CNN: Four charged after girl killed in 'excruciating ordeal'

[DFWdem]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/27/teen.slain.ap/index.html

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A 15-year-old girl was stabbed, beaten, set on fire and thrown into a river, and four acquaintances were charged with murder, authorities said.

The killers of Christine Marie Ham lured her to a small park behind a public housing complex in southwest Philadelphia on Saturday and attacked her, authorities said. Police said she was still alive when she was thrown into the Schuylkill River and managed to crawl out, but bled to death on the shore.

On Tuesday, Derrell Savage, 20; Demarcus Hamms, 19; Felicia Dawson, 19; and John Garrett, 17, were charged with murder, criminal conspiracy and weapons offenses. They were ordered held without bail until a hearing next Wednesday.

More at link

The good news is the 17 year old is not eligible for the death penalty because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. Good thing, because I'm sure he couldn't fully understand the consequences of his actions since he's a minor.

[sniffa]

1. yeah, at 17 a mind is stiLL feebLe

good show though.

[Warpy]

2. Life in prison will do nicely, thanks

and a few years of being some thug's bitch will be punishment.

Face it, teenagers do NOT think on an adult level. They don't have all the facts and their brains are undergoing a rewiring job.

As horrific as this murder is, having the state commit another murder in revenge is not the answer. Life in prison is.

[UCLA Dem]

5. i agree. now he will have to think about and live with it his whole life.

[progressivebydesign]

13. No.. he won't think about it..

.. He'll join up with a prison gang, have lifetime companionship in prison. He'll watch tv, work out, smoke cigarettes, have 3 meals a day, and basically adjust his life to a similar life on the inside. I think people fool themselves into thinking people in prison sit around all day saying.. 'oh, what have I DONE?'. In reality, they usually just adjust to their new surroundings and are still violent jerks in a mini-society of violent jerks and still have laughs, violence, sex, and.. life.

[daleo]

24. You paint prison as a pretty good experience.

The few people I have known who spent some time there were rather distressed by the ordeal. Of course I am talking about people serving time for impaired driving, drug possession, property crime - not 'violent jerks' as you put it, who may be different.

Most jails in my area are smoke free now, so any tobacco use would be contraband. Some years back the government made a big show of replacing color tvs with b&w (which turned out to be more expensive, since not too many companies make them anymore). I have also read that some jurisdictions have eliminated weights for working out. And the food is no great shakes, I have heard. Quality is poor and portions are often inadequate.

As one person I knew who did some time for drunk driving said, "if jail is so great, why aren't more people insisting they get allowed in for a nice holiday".

Note, I am talking about Canada here, but I would assume U.S. jails are even worse.

[merh]

26. Please, go live in a prison for one weekend.

Why not go volunteer to help distribute library books or some other constructive effort at your nearest prison. You would learn that it ain't no picnic and not as "pleasant" as you try to portray it.

Life in prison is not life.

[BrendaStarr]

34. Yeah I don't think it would be very fun being a thug

In with a lot bigger and meaner thug than yourself.

[KittyWampus]

128. The Poster Made NO Attempt To Portray Prison As "Pleasant"

and a made a very valid point that inmates become acclimated to the new environment and learn a new lifestyle.

And life in prison IS life... just not one most of us live.

And a good many prisoners will end up back in prison after being released because they no longer identify with the 'outside' version of life and haven't been counseled and trained to participate in free society.

We can talk about rehabilitation but this is a less than perfect world with lots of room for improvement.

[progressivebydesign]

129. Thank you cryingshame.. YOU got the point of the post.

It's not that prison is a picnic, it's that people adapt to ALL types of life. Prison is not 24/7 hell.. humans adapt. If you all think that the people will be sitting around 24/7 crying because he is tortured with what they did, you're wrong. They will make friends, they will eat, they'll watch t.v., they'll laugh, they'll breathe, they'll see family members who visit them. Unlike the person murdered.

Prison is not fun as someone from here would see it, but it's not Dante's Inferno, either.

[merh]

177. Prison is not a 24/7 hell?

Have you been there? Is that your take or just your impression?

To some it is pure hell, 24/7.
The noise, the smell, the damp, the cold, no freedom, group think, no privacy, always on guard, fear is constant, no human dignity.

We breed killers there and harder criminals than what we sent in and more evil people than you can imagine. Prisons are our human land fills, instead of trying to rehabilitate and recyle, we just dump 'em and hope they degrade into the soil, ready to return to society as new, fresh green plants and flowers. What fools we are.

No, it is not Dante's Inferno, but it ain't the simple little social gathering you try to depicit it as being. I was correct in my interpretation of your post and again, I challenge you to spend one weekend in orange and let me know how you sleep and if you think it is so pleasant.

[merh]

165. That's not my take on the post, sorry.

If the poster was being sarcastic, I missed it. :shrug:

[okieinpain]

38. thank you. i know two on the inside. they would rather be out, but

they've adjusted to being there, and lead a life like everyone else. thank god they didn't kill anybody, just beat the shit out someone, but hey around here that's okay too.

[Mad_Dem_X]

48. Unfortunately, you are right

He could also get early release, and go on to have long life on the outside. Meanwhile, somebody's daughter will never have that opportunity.:grr:

[Hobarticus]

51. Maybe...but he's off the streets.

And that's the important thing.

[shadowknows69]

56. yeah but he won't be leading any more girls to their deaths

and i'm sure a monster like that would probably want to

[progressivebydesign]

130. Naw.. he'll just do it when he gets out of prison. n/t

[shadowknows69]

142. then don't let him out

animals don't deserve to be in cages, but murderers do.

[progressivebydesign]

178. If only our justice system worked that way...

murder, unless it's a senstationalized case, usually is NOT a ticket to life in prison. Stealing large amounts of money, or selling drugs, apparently is a bigger crime.

Hell.. in Washington State, the Supreme Court just reversed numerous murder convictions because, in their infinite wisdom, decided that no one should be convicted of murder if they didn't mean to kill the person... But.. before you think that's okay, they are reversing cases where it was obvious they were trying to kill the person, as in torturing and leaving them for dead. Apparently, you have to put it in writing if you are actually planning to kill the person you are beating, shooting, stabbing, or strangling, for it to be murder in Washington State. Or so it seems...

[sendero]

18. The problem is..

... that you assume these folks have a conscience. Yeah, they'll think about it, about what a bummer it was that they were caught, how she shouldn't have provoked the attack by doing/saying what she did/said.

No, people who can do this kind of thing may or may not ever have a shred of remorse about it. Face facts, a certain percentage of the populace are sociopaths, and quaint ideas of right and wrong are simply not in their natures.

[AndyTiedye]

46. Some Them Get sElected pResident, VP, Speaker of the House...

a certain percentage of the populace are sociopaths, and quaint ideas of right and wrong are simply not in their natures.

[smirkymonkey]

73. Right - the only regret they will have is that they were caught.

What the fuck is wrong with people. :grr: I feel very sorry for people who have young girls - so much horror in this country, I wouldn't let them out of the house.

I don't care how old they are - life without parole.

[okieinpain]

31. oh yeah, sex, and drugs for the rest of his life. pretty horrible.

[sui generis]

9. warpy

male rape is not normally condoned as a social punishment.

[Warpy]

15. No, but the prospect should satisfy the murderous

among us who think the death penalty is appropriate for the most grisly garden variety murders. It might help them come to terms with the fact that a scumbag murderer is still sucking oxygen.

I'd love to see all prisons redesigned to eliminate corners where rapists can hide from guards. It can be done, and has been done in a few model prisons. Prison culture falls apart completely in circular pods with no "dead" spaces.

However, until that is done, forgive me for throwing a bone to the vengeful.

[DFWdem]

20. One question

How can a murder be both "most grisly" and "garden variety" at the same time, as you refer to it in your post?

[DFWdem]

16. I think it depends on the teenager

Obviously teenagers mature at different ages. However, I think the age of 18 is an arbitrary societal demarcation. When I was 17 there was no doubt in my mind that murder is wrong, especially if it was preceeded by torture, e.g. set on fire, beaten, and thrown into a river like a piece of useless garbage. The only 17 year olds who don't know how wrong this is are the mentally retarded or complete sociopaths.

grammar edit

[Pacifist Patriot]

19. Contemporary biological research indicates the human brain

fully develops around the age of 21 with the final "spurt" occurring around age 18.

I agree with you that a 17 year old is fully capable of understanding right from wrong and being able to assist in his own defense.

Regardless, I am anti-death penalty so the age of the murderer is immaterial to me.

[MGKrebs]

40. Yeah, but what purpose does the death penalty serve?

Why isn't life in prison vengeance enough? If we want maximum vengeance, shouldn't we be torturing?

[robcon]

58. Who said anything about maximum vengeance???

I'm torn between life in prison and death sometimes. I'm not sure what we should do. But I've never, ever considered "maximum vengeance," and I don't think that's a common feeling among DUers.

I don't think that's a helpful comment.

[MGKrebs]

99. My apologies.

I misinterpreted your posts. I thought you were advocating the death penalty. Sorry.

[Mondon]

140. No, we want proportionate retribution

to restore the balance of order in society, and to do justice.

[RPM]

163. it cuts the cancer out of society

and its a whole hell of a lot cheaper than putting the guy up for 70 years.

As long as the sonofabitch gets his due process, I have no qualms about cutting that kind of sociopathic human waste out of society.

[Mike Daniels]

27. 2 of the three teenagers were adults and one was 17

I'm not saying that they should be put to death but to say these three weren't thinking on an adult level is nuts.

Did their "teenage" minds actually think that stabbing, beating and setting someone on fire wasn't going to have permanent effects on their victim?

People who do something like this have no conscience and aren't likely to develop one while they sit in jail either. These people will probably thrive in prison but as long as they never set foot on a public street again that will be enough for me.

[Darranar]

145. It doesn't matter if he's 17 or 37...

it's STILL wrong to kill him.

The death penalty is WRONG, period, without exceptions.

[merh]

3. Some of us believe no one should be put to death, including

these four (4). We take the words of Jesus to heart, judge not lest you be judged.

State sanctioned killing is murder.

Welcome to DU! I hope you get the chance to stick around awhile. :hi:

[DFWdem]

Thank you

Thanks for the warm welcome Merh

[demon67]

39. Do not judge?

Are you actually suggesting that they not be judged? I mean, finding someone guility of a crime and sentensing them to life in prison is pretty much "judging" them, don't you think?

[merh]

43. I am saying it is not my place to kill others, nor is it the states.

Judging a person as evil or worthy of being tossed aside is not my place, that is god's.

Judging under the law, to be subject to restraint for violated the law is a different matter.

My little heart and head are not big enough to be able to adequately and fairly weigh the complexity of all issues involved. That's why I leave it up to a greater power to be judge.

Thou shalt not kill does it for me.

[Mondon]

119. "Thou shalt not murder"

is what it really means.

[merh]

175. That's right - taking of another human life is murder - killing someone

is murder - thou shalt not murder is correct. That means the state should not be allowed to murder one of its citizens.

Funny how people twist the bible as they need. On one hand, they hold everyone to the strict interpretations that have been promoted for years, gays are evil and an "abomination". But on the other hand, when the definition is too sticky for their warped needs and doesn't promote the hate and vengeance they believe it should, they search for the proper Hebrew definition of the passage and flaunt it. If you like the Hebrew definition of that passage "thou shalt not murder", then go have fun studying the literal interpretation of the passages that allegedly slam gays, you will find that they did not slam gays, but the prostitution in the temple and other activities of the time.

BTW - Jesus' crucification was a state sanctioned killing, how do you feel about that?

[Mondon]

191. all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder

Murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person...." (Merriam-Webster online)

If someone is about to kill me or my wife or child, and I kill them first to stop them, it is not "murder."

And, you're the one who cited the Bible first, not me, so don't get all righteous about Biblical references. You're the one who "twisted" the Bible first, interpreting the commandment to prohibit ALL killing, which it clearly does not.

[merh]

194. All killing is wrong.

Thou shalt not kill the interpretation of the 10 commandments that I have always been taught.

Actually, some argue that to take a life is to violate the 1st commandment, to put yourself on the level of god, to play god. Idol worship if you will. If you believe in god, then you surely believe that god alone is responsible for life, to take it and/or to give it. Thus to take it whether your own or anothers, is to put yourself on the level with god, and to violate the first commandment. So, in killing, even when it is state sanctioned, you are violating two of the commandments.

Oh, by the way -- Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord.

Or how about, how many times should I forgive my brother, lord? I say 7 times 70 ....

The test of human greatness is not who can I kill, but who can I forgive.

[Mondon]

196. You are free to have that opinion, thanks to rough men who stand guard

at night, killing when neccessary to protect you

[Book Lover]

77. And some of us think that way sans divine impetus

It is never correct for the state to be empowered to kill its citizens. Used to be the government could hang a man for stealing your horse - I'm hardly comparing that to this crime, but does killing a man for stealing a horse make any sense? When it starts, there is no stopping it. Power should be ceded to any government only grudgingly, and with many checks upon that power.

Putting these four, if they are found to be guilty, inside that tiny box known as life in prison should slake the thirst for justice. Otherwise, you satisfy bloodlust.

[merh]

81. Hear, hear!

I was going to post a simple "Amen" but you did write "sans divine impetus" so I thought that might be out of place.

Thanks for the wise post! :thumbsup:

[Book Lover]

83. I don't mind your Amen :-)

And I do thank you for your courtesy. I just wanted to point out that there is another way to reach the same conclusion.

[Mondon]

141. Retribution is a legitimate goal of punishment

as long as it is proportionate. Hanging for horse stealing is not proportionate. Painless execution for a horrific, premeditated, murder preceded by hours of torture, is proportionate.

[Book Lover]

143. A) I disagree

B) You are not addressing my first and most important point. It is not an appropriate function of any government to kill its citizens.

[Mondon]

182. I disagree

Do you think it was appropriate for the State of Florida to withhold food and water from Terry Schiavo?

[antigone382]

190. The "state" didn't withhold anything from Terri Schiavo.

It maintained the law which gave her husband the ability to make a medical decision in her stead, seeing as her cerebral cortex had liquified and she had no cognitive ability or consciousness whatsoever. There is no similarity between the two situations.

[Mondon]

200. sorry

When "the state" enforces private covenants through the courts, it acts. That's why racial covenants in deeds are unconstitutional and unenforceable. By enforcing the racial restriction, the courts were depriving minorities of the equal protection of the laws. By giving an estranged husband the right to pull Schiavo's tube, the court was depriving her of life.

I don't have a problem with the Schiavo case.

My point is that if you (the other poster actually) don't want the state involved in the taking of life you have to be consistent.

[Book Lover]

192. I actually avoided that "news" story

I am not informed enough to give a real opinion.

[UCLA Dem]

4. thats just horrific. prayers to her family and friends.

[daleo]

6. If this happened in Iraq

A bad apple would be docked a few weeks pay.

[d_b]

61. Good point.

Was scrolling this thread to see if anyone would make it.

[moobu2]

7. Hopefully the other kids wont be murdered by the state to

Maybe the state murder penalty will be abolished soon for everybody anyway.

[Rockholm]

12. I hope they fry.

I am against the death penalty in most cases, but the severity and the heinous nature of this murder to this poor little girl, I say let them die.

[okieinpain]

33. I agree. they had no regards for that girls life. so screw them.

[Mad_Dem_X]

50. Agreed - Those kids knew what they were doing

You take a life in this manner, your life should be taken. In situations like this, where it's premeditated, malicious torture and murder, the killers should not get to live.

I know that's not a popular stance here, but that's how I feel.

[w4rma]

55. Revenge is evil. Punishment and restraint isn't. (nt)

[Save The World]

67. Revenge, as a concept

is morally neutral.

[w4rma]

131. Revenge is evil. Justice is moral and is served by life in prision.

State sanctioned murder is revenge (and is also the first step on a slippery slope towards totalitarianism).

[Save The World]

133. You know, you declaring something

Doesn't make it so. Revenge is merely a description of a motivation which may be either justiified or unjustified depending on the circumstances. In a vacuum, it is morally neutral.

[Mondon]

136. Exactly

Saying "revenge is immoral" is like saying "violence is never right."

[w4rma]

148. No. Violence can be used in the service of justice. Revenge cannot. (nt)

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mondon]

184. Retribution can be a legitimate goal of punishment.

[w4rma]

147. Revenge stems from anger and pride. Anger and pride are 2 of the 7 deadly

sins.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

153. To sin is to commit an evil act. That is the definition of "sin". You

stated revenge is "morally neutral". But now you are stating that there are "degrees" of "sins" and somehow you are now trying to argue that small degree sins are "morally netural".

A sin, by it's definition, cannot be "morally neutral" no matter how much you'd like to justify that sin in your mind.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

155. Specifically these "sins" are "vices". When acted upon the actions,

themselves, are the sins (acts of evil). Revenge is an act of evil because, by it's definition, it is carried out under the motivations of vices: specifically pride and anger.

[Save The World]

156. You declare that revenge stems solely from pride and anger

You have not written one word in support of that assertion.

[w4rma]

157. Because it's self-evident.

Revenge is *always* motivated by anger against someone/something for something that one opposes. Pride is also a motivator for revenge because a) the revenge could be for wounding one's pride. b) revenge, rather than justice, is chosen because one feels one deserves special treatment rather than just justice.

[Save The World]

158. You saying its self-evident doesn't make it so

You seem to be the only one who thinks that it is, in fact, self evident, just as you are the only one standing up for the fundy idea that anger and pride are necessarily sins or vices.

[w4rma]

159. Which is why I went ahead and explained why in that post.

As for this being a "fundy idea", I wasn't aware that Augustine, Aquinas and Pope St. Gregory were fundies.

[Save The World]

161. "I wasn't aware that Augustine, Aquinas and Pope St. Gregory were fundies"

Well, now you've learned something. Or do you suppose that they would be considered progressives in today's world?

[w4rma]

162. Pope St. George might well be considered a progressive in today's world

Pope St. George the Great changed the order of the Seven Deadly "Sins" because he thought that the bodily "sins" were the least damaging. (Pride, anger, envy, greed, sloth, gluttony and lust)

I'm not convinced that these 3 folks tried to interpret the Bible literally.

[melnjones]

199. Just reading this thread...

and wanted to thank you for your wise words. I wish more people thought like you do.

[Mondon]

122. Vengence is a legitimate aspect of punishment

Along with specific deterence, general deterence, and rehabilityation

[w4rma]

132. Revenge is never a ligitimate aspect of justice. Never.

Revenge is what people who can't control their own actions and/or emotions do.

[Mondon]

134. we disagree

[Save The World]

135. Baloney

Revenge is often coolly and methodically thought out. Ever read The Count of Monte Cristo?

Again, you declaring something does not make it so.

[w4rma]

150. That was justice, not revenge.

It might have started out as revenge, but in the end the count stopped at justice.

[Save The World]

160. You obviously didn't read or didn't understand the book

Dantes exacts brutal, vicious revenge, leaving death, ruin and misery for his enemies in his wake. The count stopped at justice? where was the justice in the death of Andrea?

[w4rma]

164. Andrea was killed trying to escape and also had just attempted to murder

the Count.

[Save The World]

169. Like I said, you haven't read the book

What a poser you are.

Andrea does not die. Caderousse tries to steal from the Count, then tries to murder him and is killed.

No matter, even had you read the book, it seems that you would not have understood it.

[w4rma]

172. You're pretty presumptive, buddy. I should have known it wouldn't be long

before you devolved into personal attacks.

Caderousse *does* die, just not immediately. Caderousse dies of stab wounds that the count gives him when Caderousse is trying to escape out the window. Caderousse dies after the count gets him to write a letter blaming someone else on his death.

Its been a few years since I read it but I still remember enough of it.

[Save The World]

173. You said "Andrea was killed"

Andrea was NOT killed. That's not presumption. That'd fact. You never mentioned Caderousse until *I* told you that he died. Those on-line cliff notes get pretty confusing, huh?

And the book was about revenge served cold and calculated, not justice. Anyone who says that the book was about justice either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

[w4rma]

174. Hahaha, its funny to watch you try so hard insult folks once you've run

out of anything of substance to say. Now you're just tossing out baseless accusations to salvage your wounded pride.

Pride is a vice, "Save the World". You should remember that.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mondon]

138. I should have said retribution, which has been an aspect of punishment

for thousands of years

[w4rma]

152. Do you support torture? It sure sounds like you are making an argument

in support of torture.

Slippery slope.

[Mondon]

183. no, but nice straw man

And, what do you mean by torture?

Some consider life in prison "torture" compared to death by lethal injection.

Your denial that retribution is a legitimate function of punishment is merely a policy position, not an absolute truth.

[Darranar]

146. Vengeance has nothing to do with justice, so I do not care for it...

All bloodshed is a waste. No one deserves to be killed, ever.

[Mondon]

189. That is your opinion.

In mine, retribution is a legitimate function of punishment.

Let's take another case. Should Ken Lay go to prison for the Enron debacle and destroying the financial security of all those employees? What is the purpose of putting him in prison? I submit that one purpose is retribution.

[okieinpain]

65. same here, if it was something that got out of control, I might could

cut them some slack. but this group tricked her into coming some place where they could torture, and kill her. sorry, but that deserves the death penalty in my book.

[fishnfla]

113. I totally disagree

I think they should each recieve counseling. Then they should be taken to the river bank, beaten, stabbed, set on fire and tossed in the river by 4 older guys. Then they should be pulled on to the banks and allowed to bleed to death.

The whole thing should be broadcast on national TV.

[sui generis]

8. yes, that's good news

except I'm not being sarcastic. If a four year old knows "consequences" then murdering someone should be reason enough to try a four year old as an adult and execute them.

There is a cut off in our society, and it's based on how we define adults legally, not on quaint notions of consequence. If we're going to execute a minor then we should also execute their parent or guardian, since they have to countersign everything a minor does anyway. The consequence of not controlling your minor is that you are punished for their deeds. Why stop at civil lawsuits?

[DFWdem]

10. Somewhat agree

I don't think the death penalty should be administered in every murder case in the nation. However, when the specifics of the case are especially heinous, such as in this event, I believe it is warranted.

[sui generis]

14. not to children

even if they're disgusting evil children.

They'll be in jail for life no matter what anyway. If they had been adults, I might agree, but with four of them it's really hard to say that all four are equally culpable (in whatever shade of evil that implies).

[Mike Daniels]

37. 3 of them were adults....

According to the article two of the accused are 19 and one is 20.

I don't think the 17 year old should be exempt from life in prison either despite that individual's legal status as a minor. There comes a point where the nature of the crime shows a maliciousness that can't be attributed to pre-adult "naivety".

There may be other circumstances that would allow for some leniency for the 17 year old but it would have to be pretty extreme.

[sui generis]

47. pretty much my thinking

although I'm opposed to administering the death penalty to minors, I am not opposed to lifetime incarceration. There are definitely indicators that make a criminal a danger to society, and participating in violent crime resulting in murder is certainly one of them. The other circumstances are how they came to participate in that particular situation, their rap sheet and other witness and character testimony. I'm not against punishing a minor at all nor even particularly idealistic - just leary of death sentences for minors.

[Milspec]

198. Pre-Adult is over rated IMHO

Historians have put fourth the opinion that much of whats called "young Adult is an invention of the mid 18th century. Prior to that time 13 to 16 year olds were considered Adults.

& just for my other thoughts on the thread...

a. I think the death penalty is barbarism.

b. My circle of close loved ones is very small, but I am completely devoted to them. Harm come to them and "Blood-lust" would only be satisfactory to me if delivered by me, not the state.

c. After trial & convection, Stains like this should be treated like Ebola or Smallpox CBW's and remain forever isolated from the population.

[rodeodance]

11. the brutality of this action--oh my god. they knew what they were doing

ALL of them. Life in prison.

[Megahurtz]

17. How can people do this?

This is not even human. I don't even know what to say.;(

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. They should be put in a lab and studied.

Their brains HAVE to work differently from normal people. Deriving pleasure exclusively from inflicting extreme pain on others just isn't natural.

This is very different from crime that's "for one's own benefit", even heinous instances like killing witnesses not to get caught.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ima_sinnic]

30. I smell it too

a culture of life (sic) conundrum

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[okieinpain]

35. oh gee, it's god posting

[G_j]

23. so am I correct to assume

that part of your reason in posting this terrible story is to make a point that juveniles should not be spared the death penalty?

[DFWdem]

59. You are correct

I don't think there should be a blanket ruling exempting all people under the age of 18 from the death penalty. However, as I stated in an earlier post, I also don't think the death penalty should be administered in virtually every murder case. It is instances such as these that prove you don't have to be 18 or older to be a rotten human being. As a side note, how would you feel if Timothy McVeigh was one day shy of his 18th birthday when he committed the OKC bombing? What if Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold (Columbine)had not killed themselves? Certainly some crimes committed by minors rise (or sink) to a level of depravity at which the death penalty is warranted.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. May I ask you something?

Do you like the state of Maine? Do you think it's a nice place? What about Massachusetts? What about Europe?

[DFWdem]

84. I'm not sure how that's pertinent to this discussion, but

I have no like or dislike for any of the 3 aforementioned places. I hear Massaghusetts is pretty in Autumn when the leaves change colors, I know Maine is really cold in the winter, and I'd like to visit Europe someday when I can afford it. Beyond that, I don't think much about those locales one way or the other.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

94. See post #78 (nt)

[DS1]

28. Fuck that, it's bulldozerin' time

Slow-like

[Jack The Tab]

29. welcome, and remember that reasoning and logic are the keys to DU...

Not the "Bring it on" attitude you may find at other political boards.

[DFWdem]

60. I'm sorry

I don't understand the message you're trying to convey. I don't think I presented this with a "Bring it on" attitude. Could you clarify?

[Mondon]

123. Get used to being patronized a little

that's what they do to newbies here

[bling bling]

202. You're very kind to offer such sage advice.

You've probably got lots of good advice to give people about posting on DU because you are so clever and un-transparent.

[pinerow]

32. A 17 year old who can kill should face the full effect of the law...

nt

[woosh]

36. hmm... at this point they are innocent

until proven guilty in court.

[DFWdem]

62. True, however...

If they arrested a single person for the crime it would be easier to say "innocent until proven guilty". When 4 people are arrested for the same crime it makes it much harder to give the benefit of the doubt. After all, do the police have a vendetta against all 4 people? Did they plant evidence on all 4 of them? However, be that as it may, I should have qualified my statements to read "If they are found guilty...etc."

[Mondon]

125. Innocent in the eyes of the law

and appropriately so. However, we can read the facts and make judgments for ourselves before hearing the verdict.

[woosh]

170. Too many times we have condemmed people

in the court of public opinion. Message boards contribute. I'm just presenting these folk's constitutional rights; a right to a fair trial, representation, and innocent until proven guilty.

[Mondon]

188. They have those rights before being punished by the state.

As a free individual, I am entitled to form my own opinion, even before trial.

[bitchkitty]

41. Horrible, horrible, horrible.

But I don't think any of them should get death. It's not because I think that the tender little blossoms deserve mercy, I don't. I think that they are irredeemable. It's because I do not believe in the death penalty for anyone. No matter who they are and no matter what they've done.

If all non-violent drug offenders were released from prison, there would be acres and acres of room for all the people who have, as these three have, forfeited their right to live in free society.
Why give them the peace of death, and take the burden of killing them onto our souls? Lock them up - forever.

</pontification>

[iamjoy]

42. My First (Unrational) Reaction

Is whoever does something like this should have the same thing done to them. But then reason kicks in, I know that isn't right (it isn't constitutional either, but I bet some Republicans are trying to change that).

Then I think, well life in prison just isn't enough. How about everyday the convicted has to watch video clips of family and friends of the victim talking about their anguish and somehow has to watch people in great pain. But some murderers are sociopaths, sadists or both. They wouldn't care or might even ENJOY watching such stuff.

I don't know what the answer is...

[onehandle]

44. All I want to know is how the state of the country contributed to this.

Now that we are in the second term of an uber-aggressive administration and ten years into a conservative controlled Congress, we are starting to see the effects in society.

How has the oppression of the poor and the pressure on the middle class affected their childeren's lives?

[Mike Daniels]

54. I believe this stuff happened under Clinton as well

I refuse to say crap like this happens because one specific party is in power because I'm sure if one digs enough they'll find that sh*t just as bad or worse happened when the other party was in control as well.

For instance, both Richard Speck and Charles Whitman went on their rampages in 1966, John Wayne Gacy was murdering people while Carter was in office, etc...

Freaks, jackasses and anti-social a*sholes exist and do their thing regardless of which party is in power.

[onehandle]

118. These aren't mass-murderers.

They're kids. Adult nutcases are always out there. This is different.

[Mondon]

186. "kids"?

One's 17. The others are 19 and 20. Hardly "kids."

[Mondon]

124. Oh, please

it's "society's" fault these four little urchins beat tortured burnt stabbed and drowned a little girl?

Yeah. that must be it.

[tjwash]

45. It's a tragic event, but...

...not LBN forum worthy. This is breaking news of the Michael Jackson trial importance.

[TahitiNut]

49. When I wonder why anyone would treat another human being so brutally ...

... I just read some responses to stories like this.

After all, it only takes some belief that the person "deserves" it (a ticket to ride on the insane train!) and so many here would apparently engage in the same murderous, vengeful behavior ... or at least have others do it in their name.

I absolutely refuse to surrender to such self-righteous insanity. There cannot and must not be any rationale for such brutality ... especially in the cold, calculating context of a courtroom!!

[Dover]

64. Amen!

Nicely said...as usual.:-)

[captain crunch]

52. I really think that you should have to be 21

to go to prison for life. 19 year olds are just kids, they don't know what the hell there doing. Life without parole is to stiff for any kid, I don't care what he did.

[Save The World]

72. Are you kidding?

So a 20 year old that commits mass murder and mass rape should get a few years but a 21 year old that commits murder should spend the rest of their lives in prison?

If, theoretically, a 19 year old marine in Iraq rounds up all of the women and children in a remote village and slaughters them, you'd want him to be a free man at 40 or so?

[TahitiNut]

90. How about a "life" sentence that equals the age of the perp?

Thus, a "life" sentence for a 21-year-old would be 21 years. :shrug:

[fishnfla]

117. The victim got a life sentence at age 15

by no court. Do you think these guys agonized over their actions?

[lebkuchen]

57. "Life" in the US of A, the "greatest" country in the world

[Save The World]

69. Your post makes no sense

Except as a cheap bit of America bashing. Horrible crimes happen absolutely everywhere in the world. In every country on every continent. They are not, individually, reflections of the nations where they occur.

[Justitia]

63. Too bad our state (TEXAS) DOES NOT ALLOW "Life w/no parole"

It was just voted down again!
And you know why - so that the only option jurors are left with is the death penalty or ultimately putting a criminal back on the streets.

This issue has repeatedly been brought to the state legislature and they vote it DOWN EVERY TIME!

They would rather kill people than keep them locked up for the rest of their lives.

Most jurors also know that in TX, inmates usually serve only 25% of their sentences. So, they are intentionally left with the most horrible of choices - by state design.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

70. That's most definitely EVIL.

I can understand someone defending the DP. Now, if anyone defends THAT gimmick -- refusing to include LWOP so that the only option jurors are left with is the death penalty -- I'll instantly and irrevocably label such person a disgusting evil asshole son of a bitch. No exceptions.

[DFWdem]

86. I didn't know that

But then, I haven't lived here very long (it'll be a year next month). That's definitely a law that needs to be revised, in my opinion.

[Justitia]

95. Only TX & New Mexico have this situation in capital cases

There is currently a bill in the State house to allow for "life w/out parole" as a sentencing option, but don't hold your breath. It has passed the Senate chamber, but is sure to die in the House - again.

It has been offered up for many yrs and gets voted down every time.

So, you are on the jury and you are faced with the awful, very personal decision of whether to kill another human being or risk unleashing him onto the streets again. Add to that conundrum - he is 17 yrs old.

The State Of Texas has left you these options only.
On purpose.

[slackmaster]

103. Yes, but outrageously long sentences are allowed

IIRC one Texan got a 50-year sentence for shoplifting. It got overturned, but unless someone is very young there is little practical difference between 50 years and life.

[Justitia]

110. I'm strictly speaking about CAPITAL (death penalty) cases

and lamenting the way the state has forced jurors into an untenable situation.

I agree that there are some seriously wacky and wrong sentences for non-capital cases that seem entirely arbitrary.

[sinkingfeeling]

66. Gotta add my two cents to this discussion, although I'm very late in

finding it.

Someone asked how can people do this this to another human being? And lots of us asked the same thing when, a year ago, the torture pictures came out about Iraqi prisoners.

I believe that part of this story is where it occurred...."public housing complex". I'd bet that all of these people have lived their entire lives in poverty and despair. We have a country that is in awe of violence...laps it up, be it on TV, the movies, in lyrics, or our 'shock and awe' military. Any child that was at least 6 years old in 2003 has been taught that VIOLENCE is the answer to everything. There is no need for civil discourse in the USA. We have no need for the UN or international laws. I also blame the stupid fundamentalist mind-set for this as well. The divide and conquer concepts that strip humanity from anyone who dares not believe their truth, who has a different life style, who has a different skin color. We, as a country, have lost all connection with the rest of humanity! We are arrogant and elitist. We care not that children are born into inner city slums, go to bed hungry, get no compassion nor medical care when they are ill, see brutality daily. Our glorious church leaders would rather spend millions of dollars buying political advantage than to raise the spirits of the downtrodden. There is no "Christ" left in a huge number of American churches claiming Christianity. We teach our children this! An egg is precious, but a living, breathing human of another color, country, religion, or _______ (whatever) has no value. They are disposable. When young, adult males cannot find meaningful work, they 'hang' together, and incite each other into horrid activities.


Oh hell, I'm just trying to say that I don't think America will ever be rid of this ...in fact, I think it's growing by leaps and bounds. We have lost so much in this country. The sense of community, the caring, the rational discussion of problems and ways to address them...I just want to leave.

[Zynx]

71. Rope. Get. Use.

This is just sick.

[dmallind]

76. We need the death penalty

The only problem I have with life is that it is not.

I can't find the link any more as it was from a discussion I had several years ago but I remember very vividly one thing:

The number of people murdered by those who had been convicted of a prior murder and then released exceeds the number of executions since the death penalty was reintroduced.

So on purely utilitarian grounds even if EVERY single executed criminal in the last 25 years was innocent - a ridiculously unlikely proposition - more innocent people have been killed by murderers who should never have had that chance.

There is one and only one argument for the death penalty that makes it a valid choice for me. It's not revenge. It's not even saving money (yeah yeah I know supposedly its more expensive but that uses some accounting gimmickry that is pure BS and assumes that without death penalty appeals etc we could save on the number of judges, DAs, and so on where in reality the costs are not discretely variable - the actual checks written to execute are far lower than those written to keep a prisoner alive for decades. One changes marginally. One does not).

It's recidivism. Nobody - not once ever, has been executed and reoffended. That's not sick humor either - it is a serious failure in imprisonment and rehabilitation that it cannot always protect us from those who will reoffend. Until it can and does, I think there's a place for execution in the most civilized of societies - to protect the rest of us.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

79. Not keeping some people out of the streets is a failure of society.

And as such, it should NOT be used as an excuse to do something that's even more wrong.

[dmallind]

88. Well I would agree if there were an alternative

How CAN we prevent them from killing again. Other inmates? Guards? Keeping them off the streets just puts them on the corridors where dope smokers and car thieves go. I think civilized society should protect them too. So do we really mean solitary in shackles and cuffs for life without parole? How else to prevent reoffense?

And I disagree that death is more wrong than life in maximum security with the appropriate restrictions needed to protect those other inmates and guards. Give me the choice between that and a few minutes on the lethal injection gurney and it's goodnight Gracie from me for sure.

One other issue since we are talking about subjective ideas and imputed causal connections here but let's say you get your way. The very worst thing that can happen to a prisoner is life without parole. The prisoner is given life without parole for a brutal murder. Exactly what incentivizes that prisoner to behave? What gives him a reason to comply with the guards or a reason NOT to kill other inmates who annoy him? There is no negative consequence left.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

92. What about...

...if he works AND behaves, he can earn a few comforts for himself (and maybe for his family) as opposed to having the State pay for them. Otherwise, it's shithole mode for him.

Think of it as not-quite-forced-but-almost labor.

[dmallind]

105. Theoretically I could agree but the devil is in the details

Who supervises this labor? How is that person protected? Who shares in this labor? How are they protected?

Now Jeffrey Dahmer (who I think deserved execution at the hands of the state, but that's moot and irrelevant) was brutally tortured and beaten to death by other prisoners on a work detail. His killer was also serving life without parole IIRC - pretty certain it was life anyway.

Now assuming you think even Dahmer should not have been killed, and with the understanding I am sure that that is just a prominent example of slayings in prison - some of people who are far less horrible than Dahmer and some of guards etc who are productive law abiding folks - how can we prevent that?

Again I would be fine with life without parole if there was a sure fire certain way - as certain as death - that prevents that person from killing again. If life without parole were uniformly adhered to and included solitary confinement with full restraints while around any other human being (despite what our histrionic friend implies MY safety is not the likely one endangered - the "rest of us" includes 6 plus billion people of which I am but one) then count me in. But that's just theoretical and incidentally unlikely to pass constitutional review. What life without parole really is is probable life, while surrounded by potential future victims.

[Mandate My Ass]

108. So killers can't kill other killers, but the state can and should

every chance they get?

Ah, I see now. It should be a moral and righteous killing with all the nice Bible verses and lurid descriptions of last meals and what the condemned said as they stuck the needle in his arm.

Why should anybody have to guarantee you anything? The state is supposed to protect its citizens with the secondary goal of rehabilitating its prisoners. If that doesn't satisfy you... oh well.

:shrug:

Where on earth does this sense of entitlement to perfect peace of mind come from?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

115. That person (who killed the other inmate) would face consequences.

Solitary confinement. No time outside. No other benefits from his work.

Some people are real savages, who can't stay near another human being for even a second. Those would live their lives in the shithole. No tears from me. On the other hand, I suspect there could be an odd mismatch between which people are capable of functioning in such a setting and the gravity of the crime that threw them there in the first place.

Yes, there's a maddening amount of detail and "what if" situations that have to be taken into acount, but this must be true for prisons the way they are now too. No one here is a trained prison warden, so we just peel the first few levels of the ideas in our discussion. The rules & procedures book in such a place must be huge.

[Mandate My Ass]

97. "Exactly what incentivizes that prisoner to behave?"

And because you personally don't know any these methods, you advocate killing people. Nice.

And I disagree that death is more wrong than life in maximum security with the appropriate restrictions needed to protect those other inmates and guards. Give me the choice between that and a few minutes on the lethal injection gurney and it's goodnight Gracie from me for sure.

Well, if you insist. Since you've demonstrated a preference to pre-emptively kill in order to preserve your safety and a preference to be killed rather than incarcerated...I don't feel so safe with you running around in society.

[dmallind]

101. This ad hominem debate tactic is SO successful and becoming

Well let's enlighten me then. Show me the prison that doesn't have disobedience and unrest and you have a point. Show me the proof that people who cannot be punished to any greater degree are model citizens because of this great technique of which I am personally unaware.

Now think for a moment about your last little gem.

You are offeneded greatly that I think there could be a need to execute killers - that to you is uncivilized right? So on what intellectually honest grounds can you justify your call for my execution simplybecause I have, non violently let alone non lethally, disagreed with you. Is that civilized? Is that the example of enlightened justice you think barbarians like me should aspire to? Life without parole for murderers, but exceution for those who disagree with mandate my ass?

[Mandate My Ass]

104. Yup, that about sums it up.

Whew! I think you finally grasped it perfectly. You don't like the idea of being killed for what you conceivably might do, and maybe someone once did, but you advocate it for others in the name of your personal safety.

None of us are safe, sorry that gets your panties in a bunch. The DP is used abudantly here in PA, mostly against minorities in Philadelpia, and yet Philadelphians are being brutally murdered in record numbers. Ever hear of a correlation?

[jayfish]

168. Anyone Who Uses Ant Variation Of The Term...

"intellectual honesty" should be banned from DU Forthwith . It's pure RW babble. I'll bet you can't even define it?

Jay

TYPO EDIT

[Mandate My Ass]

80. Execution is revenge, no matter how you try to cut it

It causes violent crime to increase in jurisdictions wherever and whenever an execution is carried out. If you feel so threatened that you believe killing someone is the only way to feel safe, you are merely ensuring the cycle of violence continues. They don't have crimes like this in "civilized" places where the death penalty has been banned.

Despite the fact that our DA here in Philly, Lynne Abraham, has earned the nickname "The Deadliest DA" this crime is the second like it in a year's time.

Life without parole is a perfectly sufficient preventive measure to keep these people from harming anyone again. If the DP had an even remotely "civilizing" influence on a society, the USA would be one of the safest, rather than the most dangerous countries for violent crime.

[dmallind]

85. I call BS here

I can find you any number of extremely grisly murders in the UK where no death penalty exists. There is absolutely no objective evidence that the death penalty is causally related to any kind of violence or crime rate nor is there any even vaguely convincing argument that it could be. How would that go exactly? A criminal saying "The state could execute me if I'm caught so I'll go ahead and kill someone where otherwise I would not". Hmm...

You are answering an argument I did not make and imputing reasoning I specifically discarded. This is a sign you are not really debating my points but using them as an excuse to make your own claims. I never said the DP makes a society civilized I said there is a place for it in civilized society. Same goes for jails - they don't make a society civilized but we need them. I specifically said - without any confusion or vacillation - that my support for the death penalty is based entirely on recidivism.

How does "life wothout parole" - which deserves quotation marks since it does not exist in practical terms - preclude a killer murdering a fellow prisoner? Prisoners in most cases deserve to be protected from killers too. Is life without parole - if it existed reliably - really solitary confinement for life without parole? Even then does it protect guards? Does it prevent escape? All the above have happened in real life - convicted murderers have killed inmates, guards and have escaped and killed again. Executed murderers have not. Reoffending and protection of others must be addressed in any punishment for exceptionally violent and deadly offenders. The DP is the only sure way I can think of.

[Mandate My Ass]

87. Life without parole does exist, here in PA it means until they take

you out feet first. You can call BS all you want. I know BS when I'm hearing it and you're coming in loud and clear. Who ever said there shouldn't be prisons? Which hole did you pull that out of?

There are ways to address recidivism in a civilized society. Killing people to prevent recidivism is even a more morally corrupt rationale than revenge. Oh and it's cheaper too! But since you can't think past your own need for revenge and your own insecurity, it has to be that way. How totally civilized.

Here's a link done by Republican Gov. Ryan in Illinois that says that violent crime does indeed does increase in states that carry out the DP.

10. The death penalty doesn't deter homicide.

http://www.icadp.org/page17.html

Since 1976, the number of executions in the United States and the size of death row have steadily and substantially increased with no apparent connection to local murder rates. In fact, for most of the period since '76, the murder rate was higher in 38 death penalty states than in 12 non-death penalty states. A New York Times study published this year found that states with the death penalty have had homicide rates 48 to 101 percent higher over the last 20 years than states without capital punishment.

[dmallind]

91. Oh lordy can people read?

Read the frigging posts man - since when did I say you said that ? I said that because it's an example of the same thing as DP - something which does not make a society civilized but civilized socities need.

How in god's name can you read that as an accusation against you?

Let's try this - QUOTE - not restate but QUOTE something I said that is BS and provable instead of this dyslexic picking up on a word and extrapolationg meaning that is not even close to being there.

Now I'll start first to show what I mean:

"They don't have crimes like this in "civilized" places where the death penalty has been banned"

Is a direct quote from what you said and is absolute BS.

How many examples do you want of worse crimes in no DP countries?

Your turn - but use what I said not your completely twisted ideas of what I said.

[Mandate My Ass]

93. why don't you answer my points about life w/o parole, sparky?

talk about cherry picking and twisting in the wind...:eyes:

[dmallind]

98. Because you haven't made one

What is it about life without parole that prevents reoffense? So in other words, sparkyette, are you saying (note the question - because I don't put words into other people's mouths) that there has NEVER been a case where someone sentenced to life without parole has killed again?

THAT is my point - execution absolutely, definitely, 100% prevents killing again. Do you think life without parole does? If so I can prove you wrong. If not (again - note the question, sparkyette) then how is life without parole a valid answer to recidivism? How many lives is it OK to lose to convicted killers who could have been executed? Is that civilized? Are their lives less valuable than the killer's own? I think the reverse, which is why I think there is a place for (note the relationship here - it's not causal is it?) the DP in civilized society.

[Mandate My Ass]

102. So we should kill someone because other people in that same

situation have killed? Wow! Talk about a stretch of *ahem* logic.

We don't live in a civilized society in case you haven't noticed.

How many lives is it OK to lose to convicted killers who could have been executed?

Violent crime in Philadelphia is at record levels this year even though our DA goes for the death penalty in every instance where it meets the minimal standards for capital punishment.

Helllllllllooooooooooooooooooo.

THAT is my point - execution absolutely, definitely, 100% prevents killing again.

It also prevents further speeding tickets. What exactly is your point?

[dmallind]

106. Finally you ask

God one state and one year's data! There's proof. How could I have been so wrong?

And yep unless we develop crystal ball technology any time soon, reoffending rates of convicted murderers are pretty damned logical things to use in deciding what to do with convicted murderers. What else should we use? Those ever so empirically established mental health screenings? Prison visitor reports? How much he promises not to do it again? All you have to do is come up with a better way to see if a specific criminal will reoffend than looking at similar offenders I'm listening - but that's the same logic that the entire life insurance, medical insurance, psychological counseling, actuarial, political science and demographic marketing industries are based on - that people in similar situations with similar responses and past behavior will have similar future responses and behavior

Exactly my point is exactly what you said - execution prevents further killing. Come up with something else that does with equal success and I'll buy it.

And yep the speeding tickets are an extremely minor but nice corollary.

[Mandate My Ass]

109. I don't have to come up with anything

Your demands that the criminal justice system guarantee you perfect peace of mind is utterly ridiculous. All the righteous indignation and fist shaking and posturing isn't going to keep you, me or any prisoner safe. Your demand that we justify not killing people because they might do something to someone, sometime is the height of folly and hubris.

Fear is the mind killer. I have seen the proof here today.

[redqueen]

74. Oh my God...

:cry:

I hope they all get life in prison. No possibility of parole.

Sick, sick, sick. :(

[jayfish]

75. It's Hard To Be Against....

the death penalty when I read things like this. Very sad and disturbing.

Jay

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. Just think of all the places that have NO death penalty

And whose societies, for some unfathomable reason, are NOT falling apart. Amazing!

Are they violating some cosmic law by refusing to execute anybody? Hardly. If you ask me, the DP just boosts the thirst for death in society as a whole.

[jayfish]

82. In The Grand Scheme Of...

things you are right. It's just these personal tragedies that hit me in the gut. Whenever I read stories like this I ALWAYS imagine what it would be like for my wife or kids to suffer this way. It hurts. I'm glad we, kinda, still live in a society where cooler heads are allowed to prevail.

Jay

[Mondon]

126. That's a nonsequitur

whether other jurisdictions have the DP really isn't relevant to whether we as a people want to have it here.

[jayfish]

167. Let Me Guess,...

we should do whatever we want cause we're the big'ol USofA? Would that logic apply to slavery as well? How about child labor? Do North Korea and Iran get to use that line of reasoning as well. How about Venezuela or Cuba or Communist China? How about Iraq or Syria? What about Pootie Poots' power grab in Russia? What a load of shit.

Jay


EDITED FOR CONTENT

[Mondon]

187. More nonsequiturs

Slavery is practiced in Africa today. Should we bring it back here?

Child labor exists in Asia. Should we bring it back here?

Islamofascists in the Middle East execute adultresses and homosexuals. Should we do so here?

Try articulating an argument rather than just bashing the US if you want to be persuasive.

[jayfish]

193. Hold On There Mr. Non Sequitur.

Your implication is that the USA is not beholden to international standards because, well... we are the USA. So I am asking YOU; would it be OK for the US to bring back slavery if that's what we wanted to do, even though it pretty well condemned throughout the world? Would it be OK for the US to revoke it's child labor laws if that's what we wanted to do? I'm also wondering were you read any USA bashing in my post? Is that what disagreement with US policy is to you? "US bashing"?

Jay

[Mondon]

197. Sorry--you are not making a logical point.

Of course it would be wrong for the US to reintroduce slavery, NOT because it would violate "international standards" but because it would be intrinsicly wrong.

"International standards" are irrelevant to right in wrong, IMHO.


There is no slavery in the US. There IS slavery in other countries, particularly in Africa. Therefore, slavery is FAVORED in the "international community" MORE than in the US. Does that mean the US should consider it? No.

What is the "international community"? Does it include Zimbabwe? Iran? Sudan? Saudi Arabia? Northern Korea? Cuba? Should we take our cue from those countries?

What are "international standards"? Who says what they are? The UN, which is made up of a bunch of nonrepresentative dictatorships? A bunch of nonelected NGOs? An arbitrary group of countries?

[progressivebydesign]

180. The countries without death penalty usually have no gun culture, either

That's not a fair comparison. there are other factors that affect "falling apart", and it's not the death penalty.

[lateo]

89. Throw them to the lions.

That is all.

[Zuni]

96. I am against the death penalty, but all for prison, no parole here

What they did to this girl is beyond disgusting.

[slackmaster]

100. The perpetrators should be exiled to an Aleutian island until they're 35

They're all old enough to know right from wrong. They chose to do wrong.

[Snivi Yllom]

107. 'the good news'?

The good news is the 17 year old is not eligible for the death penalty because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. Good thing, because I'm sure he couldn't fully understand the consequences of his actions since he's a minor.

I don't see any good news in what that scumbag did. No mercy for someone who commits such a horrible act. Age is not an excuse.

[jdj]

111. I think the story may have been posted as bait.

they aren't calling for the death penalty for the mercs that are over there killing innocent iraqis.

It's a horrible tragic story, irrespective of the poster's attempt to use it to start a flame war

[DFWdem]

112. With all due respect...

How am I starting a "flame war" by posting this story? Are you saying that people should only post about topics that are easy to talk about? And what does this have to do with mercenaries in Iraq? Are you saying that because one crime goes unpunished all crimes should go unpunished? Call it bait if you like, I call it encouraging debate over an issue. It's unfortunate that crimes that warrant the death penalty (in my opinion) are necessary in order to start a discussion concerning the death penalty.

[jdj]

114. I think a huge amount of DUers are anti-death penalty.

I personally am undecided.

but your last comment was SO sarcastic and dripping with irony, and you know that. you could have just started a thread in GD saying "I am pro-death penalty" and have been done with it.

Right now it seems to me you are exploiting this girl's death to forward your own point of view. These people that killed her ARE dead, already. Their names were listed in the article. They are kids and they have already ruined their lives forever. The caveat that I would have against the death penalty is that it is not a punishment, not really, in a case like this. But that is just how I see things. A much worse penalty, if you really want to get down and dirty, is life in prison without parole. That is hell on earth. But death is a one way ticket straight into another try, and better luck next time.

[DFWdem]

121. True

My comment on the story was sarcastic, and that's what I intended. Many people (not necessarily here, but in society in general)claim there are no absolutes, there is too much "gray area" in the world for absolutes. However, if that is the case then it stands to reason that the death penalty should not be ruled out in every single case in which the offender is under the age of 18. In other words, there should be no absolute ban on the death penalty for those under 18 years of age, just like there are no absolutes in the world. I am pro-death penalty in some cases, but the rules of this forum state that I must put the title of the article as the title of the thread. If I had posted this in the General Discussion forum I may well have made that the title of the thread, but it was Latest Breaking News this morning.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mondon]

137. Innocent in the eyes of the law

until proven guilty, for purposes of determining criminal liability and punishment. People are free to form their own opinions based on their assessment of the facts as reported.

[all.of.me]

116. why did they do this?!

the article doesn't say anything about what these kids were doing. not that they would even know, but what sort of animosity was going on that precipitated this? i think it's awful. i have a 15 year old, and i can't imagine .... i can't even say it.

i guess i'm wondering if this was just a 'fun' thing for these kids.

just disgusting. i hope they all rot in jail.

[lynne]

120. Frightening thought -

- that he can't understand the consequences of his actions at age 17 yet 17 year olds are allowed to drive vehicles . . .

[Mizmoon]

171. 17-year-olds might let themselves be ruled by the mob

more easily than an adult. They are more susceptible to peer pressure, to media images, to fear and intimidation, to threats, etc. because theoretically they are less mature, savvy and experienced. That's why you feel nervous walking by a group of 17-year-old boys on the street at night- you know in your gut that they're strong, they're in a group dynamic, and they have bad judgement.

We allow them to gain experience at driving when they reach 17 to get them fit for real driving (in my state they don't get a full license until 18).

I think there must be something wrong with these kids that they went so far as to seriously harm and then murder this girl. They should be severely punished for their crimes. But I agree with the above poster who said that the state should never be empowered to take the lives of the citizens. I think there are like 40 crimes you can get the dealth penalty for now, like being a "drug kingpin". THe state always takes its "rights" too effing far.

edited to add the words: "on the street at night"

[Bo]

139. ..did'nt really need to read that

rest in the bosom of who created all

[Darranar]

144. Utterly disgusting. Life is the most precious thing there is...

To snatch it away so brutally is atrocious.

[hyphenate]

166. Uh, yeah right

"The good news is the 17 year old is not eligible for the death penalty because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. Good thing, because I'm sure he couldn't fully understand the consequences of his actions since he's a minor."

Oh, yeah, sure. Of course not. No 17 year old knows what he's doing. Uh huh. :sarcasm: The bastard should be tried as an adult.

[McCamy Taylor]

176. Awful story, but your Pro Death Penalty Jab is Awful, too

Murder is murder. When some poor girl has died, we should be thinking about the value of life, not planning how we will kill more people.

I wonder , did you come here to share your grief about the girl or to share your bitterness that children can not be put to death in America?

[Mondon]

185. "murder is murder"

Sounds like you are equating this horrible murder with the execution of the perpetrators by the state after due process and a fair trial.

Are you?

I reject such moral relativism.

[bling bling]

201. That bitterness is amazing to me.

I don't get it at all. Is it really that awful that we draw a clear line between minor/adult and stick to it when it comes to the death penalty?

[progressivebydesign]

179. If someone murders me or my family... I want that person dead, too. n/t

[Eliot Spitzer 2006]

195. This is not good news

Repulsive. The 17 year old deserves the death penalty just like the others.

[DoNotRefill]

203. Jesus...that poor girl....

My condolences to her family....

[Moderator]

204. locking

Discussion has ceased to be productive