If I can't have my son, NO ONE can!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I respect your opinion Wrabbit. It is a real tough issue and I can understand why and where you are coming from.

Peace Out.

This sick and twisted monster should be violently, and brutally erased from this Earth. Yep, fight fire with fire. If I was the boyfriend, I might have killed her right there and then for what she did. If I was the father, she without a doubt would have been. Nothing worse than someone who harms a defenseless child. I just don't understand how someone could do something so horrible. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


No, I real think "life without" is life without parole. No board hearings no nada. I don't think that the expectation of those that receive this sentence is that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Unless of course they are exonerated later by DNA or something like that that proves their innocence. I don't know of any life without paroles that have been commuted to a lesser sentence unless there were extenuating circumstances.

There is fates worse than death i.e being brought up in the care system in the u.k. in the uk kids can be taken from there parents for being anti social. Higher suicides, higher rates of alchohol and dubstance abuse and if your a girl a very high chance to be trafficked for sex.
Im not trying to justify anything but complaining after the event is futile,better provisions should be put in place,insteaf of judging you wicked people.

I know of a case that is one of the worst child murders I have ever heard of that happened real close to me.

Testimony during Veronica Gonzales' trial showed that for six months Genny was abused--forced to live in a box, hung by her hands from a hook in a closet and burned with a hair dryer.

On July 21, 1995, she was pushed into bathwater so hot that her skin peeled from her body. An autopsy found that she had been burned to death over a period of about two hours.

the disgusting rest

This was a four year old baby. Who was subjected to torture for months until the freaking monsters finally killed her. If there was ever another argument for the death penalty, here is one.

As much as I would love to tear her from limb to limb. Just give me 30 minutes alone with the coward! That is my emotional response.

That scumbag sits in Chowchilla on Death Row. There is a moratorium on the death penalty in this state. She is all alone in a cell. It is a fate worse than death. Trust and believe.

reply to post by GrantedBail


I understand your point about life in prison, but do you know for sure that it's solitary confinement? Cause if not, then I am not buying the life in prison is better than death bs. I understand your position, so don't take anything that I say personal in this response GB.

You see, many times even when these bottom feeders of the human race have been sentenced to life in prison, even as a child killer, they usually are eventually returned to the general population and end up with cable tv , internet access, and much, much more. I am talking child killers, rapists and serial killers here, not your average human being who loses themselves in this crazy world in whatever way, I don't know or can judge that here right now cause that's another debate.

Back on topic: What they do is, they put all the child killing creeps that deserve to die yesterday in a dorm together. So at the end of the day, it ends up not being solitary at all. It's just them being segregated from those who would deliver beautiful justice to the vermin, which I think is great anytime that it occurs. Jeffery Dahmer for instance, got exactly what he had coming to him. He was an evil person.

Nope, I am not willing to take that chance, so I push for creatures such as this to be executed as soon as possible. Hey, they sure executed Tim McVeigh pretty quickly eh? So we all know that it can be done. So I don't want to hear from anyone about how we supposedly save more money by keeping these puke bags alive, cause that is nothing but a load of complete and utter bull#.

Actually, I bet some puke bag lawyer from NYU came up with that statistic! Know why? Because they make millions more profit over the years by appealing for the dirt bag that they represent! LMAO! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that as long as the game is continued within the most corrupt and pathetic legal system that anyone could ever lay their eyes on, the slugs will get off because the state or Feds can no longer fund the case.

Meanwhile, the bottom feeder Lawyer makes all the money. Also, the attorney is usually in an underground backdoor business deal with the filthy attorney. It's the way it is, just do a little research and if you have a brain, you will comprehend the truth.

One more thing as well. How the hell do we know what is going to happen here in the United States of America in the near, or not so near future? Revolutions can happen where all criminals are released in order to help fight against the government (it is a common occurrence in Nations that fall, just look at Iraq) or as decades pass by the morals and laws of a so-called civilized society soften up, which has been our track record the last 30 years or so here in the United States.

Nope again, Not willing to accept the chance that someone who murders their own child might eventually be released even if it's for the last day of their existence. Oh no, They stole another human beings life from them, so when they did that, they gave up their own as well. That's the way that I see it, and I have thought long and hard for decades about my position.

Truth of the matter is, We human beings have only become more pacifistic when it comes to defending innocent victims, Which is wrong for us as a species.The innocent and weak in the early days were always protected and should be protected and defended these days even more so by all of our means if we are going to call ourselves civilized.

Otherwise my friends, Greedy Lawyers and bleeding heart pacifistic apologists will have prevented true justice for these innocent victims from being administered to those who stole their one and only life from them. Think about what I just said for a minute, or better yet, think of it like this, your own life stolen from you by someone else? Ok, I am done now. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation


You are correct. Only the life without parolers are in general population. The ones that are on death row are in fact isolated.

Yes lifers can get tvs but no one has cable or internet access. That is a fallacy. It is no way to live. Lots of baby killers in the women's prisons. They spend the rest of their lives thinking about what they did and they will never be free again to hurt anyone. I think that is the most important aspect for society. It is a hell. Perhaps one after a time they become adjusted to.

Her child. Her blood. She made a decision. How will those who know react? Those that are close...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by SheopleNation

Whoa! I just really read your post. You are one angry individual.

IMO McVeigh was executed very soon after Bush took office. They didn't need anybody around to talk after 9-11.

We have a justice system in this country, as corrupt as it is, we adhere to it.

There are mandatory appeals for those sentenced to the death penalty. You got a problem with that?

Do you know how many men that were on death row have already been exonerated by DNA evidence through the innocence project. Oh, yeah, those are just scumbag attorneys getting rich going pro bono.

And btw it is cheaper to house lifers that it is to try, convict and then pay for their appeals which by law are the condemned are entitled to. We do still live in a humane society, I would hope.

You and I are polar opposites. For that I am grateful

reply to post by GrantedBail


One question...You would not kill someone on moral grounds but you want 30 minutes with them? Help me to understand that reasoning.

There are cases, and always will be, where someone could be wrongfully convicted and I know it has happened to people. .

However, when someone kills a child and it is known they did it, why waste time and money on a trial and incarceration? It cost 2 bucks to put a bullet in the back of the head.

PS - how did you manage to pull 9/11 and Bush into this thread...

that's terrible what happened to this baby...I just read another story, this poor child is still alive www.nydailynews.com...

mom dunked the lower half of the body of her 3 year old child (with the boyfriends help) in boiling water, in the bath tub, for lying, then waited 8 days to take her to the hospital. poor child is in intensive care, hospital workers called authorities to report this child abuse.

I can't even rap my mind mind around this

reply to post by esdad71


Because I want them to pick on someone their own size. That is why. I don't want to kill them. I want to hurt them real bad. Anyone who victimizes a child needs to face another adult. After they have had their arses handed to them they need to go to their cell.

How's that.

reply to post by esdad71


Did I actually do that. I don't think so. I have only had one bottle of wine.

reply to post by esdad71


Oh, I scrolled back and saw it. I was only responding to the poster's point regarding the quickness of which McVeigh was executed.

It was a reasoned response.

Chill.

reply to post by luciddream

Yup, Mothers knows best. According to law anyway...i mean they can end its life whenever they want it anyway.. Children are safer with mother. Dads are the monsters.... nothing but deadbeats.

Granted you are being somewhat sarcastic, you are still presenting an invalid and completely idiotic argument.

Firstly, do you have sufficient knowledge as to the legal system, statute and case law in the United States? Because your entire argument is incorrect. Firstly, mothers are not entitled to take their children's lives EVER. I can only assume you are taking a pot shot at abortion, and even in that case they are not entitled to randomly abort the fetus (i.e. it must be done within a certain time-frame).

I am also assuming that your comment in some way incorporates divorce/financial settlement and custody proceedings.

The position of the law in regards to divorce is that either party can seek a divorce (but they must first be separated for a certain period of time in order to ensure that they are committed and cannot improve their relationship).

The position of the law in regards to financial settlement is actually far more rational than popular culture would have you believe. Firstly, the law does all it can to avoid court proceedings (only 5% of cases go to court), using alternative dispute resolution - i.e. mediation. Furthermore, the law aims to ensure that both parties continue to maintain the same standard of living and does everything that is reasonably possible to do so - of course, given the assets are being divided there is an inherent contradiction.

Additionally, the average split following court proceedings is generally 50/50. However, many factors are taken into account - for instance, maintenance is not paid if the spouse has adequate qualifications (i.e. an electricians license or a bachelor degree in accounting) to find employment, the input of each person is taken into account (i.e. money brought into the marriage, money earnt, housework done, if one party was involved in building the marriage home etc) in deciding who should get what. This is very equitable.

The position of the law in regards to custody is that both parents should have a right to see the child unless it can be proven that one party is unfit (i.e. physically harms the child).

Lastly, the reason society has a more sympathetic approach to women is that men are responsible for the majority of rape, drug use (studies show women start using drugs through their relationships with romantic partners), domestic violence, gambling and other various vices, and that women, more often than not are the victims.

One thing I do know is, "an eye for an eye will only make the world blind." (Ghandi)

Now you have a case like this. How many cases like this have to happen? Is it inevitable? I think so.

My first reaction? Same as OP and most of you, "# her! Cut her eyelids off and stake her onto an ant pile in the middle of a desert."

But, after just minutes contemplating; I am not the type to act with violence (given time to think). How could I bring myself to wish such punishment upon someone?

I dunno, maybe I need more research into the everything. But if this woman is not expired soon, I hope she is alone forever.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Well I was with you the whole way, until the last paragraph. Yes divorce settlements are equitable. Yes the courts look to provide the children with contact of both the parents. This isn't the 50s anymore.

I think the poster you were responding to was going off on some anti-abortion tirade which is off topic.

I disagree with the characterization of fathers in the last paragraph. And I am a mother. There are just as many good fathers as there are mothers.

I firmly believe that like Hypnosis, people can only do these acts if its already part of their mental state before any stimulants.

People will blame the drugs and yes they played their part but to do that to your own child is beyond depraved and to me says the person was already very ill before they took drugs, the drugs merely expedited the illness to extreme levels quicker.

As a parent of a 13yr girl the notion of harming our beautiful young lady has nevr ever crossed either my or my wife's mind, we planned for this baby, we took care of ourselves, my wife followed every rule in the book not that she ever did any harm to her body in the first place (stopped smoking 17rs before the baby, drank lightly but stopped for the duration of the pregnancy and NEVER did any drugs (either of us)).

Serena is our life and we are incredibly proud of her, the idea that we could hurt her disgusts me, our love for her would man that if we ever had been bad people our wish would be that she was looked after properly and if we could not then someone else should.

That is proper love..

This woman needs to be chemically sterilised for future safety, sorry to be blunt but that's how I feel, her human rights were waived when she decided to kill her own born child.

Originally posted by luciddream
Yup, Mothers knows best. According to law anyway...i mean they can end its life whenever they want it anyway..

Children are safer with mother. Dads are the monsters.... nothing but deadbeats.

edit on 6/7/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

That's NOT true!

My husband is the BEST father to his little girls! They absolutely ADORE him and rightfully so! I know that most men are VERY good men, EXCELLENT husbands and FANTASTIC daddys.

Sorry for the rant. Moms are good too.