Details of Jessica Lunsford's murder

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Well guys its a double edged sword. On one side of the blade, you can give him death, but he will be isolated and protected and taken care of better than you and me. On the other hand, you can give him life and put him in the general population. It will be a short sentence.

Its pretty tricky though. We want a society where the government leaves us alone. We want our privacy, but then you got aholes like this guy and it makes you wonder. IMO, I think a little more attention is needed to the offenders when they are released. Castration doesnt work, as there have been ones that have had that done, and went on to rape their victims with broom sticks and flashlights. Its a mental disorder.

What would help would be, say an automatic MINIMUM sentence of 50 years for first time offenders. While this wouldnt deter many first timers, it would certainly help eliminate REPEAT offenders, which this guy is.




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I don't think you have to be a parent to feel a deep horror, mixed with overwhelming sadness, and followed by barely controllable rage when you hear a story like the death of Jessica Lunsford. The "person" who confessed to the deeds is clearly somehow lost all sense of conscience and has forfeited any rights he had as a human being.

The term "sociopath" doesn't seem adequate - I find it hard to believe that the human mind can create, much less act on the level of evil and malice required to do what he did. Some would say that people like this piece of excrement must be demon-posessed. I guess that explanation is as good as any.

What are we to do with other child molestors that serve their sentence but remain a risk to our children? How can we determine which will do the unspeakable and which will live out the rest of their lives in peace? Is it OK for us as a society to imprison all sexual offenders and continue to punish them until they die because of a few @$$40735?

I wish I knew.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   


What are we to do with other child molestors that serve their sentence but remain a risk to our children? How can we determine which will do the unspeakable and which will live out the rest of their lives in peace? Is it OK for us as a society to imprison all sexual offenders and continue to punish them until they die because of a few @$$40735?


This may be much, but its my opinion...

First of all, life time probation, with weekly check ins and random checks from the officers. More or less, lifetime of house arrest. Also, them and their cars should be outfitted with GPS systems that archive their everymove. Lastly, if its exceptionally heinous, they should have the words "RAPIST" tattoed across their foreheads. If they violate even the smallest term of their probation, they go back and serve 50 years. No questions asked.

If anyone from the ACLU wants to defend them, thats fine. They will be required to house and feed the defendent and let them play with their kids.

We've got enough rights and freedoms. When you become a violent felon, you give up those rights. BUH BYE !



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
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.


This one got so many replies because I started it in the ATS current events forum, but a mod thought it was a rant I guess and moved it here, although I feel it's a current event, oh well.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
First of all, life time probation, with weekly check ins and random checks from the officers. More or less, lifetime of house arrest. Also, them and their cars should be outfitted with GPS systems that archive their everymove. Lastly, if its exceptionally heinous, they should have the words "RAPIST" tattoed across their foreheads. If they violate even the smallest term of their probation, they go back and serve 50 years. No questions asked.


Those sound like pretty good ideas, however to make them work, some things would probably have to change. Maintaining probation on the 500,000 and growing free sexual offenders would be quite a task, a quarter of those have disappeared, of course included in those numbers are 18yr olds who may have hooked up with a 16yr old and such, hardly a sexual predator and a waste of manpower, the legal age of consent should be lowered to 16. Girls mature faster and at that age seek out guys a couple years older than them, of course the parents still have full say until they're 18, but the law would be left out of common situations that should be handled within the family. Plus, if somebody is old enough to be resposible with our lives in their hands on the roads, they should be old enough to be responsible for their own sexuality. Also, small time drug offenders should not do any time. We need to prioritize, there is no where near enough resources to effectively manage actual violent sexual offenders and criminals, while wasting them on "Romeo and Juliet" offenders or somebody caught with an ounce of weed.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
it does too.

How? It definitly doesn't. Being convicted of a crime can result in some rights being taken away, like the basic idea of 'freedom', and a horrible enough crime and the government can take away your life. But they still don't get to throw you to a mob and let them beat you to death. They still don't get to have their own officials beat and brutalize you.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

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.

Again, if these people were thinking rationally, they'd not be commiting the crime in the first place. Besides which, what you suggest is not only disgusting, its completely unconstitutional.



As a parent of a young child, I don't like those numbers.

Wasting political cash on a 'death by torture' ammendment, which will never get passed, will not help reduce those numbers one iota.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Again, if these people were thinking rationally, they'd not be commiting the crime in the first place. Besides which, what you suggest is not only disgusting, its completely unconstitutional.


You're trying to paint them as foaming at the mouth lunatics, they are not. How else do they do so well at blending into society? They are FULLY capable of comprehending what a torturous death is, especially if it's there own. Sorry if my opinion disgusts you, but it will not change. And the constitution can and has been ammended several times, it's all but been thrown out, IMO.



Wasting political cash on a 'death by torture' ammendment, which will never get passed, will not help reduce those numbers one iota.


I was never really under the belief it would get passed, it's just what I personally feel they deserve, and I think it would reduce those numbers a great deal. If you disagree, oh well. I have no reason to try and convince you, because I need no support for my personal beliefs.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Nygdan
Again, if these people were thinking rationally, they'd not be commiting the crime in the first place. Besides which, what you suggest is not only disgusting, its completely unconstitutional.


You're trying to paint them as foaming at the mouth lunatics,

I'm not trying to paint anyone as anything.


They are FULLY capable of comprehending what a torturous death is, especially if it's there own.

Doubtful. They certianly aren't sitting there thinking that they can get away with it and figureing its 'worth the risk', they are obviously compelled to do it. Why else would this guy admit to it? They had nothing on him.


Sorry if my opinion disgusts you, but it will not change.

I don't expect my being disgusted with something to result in it being changed.


And the constitution can and has been ammended several times, it's all but been thrown out, IMO.

Changing it so that we can torture people to death would go a long way torwards throwing the constitution out. Such an ammendment would never get passed, far too many people would be, reasonably enough, completely opposed to it. Talk of that kind of thing is a waste, and it would scuttle any sort of "Lunsford's Law" to restrict probation and the like. Irrational vengeful discussion of the topic will lead to nothing, but reasoned thought about it might effect actual change.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm not trying to paint anyone as anything.


You said they were irrational. The definition of which is:
ir·ra·tion·al
adj.
1.Not endowed with reason.
2.Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.

He was reasonable enough to try and hide his crimes, if he were irrational and felt nothing was wrong with his actions, he would not try and hide them.



They certianly aren't sitting there thinking that they can get away with it and figureing its 'worth the risk', they are obviously compelled to do it.


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 with. Too bad the children they murder aren't protected by those laws.



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.



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.



Such an ammendment would never get passed, far too many people would be, reasonably enough, completely opposed to it.


Unless it happened to their children.



Talk of that kind of thing is a waste, and it would scuttle any sort of "Lunsford's Law" to restrict probation and the like. Irrational vengeful discussion of the topic will lead to nothing, but reasoned thought about it might effect actual change.


Then don't take part in it, I'm not in any position to propose a law or hinder any being proposed. But 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.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Regardless of the emotional outcry for this creep's skin to be saved, the fact is he committed a crime knowing he was committing a crime and also knowing full well what the law stated concerning the punishment for the crime. If one is going to committ a crime in the US, the burden falls upon them to know the punishment for said crime. If he did not take the time to find out full well what awaited him for these actions, he should have.

Now, also regardless of the emotions of the people on this mighty message board, he will be tried on those same laws. Most likely he will get the death penalty because he has more than met the criteria set forth before he committed this crime and being a repeat child molestor, he likely already knew this.

Now, each day we all awake, we go about our day in society under a set of predetrmined laws that we know or have the responsibility to know. There is no way any of you could convince me that this man did not know that what he was doing would cost him his life.

I am also glad to see the replusion from each of you on the travesty which was brought to this innocent little girl. This crime should make each one us stop dead in our daily activities and shudder for once we become complacent to violence against women, children and the elderly, we have already let the criminals win. This should hit each and every one of us as if this was our own family or one day it just might be. Its time for any understanding or acceptance of these acts toward the innocent to be irradicated and that starts with tough, unrelenting punishment to the fullest extent of the law.

Children must be protected and those who would commit these acts must be dealt with We have to face this issue head on and remove it from temptation of the sick and twisted. The thought of doing this to a child should send chills down the spine of even the most derranged person.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

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 with.


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? Heck no.

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 irresponsible.



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 dictates 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 domestically. 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 innocents.



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 would 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 this guy.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
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 would apparently prefer to assuage their anger by pretending that they can vent it on the criminal.


Maybe because this is such a highly emotional issue, especially among those of us who are parents. Just curious, do you have a child? It's not just Mr. Lunsford who appears on television without ravenous anger, just about every parent whose child has been murdered appears that way, almost as if they are "guided" by lawyers who want to use the parents as pawns to pass legislation they want passed. It's good if positive legislation comes of it, but I'm not sure how genuine their demeanor is. He looks like he's holding back some anger.

Look, again, I'm not trying to pass any torture laws, those are just my personal feelings. People who can prey on children to me are no longer human, so in my mind, they are not protected by the rights we humans are, and of course the offender must be proven guilty before those rights are taken. I don't wish to argue with you about it, we're both on the same side. My feelings are just those of an emotional parent, if you have a child, and can imagine that happening to your child, and still feel the offender deserves humane treatment, then I am truly humbled by your compassion. And the Lunsford law was passed, so my feelings did not end up hurting the process after all, right?



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
The worst part about locking these monsters up is that they are protected while in prison (Thanks to Humanrights groups and the ACLU).

The ACLU protects the constitutional rights of everyone, and being a horrible murderer does not revoke all of one's rights. Mutliating and murdering and abusing the criminal is in itself a crime, no matter how justified anyone feels in doing it. This cretin felt justified in abusing and killing this girl. Justification is irrelevant.

There is law, and there is crime.



What the heck does constitutionality have to do with anything?

If the suspect is given a fair trial under law and found guilty, there is nothing that the ACLU can do about it.

It's funny that the right's of the victim and their family are never vigorously lobbied for.

Because we have to spend more efforts on the .01% of those on death row who MAY have been wrongfully prosecuted.

Why don't people realize that the death penalty is just that, a penalty. In other words, you have perpetrated the greatest crime against a fellow man possible and hence have to pay the greatest fine possible...i.e. forfeiture of your own life.

It is not called the "let's put this guy to death because it'll make the victim's family feel better penalty".

It's still boggles the mind that at soon as a murder occurs, the person who gets the most care and protection is the accused.

The greatest disrespect for life is minimzing the cost one must pay for taking it.:bnghd:



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
In the case of violent child molesters being released from prison--I think it's wrong. But the current, growing backlash is starting to create a justice of its own. More and more communities are starting to make it impossible for parolees to find anywhere they can live in peace, even though they deserve no peace. I think before long, the parolee and the justice system will be forced to create penal colonies that hold these bastards forever. Lets just hope they have to work to live.

As for the murderers--I'magainst the death penalty, but I am for Vengance and I feel one of the parents should be given the opportunity to inject the drugs. If they prefer not to, the person should rot in solitude. No contact with the outside, no entertainment.

We have to make the penalties for these crimes so harsh and so visible that those with any strange inclinations will seek help early in life. Whatever that may be.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Ok...here is the new plan......when i person is convicted of murder, the victims family should be able to sue the murderer's estate and sieze any and all funds relating that murderer owns at the time. Then by law, the victims family would have to spend a minimum of 55% of the money collected from the murderer on paying other inmates he is locked up with to make his life a living hell daily.

If someone murdered my child, I would spend every dime I had paying inmates to brutalize this man daily. What satisfaction would that be...maybe you could send the other inmates a digital camera and they could email you pics of the child killer suffering.




top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join