative.


It's always the "obvious" cases that gets the hopes up of the hang 'em high crowd. Once you have the death penalty reinstated, of course it is just such a great way to deal with all kinds of problems.

The hysteria around high profile cases is bad enough. When it becomes a death penalty case you get a literal frenzy for a judicial killing. Convictions can be more a result of the public outcry and threats about the next election, than actual iron clad evidence.


Karla Homolka is on record as saying she would not have fingered Paul Bernardo in a death penalty jurisdiction. She was willing to risk life in jail, but would have taken her chances with him otherwise. He literally got away with murder, the cases were getting pretty cold until she came forward.

Had they investigated the Bernardo house properly, she would not have been offered the deal she got, since they would have had the evidence. But they would not have even looked without her.

She got off too easily. Meanwhile Bernardo continues to not kill anyone as he rots away. If you support the death penalty, then you support a free Paul Bernardo.

E in MD said...

why arbitrarilly stop at murderers? dead men don't jaywalk, either.

kill 'em all and end crime for good.

KEvron

By Blogger KEvron, at 3:20 PM


Are you telling me that you can't see a moral difference between disemboweling and beheading a kid and jaywalking?

Somebody jaywalking hurts nobody. Somebody cutting my fucking head off while i'm sleeping sure as hell hurts somebody.

We don't need to protect society from the scourge of jaywalkers. We sure as hell need to protect society from a guy who cold bloodedly leans over while you're taking a nap and stabs you sixty times then takes your head as a trophy.

C'mon. You can't tell me there is an equivalency here.

KEvron said...

"Your oppinon is your own."

even when it's shared?

KEvron

KEvron said...

"We don't need to protect society from the scourge of jaywalkers."

yes, we do, hence laws against it (ineffectual as they are).

"C'mon. You can't tell me there is an equivalency here."

sure, i can.

KEvron, staunchly anti-crime

KEvron said...

btw,

"there is a chance of him escaping and doing it again."

examplpes to support this wild fantasy?

KEvron

liberal supporter said...

The same cannot be said if he is put in prison because as long as he draws breath there is a chance of him escaping and doing it again.

That chance of him escaping is smaller than the chance of executing someone for a crime they did not commit.

That chance is smaller than the chance of someone tracking you from this very web site, then finding and killing you. Why do you take such a risk if you are so concerned for your safety that you need to have people killed for your supposed protection?


The only situation I would accept your argument is where there is a real chance the State may be unable to hold the person. Such as in war time. That is why I supported the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, for example, solely because no prison would be able to hold him against his supporters forever.

Otherwise, no. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

deBeauxOs said...

KEvron, sometimes you are one yapping, gaping asshole.

This is one of those times.

This is my opinion and I'll bet it's shared, too.

E in MD said...

"Locking him away for the rest of his life serves that need."

absolutely. how many has li killed since his detainment?


At least until he manages to escape or get released on a 'work program' and murders twelve people.


"Anything else is beyond what we need"

well, there's always the ignoble satisfaction of bloodlust. li could testify to that.

KEvron

By Blogger KEvron, at 3:29 PM


Lol.. that's one of the larger crocks of bullshit i've heard on this blog. There is no blood lust here. I don't know this guy or the innocent sleeping guy he butchered like a cow. I'm not angry. I'm affraid*. I'm affraid that this asshole might show up on my doorstep next. We're not talking about someone who got a ticket for double parking or cheated some old lady out of a pension here. We're not even talking a garden variety 'That guy slept with my wife' or 'Oops I ran over a homeless guy with my car" crime. We're talking about someone who has proven that he is a big enough danger to society at large that he really has no business being IN society anymore. There's no rehabbing someone like this. Based on his actions alone he's likely a sociopath and there is no treatment for that sort of thing. He's going to remain a danger for the rest of his life and if he is in fact a sociopath then he's going to be spending that time planning on how to escape and how to gut his next victim.

And yes, in case you haven't noticed I am FOR capital punishment when a crime warrants it. Such as butchering someone asleep next to you on a bus.


* I'm not actually afraid that this will happen since he's x thousand miles away. I'm making a point.

Chimera said...

But, JJ, "The State" already makes such decisions. They're simply not usually so in-yer-face, is all.

Sending military troops into battle against people with lethal weapons in one way they do it.

Refusing to provide all available medical options (in a land that brags about its socialized medicine, no less) to someone dying of a rare or expensive disease is another.

Capital punishment is just the only method not trying to put clown makeup on its own face and trying to pass itself off as pretty. It works. It's effective. And no one escapes or gets parole from it to commit murder again.

E in MD said...

Throw him in jail in General Pop, throw away the key and let nature take its course.

The state should never never ever! have the right to decide who lives & dies, no matter how heinous their crime.

By Blogger jj, at 3:38 PM


And in his case, his nature will be to endear himself to someone who's in general population for having an ounce of pot, or because he got into a fight and couldn't prove the other guy hit him first..... and our buddy here take a home made knife made from a piece of metal and gut that guy too. Sticking a guy like this in prison isn't going to make us safer, and isn't going to teach him not to murder people. If anything it will put those lesser offenders inside in danger and will allow this sociopath to hone his craft.

JJ you're making a statement here that the state should never have the right to decide who lives or dies.

Why? Are you afraid of them executing the wrong person? Do you have some religious conviction about a right to life? I'm curious as to your motivation for making that decision.

KEvron said...

"KEvron, sometimes you are one yapping, gaping asshole."

but i like you....

sorry if my lack of vengeful bloodlust doesn't suit you.

KEvron

E in MD said...

Your oppinon is your own."

even when it's shared?

KEvron

By Blogger KEvron, at 3:51 PM


To be clear, what I meant by that was he's entitled to his oppinion just as I am entitled to mine and you are entitled to yours.

Chimera said...

"Karla Homolka is on record as saying she would not have fingered Paul Bernardo in a death penalty jurisdiction."

And you believe her?

Which is fine, but it's still a hypothetical, and therefore unproven and unprovable.

liberal supporter said...

And no one escapes or gets parole from it to commit murder again.

Or even to commit murder once, had they killed Hurricane. Or Marshall. Or Morin. Or Truscott.

Capital punishment is as ridiculous to me as papal infallibility. Now you want to worship State infallibility? Jesus Christ! And yes, JC was killed by the State too, remember? Pissing of the other preachers, I think was his "crime".

jj said...

"great admirer of those in gen pop, are you?

You've got a point. This guy might have to be put in protective custody for the protection of everyone else.

liberal supporter said...

And you believe her?
It seems believable. They were getting away with it. If your choice is execution or life on the run, you choose to stay on the run. Wouldn't you do the same?

KEvron said...

"At least until he manages to escape or get released on a 'work program' and murders twelve people."

two-to-one odds in the likelyhood?

"I'm affraid"

aka, "the opposite of love".

"There's no rehabbing someone like this. Based on his actions alone he's likely a sociopath and there is no treatment for that sort of thing."

there are chemical therapies to minimize, and detention resolves the issue of "being IN society anymore" (not that anyone has suggested he SHOULD be).

not only are you feeling murderous rage at this man, but you're transfering your anger toward those who oppose your solution.

KEvron

E in MD said...

"We don't need to protect society from the scourge of jaywalkers."

yes, we do, hence laws against it (ineffectual as they are).

"C'mon. You can't tell me there is an equivalency here."

sure, i can.

KEvron, staunchly anti-crime

By Blogger KEvron, at 3:53 PM


Ok.. then explain how a guy walking across the street against the direction of a light is the moral equivalent of gutting an innocent person while they sleep and stabbing them 60 times.

I'd love to hear this.

E in MD said...

btw,

"there is a chance of him escaping and doing it again."

examplpes to support this wild fantasy?

KEvron

By Blogger KEvron, at 3:55 PM



Are you telling me that it's impossible for this guy to escape? I didn't think you were that naive.

Alright, I'll do some net searches and get back to you. I don't remember the specifics in the case, but there was a guy ( I believe it was in Pennsylvania though it might have been here in Maryland) who walked away from a work detail, walked into a woman's house and raped and murdered her. I'll see if I can find the details for you but I don't have the bookmarks handy.

KEvron said...

"This guy might have to be put in protective custody for the protection of everyone else."

from what i've read so far, it sounds to me like tli needs to be hopitalized, treated to the best degree possible and observed, so that we might further learn.

KEvron

"an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." - mlk, paraphrasing mk ghandi, but what the fuck do they know

KEvron said...

"I'd love to hear this."

both are crimes easily mitigated if everyone were put to death. ta-da!

KEvron, never one to arbitrarilly balk

E in MD said...

That chance of him escaping is smaller than the chance of executing someone for a crime they did not commit.

Somehow I doubt that. I guess it would depend on where they put him precisely. If they stick him in a supermax prison where he's watched 24/7 that might be the case. But the average run of the mill murderer doesn't end up in a place like that.

That chance is smaller than the chance of someone tracking you from this very web site, then finding and killing you. Why do you take such a risk if you are so concerned for your safety that you need to have people killed for your supposed protection?

Somehow I doubt that too. This guy has already proven his ability to murder innocent people without batting an eye assuming the eye witness reports are actually true. Sociopaths are generally highly intelligent and resourceful and are quite capable of getting someone to lower their guard. They come off as friendly and helpful and nice right up until the point where they stick the knife in your eye. Granted now, most sociopaths don't committ murder but the ones that do aren't going to stop just because you decided to 'lock them away'. I suppose you'll just say to the guards he'll kill "Well that was a danger of the job and they knew it was a possibility".


The only situation I would accept your argument is where there is a real chance the State may be unable to hold the person. Such as in war time. That is why I supported the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, for example, solely because no prison would be able to hold him against his supporters forever.

Otherwise, no. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

By Blogger liberal supporter, at 3:57 PM


So you're in favor of executing some murders as long as they meet your litmus test and yet you won't accept my argument. Nice.

E in MD said...

"I'd love to hear this."

both are crimes easily mitigated if everyone were put to death. ta-da!

KEvron, never one to arbitrarilly balk

By Blogger KEvron, at 4:17 PM


Your statement is true of the punishment. But that statement doesn't make the crimes committed morally equivalent. Try again.

KEvron said...

"Are you telling me that it's impossible for this guy to escape?"

no, i'm telling you it's possible monkeys might fly outta his butt.

"I didn't think you were that naive."

happy to disappoint you.

"Alright, I'll do some net searches and get back to you."

keep in mind, i said "exampleS".

"who walked away from a work detail, walked into a woman's house and raped and murdered her."

sounds more like a case for prison reform. be interesting to know if his original offense was either a beheading or just some garen-variety crime.

KEvron

Dr.Dawg said...

I'm with KEvron.

His point is valid. How do we decide what's "morally equivalent?" And even if we can, why does "moral equivalence" matter?

If capital punishment is a deterrent (at least to the extent of deterring the perpetrator), do we want only to deter murder? What about rape? Robbery? Petty theft? Jaywalking?

What, does that offend people? How come?

The Republican governor of Illinois once commuted every death sentence in the state. Why? Because pesky ol' DNA kept proving condemned murderers innocent. He figured the chance of judicial killing would be minimized by ceasing the practice.

Kill this Li guy, after a trial, of course? Why? Now we have one dead body. Why do we want another?

Dr.Dawg said...

"He figured the chance of judicial killing would be minimized by ceasing the practice."

Read: He figured the chance of judicial killing of the innocent would be minimized by ceasing the practice altogether.

KEvron said...

"Try again."

both get my blood boiling?

really, i can play this game of coy all day....

....but i won't. no, of course they're not equivalent, nor did my initial comment suggest as much (as you well know, what with "Your statement is true of the punishment. But that statement doesn't make the crimes committed morally equivalent"). here's where you try to tell that, as the two crimes lack equivalency, i must, therefore agree to capital punishment....

KEvron

liberal supporter said...

So you're in favor of executing some murders as long as they meet your litmus test and yet you won't accept my argument. Nice.

No, I said I would accept your argument in wartime. Not the "war on terror" time. Wartime. Where your government may cease to exist due to losing the war. WWII was the last time that was true here. And I only accept it then since the State may not be able to hold the person due to the State ceasing to exist. But a lot of things are different in wartime.

You claim that somehow a murderer might be freed. So you accept that the State is not infallible. Yet you claim State Infallibility in deciding capital cases.

I'd rather live with the remote possibility of a proven nut escaping supermax than the possibility of being put to death due to manufactured evidence.

E in MD said...

no, i'm telling you it's possible monkeys might fly outta his butt.
KEvron

By Blogger KEvron, at 4:23 PM


If it were impossible to escape prison then putting this guy in prison would have the same deterrant effect as putting him to death. But it's not impossible to escape prison. You can make light of that fact, but that's not going to change the situation. The only thing it's doing is to make me want to stop responding to you because it makes me feel like I'm wasting my time.

keep in mind, i said "exampleS".

That's what I'll be looking for. Examples of people who escaped ( though mistaken releases should count ) prison and went on to committ henous crimes such as murder. I doubt the search will make me change my oppinion, but you never know. I've changed my oppinions before when new details have come available.

"who walked away from a work detail, walked into a woman's house and raped and murdered her."

sounds more like a case for prison reform. be interesting to know if his original offense was either a beheading or just some garen-variety crime.


I seem to remember this being before the Bush era so it was a while ago and I don't remember what the original crime was. I'll see what I can find on it once I get home.

I'm all for prison reform. But unfortunately prisons are run, staffed and created by humans so no matter how much reform you call for there's still going to be opportunities for escape and further mayhem.

KEvron said...

"And even if we can, why does "moral equivalence" matter?"

yes, that was e's red herring.

"do we want only to deter murder? What about rape? Robbery? Petty theft? Jaywalking?"

you grok it all, bub. well done.

i gotta go. you keep on these guys for me, will you?

KEvron

E in MD said...

Try again."

both get my blood boiling?

really, i can play this game of coy all day....

....but i won't. no, of course they're not equivalent, nor did my initial comment suggest as much (as you well know, what with "Your statement is true of the punishment. But that statement doesn't make the crimes committed morally equivalent"). here's where you try to tell that, as the two crimes lack equivalency, i must, therefore agree to capital punishment....

KEvron

By Blogger KEvron, at 4:30 PM


What coy game? I asked a question as a result of your statement. If anyone is playing a game it's you. If you're not going to answer the question just say so and I'll know not to waste my time asking questions of you in the future. I expect this kind of nonsense from the right wing knob-jobs over on LGF and such. I come here for better intelligent discussion.

You stated that if we're going to have executions for murderers then we should have executions for jaywalkers as well. Ultimately my contention is that the punishment for a crime should be on par with the offense created and that executing someone for jaywalking is WELL out of the range of the reasonable. Nobody is hurt or murdered when you jay walk ( assuming of course you don't get hit by a car, which is possible of course ). Whereas someone was most definitely hurt by this guy on the bus as the head of the victim as evidence will no doubt attest.

As far as telling you that you "must agree to capital punishment" you can save that backlash for the next set of right winger trolls that wander through. I wouldn't tell you that you must agree to drink a soda let alone that you must agree with my opinion. If you don't want to have a decent honest conversation about this topic and would rather continue attacking me with snark and silliness in this vein then there really isn't a reason for me to bother continuing at this point. It is my OPINION that people who commit crimes of this heinous a nature should have execution as an option for their punishment even if the only deterrent force is in that the murderer will never murder anyone again. If you don't agree with that, that's fine but that's not going to stop me from having an opinion on the subject.

liberal supporter said...

i gotta go. you keep on these guys for me, will you?
I think everyone's gotta run.

It is refreshing to see though, we're not hearing the usual right wing bullshit about how we want to turn all the criminals loose.

E in MD said...

Quitting time for me for today. You peeps have a good weekend.

Cherniak_WTF said...

If this guy is put to death... is he EVER going to kill someone again?

No.

Therefore capital punishment is a deterrent.

Gawd you are a fucknuts....
Do you even know the definition of "deterrent"?


I wonder how those that are pro-coat hanger will reconcile advocating for the death penalty in this case. If the killer is mentally defective, I wonder if they will ask that all retards be killed...

Cherniak_WTF said...

Quitting time for me for today. You peeps have a good weekend.
Blogging from work?

liberal supporter said...

even if the only deterrent force is in that the murderer will never murder anyone again
Technically that is not deterrence, it is an attempt at preventing that person from murdering. I say attempt, because it could be they left orders for someone else to do murders after they are gone. You are still culpable if you hire a hit man so an executed murderer could technically kill again. Hairsplitting I know, but we are talking about murderers escaping prison and other low probability events.

Deterrence is causing someone who is still alive to think twice. Deterrence works for relatively normal people only, not usually for psychopaths. Criminals tend to believe they will not be caught. The inability to rationally weigh possibilities is one of the reasons people end up turning to crime in the first place.


I thought someone would talk about the "slippery slope" where we see they want to make child rape a capital offense. Naturally we think of 6 year olds when we say "child", but a 20 year old having sex with a 15 year old would be statutory rape, and would also qualify as child rape.

Chet Scoville said...

At least until he manages to escape or get released on a 'work program' and murders twelve people.

Do we even have "work programs" for first-degree murderers in Canada?

Dr.Dawg said...

Ultimately my contention is that the punishment for a crime should be on par with the offense created and that executing someone for jaywalking is WELL out of the range of the reasonable.

That's the crux of the thing. "Moral equivalence." Sounds easy. Is it?

Is murder with diminished capacity morally equivalent to murder by a "normal" person? Is second-degree murder (unpremeditated) "morally equivalent" to premeditated murder? In this case, must be, according to some, because capital punishment is being proposed as the same response to either. And because capital punishment itself is premeditated killing.

Is a murder equivalent to a rape? No. What about two rapes? Twenty?

How do you quantify this stuff in a moral calculus? "Moral equivalency" is bull.

We're talking hot-blooded revenge, here, folks. The moral arguments are a subterfuge. Self-delusion.

What's wrong with hot-blooded revenge? Anyone?

Holly Stick said...

jj, this suggestion: "Throw him in jail in General Pop, throw away the key and let nature take its course..." sounds just like something Stockwell Day said a few years ago.

I oppose the death penalty, but I would prefer execution by the state to encouraging murder by vigilantism. It's much like sending someone to Syria to be tortured so you can pretent your hands are clean. Immoral.

About Li, I would guess he's mentally ill. I've just heard someone on the radio saying he had been described as a big man, but in court he did not look that big.

deBeauxOs said...

A few years ago a well-respected and loved colleague died (leaving her 18 month old daugher orphaned) in a stupid, stupid car accident that was caused by a distracted driver who went through a stop sign. Had you taken a poll the day we found out about her death, we may have all voted to execute that irresponsible driver, so great was our grief.

A shamefully high number of people are judged guilty of murder in courts of law, then later found to be innocent of the charge. Why do people need to kill other people to satisfy a need for retribution?

Ti-Guy said...

Dearest American friends: Canada will not be re-instituting the death penalty.

Thank you.

toujoursdan said...

Thank God for that. It's a disaster in the U.S.

KEvron said...

"Why do people need to kill other people to satisfy a need for retribution?"

because they're gaping assholes>

KEvron

KEvron said...

"It's a disaster in the U.S."

even were it successful, it'd be morally wrong.

as capote wrote, it's "in cold blood."

KEvron

KEvron said...

"We're talking hot-blooded revenge, here, folks. The moral arguments are a subterfuge."

bingo. e's own vengeful rage was evident when he first contemptuously broached the issue. on a left leaning blog, no less, as if there were no provocation in it.

KEvron

jj said...

Holly: jj, this suggestion: "Throw him in jail in General Pop, throw away the key and let nature take its course..." sounds just like something Stockwell Day said a few years ago.

Well what do ya know, Stockie and I have something in common after all.

Not. I obviously missed what Kevron was trying to say too, because that's not what I meant.

By "letting nature take its course", I'm not suggesting he be executed by vigilantes (although now that it's come up, if it happened, I can't say I'd care). I'm saying that this guy's life in general population wouldn't be as comfortable as it might be in PC, as he'd probably get his ass kicked once in awhile, like most inmates do.

Please note a few comments down from my original I replied to Kevron that with a guy like this, GP might not be such a good idea, for the safety of the other inmates.

Sorry for not being more clear.

deBeauxOs said...

Sorry that I called you a nasty name KEvron, but what it seemed to me that you were saying, bouncing around with all those disjointed multiple comments, was that you were advocating for capital punishment.

Ti-Guy said...

This man sounds seriously ill. I couldn't possibly see his execution as moral.

Prole said...

He is being charged with second degree murder. He'd be eligible for parole in 10 - 25.

Reality Bites said...

No he won't, because he'll be declared a dangerous offender, or criminally insane.

That guy is never, ever, seeing the outside of a prison cell again and it's stupid to pretend otherwise.

KEvron said...

"it seemed to me that you were.... advocating for capital punishment."

i'm no member of the culture of life.

heh. your launch at me had me thinking you were a member.

KEvron

KEvron said...

btw, e:

between the fear factor and the permanent deterrent factor and the punishment fit the crime factor, you might as well add this to your argument.

KEvron

KEvron said...

"This man sounds seriously ill. I couldn't possibly see his execution as moral."

wouldn't stop some crawford chimps i know....

KEvron

James Bow said...

E in MD, you talk about the possibility of this man escaping and killing again, the argument of which can be summed up as "if it saves just one person, then it will be worthwhile."

I don't know how you feel about CC, but he had a very good example which blew a hole in that argument for me. He said, he could eliminate virtually all deaths by traffic accident overnight. His solution? Vigorously enforce a speed limit of 20 km/hr. Yes, that would be a severe restriction on all our lives, but thousands die in traffic accidents throughout the year. If it saves one life, it will be worthwhile.

Yes, this is an extreme example, but there are plenty of people confined to maximum security institutions for non capital crimes. They're kept there for a reason, and by your logic, they are all a risk for escape and re-offence. Do we need a death penalty for serial rapists? Perhaps. I could see a good argument that to have convicted pedophiles treated the same as first degree murderers, and if first degree murder is a capital crime once again, so be it. Let it be done for pedophiles as well.

But like JJ, I do not believe that the state should have any right to decide who lives or who dies, no matter how heinous the crime. I believe this because of the number of people who have been convicted of capital crime and have had all appeals exhausted, only to be exhonerated. David Milgaar, Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall, Laurencia Bambenik, the list goes on. I am not willing to have their blood on my hands just so I can sanction the killing of an individual who so thoroughly deserves to be killed.

Despite the small risk of escape, society is protected if this sick individual is put away for the rest of his life. Justice demands no more. Beyond that, in my opinion, is vengeance. And, yes, I believe that thoughts in that area put us on a track that, in extreme cases, leads to what the poor witnesses on the bus saw.

And, here, I speak from personal experience. I've wanted vengeance before, and looking back on the person I was in those dark moments, I did not like the person I had become.

Adam C said...

I'm sorry now I'm so late to this thread, but I feel I missed something. Are we somehow so satisfied of this man's evil that we would like to put him to death, but failing that are otherwise willing to offer him a "work release" program for prison? What the hell kind of false dichotomy is that?

And just how many prison escapes happen in the US these days, anyway? It seems pretty damn rare in Canada...

toujoursdan said...

Blogger Ti-Guy said...

This man sounds seriously ill. I couldn't possibly see his execution as moral.

9:32 PM


This is what I am beginning to think too.

KEvron said...

"This is what I am beginning to think too."

"beginning"?!

KEvron

Holly Stick said...

jj, true, what you wrote was ambiguous, while Day clearly wanted to encourage prisoners to murder a man. I apologize for giving your suggestion the worst interpretation. I scorned Day when he made that suggestion, so I couldn't just let what I thought was a similar idea go.

KEvron said...

back to the the crux of the p[ost:

SHE hysterically asks "what in the name of jesus christ is our country coming to???" (we'll just ignore HER blasphemy and HER hyperbolic punctuation), yet stockwell day rightly notes that it's a one-of.

KEvron