Category: News and Views
I heard about this on AM radio this morning, and Rhode Island is right next store. I don't know if this is a death penalty state or not, but according to Jeff Katz' radio program, Michael Woodmansee is eligible for early release based on "good behavior" while in prison. This specimen of a person, when he was 16, apparently lured a neighbor boy into his house, boy was 5, killed, cannibalized, and thoroughly cleaned his bones, which were found on his dresser drawer some years later. This took place in 1975, I believe the child's remains were found in '82. I can only imagine the anguish of the parents; the father is talking of killing Woodmansee if he is released, Jeff Katz offered to take him to lunch if he did, and I personally will pay the tip. Although at the same time I wonder how a five year old was left by himself to be lured into that neighbor's home, as I have a child that age & never let her go anywhere by herself. She knows not to go outside without mom or dad. I still feel for the parents, though.
I thought RI was a little more no nonsense than MA, but I guess not. In neighboring Vermont a judge didn't want to penalize a child molester, so he ordered "counseling". Excuse me while I throw up. I am not completely pro death penalty, but I can't understand the purpose of 'parole'. I think if someone gets x number of years for whatever offense, they should serve x number of years. If they get LIFE, which apparently Woodmansee did, they should serve life & only leave in a pine box. And screw counseling for violent offenses, including violence against one's own spouse or child. Let the inmates have at 'em for these offenses...
Parole is all about the expense of maintaining them in prison, most of that cost going to security.
One very good reason many of us do support the death penalty: You can have states like Florida, or Oregon and Washington for that matter, who have rather tough sentencing laws, but if the places get too full, certain crimes and people are up for parole.
Problem with parole is, aside from this child killer, if you're basing it on someone's ability to behavi in a very structured environment, that just isn't very realistic to what they'll face on the outside. Many people can behave in a really structured environment. It's when they're left to their own devices what will they do? But make no mistake: at the core of it all, parole is all about the capacity to maintain: too many people and not enough bed? Parole some.
I question the way we imprison for certain types of crimes, and then parole guys like this one. He should've got the death penalty, in my opinion, as he's an enormous security risk to any community into which he's released.
This thing needs to be severely tortured and executed, not kept and prison and certainly never ever! released! This is truly disgusting and makes me sick. If America stopped the shit on hard killers, their deaths wouldn't cost that much. A rope and a gallows or a gun doesn't cost that much.
They ought to cut off his thingy if they're going to let him back into society. Personally though I feel that anyone who finds pleasure in causing a child pain of any kind deserves to be shot in the head and buried in an unmarked grave.
I completely agree. How can anyone even think about letting someone like that out into society?
That or buried alive. He can think on why he's in that situation as he's dying. I also completely agree with full castration here. He abused his right to have a penis and testicals.
I think that it's all too easy to look at this in black and white.
On the whole I think that someone who commits such a horrendous crime should not be released back into society. (I do not support the death penalty).
However I think that in this instance questions should have been raised as to how a sixteen year old came to commit such a horrific act. He was bearly a child. The crime he committed was beyond any reason - we surely have to conclude that this then child had some serious mental health issues.
So if that be the case, what help did he receive to over come these issues? Did he spend time in a psychiatric facility? If so then perhaps he has been deamed mentally fit to regain a position in society again?
The hang 'em and torture 'em brigade really don't show themselves in a very good light I'm afraid. I totally get the emotive nature of the crime and the response to someone who committed such a crime potentially being released into society, but often it's just not as simple as evil man commits horrible crime, evil man should wrot in hell for the rest of his life.
And just because he is now eligible for parole doesn't mean he'll be released - I think it should be fair that someone who commits a crime at sixteen should at some stage be eligible for parole, doesn't mean he should be released, but if you commit a crime at such a young age I don't believe you should necessarily just be written off for the rest of your life, especially if there are other factors at play.
Can't agree. The last time someone got the notion that someone who committed a crime at a young age was "considered for parole" and released it was under then Governor Mike Huckabee and the creep went on to murder four Seattle police officers. I don't care and until about the 1960's most Americans didn't care if someone wasn't read to as a child, or was beaten, or whatever the case was, they either got the death penalty or did the time. I hope this creep stays in prison.
We're not talking about someone who was a bully or who just smacked a child or even someone who burglarised a house. We're talking about a cannibalistic murderer of a five-year-old baby! What about the Nazis who were responsible for torture and murder of the innocent, the ones who performed experiments on these people, and yes, some of them were children by today's legal standards, both the Nazis and the victims. Should they have been let back on the street? What makes this man different, the fact that he acted completely on his own, with no war or threat of death? That makes it even worse! There thousands of people who are abused as children, and guess what, most don't go around killing and eating their five-year-old neighbours!
That, and for the life of me I don't understand considering a 16 year old to be "a kid". I had a friend from India who couldn't understand considering 16 year olds "pediatric patients" in our line of work, and I don't understand the contemporary mindset of even qualifying 18+ year olds serving in Iraq "just kids". Pediatricians serve people through the age of 22 when they're getting checked for sexually transmitted diseases, when internists start seeing patients age 18. I would have been embarrassed to be seen by a pediatrician in my teens or college years. Now I'm not a complete supporter of the death penalty, kind of 90/10 against it, but I think those states that adjudicate 14+ year olds to adult courts for the most heinous crimes are correct. If they're old enough to sexually assault & murder younger girls picking flowers in South Carolina, or to bound & gag a neighbor lady & kill her by drowning in Missouri, they're old enough IMO to face the ultimate penalty.
I agree with you 100%. There's a difference between a truly juvanile crime like spray painting a building or throwing eggs on someone's car and an adult one like murder. The only time I could ever let a child, and I mean someone under 14, go on a charge like that is if it really was an accident, say some kids swimming and one dares the other to a contest and the other dies because he can't swim, or a child playing with a gun due to lack of parental guidance and them not locking up the gun in the first place. In the second case, I would charge the parents with murder.
i agree with a little bit of everything said here. but people like this guy is an example of what i want to do for my job. study people like him and determine what made him do that, what makes him tick.
I, too, really wonder what was going through this guy's head when he even considered doing what he did. How do you determine someone like that someone who can just be let out into society? Like many have said, it would be different if the crime itself was very juvenile, but this kind of a crime really isn't.
Sad to say, but read Gavin De Becker's 'THE GIFT OF FEAR'. Unfortunately, some crimes seen by most as petty have a tendency to lead to the violent, more dangerous offenses. For example, men convicted of serial rape and murder of women had a tendency to start out with peeping and burglary. Don't quite know the solution for this, though. Maybe straight up start abolishing parole for these offenses as well? Depending on the previous record? I certainly don't support cutting off the right hand or decapitating for murder, as goes on in Saudi Arabia & Iran, but these aren't IMO to be taken lightly either.
I support torture and such punishments in extremely serious crimes if they were intentionally committed. Decapitating certainly makes sense for murder but cutting off the right hand is a new one for me. Hmm, well, I suppose it would alert people when a murderer is present and would make committing said crime a second time more difficult. Perhaps, it can be used in those cases where the murder wasn't truly horrible and in which the person honestly may have been rehabilitated, or perhaps a simple branding or something like a scarlet letter would do the trick. Really not sure. But this creature went way too far for all of that, this much I do know.
No-one is advocating just blindly releasing murderers into society.
But it is far too simplistic to suggest that murderer equals calculated evil bastard equals should be tortured to death.
One cannot dispute that the crime in question here was horrific beyond anyone's imagination. But while feeling utter contempt for the perpetrator I think that it is also necessary to question how it came about that a sixteen year old got to the point of committing such a horrendous crime. You don't wake up one morning and decide to murder someone – there must have been indications that there was something very, very wrong in this boy's life – and yes, at sixteen he was bearly a child himself, not old enough to vote/drive a car/buy alcohol, yet somehow deamed old enough to serve a life sentence, or in some peoples' opinion, face the death sentence.
But we should ask the question – why did no-one spot that something was wrong? Why did no-one seek help for unusual behaviour? It's not the same as an adult who commits such a crime – adults are free to do and go where they wish, and often there is no-one who monitors the way they behave until it's too late. But a sixteen year old would still have been living at home – where were his parents, his carers, those who were supposed to look out for him?
The murder of that child was so horrific that there have to be some mental health issues at play here. No normal person commits that kind of crime. It would therefore not be unreasonable to suggest that he should have been assessed by a psychiatrist and consideration should have been given as to whether he should serve his time in a prison or in a mental health unit for violent criminals.
Some of the most notorious killers have been deamed to be insane. It is recognised that while their crimes are beyond contempt, their punishments are not best served in a correctional facility but in a specialised unit for violent criminals who are mentally ill.
Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe are two of the most notorious murderers in the UK. They both are housed in Broadmoor,a psychiatric facility for the criminally insane. As it happens, Peter Sutcliffe has recently reached the end of the period served before he could apply for release, the press was full of stories that "the Yorkshire ripper could be set free." However, he has been deamed not fit for release, and besides which it would be a very brave individual that would see fit to sign a release order for such a notorious criminal.
We do not have to accept that people with a mental disorder that leads them into such violent acts should be released into society. However we do need to accept that it really isn't as black and white as good on the left, bad on the right, and there is no middle ground. Sometimes people do bad things because of circumstance. They are still bad things, those people should still be brought to account for those acts, but it is possible that, were circumstances different, those crimes may not have been perpetrated.
It's fine to ask all of these questions. But they can be asked whether he's living or not. Yes, the parents should hold some responsibility. But we're not talking about a ten-year-old who stole the keys to Mommy's car and went off and hit someone. At some point in your life, you need to start taking responsibility for your actions. There's no earthly reason, except mental retardation or insanity, why a 16-year-old wouldn't understand the nature of such a thing. Even then, such individuals need to be locked up for their own good as well as for society's. What's the point in keeping mentally ill people alive if their illness causes them to kill? It's better, both financially and for safety's sake, to euthanise them. They'll never recover and they have no idea what they're doing. So why imprison them for something that they can't understand, if you wish to take that line of logic?
Exactly. And sometimes there's really no why in these instances. Sometimes these people weren't abused, molested or harmed in any way. Some people are just like that. Heck, look at the kid from Thurston High School in Oregon. THis was back in the mid 1990's. By all accounts he had a perfectly normal childhood and we should all be able to remember what he did. For those who don't, he first murdered his parents and then went on a shooting spree at his school. I forget exactly how many people he killed. And let's not forget Columbine High around the same time.
I'm sorry, but the people who are suggesting that this guy be tortured are just one step away from allowing prisoners of war to be tortured to gain information. you should be ashamed of yourselves.
A normal 16 year old boy, with a happy life at home and at school does not commit such a horrible crime.
One cannot simply just dismiss this as a crime deserving of the death penalty. for a start, the USA cannot execute someone who was a child at the time of the crime, and this is rightfully so.
What is torture and execution going to serve? yes, it might help his parents, but I would prefer to see greiving parents assisted by counceling and love rather than violence and hate.
and all it will show this boy is violence and hate, when this is probably what he's experienced most of his life.
punishment isn't just about justice, it's about rehabilitation, and it should always be thus.
you cannot ignore the countless cases of murderers committing horrible crimes who have had horrifying backgrounds themselves.
and the fact of the matter is is that our atitude toward mental health and how to deal with it is disgraceful.
for the most part, families prefer to sweep it under the rug rather than deal with it, and people wonder why people do things like this?
what we need is to study people like this, improve social services and actually stop children from growing up in a situation which will lead to something like this.
what we do not need is people like you calling for blood.
"It's better, both financially and for safety's sake, to euthanise them. They'll never recover and they have no idea what they're
doing. So why imprison them for something that they can't understand, if you wish to take that line of logic?" Because they are human beings, and because we do not live in a society that advocates euthanising anyone, let alone the mentally ill.
As I have said previously, no-one is saying that murderers who are deamed to be mentally ill shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. But if it was as simple as just euthanising people then there wouldn't be boundaries within the law to take account of a criminal's mental state at the time they commit a crime. The terms "diminnished responsibility" have been laid down in law precisely to take account of the fact that sometimes, people commit crimes while not actually responsible for their actions due to their mental state at the time. Of course they need to realise what they have done is wrong. And sometimes people are considered to be a danger to society or themselves and should be institutionalised for life because of the crimes they have committed. But you cannot argue that people should be euthanised because their mental illness means they are a danger to society. These are not dogs we're talking about – they are human beings.
Brian there is not necessarily always a corollation between someone's mental state and their upbringing. Many mental illnesses occur as a result of chemical imbalances in the brain. It is again too simplistic to merely blame external factors – if it was that easy then we wouldn't have such a high instance of depression.
Of course there are people who commit horrendous crimes and who know exactly what they are doing. And of course they should be held accountable.
But I refuse to believe that a sixteen ear old just woke up one morning and decided to cannibalise a five year old without there ever having been any kind of sign that that sixteen year old wasn't altogether normal in terms of his general reactions with other people. And no, it might not have had anything to do with his parents – they may not be accountable. But someone, somewhere, must have noticed that something was amiss in this boy's personality.
I'm not against that either. If there is serious proof that someone has information which is vital to the well-being of a nation, and without which the lives of innocent civilians could be at risk, said information must be extracted at any cost. Remember that, in most cases, the people who know such things aren't your average ones walking down the street. They're well-trained soldiers, officers, spies and the like. When you serve your country,, particularly when you have access to such sensitive information, there's always the risk of someone catching you and then it's your patriotism, will power and mental ability to hold out versus the strength of their desire to know.
While I applaud them for at least having the death penalty, America is backward in many things, so it doesn't surprise me that they offer a weaker punishment for an adult crime performed by a minor when anyone over the legal age of adulthood would be punished to the full extent of the law. Torture would serve as a reminder of the pain and suffering that the victim underwent, both to the killer and to those thinking of committing such crimes. It would also provide the satisfaction, as would an execution, to the poor family who are now without an innocent little baby! If he's killed anyway, it doesn't matter what it shows this so-called boy. Let him suffer. You can't blame the parents for everything.
That said, I'm certainly against child abuse and feel that parents/guardians should be punished for performing it, and needless to say, the children should be taken away. But even here, we run into a mess. What's abuse and what's normal punishment for the sake of discipline? Granted, I don't like the idea of hitting, but sometimes, it's necessary. So if someone hits a child's behind or even smacks the child's face once or twice with his/her hand, is it abuse? What happens when the child is completely out of control? As ridiculous as it sounds, some parents are actually afraid of their own children. On closer inspection, however, it may not be that crazy when the child can call and claim abuse just because her mother yanked her hair to prevent her from walking into traffic, probably out of sincere fear more than anything else, or smacked him once for acting in a disrespectful manner, after repeatedly asking and then yelling for him to stop. Where do we draw the line between discipline and abuse?
Yes, like I said, America is backwardd. So naturally, it won't support euthanasia, not of those who were born in a condition where they'll never have any clue who, where or what they are, nor of those who are mentally competent but severely ill and wish to die with dignity, nor of those raving lunatics who kill because they're so ill that they can't control themselves. So let them all live and burden society (or in the second case, feel worthless, helpless and in pain) so that we can all say "look, aren't we great people?" Pay no attention to the crazy murderer who just escaped that psychiatric ward, especially when he's headed for your baby's crib or your 90-year-old grandmother's bed.
you sound deranged. seriously.
oh my god, you just physically made me feel ill.
it's people like you, who would trade the civil rights of a prisoner of war and permit them to be tortured that make me despise the USA.
Well now I am not a supporter of torture, but euthanasia... if someone is really suffering and is in pain, and there's no chance of them ever recovering or being cured, and if they really want to end their lives because they no longer want to stay alive and suffer, wouldn't euthanasia be the right thing to do? Keeping someone who is in extreme pain and wants to end their suffering alive to me is as bad as or worse than torture.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure how to respond to most of this, and Don't quite see how
1. Such a backstepping of morality can be viewed as a positive. How many humane countries use most of the methods you subscribe to? How do they compare socially to countries like america, the UK, Canada, finland, and japan? What do statistics on crime rates show you, that would remotely support your clames? I might have to dig up all my capital punnishment research, but I assure you, when you look at the data, you'll find less over all crime in more civilised countries than in those who use your methods of choice... But moving on.
2. How you've never considered just what roll punnishments such as those mensioned played in those societies. Considering there governmental structure, rule of law, and the like. How many countries that use these methods either have dictatorships, corrupt governments, or some form of the two? If we seriously went down this road, we'd have to do it like george carlin would, and monnotise it for the government, because in many of these societies. Corpral punnishment is like any spectical. Its like "are we going to go watch that new play? or go see people get demoralized, beaten, and hung?"
3. How you haven't even thought about what a slippery slope your advocating. Need I say more here? Often when these methods are explored, you have those willing to take it to the extreme. Things like this just don't stop with killing of the criminals in hanus ways. Or killing those too mentally ill to live. Often things like killing the elderly after x years on social benifit and killing the disabled come into play. Further more, often times solutions like these are viewed as ways to eliminate causts of rehabilitationand the like in cases where it could be effective. Various crimes have greater potential for rehabilitation than others, but what you propose could effectively eliminate help for them.
Is this honestly the kind of society you want? As it is these days, playing on the publics fear is being used to erode social liberties and justify all kinds of immoral actions. Would you like to make it just that much more easy?
Yes, I know I have taken the playing field on these arguments to slight extremes,but my point still stands. Consider all the aspects before rashly just saying "kill them all!"
You can't deny some of the countries in this world with the lowest crime rates, have the least harsh punishments around. This is for social reasons. Often times, people look to punishments such as what you advocate in place of good pairenting, social interaction, and group support.Yes, it would be easier to make changes inthe way we punish people, than rework our culture and social responsibilities for the better of all. So I leav you asking, Why take the easy way out, and is feeding on peoples depravidy and fear of said depravity being used against them a truely effective way of instating workable rule of law?
To areed86: Thanks for understanding about euthanasia being the right thing to do in certain cases. I'm glad someone finally gets it.
To striker: Dictatorships aren't always a bad thing. Indeed, there are times when one is necessary in order to bring about economic stability, discipline and patriotism and to prevent extreme corruption. This would not work in the United States, nor do they need such a government. But it can and has worked in Greece. It would be completely foolish and naive of me to say that all dictators are good. Some are tyrannical, abusive and plain evil. The things done in these regimes are inexcusable. But there are a very rare few who truly love their country, who work to better it from within and most importantly, who realise that there comes a time when they must step down so that democracy can be restored.
That said, even in the best dictatorships, some freedoms must be temporarily sacrificed and certain things are allowed which wouldn't be acceptable in a democracy. But there are also some things which no decent government should ever do and purposefully killing the innocent, particularly when mentally competent, is one of them. There's no excuse to put anyone to death due to a workable disability such as blindness, deafness etc. or simply because they've reached a certain age. Yes, there are societies which do this, but most are nomadic, and for them, it really wouldn't make sense to keep someone in the tribe/clan who couldn't keep up and they wouldn't have the necessary medical aids and technology to help them even if they did. For the other 99% of societies, however, doing something like that would be monstrous. Certainly, eliminating costs is a good thing, but only when the idea is exercised properly. If, say, someone is a thief and can be rehabilitated, there's no reason to put him/her to death just to save money. That's ridiculous and sickening..
Of course, the world is not a perfect place and there will always be people who abuse their power, even in democracies. That's why laws need to be written and closely observed and why there also must be punishments for those who knowingly accuse the innocent or who harm them, either by giving the okay to do so or by physically participating. While the law is a great thing, it should never be considered a substitute for good parenting and teaching. These are the very last resorts, not the first weapon against violence. It's essential that families spend quality time with their children and instill morals into them and that schools follow up by encouraging healthy interaction. These morals include things sharing, talking to an adult when you have a problem, waiting your turn, being polite, being considerate towards others etc.
Areed I do agree that there might be a place for assisted suicide (as opposed to euthanasia) of terminally ill individuals in some cases, and that is perhaps a topic for discussion all on its own. The problem I have with legalising assisted suicide is that it leaves it open to abuse. I have no issue with someone with a terminal illness wanting to end their own life, and, finding themselves unable to do so due to the nature of their illness, seeking assistance in doing so. However once you go down the road of legalising the practice, you potentially end up in a situation where individuals might be encouraged to end their lives by family who either cannot take the burden of the illness or who themselves feel that their loved one is suffering too much, even though the individual themselves might not actually wish to go down that route. There have been cases where a family member has killed a loved one in what they deamed to be a mercy killing, because they themselves felt the suffering was too great, when in actual fact the person they killed wanted to live their life to the full until it was time for that life to end. I do not think we should have the right to end someone else's life purely because we think they may be suffering, so if assisted suicide were legalised in any way it should IMO be done on a case by case basis, where the individual would need to apply for permission to be assisted to end their own life.
To Tiffanitsa no, there is never a place for dictatorships. If you truly believe that they lead to patriotism then you are sorely deluded. The reason why so many people stand behind their dictators is because of fear. But you clearly know nothing about patriotism since you have no loyalty to your own country.
While you raise some valid points, you can't deny that you have only considered never mind addressed things in my genral argument that facilitate your odd mixing of black and white morality, with your viewpoint on what you understand of greek history. As I understand it, We wern't looking at greese spasificly in my argument, nore does you addressing greese validate much of anything stressed in my origional post.
Thus I'm to conclude that all you've done apart from selectively answer what you see as validating your points, is use the art of writing to draw up a wall of for the most part non conclusive, somewhat contridictory/misleading text. No effective progress was made in the disgussion, nor were my origional questions answered in any meaningful way. So in short, you blue alot of hot air, and warped my arguments, and as far as I can see. Got nowhere in this debate. I'm not trying to offend, I just seriously don't get the form or function of your last post.
To SugarBaby: I can understand you disagreeing with me on dictatorships, as many others do. But to say that I'm unpatriotic is flat out false. I'm willing to give my life for the country I love, wish to serve in whatever capacity will be open to me once I gain citizenship, support our troops, celebrate all of our patriotic holidays, wear patriotic clothing during regular times and own music, books and other patriotic items right down to the cups that I use on a daily basis with the flag on them!
To striker: Admittedly, I did write more on dictatorships than was necessary, but many of my statements were general ones. For instance, the idea of not harming the disabled and the elderly being wrong, putting people to death unnecessarily, punishing those who harm the innocent, and most importantly, the idea of the law never being a substitute for parenting. I could not comment on the statistics of crime rate as I do not have them, and even if I did, it would take a study of the cultures of these country's and of those with higher crime rates to make a truly decent analysis. I have no idea what you mean by "monnotise it for the government".
Yes, Corpral punishment can certainly be a spectical and while I'm not against that (I do support gladiatorial combat among certain types of criminals and hangings, for example), it should always be stressed that no one wishes to be in such a position. On the good side, going to see such things will keep people off the streets, especially teens who have a tendency to get into trouble, and it can bring in revenue for the government due to the sale of tickets to these events. Plus, it will serve as a deterrent to those who might consider committing murder etc. Mind you, I'm against truly traumatic things like stonings and the like being public, but I do think that scaring people straight is an affective method of treatment in these situations.
I've already commented that killing due to disability etc. is wrong, but I also think that respect should be given to both the disabled and the elderly. While almost no one here would ever think of simply killing them off, many do seem to believe that because someone is old and/or disabled that he/she can't really do anything. This perception needs to change in order that these groups may find acceptance and employment where applicable.
Let me clarify, before someone jumps on this. I'm against stoning. There are some torture and execution methods which are far too mentally disturbing to ever be justified and/or which cause too much trauma to those administering them and this is one such case.
Deciding to desert your own country for one you like better is not patriotism it is desertion. In wartimes desertion is actually considered a crime which can be punishable by death.
It's fine to like another country, fine even to want to go and live there, but that doesn't make you a patriot – you are not and will never be Greek. If you are ever able to go and live in Greece (and I'm guessing by the fact you're not living there already it's not all that simple) you will not be considered greek by the locals but an American expat living in Greece.
As for your wish to see gladiatorial-style events for which we would sell tickets in order to gain revenue, not even the most backward countries aspire to that level of barbarianism any more. Corporal punishment is not and should never be a spectator sport. And if you think that it would act as a deterrent you are mistaken, the only kinds of people who would attend those kinds of events are the kind who have no consideration for humanity anyway – no normal person would want to go and watch a hanging or any other style of corporal punishment event, much less want to pay money for the privilege.
Tell that to those native Greeks who fully support me, including one who only heard of me through a friend. Tell it to them when they become angered at others who call me a nonGreek and when they tell me that I'm even more patriotic than those who live there, sometimes even more than them! Naturally, until I gain my citizenship, I won't be considered Greek in the legal sense, nor would I pretend to be. It's a long and hard road to get to that stage and I plan on taking it. But, legal standing aside, there's more to it than blood. While there will always be some who consider me an American, I think that, as time progresses, most will see my true nature.
Okay, I can understand you being against my combat idea as it's very unconventional. But it can't be denied that there were once public executions in America, including hangings, and while these weren't for money, people did attend. They were also used as warnings of what not to do and I'm sure those images stayed with the attendies and reminded them of the dire consequences of such actions.
we "used" to do a lot of things, before we became more civilised.
Why do you think people would want to go and witness a public execution? because they think it would deter them from committing a crime? Or perhaps because they enjoy seeing the suffering of others. As it is executions can be witnessed by the families of the victims, so the argument that doing it publically would bring closure to them is invalid - all it would do is to create a spectacle and move us back several hundred years in terms of human rights and practices.
I have never said that euthanasia is a bad thing. the swiss have it, and it is a decision you can make wonly when you are of sound mind, but you can opt out at any time. it's a part of your insurance policy, usually. it's not a decision that anyone else can make for you, and that is an absolute must in any system that allows euthanasia. as far as I'm concerned if doctors don't know what your decision would have been, or family members, that's just tough. you need to sort that all out before hand.
but noone, and I mean noone, should have the power to do that to another person without their consent. not even if they are mentally ill.
I disagree in cases where the illness causes the person to act in a violent and potentially deadly manner. Here, it's not about the person being euthanised but about saving the potential victims of his/her affliction.
then that's not euthanasia.
that's execution and you can't call it anything else.
and it is in no way right to execute someone with a mental illness.
it's not fair to the person who has the illness, and it's not fair on the individuals who will have to prepare him for execution.
"I disagree in cases where the illness causes the person to act in a violent and potentially deadly manner." Me too. I think Andrea Yates should have rode the needle like a man who committed such a crime. So she was mentally ill and under the influence of a controversial religious leader. So what? A lot of people have mental problems and/or fall under the influence of a bad cleric or disillusioned with a faith, and they don't wait until their spouses leave to manually strangle or drown defenseless children, including an infant.
Back to the original pervert...I'll have to google or ask.com later to find out if the parole board released him. It's true...as some have said behavior earlier in life and that doesn't seem as serious should be monitored before these folks possibly can committ something more violent. As an example, about 10 years ago in an apartment complex some negligees were stolen out of my laundry. I was ticked off because these were pretty items a then boyfriend took his time and money to buy me, and it was creepy because when folks who have previously stolen and 'cased' womens' homes and belongings escalate in their behavior, they have a tendency to take a 'souvenir' of the deed, like undergarments or a nice scarf. It seriously made me wonder 1) what sort of neighbors I had, and 2) what was next. A male neighbor & I talked, and he summed it up: "Now if someone is hard up and needs a blanket to stay warm or a few items for a job interview, I'll give it to 'em, but negligees? When we're right down the street from WallMart and they can get their own? That IS creepy!" Previous behavior or mental health state or priors, I don't think this Michael Woodmansee creep should ever be released. I'm surprised he's survived prison at all as a child killer.
child killers are generally isolated from the general prison population.
Claire you do give very good arguements, but let me point out something. This is a huge field of study to me and something I'll take in college, as well as do my own personal studies.. Sometimes noone sees the signs. Cause they are good at hiding them and appearing perfectly normal. Take jeffery dommer for example. He was a normal child. It was discovered after he was captured and convicted that he started by killing animals as a child. But noone knew. If they did perhaps he could have got help and things would have been different, but we'll never know. Just keep in mind some never see the signs.
people never see the signs because most of the time they don't look for them or don't know what they are.
honestly, we have a shockingly bad atitude when it comes to mental health and dealing with it. parents often hate admiting that there's something wrong with their child.
That's truly sad. While mental illness is certainly not great, it should never be ignored. In those cases where help can be given, it's best that it starts early so that the person can avoid difficulties later in life and hopefully, have a productive and positive future.
I completely agree .
I hate to say it SwissGriff but you're wrong. They may be comparitively rare but people who had normal lives growing up do, in fact, sometimes commit attrocities like those discussed here. It may not be as common, hence the myth that only abused people go on to become criminals of all sorts, but it does happen.
'but it does happen'...Yeah, I don't recall anyone speaking ill of Jeffrey Dahmer's parents. I do believe they were just as perplexed by his bizarre behavior as the rest of us. However, Ted Bundy grew up with his mother & violent grandfather, and it was never certain who bio dad was; in fact the name 'Bundy' is from his stepdad adopting him. It was rumored he may have been the product of violent granddud raping his mom, but we'll never know. Disfunctional or not, I hope Woodmansee never gets released, and again I'm surprised he's managed to survive this long. Hmm maybe RI has him more isolated than MA would. We've already seen British national Neil Entwistle, convicted of murdering his wife & 9 month old girl, beat up by everyone from oddball loners to the Skinheads, and Father Geoghan, convicted of assaulting children, was killed in Shirley Correctional years ago.
Bravo!!! That's what I like to hear. Let the prisoners deal with them. Most, even the hardest of the hard, don't tolerate anyone who hurts children. And those who are more decent but just there for petty offenses are probably even more outraged! I'd say let the lifers handle these types so that those in for less serious crimes don't get time tacked on, but I can't blame them for trying.
Tiff, I'm seriously starting to question your mental state considering some of the posts you're making.
Ted Bundy spend a good deal of his life thinking his grandfather was his father and his grandmother his mother and his mother his sister...
actually it was only after becoming an adult that he found out exactly who he was.
now admitedly most people with stories like this don't become murderers, but as with the loss of a loved one, people take these things differently. some people can handle it and indeed become better people because of it. some people self destruct and some people destroy others. but the signs are always there.
I agree. Let the other prisoners deal with them. Philip and Nacy Garido (SP?) the couple who kidnapped Jaycee Dugard when she was eleven or so, were apparently threatened with various things from rape to death once they were behind bars. And quite frankly I feel they deserve everything they were threatened with. Yeah Jaycee did for some time seem to have a closeness with Philip at least and supposedly apparently viewed it as a marriage, but still what they did to her is inexcusable. That was eighteen years of her life that are gone forever and she may never fully recover from that.
I'm so sick of everyone's excuses. Once you harm someone innocent, particularly a child, an elderly or a disabled person, you've crossed the line from deserving sympathy to needing to be punished. The only exception that I think makes sense here, and even then not when we're talking about barberic crimes, is those from the military who've seen death and destruction as a part of daily life. If they're not properly integrated into society and given the professional help that they need, they may snap.
I agree with Tiff & Bryan. Let the lifers deal with the lowest of the low. It's cheaper, and usually deserved. I can't wait for the prisoners in Arizona to assault the Iraqi sperm donor dud who murdered the young woman who counted on him to protect her...his own daughter...because she was becoming "too Americanized". Look you shitkicker, no one invited you here or forced you to come here, you came voluntarily. Why if you don't like or want your kids to become like us? I hope he eventually tests positive for HIV...a scenario I saw often when handling lab work from prisons some years ago...since states can't execute sick inmates, and the inmates make the rest of his life a living Hell. I hope every time he needs to go to the E R he is everything from greeted to treated by other than whites as my experience with folks like this is they see nonwhites beneath them. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on!
[quote]I'm so sick of everyone's excuses. Once you harm someone innocent, particularly a child, an elderly or a disabled person, you've crossed the line from deserving sympathy to needing to be punished. The only exception that I think makes sense here, and even then not when we're talking about barberic crimes, is those from the military who've seen death and destruction as a part of daily life. If they're not properly integrated into society and given the professional help that they need, they may snap.[/quote]
A person who has been beaten by a family member, sexually abused and unable to talk about it or suffered any other number of abuses is just as likely to snap. and from what I know of healthcare in the USA they aren't going to get the help that they need either.
so as far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the two.
I suppose that children who are abused are different, since they can't defend themselves or just walk away. But when they grow up, they have to realise that these things aren't normal. Most people don't live in the middle of nowhere these days and have access to all sorts of people and different life styles, even if they're online. True, abuse, whether verbal or physical, probably isn't something easily discussed, especially if it was sexual and was done by a family member. But there are many resources and support groups out there for victims of childhood abuse that these people can go to when older to help them sort their problems and cope with the after affects of their decision to do the right thing and turn their abusers in.
What really gets to me are the women who grew up in normal households who still go with abusive men and give the "but I love him" line while they have their arms in slings or casts, black eyes etc. Worse are those who permit their children to be harmed by their boyfriends and/or husbands instead of trying to seek help. I consider them just as guilty of harm and/or murder as said men if they weren't at least trying to get out of the situation when the violence to the children occurred.
Then, there are the battered men. Now my heart truly goes out to these guys. As many resources as women have, that's as few as men do. I actually heard one horrible story of a man who went to a women's battered shelter to get help and who was turned down. Many are wrongfully imprisoned for simply defending themselves because women claim that they were abusing them. But in most cases, battered women have a far better chance of getting out of these relationships and situations and of getting help, and there's no reason why, in America in 2011, they shouldn't try to do so. But even if they or those abused during childhood don't, that's still no excuse or reason to snap and harm innocent people who had nothing to do with their situations. If anything, go after the abusers, not the poor guy on the street!
Right.
So we'll let the "lifers" deal with these murdering scum then, shall we? Because of course the "lifers" are all innocent victims who have never done anything wrong and wouldn't want to gain some recognission for having beat up a notorious criminal. I seriously question the intelligence (or lack thereof) of some of the people on this thread, not to mention the fact that some of you seem to be completely devoid of any empathy.
" What really gets to me are the women who grew up in normal households who still go with abusive men and give the "but I love him" line while they have
their arms in slings or casts, black eyes etc. Worse are those who permit their children to be harmed by their boyfriends and/or husbands instead of trying
to seek help. I consider them just as guilty of harm and/or murder as said men if they weren't at least trying to get out of the situation when the violence
to the children occurred." Because it's so easy to sit in judgement of others when you know nothing of their situation, isn't it?
Life is all about black and white for you with no shades of grey.
Get real – you don't have a clue.
right on, Claire.
What you totally seem to not understand Tiff is the simple fact that if a child has grown up in an abusive household it's also grown up in a household where it has been scared into not saying anything to anyone outside. I know this because I grew up in one myself. I know what it's like to have my parents manipulate me and scare me into not teling the truth. Telling the truth about things is hard. even when I was removed from my parents I still felt unable to speak the truth to people about what had happened to me because of my fear.
and I know I wasn't the only person like that, nor will I ever be the last.
to understand the way an abused person feels you must understand the shame, guilt and anger that person feels. to understand why some are driven to murder you have to understand exactly what has happened to them and exactly how they've stopped themselves becoming unhindged up until that point.
the majority of people who commit suicide do it because they feel an overwelming sense of hopelessness, misunderstanding and depression. a good deal of them have also been abused in some way. Some people are driven to self halm, and others are driven to halming others.
You can't just tell someone who is suffering like this to get over it because they're all grown up now. it doesn't work that way. It takes years of professional help to get there, and if a person is afraid or ashamed into not seeking that help, then it's not their fault.
well said, Loui and Claire.
I, too, grew up in an abusive household, and was never allowed to speak unless spoken to (among other things).
it's absolutely fucking pathetic that people have such views as Tiffanitsa. it's easy as hell to sit behind a computer screen and judge others, without even considering what difficult lives they've had. no, I'm not a victem; just utterly appalled.
yes exactly loui and chelsey.
"I suppose that children who are abused are different, since they can't defend themselves or just walk away. But when they grow up, they have to realise
that these things aren't normal." But what you don't seem to realise is that to them, "these things" are normal. You can't just expect someone to erase a perception of normality just because there is information out there to suggest that it isn't.
And what to you is normal may not be for someone else and vice versa. You don't just erase your perceptions of a normal childhood just because someone tells you that's not normal.
Why on Earth should empathy exist for those who have crossed the line into murder? We're not talking about people who simply have a problem and who don't know where to go, or those who went somewhere and were not accepted. So long as they don't kill/harm the innocent, then sure. I'll give them my empathy or at least say that I wish I could help them, that it must be hard etc. But once they take it upon themselves to hurt people, they lose that right.
I have a clue that if I had a child, I'd be damned to Tartaros if I ever let anyone harm them, be they friends, family or my husband! The children always come first, and if you can't realise that, then you have no business being a parent. Yes, there may be fear involved, but this is no longer about you, but about the child for whom you're responsible, someone who loves you and depends on you for protection and guidance. So simply allowing him/her to be abused makes you just as guilty as the abuser, especially if you were fully aware of it and actually told the child to not tell anyone. At least, if he/she spoke out, you could think to yourself that it wasn't you and your child might be able to get the two of you out of it.
Even with the fear, you still never went out and brutally killed anyone. Of course, suicide is always sad and hard to take, even if it's warranted (terminal illness/pain), and I agree that someone who feels that way and is otherwise healthy should get professional help and should, if possible, be supported by friends and loved ones. But if the feeling persists and if the person knows that this is absolutely what he/she wants to do, I say let the person do it. After all, it's his/her life. It's when said person goes from the idea of taking his/her own life into taking the lives of others that I have a real problem.
No, I can't and won't pretend to have gone through abuse. I grew up in a very loving family. But I'm also not the only one in said family who feels this way. Perhaps, if they stopped showing women who have all of these injuries and say stupid things like "but I love him", "he'll change", and instead show those who are trying to get out of these relationships, even if they start out at that stage, it might make it easier for the rest of us to begin to understand these situations.
I just think that you're a person who hasn't lived life.
Until you actually experience some of this abuse first hand, through a close friend or yourself, you will never understand much less empathise with what some of these people have been through.
If I had children of course they would come first. but if one of them were to be murdered by someone who grew up in a family situation like mine, of course I'm not going to be howling for blood or hiring contract killers to kill them, or suggesting that switzerland suddenly bring in the death penalty, because unlike you, I understand and empathise. I would want them to be helped by the best doctors in the country.
well said last post.
Let's be clear on one point, though: Most abuse survivors don't, I repeat do not, turn to the abuse of children.
The number of survivors is staggering, yet the number of offenders is relatively fes. As a survivor myself, I always feel a bit miffed that we are all re-painted, re-shamed again when someone can entirely blame their own behavior on what they experienced. That would tell anyone else if they knew you were an abuse survivor, and in particular a male survivor, you were going to offend, further stigmatizing and adding unnecessary guilt into the equation.
How we deal with them is one thing, but the act the offender commits is another.
On a similar note: any of you women who have borne children have suffered postpardem. Some suffer greatly, while others at least claim to have not suffered. I don't know if the biology supports not suffering it, but anyway, we all know it's there. So, if a particular offender blames postpardem depression, does that now mean we are to assume postpardem causes this behavior? Wouldn't accepting that as a reasonable excuse for murder make other women more unlikely to seek the help they neeed? Most, after all, won't offend, and really do need help to overcome it physically and otherwise: for their own comfort and health, if nothing else, not because they are potential offenders.
But logically, if abuse, or postpardem, or anything else becomes a logcial and viable excuse for a set of behaviors, that condition becomes a risky condition.
While I'm not one to call out the bloodhounds, I think considering the ultimate consequences of claims we make is well worth doing.
To SwissGriff: Now I must turn the tables around. Neither of us are mothers, but could you honestly imagine yourself actually forgiving the murderer of your own child? It sounds like you're thinking "yeah, I know you killed my child, but you needed help and were forgotten, so I'll forgive you so long as you go to therapy". You've shocked me as much as I've shocked you during this thread. I'm not a mother but couldn't even consider such a thing! That would be like me saying "well, I know you were angry and hurt, so it's okay that you bombed my country." What?
Thank you LeoGuardian! I'm especially greatful because you went through it and clearly understand things! If all people thought like that, then survivers wouldn't have a chance of getting jobs, finding dates or being looked at normally because it would be assumed tht they'd turn into abusers. Of course, this is not true and I'm glad that you pointed this out. On the other hand, pms is something which can seriously cause problems in the mental state of a woman. Of course, most don't experience it to that degree, but many who tried to seek help for it used to be mocked or told that it was all in their heads. Hopefully, this is changing. But even this can be a slippery slope. If a woman says that she killed while experiencing pms, how do we know that she's telling the truth, and in that case, who's really to blame if she sought help that wasn't given?
Actually I see myself as one of the few people who could do that because I have experience in abuse, and I know how it has effected me, and I know how it has effected other people.
Males have it particularly bad because they feel unable to face their experiences and feel that because they are men they should be tougher about it. it's hard for men to talk about abuse, especially sexual abuse because it's something that our society has trouble accepting. Many find it difficult to understand that a man can just as easily be the victim of rape.
I never said that I could forgive. In my heart I don't think I could, but there's a difference between not forgiving and seeking bloodthirsty revenge.
I point blank do not believe in capital punishment or corporel punishment. an d my views don't just go out the window because it was my friend, my husband or my child. I stand by my convictions.
I am a survivor of an abusive childhood, and that's all I am saying regarding that on a public board. However, even though you go through something at a young age, and it may last for years, it is no excuse for you to commit child abuse, murder, or anything else for that matter. Being a victim does not give you some sort of get out of jail free card. Everyone's had bad shit happen in their lives, some more so than others, and you just have to deal with it. You are still responsible for your own actions. and, a sixteen year old is not a child. Especially not when they willingly murder a five year old! I don't normally support the death penalty, but in this case, I would. Not in the revenge sense, the whole eye for an eye thing, but simply because if he was no longer living, then he could never harm another child again. The idea of parole is perplexing and disgusting. Also, it sickens me that my tax dollars provide monsters like him shelter, food, clothing, medical care, etc. I wasn't consulted about this case, or any others for that matter. They should have a nationwide vote for things like this. Like they do with American Idol. If it's proven that he killed a defenseless five year old child, then the citizens of the country should choose if he gets life without parole, or, the death penalty. If he gets the death penalty, then he has the priviledge of choosing the method of execution. Sounds like a plan to me. As far as I'm concerned, a lot of these court rulings have more to do with the rights of the crimminals than they do with the rights of the victims, living or not.
I love the idea of having the nation vote! I don't think the murderer should be able to choose his method of execution, since his victim didn't have that choice, but I can definitely see what you mean about tax payer's money going to support, feed and shelter these criminals. If they can do it for a silly thing like American Idol, then they should be able to do it for something far more serious. On the other hand, I've always liked the idea of professional jurrers who are trained to be impartial and to tell when someone is lying etc.
actually, by law, a 16 year old is still a child.
by pretty much every standard a 16 year old is still a child. biolicically, definitely.
and the only way you could have a jury and judge not influenced by public opinion would be to lock them in a dark room for their entire lives. this is why I dislike public opinion and the press swaing they way trials turn out. it's not right.
Beers to the last post!
I think many of us who support the death penalty are put into the same raving camp as those who send out the dogs / talk about having the perpetrator stoned or otherwise tortured. I, for one, am for a quick and expedient end to a known and proven murderer / child abuse offender, for the same reason as mentioned earlier: the abuse from the subject will no longer happen if said subject has been exterminated.
I don't believe in an eye for an eye, what comes around goes around, karma, or any of that: you technically can't adequately pay for some of these types of crimes. Whole families and even neighborhoods are victimized as a result of some of these actions.
I don't even believe in the deterrent factor: This isn't a potential speeding ticket with a set of police lights behind you and you slow down, or a case of a video camera in a store, so you don't shoplift. I seriously doubt the alleged deterrent effect can ever be proven.
I look at it more as an issue of stopping - permanently - the behavior which puts a lot of others at risk.
Humanely exterminate the perp, and the perp will no longer perpetrate.
Actually, there are several states in which the legal age of concent is 16. So does this mean that you're old enough to have sex and make some other adult decisions but that if you kill someone, you're still a child?
capital punishment does not deter criminals because if you're going to commit a murder you don't stop and thing, 'oh, if I get caught I might die' because when someone commits a murder they don't think they will get caught in the first place!
I don't believe you're an adult until society gives to you all the rights available to an adult. until then you are not the same as someone who has all those rights.
And I meant Beers to Guitargod1.
Thanks leo guardian, you said what i was trying to say, only in a more concise manor.
Of course not all abuse victims are abusers. But we're not just talking about abuse here are we? We're talking about mental illness as a whole.
As I've said further down the thread not all mental illness is caused by abuse – lots of mental illness is something people are born with or which is caused by chemical imbalances.
Tiff no-one can possibly know what they would or would not do/say in any circumstance they have not previously been in. We can say how we think it would be, but we cannot possibly know because everyone reacts differently.
Of course any one of us might think differently about the harm of our own children over that of a child to whom we are not related. But it is also possible to feel anger and contempt for the crime committed against your own while at the same time realising that sometimes there are external circumstances which could have prevented these things happening in the first place.
As it happens, there is a lot of evidence that the families of murder victims do not feel that the death penalty brings closure or conclusion; while many may not ever feel able to forgive, there is a proportion who do. And revenge attacks by victims of violent crimes are actually incredibly rare – most "revenge" attacks are carried out by thugs seeking vijilanti justice but who have nothing to do with the crime itself.
As for the "sixteen is the age of consent" argument – you could apply that to a lot of things. At sixteen you are not old enough to vote/drive a car/buy alcohol. Legally in most countries you are not considered an adult until you reach eighteen.
there was a really interesting case where the accused had some kind of poisoning. cadnium or something, and this chemical in him actually caused him to become incredibly incredibly violent. this coupled with the fact that he spent his childhood drinking at age 9 years of age and commiting horrible acts with animals both dead and alive were incredibly good reasons for why this person should have been considered insane and not executed.
If it was just a matter of poison, I'd say don't execute, since it could wear off and he would stand a chance of rehabilitation. Actually, I'd feel sorry for him because he would have to live with that all his life and wouldn't have killed if he were in his right mind. But if he was insane, then he'd have no chance of recovery or of understanding what he did, since he probably couldn't be cured. Unless there was a very good chance of me being wrong here, I'd say euthanise.
and I wish you'd stop using that word. it's only euthanasia if you have their permition to do it!
it's execution, there's no other word for it.
More beers for guitargod! I'm sick of having my tax dollars wasted. Actually if this scum in AZ were to get HIV from the other inmates, the taxpayers of that state would be stuck footing the bill not only for his 3 hots and a cot, but for his medical treatment. Let the inmates kill him & toss what's left in the dumpster, as inmates have in a couple of prison homicides.
Also by whose standards is a 16 year old still a child? Some folks on the right want to talk about the United States being a society based on Judeo Christian values, so let's look at the 'Judeo' side of that coin: a boy is considered a young man able to distinguish between right and wrong at 13, a girl at 12, owning to slightly higher emotional maturity. Mexican girls get the equivalent of a 'sweet 16' party at 15, the 'quinceanera', when they're considered young women. Older children in Latin American societies get an increase in the number of their responsibilities, including helping care for younger ones. I believe the original Americans, the American Indians, consider 15 the 'coming of age'. A colleague from Surat, India was floored to see a 16 year old considered a 'pediatric patient'. By whose standards in a 16 year old a child? A 16 year old can get married in most of the states, they don't need, unlike a 15 year old, a signed work permit from a parent or guardian, in some states if the offense is capital they can be adjudicated to adult court around 14, so who in the world still considers a 16 year old to be a child? As far as mental health goes, I believe most of the states did away with 'not guilty by reason of insanity', but someone can plead 'guilty but insane'. Incidentally this creep was caught AFTER he tried to murder ANOTHER boy. This is when the bones of the first boy were found on top of his dresser. Now prison is taxpayer money, but it's better than releasing this freak into free society where most people have or at least think about having one or more kids.
And could you imagine what would happen if this creature were to consider having children? I shudder at the thought of what might happen to them!