Details of Jessica Lunsford's murder

Originally posted by Bleys
Seems like Florida has a set precedent where child killers are concerned. This seems to be a fairly straight forward case. Premeditated murder, aggravating circumstances (sexual assault, kidnapping) and he confessed. Now with the circumstances of her death coming to light - this seems the perfect case to impose a death penalty.

But how long will he live on death row, appealing his case, enjoying far better living conditions than he did as a free man at our expense?

That's hardly a deterrent for a deranged homeless man who's probably already attempted suicide at some point in his life. Many of the 125,000 unaccounted for sexual predators in the U.S. today probably have nothing to lose, so they will act on their impulses knowing there is only a chance they will get the death penalty, and if they do, it will be many years before it is carried out. That's why I believe, in cut and dry cases like these, the death sentence should be applied immediately, and it should be agonizing and lengthy. We should make sure these sickos have the fear of a horrible death in them to deter at least a majority from acting on their sickness, we owe that to our children.




[edit on 21-4-2005 by 27jd]

We are on the same page here. Bundy was also a convicted child molester/murderer and the state of Florida took great pride in executing him. Now ask me if I think the appeals process should be expedited? You bet. Off em quick.


bleys

All I have to say is that I sometimes wish that the guys from the movie Boondock Saints would come to the real world and clean the world of this type of absolute evil.

May She Rest In Peace.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Jak, we tried your way and its not working.

Child Molestors and repeat offenders are being let out on the streets to kill and molest again and again and again.

How many kids will die or be assaulted before you realize...something has to change! Sometimes your first instincts (KILL EM) are the ones you need to listen to....God gave you those powerful instincts for a reason my friend.

USE EM!!!

Max

My way? What are you talking about?

What has justice got to do with letting such offenders out to walk the streets?

I suggest before trying to pigeonhole someone you try and actually read their posts first and attempt to gauge their opinion from their words rather than your own imblanced perceptions.

I merely pointed out that in the quest for justice blind rage and vengance were not perhaps the best accomplices. A fact that, when not drowned in a sea of pathetically shallow attempts at heart string pulling worth of only red-top tabloid news papers, I would have thought blatantly obvious to even the most misguided.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
How many kids will die or be assaulted before you realize...

This is nothing short of offensive LA, and if you don't understand why I pity you. If you penned such an asinine statement without realising what you were writing, then perhaps you should sit a while before letting your festering imagination run wild.

Well done, you have plummbed new depths in your quest for the lowest common denominator.

I am stunned you even tried to connect my post with the inadequate tripe you went on to offer. Your interpretation, the connection you so desperately attempted to make between my point and your own inane ramblings, displays openly your own rabid state of mind rather than touching upon my point at all. Take a look, read it again, perhaps that will help.

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
How many kids will die or be assaulted before you realize...

Pathetically transparent.

Jack

Originally posted by JAK
I merely pointed out that in the quest for justice blind rage and vengance were not perhaps the best accomplices.

It's not just a quest for justice, it's also a quest to deter other extremely perverted individuals from repeating these crimes against those who have no ability to protect themselves. Blind rage and vengeance serves this purpose well, a brutal and inhumane execution I feel would make them think twice, at least most of them. Some circumstances call for rage, and this IMO is definetly one of them.

A fact that, when not drowned in a sea of pathetically shallow attempts at heart string pulling worth of only red-top tabloid news papers, I would have thought blatantly obvious to even the most misguided.

Heart string pulling? I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, but it seems as if you are saying somebody has to make an attempt to pull heart strings in a case that does a perfectly good job at pulling them with the facts alone.

Jak, no need to get all bent-outta-shape.

Im not trying to insult you, but your post was about as clear as oatmeal and perhaps was beyond my simple intellect to understand.

Look Im just an old tread-head and your not talking to one of the Ivy League posters in here. I don't pretend to be one of the genius's that roam the halls of ATS.

Take it easy, we're just talking in here. If I mis-understand you...tell me and Ill apoligise.

Max

Argh, big response, hit some weird keyboard combo, lost it.

In breif, rights are rights. A victim's rights don't supersede a criminals rights. True, criminals have reduced freedoms by the nature of imprisonment. Nevertheless, god-given, inalienable rights don't dissappear because someone has done something horrible. Just as the state was supposed to protect little miss lunsford from people like him, the state equally is bound to protect him from other citizens that would do him harm. It makes perfect sense that if the state does not sentence him to death, that they would be held negligent/liable should he die in prison, especially if it was because they threw him into the general population. (althought I have to wonder if these other thugs actually do care all that much about these things, no honour amoung theives and all). None of this is to say that the State can't, ultimately, destroy him, ie sentence him to death. Indeed, I have a hard time beleiveing that he can't be convicted and given the death penalty. And of course the ACLU should defend him, he is a citizen, he is innocent until he is proven guilty, no matter if he confesesd, no matter how obviously guilty he is. THe state has to behave as if he is innocent and demonstrate his guilt. Our legal system is an adversarial system. We don't appoint 'truth determination comittes' to look at the evidence and make an objective decision, we allow a defense and a prosecution to use rhetoric, under the supervision of a judge, to sway the opinion of a jury. The two sides compete. The system itself is disfunctional if there is no defense, its the duty of lawyers to defend clients, to the best of their abilities. We can change the system, but we can't really 'blame' the lawyers for doing precisely what is required of them.

On tax dollars, from what I have heard, it costs more to execute someone rather than imprison them for life, because of all the appeals in the process and the special attention.

On tax dollars, from what I have heard, it costs more to execute someone rather than imprison them for life, because of all the appeals in the process and the special attention.

If someone is convicted without any doubt 100% then why bother with appeals and trails. It should be an automatic lynching for this sort of crime.
Give them thier fair and speedy trial by an unbias jury as the constitution grants, but after the guilty verdict comes in send them straight to hell were they belong.

And even if they get life in prison they still consume tax dollars by appeals and trials and goverment provided defense attorneys that could be helping out other people who might maybe oneday stand a chance in society and might even be truly innocnet of whatever petty crime they committed.

[edit on 21/4/2005 by SportyMB]

27jd

Originally posted by 27jd
Heart string pulling? I hope I'm misunderstanding you here, but it seems as if you are saying somebody has to make an attempt to pull heart strings in a case that does a perfectly good job at pulling them with the facts alone.

You are misunderstanding, that was my exact point. Such a case needs no emotion card played and anyone who would attempt to gain any creedence to an idea through such means is below contempt, and I judged this:

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
How many kids will die or be assaulted before you realize...

To be exactly what I mean. Through a lack of merit of point itself a sentence worthy of nothing but derision is offered.

That which you suggest you mistook my comment for is exactly that which incenses me so.


LA

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Jak, no need to get all bent-outta-shape.

Im not trying to insult you, but your post was about as clear as oatmeal

I could barely make it any clearer.

Making decisions while having your mind clouded by anger is not a good idea,
let alone being held accountable for making a just and balanced one.

How's that?

If you did not mean to insult me than you really should read what you put down before posting.

As for getting

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
all bent-outta-shape.

How then would you suggest I act when a person insinuates that, albeit not directly, my way of thinking is responsible for any childs death? Perhaps it is not something which you place much gravity upon other than playing petty political games.

For others though such talk is contemptuous.

Jack

Originally posted by LA_Maximusmetimes your first instincts (KILL EM) are the ones you need to listen to

This beast worked off the very instincts you are advocating! By thinking in this mindset, you are thinking in his mindset. Obviously he went far into the extreme of it. Instincts are not something a society should be based on. Just as there is law and crime, there is Civilization and Barbarism. This man can, and should, be destroyed, but not because of instinct, because of human rights and The Law.

sportyMB
But unfortuneatly the defense will find some
technicality about some cop the did'nt get eight hours sleep

And if the Jury is thinking rationally and competently, then they will realize that it doesn't matter. If they have to rely on instinct and rage, well, those things are dulled sitting in a jury box and un sequestering.

27jd
t's not just a quest for justice, it's also a quest to deter other extremely perverted individuals from repeating these crimes

Anyone who can do what this pig did is not going to be thinking rationally about 'what if i get the death penalty'. For a crime like this, there is no detterence. The real problem is, why was he arrested, what, 28 different times, and let go? What is Jeb doing down there anyway? The Child Protective Services in that state are horrible to begin with, they can't even watch the kids that they are directly responsible for, let alone the rest of the citizenry. I mean, Clinton at least had 'Three Strikes". Should probably be less than that. But if there's a political angle like in schiavo, its in the news, congress jumps in, judges are threatened, but this? Nothing. Pathetic. I don't think anyone here is saying that this guy shouldn't've been put in jail for a long long time long before this case, and certainly no one sympathizes or empashises with him. But lets not pretend that this is soley a problem created by liberals on parole boards or criminal defense attorneys.
Usually, I have noticed, when there is a case like this, there are 'Child Acts', ie the Amber Alert, etc etc. This would be a good oppurtunity for a Lunsford Act, to raise taxes to build more prisons, or to free up prison space in some other way (not imrpisoning small time drug users? I only mention it because they are such a large percentage of the criminal population), no parole, ever, for violent criminals, revised parol standards, immeadiate re-imprisonment without anymore parol for parol violations, no parol for sex offenders, free RFIDs for children, take you pick.
But no one seems to be doing anything about it. Jeb could easily show up in congress with Mr. Lunsford and have a heartwarming moment when he physically presents a bill. It'd be danged easy. But there just isn't, as sick as it sounds, an interest to get it done, from either party. And cosidering who quickly the democrats caved in on schiavo, they'd certainly do little in this case.

Originally posted by SportyMB

On tax dollars, from what I have heard, it costs more to execute someone rather than imprison them for life, because of all the appeals in the process and the special attention.

If someone is convicted without any doubt 100% then why bother with appeals and trails

Because its the law. We had a dozen appeals and a congressional re-jurisdictioning for schiavo. Anything can go wrong in a trial, there have to be appeals. If this guy confessed, why would he appeal anyway? And if the case against him is so strong, then an appeal will determine that won't it? You can do a lot of things, but you can't limit the citizen's right to appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court itself.

It should be an automatic lynching for this sort of crime.

Barbarism. This is Civilization, barbarism is something struggled against, struggled against with Law and Reason, not more Barbarism.

Originally posted by Nygdan

sportyMB
But unfortuneatly the defense will find some
technicality about some cop the did'nt get eight hours sleep

And if the Jury is thinking rationally and competently, then they will realize that it doesn't matter. If they have to rely on instinct and rage, well, those things are dulled sitting in a jury box and un sequestering.

Very true, but unfortunately it does'nt work that way because he got through the system the other 28 times as you said.

It would be the idea system if all 12 jurors were sound, just and made decisions on fact and evidence instead of emotion. As we all know this is not the case, which is a part of the reason why so many other repeat offenders are out there today.

[edit on 21/4/2005 by SportyMB]

[edit on 21/4/2005 by SportyMB]

Originally posted by Dr Love
I still want to know what makes these child predators have to kill their victims. It must be something psychological.

If you apply logic to it then you'd have to blame the legal system. Why? Because the penalty for sexually assaulting her is about as bad as killing her. So where is HIS motivation to keep the kid alive? There is none. Might as well get rid of the witness.

Sexually assaulting a minor is bad. There is no doubt. But it isn't as bad as murder. You have to punish accordingly. But when you brand someone as a sex offender and stalk them to the end of time you have basically encouraged them to go ahead and get rid of the kid. The tougher we make the laws on this the more likely it will be that the kid will get killed.

If you want to save more of the kids then people need to quit passing these reactionary laws. Something bad happens and everyone scrambles to pass some weak law that only harms the kids more than helps them.

Its like California's 3 strike law. There is no reason for the criminal not to murder on the 3rd strike becuase his/her punishment will be basically no different. It will only HELP the person to dispose of the witness.

My 2 cents.

Originally posted by Nygdanand being a horrible murderer does not revoke all of one's rights

it does too.

Originally posted by JAK
You are misunderstanding, that was my exact point. Such a case needs no emotion card played

I figured as much, but I wasn't sure if I was interpreting it as callous toward the crime itself, or a response to what you saw as an attack against you. I'm glad it was the latter.

Originally posted by Indy The tougher we make the laws on this the more likely it will be that the kid will get killed.
.

he said otherwise, that he would do it eventually because he kept being released and he feared for other children because he couldnt stop himself.

Originally posted by namehere
he said otherwise, that he would do it eventually because he kept being released and he feared for other children because he couldnt stop himself.

Do you honestly believe that to be true? I would bet those words either never came out of his mouth or never freely came out of his mouth. That is the kind of political statement that you make when you are looking for a knee-jerk reaction from law makers. This is how you bait law makers into passing questionable legislation. I would give it a 10% chance that he made those comments freely if at all.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Anyone who can do what this pig did is not going to be thinking rationally about 'what if i get the death penalty'.

That's why I believe in cases where children are murdered by predators, we make the death penalty much worse, after guilt is determined, we dispatch them in a very agonizing and lengthy manner, that may serve as a deterrent, to know that you will not just be put to death, but you will suffer as badly as anybody ever has if you harm a child. It will at least deter a few, which may save the lives of some children. Something has to be done differently, this seems to be happening more and more, out of the 500,000 sexual predators walking the streets today, 125,000 are unaccounted for. As a parent of a young child, I don't like those numbers.

hmmm, I started a thread identical to this one last night and got no replies. Oh well, we can continue it here or any other place. I agree that death is too good for this guy, but also recognize that we'd have to spend OUR money keeping him alive. I think they should lock him up in a TINY TINY cement cell with pictures of the little girl all around him. But first they should castrate him so he has no chance of any sort of pleasure. They should provide him with BARELY enough food to keep him alive, and at a certain time everyday, another parent comes in and punches him wherever they want. This story seriously just made me...I can't even put it into words. I literally had trouble sleeping last night when I heard it. I was so furious that this happened.

I was actually on the website forum that the family created for her. There was a chat room, and I was talking to...I think a member or two of the family, as well as some other people. They were.....quite cheerful. It was a very eerie situation, no disrespect to the family. I offered my condolences, and they said "Herman, we're trying to keep this positive", or happy or something. Apparently, mark (It's either the family or the cousin) is holding some ralley in D.C. to put into practice some kind of law... Anyway, if you want further info or to offer your condolences, Here's the site I found.

The only bit of ease I have is that it's over, and her soul is resting happily in heaven.