Category: News and Views
West Virginia scheduled recently the execution of a woman for the contract killing of her husband. Woman sold her 16 year old daughter as a sex partner for one of the contract killers, who subsequently killed her husband. Appelate attorney talks about the state "Executing a decent woman..." Killing an adult is one thing, but selling her own child for sex?! That's now considered decent? Appellate attorney also tried the old "mental challenge" or the ol' IQ is a bit low defense. Quite frankly maybe the death penalty is too good for this woman. The other inmates will have a party physically & mentally torturing a woman who had her own daughter raped.
In California an inmate is challenging his sentence based on the conditions of the injection chamber. Huh? Condemned inmate, who raped & murdered a 15 year old girl, failed to choose either poison gas or lethal injection as his preferred method of execution. My understanding of California's law is that inmates have 10 days to make this choice, and if they fail to do so, the state chooses lethal injection for 'em. Appellate attorney claims conditions are too "cramped and dingy" for inmate to die humanely. What the hey?! I guess someone can now claim they're claustrophobic and therefore can't die by lethal injection in the state of California.
How much more ridiculous can it get? Now really, I wish we here in the ol' USA would make up our minds about the death penalty. I would actually be open to a society without one. Hey my state of residence doesn't offer capital punishment, neither does my work friend's home state (Michigan abolished it over 100 years before Massachusetts), and Dear Husband is from a death penalty free country. If we're not going to have it, great, but if we are why do we have to be so wimpy about its application? The state of Ohio even got a one drug cocktail method of execution, claiming the 30 year old three drug cocktail was cruel & unusual. On average inmates wait 10-15 years to have the sentence carried out, whereas before about the '60's it was pretty swift. If we're going to have it, can it be swift & beforehand make sure the case is airtight against the accused, maybe even have it only for the worst of the worst, like that awful woman who crossed the MO state line from KS to kill her online friend & crudely snatch the pregnant woman's baby? When are we going to make up our minds & execute a decision on this matter? Probably not in my lifetime.
You know, as much as I support the death penalty when used justly, this woman deserves to be brutally tortured! I say give her to the prisoners. Even the most hardened criminals usually hate child abusers, let alone a bitch who let her own daughter get raped! What the fuck is that other son of a bitch thinking? Raping a 15-year-old and then wanting to die humanely? He should be forced to rape that other woman until both of them drop dead. That would take care of two subhumans at once! I don't even know if I'd want these to be slaves or gladiators that's how much they disgust me. Just get rid of them. Damn straight about America being too whimpy. What is this bullshit, especially when we're talking brutal rapists/killers of the innocent? I don't know if it should be quick when it comes to the execution. I think that depends on the way the crime was committed. But these 15-year appeals and waiting lists have got to stop and so does this notion of putting a brutal killer to sleep instead of merely hanging, gassing or shooting him/her, and no! He/she should not be able to decide? Did that man say "ok Honey, now would you like me to rape you, slit your throat or beat you to death" I don't think so! Sorry, this just really upsets me, especially when children are involved.
Or someone ought to take a dull knife to his parts for an extended period before they do for him.
Beeeutiful! I like the way you think.
The death penalty's ok, but come on! Don't ya'll think if somebody did something cruel and inhumane, that we shouldn't care how humane they're treated upon conviction? Let these suckers go to Alaska for some hard labor, concrete block cells at night with mats on the floor, and no modern prison conveniences, and let's see if the crime rate goes down. Why waste our money on paying for their college education, their well-stocked law libraries, cable television, and other appointments that modern prisons have? Just a cell, a mat, and a meal or two, and hard work till they die!
Jesse and BryanP22, when you guys run for office, be sure to tell me so that I could be the first to vote for you! It's so refreshing to see such clear-headed thinking around here.
Two things:
As to the hard labor, its major downfall has not come from softfoots but from those who are honest folk on the outside competing for the same gigs. If there were labor that nobody else, and I do mean nobody, wanted or would do, I could see it. Softfoots didn't remove the license plates program, and they didn't even remove chain gangs for all the media attention: workers' groups did.
As to the death penalty, people accused in the 1990s and after are serving shorter and shorter sentences. I definitely think a meticulous standard of measurements should be applied to assure the guilt or innocence of the party. We've had a lot of cases now where DNA has turned up innocent people. My answer for that is, you miss, you die too. You prosecute one you shouldn't have, you're out. Iron workers, concrete workers, hell even window washers take life into their own hands every single day so the same oughta go for these guys who prosecute.
Now, as to the ones you actually do find guilty, you wanta know who it is that has eliminated the electric chair? Hanging? Not the softfoots. No, what they want is for society to see a grizzly affair, react in horror, and side with them. Thoughtful, pre-junior-baby conservatives in more states than not were the ones who opted for cleaner methods.
Cleaner methods = fewer blocks in the supreme court = a more efficient system.
Even Illinois, the state that implemented the death penalty moritorium, did so under the governorship of a republican. This same state required the videotaping of confessions and interrogations. Police should be proud of their techniques with nothing to hide, let's video tape these things, have them up for all to see, if it's being done on the up-and-up.
Au contraire, President (then Governor) Clinton in Arkansas signed the death warrant of a questionable case of a mentally retarded man who had a history of seeing crime on TV and going in / confessing to these crimes.
I think it's possible to do it, and to do it correctly, especially now with DNA and other technologies. There's even a colony of bacteria unique to every individual's skin apparently, which is being looked into by search and rescue, sort of a fingerprint. As the technologies evolve, so should our standards of proof.
But it wasn't Hollywood got rid of prison labor, it was hardworking Americans who needed the jobs to feed their families.
It wasn't liberals who got rid of more primitive methods of execution, not even a liberal who oversaw the temporary moritorium in Illinois while they fixed the problem. It was people dedicated to the execution of the law ... correctly.
But if we are gonna be life for life, in the case where someone is innocently executed, those doing the charging / prosecution get whacked. That's only sense: Life for innocent life, after all.
Or, rather, innocent lives: when you take out the wrong person as the criminal, the right one is out there continuing their behavior and you have now violated public trust / the victims all over again.
yes, because torturing people really shows just how humane we are....
I am, and have always been, firmly against the death penalty, partly because I feel it's an easy way out, but mostly because I know, that from talking to several american lawyers, that the myths of it helping the economy are totally false and an airtight case is rarely found.
In the USA, journalist students are getting people off death row who were innocent and who never should have been there, as far as I'm concerned, if a journalist student can get an inmate off death row, there's something majorly wrong with your system.
also, given the fact that most death row inmates are poor they in most cases receive the most pitiful of legal assistance in their trials, if your life is at steak, no matter how rich or poor you are, you deserve the best, even if you did do it.
Overall though, I like governments and judges and legal systems to be better than the criminals and not to resort to such barbaric practices.
Australia, the UK and so many other western countries have gotten rid of the death penalty, and our crime rate is lower than the USA, even if you take into account the population, so maybe we're doing something write.
Tiff, you might like a Louisiana man's sence of justice as shown on Bill Kurtis' AETV program, "American Justice."
Seems a parks & rec "counselor" raped not one but two or three of his three kids. Man conspired with drunken cousin & had molestor killed & fed to gators in a swamp. Police found the cadaver being wrestled with by two gators.
When the story was discovered (cousin got guilty conscience and blew whistle), the killer was serving time up here in Walpole, the state's maximum security prison. Louisiana detective who helped investigate this case was dismayed that LA gave him just 15 years. WTF?! Not me, he was already doing time for an unrelated homicide, and the jury understood & empathized when sentencing him in LA. I think 15 years is too much for performing a public service.
To LeoGuardian: I certainly agree with you that the true guilt of these people must be established before any such measures are acted upon. And as you said, it's becoming easier to do this through technology and scientific discoveries. It's also a good idea to have interrigations videotaped, just incase the police get a little too excited. I'm not sure how I feel about prosecuters being executed, unless they clearly knew that the defendant was innocent and continued anyway. I fully agree that those should be held accountable as murderers. But the rest are just doing their jobs and honestly believe in the guilt of the person whom they're prosecuting. I could understand that American workers want certain jobs. But I keep hearing how immigrants take the jobs that no Americans are willing to do. So take these from them and give them to the prisoners. That way, the money stays with the state. I'm disgusted with these conservatives now. What were they playing at trying to soften the death penalty? How much could their possibly be involved in hanging someone? You have a gallows or a tree. You have a rope. Bring the prisoner to said place, put the rope around his/her neck and hang him/her. Same with the firing squad. Everyone has a gun with bullets. Bring the prisoner in, take aim and fire. The electric chair and gas chamber could be a bit much in the cost department, so maybe, there could be other punishments just as harsh but more economical. I do think that those who have killed justly i.e. killed an abuser, a rapist etc. particularly in revenge for such a crime committed against them or a loved one (one for one not a cycle of I killed him so you kill me so my cousin kills you) should be let free or serve no more than ten years in prison, preferably five or less if they must serve at all. And certainly those who killed by accident, when their car slid on ice for example, should never be sent to prison at all but should receive counseling.
To SwissGriff: There are times when torture is advisable, yes. There are even times when, I believe, it's preferable to death. As you said, it's an easy way out for some. The other options that I think could fit some capital offenders, gladiatorial combat and slavery, don't seem to be in fashion these days. So really, the death penalty is all that's left. Otherwise, they take up space and don't serve the state.
To spongebob: I'm with you and the jury for sure! He was already serving, but even if he wasn't, he saved everyone alot of money and certainly those poor kids from more abuse. That said, since he already killed someone else, I would be a bit hesitant to just let him go, unless it was another public service act. *smile* We need to protect the innocent from serial killers, but those who get rid of the bad guys for us should be appreciated.
What about the woman in Virginia? She was murdered by the state after being found guilty of the killings of her husband and stepson. The people who killed him weren't given the death penalty.
She couldn't possibly have plotted the execution alone (if she did). The men who carried it out would have been involved. One of them committed suicide and admitted full responsibility for the plot, but still she was executed.
There's a woman in Texas who is on death row having been found guilty of some murders based on the evidence of dodgy drug dealing criminals. Her lawyer only met with her for fifteen minutes before the trial and wouldn't let somebody in the police who knew her defend her at the trial.
The US complains about the justice systems in other countries such as Italy, while not sorting out the problems in its own justice system. Imagine the outrage if Amanda Knox was executed.
I'm not saying that it's perfect. Things do need to be worked out. But I still agree with the death penalty in general, as I've said, when used justly. Who is Amanda Knox?
Ok, as for taking labor away from normal people, let's give them pointless labor, like smashing rocks for no reason, or pulling heavy things through the snow, or some such thing! Hey, you rape and murder, prepare to be miserable.
I like that! No one could possibly argue with that point on the grounds of taking labour away.
That's feasible. Just no contracts for highways, garbage detail or anything else law-abiding citizens may work at to earn a living.
How about this for irony? Do a google search on the Virginia woman's name, Lewis, Teresa. Even Iran's infamous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is voicing his opinion on this particular case.
?! Huh?! President of a regime that when it came to power around '79 executed the opposition from prison roof tops? That relegates women to second class citizens? HE'S commenting on the "U S' double standard" of condemning Iran for Mrs Ashtiani's death sentence, while sentencing Teresa Lewis rightfully to death?!
Senior, do a search on this woman. It'll show you that as her husband was wailing in pain from his injuries, she waited an hour to dial 9 1 1. She even took the time to write a decoy note to him & make him a decoy lunch to throw suspicion off her. I suspect even most folks with borderline I Q's (her's was between 70 & 72, the standard for retardation under Virginia law is under 70) know in adult homicide the first suspect is the closest relation, a k a spouse or significant other. She may have been dull, but she had the intelligence to pay with money and sex for the services of killers to brutally execute her husband and stepson...each man suffered a painful death from multiple shots. Her own daughter said "She could have just walked away from my father and never looked back."
Anyway, we execute by the same methods as animal shelters, and only for the crime of premeditated murder. Ahmadinejad wants to execute a woman by a most brutal method that reduces women to being planted in the ground on a stake like a tomato and subjects her to brutally painful injuries, for what really amounts to a civil matter. I just love how the left comes up with standards of "equality" as in this example.
I could understand killing her husband if he was abusive and the type who, if she tried to walk away, would have found and killed her. But there's no excuse for involving her daughter in it, and if she could have walked away without him doing anything against her, than there was no excuse for the murder either. I would say abusing the child would be one, but since she herself concented to having it done, I highly doubt that was the case with the husband.
I don't know that abused wives usually seek to collect on life insurance. Evidently that was the motive on both husband & stepson. Also I don't know that abused wives kill children or stepchildren along with the abuser.
One Florida case some years ago didn't get much of anyone outside the gates of Starke singing "We Shall Overcome" or whatever it is protesters sing at executions. Judy Goodyear, alias Judy Buenoano, made contracts on and killed (or attempted to kill) one husband & a string of boyfriends. She attempted to kill by poison her son Michael. She failed through arsenic poisoning, so she & her other son James, with whom she had incestuous relation, dumped him from a canoe in the panhandle. He was paralyzed from the arsenic poisoning & wore leg braces, so he couldn't swim to save himself & drowned. She collected from life insurance. It was because she killed her own son no one protested. Execution by electrocution is particularly grizzly...anyone who knows the exact results of throwing the switch does not and will not know from me, I'm taking that secret to my grave...but I was not at all sympathetic to this black widow jailhouse Christian.
The spooky thing here is...this woman had a strange coincidental habit of being close to me. When she attempted murder of one of her boyfriends by car bombing, they were living in Aurora, Colorado. I was living in Phoenix at that time. When her later murdered son Michael was a patient in the James Haley V A Hospital in Tampa, I was hospitalized practically right accross the street with multiple leg fractures at University Community Hospital. She would have been in and out of Haley V A seriously wondering why he wasn't dead. When she was executed in Starke Prison, my kid brother was going up to that town once a month for the reserve part of his U S Army contract. Twilight zone...
I agree 100% with Loui.
Also, I think those advocating torture need to ask themselves whether they really agree with this because they think this is justice, or whether they gain a sertain sense of self satisfaction at the thought of such individuals being tortured, receiving a dose of their own medicine, as it were.
Ultimately, two wrongs don't make a right.
Agreed with the last poster, but I think i'll throw my two sense in.
Honestly, I'm not sure anyone should have the right to exicute another as form of punnishment, you seriously could argue that the death penalty is just as premeditated as some of the acts portrayed here, with the main difference being one death is approved of by society and the others are not. On some levels, its questionable if by killing another as form of punishment degrades the standards of society down to that level. I've spoken with people who've worked texas death row, (texas kills the most people, has the most on death row) and just hearing him speak of that made me reconsider more than I already have.
In addition, the first LD debate resolution I ever had related to the justness of the death penalty and I can honestly say that has also made me consider my position.
Before that time, I believed the death penalty was just, but honestly now, I don't see a place for it.
For me, at least, it's a combination of self-satisfaction and justice. Why should someone who knowingly took the life of an innocent person be allowed to live? I'd say the same thing for an executioner who randomly shot someone in the street. This was not a guilty individual and he/she was not charged with his/her execution, so it then becomes murder and the executioner is as guilty as a regular murderer.
I'm with Tiff. It's a combination. To the skeptics, God forbid one of your family members was brutally raped and murdered, and your life thrown into a tailspin because of it. Then, maybe we could properly debate the death penalty with you. Besides, why should the tax payers be strapped with the burden of feeding and housing these violent criminals? So they can be rehabilitated? I think not. Statistically, people guilty of sex crimes will generally commit them again once their sentence in prison is over, resulting in another person being hurt or killed, and the criminal back behind bars. Fix the problem, and it goes away. Don't let them sit in prison and watch television. Make them work, expend energy, and when it's all overwith, when they've been worked to the bone, if they're not dead yet, flip the switch, push the drugs, or better yet, have a public hanging for all to see the results of crime.
There is frankly no place for self-satisfaction though. None of us are judge, or jury, or should have a say in how sentences are handed down, i.e. whether a sentence is right based on what we personally think should happen to the individual.
Sentences are administered according to the legal constitution of the country where they are given, not based on the emotional responses of individuals or collective masses who have no other basis for having a say other than their own personal feelings on what they believe to be right or wrong.
"To the skeptics, God forbid one of your family members was brutally raped and murdered, and your life thrown into a tailspin
because of it. Then, maybe we could properly debate the death penalty with you." But you cannot possibly expect the family member of a murder victim to have an objective view on this. If someone murdered my child I would want to kill them. That's an understandable view but it doesn't make it right. In civilized societies we have justice systems to determine the punishments of criminals precisely because the victims cannot make an objective decision as their motivations are based on revenge and their own sense of loss and they can therefore not make an objective judgement.
" if they're not dead yet, flip the switch, push the drugs, or better yet, have a public hanging for all to see the results of crime." Goodness me. That is not justice, that is vengeance, and there is no place for that in civilized society.
I'm sorry but I fully disagree with you. There is, of course, nothing that can bring the dead back to this life. But there are ways that the families can be compensated, at least emotionally, and this is a good start. If someone murdered my child, I wouldn't wait around for some legal system to slap him/her on the wrist. I also agree with public hangings. Let people see what happens to those who kill the innocent.
I see this as another debate that's just going to spiral. Though I'll throw in another point.
I've had my fair shair of hanus acts commited against me, and honestly, knowing the person got such extreme justice probably wouldn't make me feel all that much better, sure I could say "he got what he deserved" but in the end, that doesn't do anything to truly compinsate...
Mabie i'll feel differently one day, who knows.
" But there are ways that the families can
be compensated, at least emotionally, and this is a good start. If someone murdered my child, I wouldn't wait around for some legal system to slap him/her
on the wrist." So you believe in mob rule rather than a justice system? The argument for revenge is flawed in two ways:
Firstly, if every victim of crime should be allowed to exact his/her own revenge, where does it end? If someone murders your child and you, the bereaved parent, decide that the only way your child can rest in peace is for you to take out your own justice, and you then murder the person who murdered your child, you then create more innocent victims in the family of the person you killed, because while that person might be guilty of a crime, they didn't do anything to warrant having them (who had not actually been found guilty, only presumed so by you), taken from them. So they in turn feel they are entitled to seek revenge, and they kill you, leaving behind your bereaved family, and so the spiral continues…
And secondly, not everyone feels that the same punishments fit the same crimes. So the family of one murderer might ike to see the death penalty, might like to do it themselves in fact, whereas the family f another might feel they can forgive him, and, provided he shows remorse, that he should be set free. If we pander to the emotionally-charged wishes of one grieving family and issue the death penalty, should we not then also pander to the wishes of the lenient family and set their loved one's killer free in order that they too can find peace in the forgiveness they feel?
The fact remains that the families of the victims are to emotionally connected to be objective. And there is a lot of evidence that suggests that families do not find peace in the death penalty.
As for public hangings, let's look at the countries that have public executions shall we? Saudi Arabia, Iran, to name but two. None of the countries that have public executions have good human rights records. The reality s that to publically hang people is nothing short of barbaric, because we are not doing it for the benefit of society, in fact we are dong it to satisfy the vijilanti mobs that are in fact no better than the criminals they claim to be so against.
I believe in one for one. So if A kills B's loved one who was innocent, B should be able to kill A in revenge. But since B didn't kill anyone innocent, but only to avenge his/her loved one, it should end there. Some might say that a family member of Person A should kill Person B but I disagree because again, B didn't kill an innocent person. All that said, it's imperative to insure that, if such acts are to take place, they're done to the correct person. This is why, in general, trials are better suited to these crimes. Letting the families of victims decide what happens to a killer is difficult only because some members may feel differently. Perhaps, they should be allowed to vote on it. I still don't think that brutal killers should go free, particularly if they've killed repeatedly. But if, say, it was an act of passion or strictly to this one person, perhaps the killer really could be given a life sentence as determined by the family. I've never thought of it this way so this is all new to me.
Saudi Arabia, Iran and similar countries have a very different idea of what a public execution should be and of whom should be executed than do most countries. They kill people just for committing adultery! I hardly think they could be used as decent examples of countries which have public executions. There's a difference between stoning someone to death and hanging him/her or using a firing squad against him/her. Yes, it might provide entertainment to some people, just as the Roman games did. But then they'd be watching the executions and not causing crime in the street. The majority of people, though, would probably take this as something to be afraid of and would most likely think before deciding to take an innocent life. Since there's no glory in being hanged, I'm sure no one would want to be up there.
"Saudi Arabia, Iran and similar countries have a very different idea of what a public execution should be and of whom should be executed than do most countries.
They kill people just for committing adultery! I hardly think they could be used as decent examples of countries which have public executions. There's
a difference between stoning someone to death and hanging him/her or using a firing squad against him/her." But that's just the thing – there are no decent countries that have public executions, primarily because executing people in public is not a "decent" thing to do. It doesn't matter whether you are stoning someone to death or executing them by hanging, the fact remains that you are doing it in front of a baying mob and that is not the mark of a civilized society.
"Yes, it might provide entertainment to some
people, just as the Roman games did. But then they'd be watching the executions and not causing crime in the street. The majority of people, though, would
probably take this as something to be afraid of and would most likely think before deciding to take an innocent life. Since there's no glory in being hanged,
I'm sure no one would want to be up there." The thing is though that the only people that would want to go and watch are those that would do so for entertainment/vijilanti purposes. No sellf-respecting individual wants to go and witness a public execution – it's not a spectator sport.
If you think that that kind of culture will not cause society to fall into disarray you are naïve. A few years ago there was a campaign run here by one of the more notorious, and less paletable tabloids to name and shame paedophiles who had been released from prison and who were living among us. The result was vijilanti mobs goig out to seek "justice" by smashing windows, throwing bricks, and generally behaving in a most unsavery manner. Consequently a paediatrician was targeted, because the vijilanti's, being too unintelligent to realize that having the letters paed at the front of your job description does not automatically make you a paedophile, mistook her, yes her, to be a paedophile and worthy of the same treatment as the ones named in the new f the world's campaign.
That is not a society I want to be a part of.
SugarBaby, you're forgettong just one piece of the puzzle, and it's a piece people with your views rarely want to discuss. What about detering crime? Study crime rates in some of these countries which have public executions, or harsher penalties for crime. Statistics show that in many of these countries, crime rates are lower. Why? Because people know if they commit a crime, they won't just be going to a hotel somewhere, where they can receive three hots and a cot, all the pornography they want, free access to law libraries so they can clog up the legal ystem, weight rooms, and all the other things modern prisons have!
Sure, let's take away the death penalty, but let's pattern our prisons more like they are in Japan, or Africa, just a cell with a mat on the floor for sleeping, and if you want food, your family has to pay. No family? Sorry about your luck. You should've put some forethought in before you murdered, or raped somebody.
as a survivor of a heinous crime, I can say two wrongs don't make a right. just cause someone took advantage of me in a horrible way, doesn't mean I wanna hurt said individual.
instead, I choose to take comfort in the fact said person will get theirs someday; karma is a bitch.
To SugarBaby: You're right about executions not being spectator sports. I, for one, would love to see the return of many (though certainly not all) of the Roman games. I think that turning these killers and serious criminals out into the gladiatorial arena to fight for their lives would be a great thing for everyone, except, perhaps, their families. But they should've thought of that before committing their crimes. The state could get money which they could then use to help the people and to govern the country, the people would get away from the computer, television etc. and would band together, possibly forming friendships along the way and strengthening family ties, and the prisoners would be working at staying alive instead of watching tv and exercising. So now you have two murderers against each other and no official executioner from the government. The winner of the fight would be a murderer, rapist or other dangerous criminal in any case, since that's why he's there. The only problem here, as I said, would be the glory aspect of it all. While most people wouldn't want to join these fights because they would be aware that to lose would mean to die, others might not care and would only be interested in the fame. Perhaps, gladitorial combat or other physical sports of the games for noncriminals could be encouraged, with everyone surviving of course, and made more honorable or more attractive.
What kinds of idiots would confuse the word paedophile with paediatrician ? I also wouldn't recommend smashing up windows and throwing bricks as innocent people could get hurt. Some people are stupid and sick. Did you learn what happened to the doctor? That is, did she survive?
To Jesse: The people against the death penalty like to point out how both it and public executions don't deter crime but I've always thought differently. Glad to see that there are some facts which prove me correct, though I'm sure they'll be asking you to provide cases which only makes sense. I completely agree with you about the prison system. Prison is supposed to be harsh, not a holiday.
To fighter of love and life: I can't say I understand your viewpoint, but since you're someone who's actually been through some of this, you're certainly welcomed to it. Still, I think that most people would want to see justice done here and now instead of waiting for it to come around in the future.
the thing is, though, putting the individual who committed the crime against me in jail doesn't do a thing for me.
I rest peacefully at night knowing I got closure from myself, through refusing to allow him to have control.
Tiff, between Google, and Wikipedia, you can find out a whole lot of things. I do think your Roman games idea is interesting, and I've always wondered if something like that would have any place in today's society. I'm not sure our society would even come close to accepting that, however, and as hard as I wish we were on crime, and criminals, I'm not even sure I'd accept it.
Chelsea, there are a lot of girls who are not near as courageous, and determined as you are, and it's very noble that you don't want vengance for yourself. However, if a person rapes, the tendancy is that they will do it again. Should they be allowed to just go on committing crimes against others?
If we're not going to kill them, at least put them in prison for life, and make it a maximum security, minimal comfort affair.
I'm not even sure how many modern followers of Religio Romana would agree with it, though I'm sure some would. I know there are plenty of Hellenic Polytheists who don't and who consider the Romans uncivilised for things like that. So this is where we differ.
I've never thought it was real civilized, either. Makes for good film, but not good politics. Haha
"SugarBaby, you're forgettong just one piece of the puzzle, and it's a piece people with your views rarely want to discuss. What about detering crime? Study
crime rates in some of these countries which have public executions, or harsher penalties for crime. Statistics show that in many of these countries, crime
rates are lower. Why? Because people know if they commit a crime, they won't just be going to a hotel somewhere, where they can receive three hots and
a cot, all the pornography they want, free access to law libraries so they can clog up the legal ystem, weight rooms, and all the other things modern prisons
have!" but if you look at the lifestyles in many of these countries, they are just so totally different from our own that you cannot put the differing crime rates down to the punishments alone. Countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia for instance are run on the basis of an assumed moral lifestyle, where the main religion of that country dictates that people live by an assumed moral code.
There are lots of things that could change the crime rates in many countries – if you banned alcohol for instance the crime rate would drop dramatically, yet I don't see anyone out there campaigning for that.
The US has the death penalty and yet still has one of the highest crime rates in the world. Suddenly making that execution a spectator sport wouldn’t deter people from committing the crimes – you have to look at the whole way in which your country runs and how its citizens live their lives, and what drives them to commit the crimes they do. It's far too simplistic to look at an individual that has committed a crime and say that that individual is soley responsible for the crime he/she has committed. We have to look at the society that has made that individual the person he/she is. Yes, ultimately it is the individual that has to take responsibility, but we have to look at society as a whole and ask ourselves why it is that you get more criminals coming out of certain areas than others for instance.
And the answer often does lie in education, hence the desire of many prisons to educate their inmates in order that they can go out and not reoffend.
Look at the burglers, the muggers, the petty criminals, and look at the areas they have grown up in – you don't tend to find burglers that have come out of the rich parts of town – generally most of them come ut of the poorest areas and have the worst educations. And while this thread started out with the rapests and the murderers, the fact is that many of those criminals of today started out committing petty crimes and moved on from there.
Of course not all of them do, there are always the psychopathic killers, but reality is that they would be unlikely to be deterred by the thought of a public execution – iran and Saudi do have murderers too.
But if we look at the root causes of the petty crimes, and attempt to educate those petty criminals before they reach the more serious crimes stage, then hopefully we can seek to reduce the numbers of people in our prisons on more serious charges, serving life sentences or even sitting on death row waiting to be executed.
"What kinds of idiots would confuse the word paedophile with paediatrician ?" The kinds of idiots that want to go out and watch a public execution.
> Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
# 2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
# 3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
# 4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
# 5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
# 6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
# 7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
# 8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
# 9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
# 10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
# 11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
# 12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
# 13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
# 14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
# 15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
# 16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
# 17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
# 18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
# 19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
# 20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
# 21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
# 22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
# 23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
# 25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
# 26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
# 27 Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
# 28 Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
# 29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
# 30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
# 31 Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
# 32 Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
# 33 Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
# 34 Malaysia: 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
# 35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0229829 per 1,000 people
# 36 Mauritius: 0.021121 per 1,000 people
# 37 Hungary: 0.0204857 per 1,000 people
# 38 Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
# 39 Slovenia: 0.0179015 per 1,000 people
# 40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
# 41 Czech Republic: 0.0169905 per 1,000 people
# 42 Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
# 43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
# 44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
# 45 Chile: 0.014705 per 1,000 people
# 46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
# 47 Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
# 48 Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
# 49 Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
# 50 Tunisia: 0.0112159 per 1,000 people
# 51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
# 52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
# 53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
# 54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
# 55 Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
# 56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
# 57 Indonesia: 0.00910842 per 1,000 people
# 58 Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people
# 59 Hong Kong: 0.00550804 per 1,000 people
# 60 Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people
# 61 Saudi Arabia: 0.00397456 per 1,000 people
# 62 Qatar: 0.00115868 per 1,000 people
Weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people
To SugarBaby: If the petty criminals can be saved before they commit major crimes, then I say educate them. But if America goes so far as to give them a college education, then it had better be willing to do that for the rest of it's citizens. To educate criminals and not the general population when the country can afford it should be a crime, or at least a deep shame, within itself. Perhaps trade school would be more acceptible wherein they could become apprentices and work to help produce the goods and the money for their education. But if they get out of prison pretty quickly, I think they should be able to continue their apprenticeships or they'll just go back to committing crimes and they won't have truly gained anything. That said, even a college education doesn't really mean much today. A Batchelor's degree is what a high school diploma used to be. So even for those who haven't committed any crimes, it's very difficult to find a serious job with those credentials. So it's even worse for let alone someone with a criminal record.
But education isn't the only problem. There are far too many families with two working parents and no one is left to care for the children except a babysitter, daycare, or if they're lucky, a grandparent or other close relative. By the time the parent comes home, he/she is exhausted from work and doesn't really have time for the child, so may miss out not only on getting to really know him/her but on complimenting him/her on school projects, helping with homework, teaching lessons etc. This weakens family bonds and certainly isn't the way that a child should be brought up. While some families honestly can't help it, because they need the income, others merely do it for extra money when they really can afford to have one parent stay at home or we could have the I must work syndrome. For women, it could be because they want to prove that they're equal to men and feel that they should be able to hold a job while having a child, and for men, it could be that they want to be the breadwinners and simply can't imagine themselves as stay-at-home-dads, which is actually a very honorable sacrifice. Then, of course, there are single parents and they have an even bigger problem because now one parent has to handle everything on his/her own. I think there should be help for parents, stay-at-home jobs that they can do, at least until the child turns five, so that they can be with him/her during this crutial time. This, in my opinion, will greatly reduce the number of crimes committed.
To Texas Shawn: Wow! Greece is 58, almost at the end of the list! Not bad! I can't believe, though, that we're below Denmark, Norway and especially Switzerland! I thought they hardly had any murders there. I find it interesting that The United States and Canada are 20 apart, the former at 24 and the latter at 44. Does Canada still have the death penalty? At any rate, the U.S. certainly isn't the worst off. I thought that the rates had to do with the dencity of the populations in given areas, or at least, with the number of people there in general. But it doesn't appear that way. I suppose that politics and culture do play a role in deterring crime. The question then becomes, what do the countries at the end of the list have that the others don't and what could logically be incorporated into these countries to bring down the crime rate. Some things just aren't feasible or practical and some are just wrong.
It would be more punitive to give murderers sentences ranging between 30 and 50 years minimum. They would suffer for a long time.
The problem currently is that sentences are too light, so people call for the death penalty. Life doesn't mean life. People have their children taken from them by a drunk man who was driving a car, and he's out of jail in 3 years. That isn't justice. Some murderers are released after fifteen years. That isn't justice either. Some thieves who haven't killed anybody get longer. Those who are affected by murder would feel more satisfied if murderers spent longer in prison. The views of victims should not be completely ignored.
Backward countries should take no lessons on human rights from countries which still have the death penalty. The idea that if an execution is condemned by the Iranian president, those who also oppose it must be like or supportive of him is rediculous. He's just using it to his political advantage. Dehumanising people so they're no more than political footballs is something evildoers all over the world do. Think about that when you vote for a political party or support a campaign.
In the Virginia case, I'm not saying the woman was innocent, but she didn't pull the trigger, and those who did were punished less severely than her. This in a country that wishes to set an example for the world to follow. And there's the case I mentioned in my last post.
Americans who know who Amanda Knox is continue to support her. She's like a celebrity. She murdered a student in Italy, but because she's American, she has the support of Americans. If she was Chinese and her victim was American, they would support her victim. At least they're not advocating the death penalty for racists.
canada doesn't have the death penalty, because their head of state is the queen of England.
canada won't even send a criminal back to the USA for a trial if the death penalty is on the table.
Switzerland and some of the other european countries have high murder rates because of their manditory military service laws. they are allowed to keep their guns. their suicide rates are also incredibly high.
tiffanitsa, this is not ancient roam or greece, or whatever you want this modern world to be, and I'm certainly glad it isn't. I don't want people's need for blood to be satisfied publically. I don't want criminals to have to fight one another or beast or whatever, that's barbaric. the justice system should always be more human, ande less barbaric than the criminals.
that's just sick, and I'm glad you polytheist people are in a very small minority.
I'm for mandatory military service, though with the option of serving in a noncombattent role. That said, keeping guns in the house, particularly if you're unstable, is very dangerous to say the least. Perhaps, they should undergo mental examinations or some such before entering the army, and if allowed to do so, upon leaving. Please understand that the views that I've expressed here about the death penalty and punishments are my own. They do not reflect those of the entire Hellenic Polytheist and/or Religio Romana communities. I'm sure there are many from both religions who would disagree with me. I'm sorry for the confusion.
Yes, let's take the guns away from the good people so the bad people can run amuck with them, killing at will! Sure worked for Hitler, and he took over several nations that way, as did communist Russia. It doesn't work, and the quicker people cease to be brainwashed into thinking it does, the sooner we'll have solutions.
SugarBaby, getting rid of alcohol is not the answer either. Remember temperance in the 1920's? Guess what? Crime increased because alcohol trafficking was the equivalent of what drug trafficking is today. The solution is still making the penalty for crimes harder.
Also, you stereotype, because there are just as many, if not more smart people committing crimes than the less fortunate. Motive may be different, but the result is still the same.
I don't believe either in more education deterring crime. As a matter of fact, with the '70's ushering in "moral relevance" in education, I think education is part of the problem.
More education sure didn't deter Dr. Amy Bishop from shooting & killing several of her colleagues at the University of Alabama Huntsville. These poor people simply wanted to teach and most likely do research in the field of biology, and they lost their lives because this entitlement minded Masshole bitch felt she was entitled to tenure & couldn't get it there. Um, have you ever actually heard of something called circulating your resume elsewhere? Turns out the wretch was looked at as the prime suspect in her brother Seth's shooting death in Braintree back in the '80's, and then Police Chief Polio...I swear that's his real name...swept it under the rug. Well even the Commiewealth has reopened Seth Bishop's case & charged her with that murder, and Alabama still has chain gangs, so they aren't going to play around when it comes to sentencing her.
She is everything I detest about this part of the states...entitlement mentality supreme. In the mid '90's she sent a pipe bomb to a researcher at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston because he gave her an unfavorable evaluation, but she was never charged because of "insufficient evidence." Her husband I believe had a role in the bomb's manufacture, but wasn't charged due to "insufficient evidence". This is a woman who yanked a high chair out from under a toddler's bottom, wanting it for her child, citing, "I AM DOCTOR AMY BISHOP." I can't believe a man actually made four kids with this whack job.
In a way I would love to see the state of Alabama fail to find a vein on her arms, wrists, feet, even neck, so they would have to dust off Ol' Sparky. But in a way I see Sam Shepard Jr's argument that the death penalty creates a new class of widows & orphans, & I would hate to have kids know a parent was executed. Throw her to the inmates for life without parole & see how much they care that "Dr Amy Bishop" is in their midst next time they want to beat the tar out of someone.
While I support the civilized use of the death penalty, I hardly see it as a deterrent except for one way: The perpetrator ceases to perpetrate because they cease to be.
What amazes me is people on both sides of this issues, the reformers and those promoting deterrence seem to forget one thing:
You all aren't criminals, you don't kill people. People who do that are a totally different caliber of person so if you rape / kill / molest little children, I think the options are few for dealing with you. However, to believe in either deterrence or reform, you have to grant the person a level of thoughtfulness I'm not sure they possess.
As I said, when they're dead, there's your deterrence, and that's it; you just shut down the killing / raping / molesting machine. Other ones won't stop doing it because of it.
And frankly there are tons of countries with very low crime rates and no death penalty.
The Fibbies (FBI) say murder on average is now lower than it was in the 1970s. Granted we catch more of them now because of advanced forensics techniques, but the numbers per capita are down.
If you're convicted today, your stay on Death Row will be much shorter. the Fifteen-year stays are people who were in in the 70s and 80s.
Ask McVey. Oh you can't ... he's not anymore.
Some people are so monsterous tht trying to change, teach or deter them is a waste of time. It's much better, as you said, to simply shut these kinds of people down.
There are a variety of reasons why people murder. Too much time and money is spent explaining crime. It should be spent preventing it.
There will always be crime with or without the death penalty, and unfortunately, people on both sides use stats to support their arguments. The answer to murder is a few decades minum jail sentences.
People who commit minor and sexual crimes reoffend. They aren't punished severely enough. No criminals should ever be released unless the authorities are convinced they pose no danger to society. It should be a crime to put the public at risk by releasing dangerous criminals.
I agree with you on the time for sexual offenders s well as on the fact that releasing dangerous criminals should be a crime in itsllf. There are far too many tragic circumstances wherein these people hurt more innocent individuls upon being released from prison.
Tiff agree to disagree with you on the need for a stay at home parent until a child reaches five. My mom was a stay at home mom until we were 13 & 11, & she was a neurotic mess. If I had a dime for every time she whined about how she couldn't get anywhere without that precious college degree & how she wished she'd had the chance to go to college & be a lawyer, I could have retired & been a SAHM myself.
A former colleague at a facility in another state had a 36 hour a week job that paid her for forty hours (worked Friday thru Sunday to allow her more family time). One morning she was backing her van out on her own circular driveway, & narrowly missed her SAHM neighbor's four year old, who was wandering by herself. A letter to Dear Prudence spoke of a SAHM neighbor who left her BABY unattended for at least 20 minutes at a time while she grocery shopped, & I can think of plenty of people myself included who are sick of welfare SAHMs. I think if a woman even gets Medicaid she's forfeited her rights to stay at home, barring difficulties finding child care or something like a severely handicapped child who couldn't otherwise be cared for.
A prison inmate actually wrote either Abby or her twin Ann Landers, admonishing readers if they thought they really didn't want children, to just not have 'em. His serving time in the state prison was the final destination of the unwanted, & I wonder if teaching in the high school years that parenthood was inappropriate outside of marriage & two people who genuinely want a child & shouldn't even be considered for those who meet the standard for public assistance is more of the solution.
Also it's way too late for reform once a person committs a violent offense. Crimes most think are petty, like peeping & burglary, have been tracked as the beginning signs of activity that historically has escalated. I think stiffer sentences for stuff like cruelty to animals & smaller children, peeping, & burglary are in order as usually such individuals go on to committ worse acts. Stuff some regard as annoying, when you're faced with it, goes beyond that. When I was single I would do laundry in the complex laundromat, & find items like brassieres & negligees missing. It's not only annoying, as one was something a boyfriend gave as a gift, it's downright creepy. Often violent offenders keep items like this as souvenirs of the deed.
Yes, but she also broke the other rule of parenting that I stated. Don't have children until you're good and ready for them. If her dream was to go to college and be a lawyer, she should have pursued that instead. I'm sorry, but there's something majorly wrong with leaving a four-year-old completely unattended like that. If anything would have happend to that little girl, I'd blame her parents as much as your friend. What's SAHM? Why on Earth would someone getting medicaid mean that she couldn't stay home with her child? That doesn't even make sense.
I agree with the prisoner butt not that two people should necessarily be married before they have a child. Granted, it's what I would do, but there are people who simply don't marry, either because they can't or because they prefer not to, who nonetheless stay as committed to each other as if they were in a marriage. So you're basically saying that no parent should ever receive assistance? What happens if a parent loses his/her job through no fault of his/her own? Should the child be forced to starve or live in poverty until the parent finds another job? What if one of the parents stayed at home but then his/her partner died or got very sick, forcing the stay-at-home parent to have to look for work? What should he/she do in the meantime?
I completely agree with you that stiffer penalties need to be in order when it comes to cruelty to animals, whether it's a child or an adult committing the crime. Far too many people believe that it's their right to hurt nonhuman beings and they need to be put in their place. Stealing is steling, unless it's from a food store because you're starving to death. But people who steal from individuals need to be punished, either by said individuals or by the law.
SAHM=Stay at Home Mother. I live in the #7 state for welfare claims, & some of these women are married. Basically I'm paying for my health insurance & theirs. Some of these husbands work odd hours, so there's no reason the wife can't at least look for a part time job and prove she's looking, if no one's hiring or want more qualified applicants, fine, at least they can show they're looking. I'm also always amazed at what they CAN afford, so they should be working for it. If they can't get affordable child care or have a very sick family member or something, fine, but anything else?! No...
Doctors also get penalized for seeing these patients. They maybe get $1 from the patient, or some small copay, and on average 20 cents on the U S dollar for their services plus on average five pages of paperwork per patient & a loss of $70 per Medicaid patients they accept. These women should have to work at least 20 hours per week, depending on the age of any children. Also they should be told once they receive any benefits should they expand the size of their families, the benefits they are granted won't be increased. I'm tired of paying for these noncontributing individuals and their dependents.
If someone loses a job, they generally qualify for unemployment comp, but under some circumstances they don't. And personally I'm against government welfare & think those genuinely in need would be better served by private charity. They tend to be much better managed, & up to date on the needs of their clients. For example, a private individual in Washington came up with the idea of feeding his surplus catch of fish to the hungry, while the state wanted him to throw it away. He had to go thru layers of red tape to get permission to open his own low cost store to feed his surplus to these hungry people. Government food assistance still operates on the premise of children going to bed hungry at night, thus providing mostly high fat, high calorie foods on the vouchers. As a result low income children are more likely to be obese. Sorry, but the limits are posted for programs like WIC in all pediatricians and OBGYN practices here. People need to really look long & hard & see if parenting within their own means...not relying on others or three job marriages...is going to be possible before making this committment.
Now this has totally veered off topic, but I really in short don't believe SAHMs are necessarily better than working moms or that having a stay at home parent will make children less prone to crime later on.
I can't understand the fear that so many Americans have when it comes to socialised healthcare. America doesn't even have a real socialised healthcare program. If it did, then everyone would be paying for everyone's healthcare, no one would be left out and there wouldn't be a situation in which some people received government assistance while others did not. I still say it's far better for an actual parent or relative to care for a child rather than for him/her to be in a child care facility. Unfortunately, single-salary households just aren't enough today. But if benefits are such a bad thing, then there should at least be more telecommuting positions available to satisfy both sides of the debate.
That is honestly insane about the fisherman. There should be no reason why he shouldn't be able to sell or even to give his extra food away to whomever he wanted. Why on Earth would the state tell him to simply throw it away? I don't think children should go hungry at night either. Yes, I'm sure that most of these foods contain preservatives, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and the like. But in all honesty, there are many people who eat those same foods who aren't insanely overweight. I blame the parents for not portioning their children's food properly and for not cooking for them. I can't speak for WIC, which may be different, but I receive food stamps and I buy delicious food with them. There are no set foods that you have to buy, so you could either choose to get junk or to get decent food.
I'm sure that there are many great working moms out there. But there's also something to be said for lessons, morals and guidence received at home. These are the building blocks upon which the child develops. No teacher, babysitter, nanny or child care facility will have the same kind of love, caring and attention for a child as a parent or guardian. And if, say, a nanny does manage to have these qualities, what happens when he/she has to leave or is replaced? Children need to learn about kindness, understanding and what is and isn't appropriate at a young age. Yes, there are those who will grow up to be criminals no matter what. But a good majority will stay on the straight path if they receive the right kinds of attention. If not, then they might act out, and if it's not stopped, this could progress into crimes and more serious means of attention-seeking like abuse of a partner or child.
Sure, it's ultimately up to parents to teach their families' religious morals & values, & teach any children good manners & respectful behavior. There are those...like myself and guy friends of mine...who manage to do that while working odd hours so someone'll be home to spend time with the kids when school's out. Also, for the ultimate stay at home mother, look to Andrea Yates, stay at home mom & home schooler extraordinaire...
Speaking of Andrea Yates, & tying it to death penalty absurdities, why is it women get the double standard of preferential treatment when it comes to death sentences? Andrea Yates was deemed insane, never mind that she was thinking enough to wait until good ol' Rocket Scientist Rusty went to work to round up the kids and strangle 'em, she was sure coherent enough to tell police she had killed all five of her kids, definitely strong enough to run after five and manually strangle 'em while they were immersed in a bath tub. Had Rusty done the same, he'd be dead by now. Good ol' Rusty & his NASA job, gave a brand new meaning to the expression "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out." He should have been charged as an accessory for leaving this whack job to home school & parent his kids by herself, even having another baby with her after a psychiatrist told him it would be a very bad idea (following suicide attempt).
When Susan Smith drowned her boys, she was excused by people I know with "Men were nasty to her." Huh?! When I asked, why not let her ex husband, the father, take the kids if she really didn't want 'em, "Oh, he probably didn't want 'em either." WTF?! Back to my comments on how if people really don't want to be hands on parents, there are umpteen methods of birth control out there, pick at least one.
Now that I'd just love to see Dr Amy Bishop sit on the fryolator, as well she should, "She must be mentally disturbed." FUCK THAT SHIT! Why is it when a guy does something like that, people are crying out for his head, but when a woman does it, "She has issues." And women want to be treated equally to men? Fine, take the death penalty like a man. If we're not going to have a death penalty, great, let the inmates have their way with 'em, if we are, apply it equally by gender.
Completely agreed there. There's no excuse why one gender should be given preferential treatment. I don't care how badly you've been treated. You don't go and hurt innocent children!
Spongebob yet again you say what the rest of us think.
I agree, and I've told women who claimed that wasn't fair, that I as a blind guy want to be treated equally, so I take equal responsibility.
Tough thing is, even conservatives, The Great Peppermint Patty Robertson of the 700 Club, would gladly give a free pass to a murderer provided the murderer was female. Carla Fay Tucker, for instance, who killed with an axe.
The pastor's wife in Florida who cut off her husband's nuts / slit the artery in his leg and let him bleed to death. And she's the victim? And these servatypes are supposed to be tough on crime? But ... they have their supporters in this ... the loonies on the left ...
Maybe Dr Amy can be executed on the same day as that Islamofascist nut Nidal Hassan, who murdered a dozen servicemen & women & Fort Hood. That way we could combine equal treatment of both genders with the ultimate humiliation to an Islamofascist, leaving this life & entering the next at the same time as a woman...
As for those wingnuts who are so comfortable asking for reprieves for violent females, let them express their comfort for Andrea Yates...by getting into the bath tub with her BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Well, if the woman who cut off her husband's nuts was being abused/raped by him, I'd support her. Otherwise, she deserves the absolute strictest punishments.
Who is the woman who cut off her husband's nuts? Was that Lorena Bobbitt, who severed her husband's penis & threw it in a field? Or was this some other nut?
Also, here are some more death penalty absurdities, or in my state, since we don't offer one, life in prison absurdities. Mr Sponge heard this one on the left end of the radio dial last week.
Father John Geoghan was one of the Catholic priests convicted & imprisoned for molestation of children. A man, I forget his name, killed the former priest in the state prison in Shirley some years ago.
Apparently, some woman married his killer, who is claiming the usual "found God am now a changed man". Now only this man and his creator can vouch for his sincerity or lack of such, I am not going to try that one. But what kind of a ding dong marries a man while doing prison time?! What's the advantage?! I suppose you'd always know where your truly beloved is at midnight, but other than that, what? Why are U S prisons places to meet members of the opposite sex?
For something even more absurd than that, look to twenty years ago in Florida, and think of the long deceased Ted Bundy. Some looney tune not only married him while he was under death sentence, but "mothered" a daughter with him. WTF?! Bundy lost all his appeals, his final early in '89. How the Hell do you explain to a little girl why she won't be coming to the pobunk town called Starke to see her dad any more? "Um, well, honey, he has a date with the 2,000 volt fryolator tomorrow." How do you answer the question of whether her father will suffer a painful death? This was a hideous way of executing human beings, and the tabloids published the autopsy photos. I think Bundy's bride and incubator should have been charged with child abuse. Also what sort of screwed up official agrees to witness & perform such a marriage ceremony?! This is f*k*d up beyond all recognition.
Some other nut, from Florida, she confronted the husband about a supposed affair, never been fully verified, he denied it, and when he was sleeping she did the deed.
Hardly a case of rape / physical violence.
Irony of ironies she proceeded to hook up with a fellow from the local church ... from her 6x9 ... presuming dimensions are similar in all states for said state-run hotels into which you and I insert money every month.