Originally posted by 27jd
He was reasonable enough to try and hide his crimes
I'm not trying to convict the guy here, I'm saying if you rape abuse and bury a small child alive then you can't be said to be a reasonable
rational person. Obviously, if nothing else, the slight possiblity of capture far outweighs whatever sick perverse 'benefits' the guy figured he'd
get out of it. The actions themselves are irrational, even if carried out metholdically. I don;'t think making the punishment murder is going to
make anyone who wants to do these things eithe rnot do them or not kill the kid afterwards.
Of course they're compelled to do it, the reason anybody does anything is because they are compelled to, but that doesn't make them irrational. They
know full well it is wrong, and they probably do think it's worth the risk, because they will be protected by the laws that you endorse and agree
Now thats being unreasonable. This guy didn't say, 'gosh, the political enviroment in the country at this time is quite liberal, I stand a
decent chance of getting life imprisonment with a possiblity of parole if I do this. Sounds good, let me go vote for kerry and then get started'
Too bad the children they murder aren't protected by those laws.
Everyone gets equal protection under the law. Thats precisely what you are arguing against. You want to make the laws apply to a group of people
that you favour. Doesn't work that way. Humans have inalienable, 'god-given', rights. These rights can' t be revoked, simply because the crime
is intolerable. Yes, he can be arrested and even executed, fair enough. But brutally tortured to death, or presumed to be guilty without trial?
If anyone wants children in florida to be better protected, then they wouldn't be wasting their time fantasizing about abusing an abuser. They'd
vote Jeb Bush out of office. No, thats not a non sequitor
. Bush misuses the child protective services in that state. He was also more than
willing to stump all over the place to get media attention on terri schiavo, while this was going on
. I can only assume that he, along with
most republicans and libertarians in the state, wnat to reduce
funding to things like the child protective services, and other social groups.
Rather than address the problems of a family living in a poor trailer park, rather than have protected this abuser from whatever made him into an
abuser (he was once an innocent child, like her too), everyone would prefer to engage in infantile revenge fantasy. Thats
Why else would this guy admit to it? They had nothing on him.
How do you know what they had on him? They were looking for him and found him out of state, they obviously knew something or he would have been
gone. He didn't turn himself in and confess, they caught him. And he probably admitted it because her DNA was found on his jeans, so maybe he was
looking for a plea bargain, knowing he would be protected by the laws you endorse and agree with.
The laws I endorse and agree with and that you, apparenltly, are opposed to, are what protects people from barbarism and inhumanity. Civilization
due process. Stop making it out that I
am responsible for this, you
infact, are far more responsible for this than I
am. All I have advocated is that the guy be given a trial and, if sentenced to death, that he not be tortured to death. Your recommendations, on the
other hand, will result in teh destruction of the adversarial court system, IE the destruction of the court system itself, and the rule of power
. Ie, child molesting savages will be in greater number and much more free to operate in your juvenile nonsensical proposed
system, and certianly more children will fall victim to an abusive system, what with your focus on abusing criminals, rather than protecting
Changing it so that we can torture people to death would go a long way torwards throwing the constitution out.
Only in cases of child murder, we must do more to protect those who CANNOT protect themselves, because the status quo isn't working.
There is absolutely
nothing that suggests you can deter sick, disgusting, child-abusing perverts. They are simply going to bury their victims
deeper, and kill them more often, if the stakes are so high. Its preposterous to suggest that this guy'd've not done what he did if he knew he could
be fileted to death. He knows
that there is a good chance of him getting executed as is. Hell, no matter what evidence they had, if he was
capable of thinking like you suggets, he'd've never pleaded guilty, he knows
he's not getting a light sentece for this, everyone can see
that this guy is getting executed.
Unless it happened to their children.
Agreed, if they were too emotionally invovled to think properly, they'd support just about anything.
Its a credit to Mr. Lunsford that he's not on the news ravening and calling for this guys dismemberment. He's trying
to get legislative
reform that would do more to prevent this sort of thing from happening. No one
seems to be listening to him, but nearly everyone
apparently prefer to assuage their anger by pretending that they can vent it on the criminal.
I can't help but wonder why you think these SOB's are so irrational that the thought of a torturous death would do nothing to hinder them,
but the thought of not getting "probation and the like" would.
You misunderstand. I am saying that we change the probation system, not try to use it as a carrot to incite 'normal' behaviour in deviants like