Remind me why this guy should live .

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:34 am

spot;753247 wrote: You're kidding, surely. Deliberately putting a convict in a position of danger is barbaric, how you can refer to it as "prison justice" completely baffles me. It's criminal, not to mention unethical.

No it really isn't. Prison is a system of its own. It doesn't adhere to what the outside thinks is acceptable or not.

It's the way the prison system works. Most convicts hate rapists and child abusers and the justice the victims often can't get from the law is meted out by prison justice. It works.

What baffles me is how you evidently see no wrong in defiling a corpse because it's just dead meat. That may well be what that creep thought and may have been the same justification used by him. There's a fine line there Spot. I do understand your logic...but there is a time when logic needs to go out the window and common sense and propriety must rule the day. This would be one of those times, surely.

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:23 pm

i agree red,its impossible to understand how anyone can condone practicly the abuse of a dead person let alone a young child.apart from of course another necrophile or a person who spends their whole life going against the massess.i remember a kid in school who used to dissagree with everyone for the sake of being different,so we set him up.one day we made sure he heard us saying all shook up was presleys best record ever,he piped up saying it was his worst..we let a good bit of time go by then said all shook up was crap,this same kid said "rubbish its the best song hes done!and thats what i think we have here.someone who will call black white just to be apart from the throng.and may i remind the thread of my previous opinion,,this guy wanted sex with a child ,he would probably pick a live one next time,,and he may even want to kill and then comit necrophilia again..our children deserve our protection,lock him up forever ,but if we begrudge the 1000 pounds keep per week then top him!

grh · Post by **grh** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:46 pm

RedGlitter;753237 wrote: Of course I don't know about British prisons but it so happens I have some secondhand knowledge of American prisons and prison justice is a common occurrence. And in the case of rapists and child molesters, thankfully so.

Seriously Spot, I think you and some others think these things through so much that you lose the ability to see what is acceptable and what is not. You reason out things that have absolutely no justification.

And sometimes they appear so off the wall that I don't even bother any more. It's like stuff gets posted just to irritate, ya know?:rolleyes:

It's one thing to play devils advocate, but I think it needs to stay believable, don't you?

grh · Post by **grh** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:47 pm

suzycreamcheese;753259 wrote: yeah it is, but I dont tend to shed many tears over it
:wah::D

I like you!:-6

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:48 pm

grh ,my point entirely exept you said it in a fraction of the words i did .

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:14 pm

suzycreamcheese;753117 wrote: It absolutely turns my stomach, but even if i advocated the death penalty, it certainly wouldnt be for things done to people already dead.

Of course if it was my child, id want to kill them myself, but we dont have vigilante law. For the law to work, we need to look at things objectively too.

The highest sentances need to be for those who actually kill

The USSC has already ruled it violates the 8th Amendment's provision of cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person for the rape of an alive ADULT, so no way in legal comprehension can it be permitted for necrophilia.

There are a few states, LA, I think being one, that has passed laws permitting the death penalty for the rape of a child. Although the USSC did NOT adress this in thier adult ruling, it is sure to be presented to them for consideration when the time comes.

The only thing I know of the death penalty is given for that does not include some form of homicide is Treason.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:37 pm

Child or adult, rape is rape. In my eyes that warrants death. This is where the US Supreme Court is wrong.

:rolleyes:

The server is too busy · Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:56 pm

spot;752716 wrote: I'm waiting for a car to take me to a funeral actually.

The basic law is do no harm. I can't see the slightest hint in the OP that the guy's harmed anyone.

Harm is lying about evidence in order to garner public support for going to war, for example.

Harm is putting people in jail and then not providing for their safety, knowing that there's dangerous people jailed in close proximity.

Give me a clue what harm he's done. What's indicated in the OP is a breach of cultural norms, not harm. Pants asks in the title of the thread "why this guy should live"? She's certifiable.

Am I the only one that finds it rather ironic that the man that claims a corpse is merely a lump of dead flesh is claiming distraction due to a funeral?

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:14 am

RedGlitter;753595 wrote: Child or adult, rape is rape. In my eyes that warrants death. This is where the US Supreme Court is wrong.

:rolleyes:

Im not saying that rape doesnt outrage me as much as it does you or anyone, but realistically, you cant have the death penalty for rape, or whats to stop every rapist from just killing his victim to be on the safe side if the penalty is the same?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:17 am

suzycreamcheese;753629 wrote: Im not saying that rape doesnt outrage me as much as it does you or anyone, but realistically, you cant have the death penalty for rape, or whats to stop every rapist from just killing his victim to be on the safe side if the penalty is the same?

What's to stop them anyway, SCC? They're not rational people, they don't think with common sense. I could turn that around and say that realistically, knowing you're going to die for defiling a person may be a deterrent. But then again, we're dealing with monsters and not sensible human beings.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:18 am

RedGlitter;753636 wrote: What's to stop them anyway, SCC? They're not rational people, they don't think with common sense. I could turn that around and say that realistically, knowing you're going to die for defiling a person may be a deterrent. But then again, we're dealing with monsters and not sensible human beings.

The DP has never been a deterrent to a capital crime. The national clearance rate for homicides is already a sad #. I have to agree with SCC, as a first thought, there will more unsolved homicides. I am also painfully aware that many women feel they are already dead after being a rape victim, so to even out the score is desireable, but not legally practical. It is a very controversial legal issue.

Anyone remember the case where a woman made her rapist were a condom so she would not get aids. The jury had a hard time believing it was not consensual sex.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:02 am

RedGlitter;753271 wrote: No it really isn't. Prison is a system of its own. It doesn't adhere to what the outside thinks is acceptable or not.

It's the way the prison system works. Most convicts hate rapists and child abusers and the justice the victims often can't get from the law is meted out by prison justice. It works.

What baffles me is how you evidently see no wrong in defiling a corpse because it's just dead meat. That may well be what that creep thought and may have been the same justification used by him. There's a fine line there Spot. I do understand your logic...but there is a time when logic needs to go out the window and common sense and propriety must rule the day. This would be one of those times, surely.
Posts in this thread suggest I'm contrary just for the fun of it and it's not so - I'm expressing my reasoned opinion. I even gave my biblical understanding. I didn't even mention "Let the dead bury their dead" or "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living".

I haven't anywhere said that I "see no wrong in defiling a corpse because it's just dead meat". What was done to the body was obviously a crime, at least in England - a judge here has the power to pass a sentence of life imprisonment for what happened. I'm not even suggesting that they wouldn't have been imprisoned here - what they did was criminal. What they didn't do, though, was to harm anyone. They breached a cultural taboo.

My main complaint is this idea that "prisoners' justice" is anything but deplorable. That's illegal too, and it does involve harm. It's discussed at length in The House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights Deaths in Custody Third Report if anyone wants to see a UK focus on the obligations of the state to ensure the safety of all prisoners. They result from UK law; the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment 1988; the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 1977 and the UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners 1990. Protecting prisoners from both staff and each other is non-negotiable.

I steal this text from the report:Article 2 of the European Court of Human Rights imposes on States, not only a negative duty not to take life intentionally or negligently, but also a positive duty to safeguard life. The Article 2 negative duty not to deprive an individual of life may be breached by excessive or unnecessary use of force against a detainee. It may also be breached as a result of systemic failings which fail to provide adequate procedures or adequately trained or qualified staff, to ensure safety. The positive duty has two aspects. First, it places positive obligations on the detaining authorities to take steps to protect individuals whose lives are known, or should be known, to be at risk. Where there is a threat to the life of someone in the custody of the state, there is a heightened responsibility to provide protection.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:13 am

RedGlitter;753636 wrote: What's to stop them anyway, SCC? They're not rational people, they don't think with common sense. I could turn that around and say that realistically, knowing you're going to die for defiling a person may be a deterrent. But then again, we're dealing with monsters and not sensible human beings.

whats to stop them is they may be rapists but not necessarily murderers. It IS a different crime. We arent dealing with monsters unfortunately, although it makes it easier to cope with to dehumanise them, we are still dealing with people who may well be thinking of covering their traces and getting away with it.

If they would get just the same penalty for rape as they would with murder, and a dead victim cant identify anyone, then it would make sense for them to kill them too.

Im not saying they still will, but most rape victims do survive, and whilst some may feel "dead inside" afterwards, a lot of very very strong people have been raped and are survivors. Being raped does not mean you may as well be dead, even if it feels like that at first.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:17 am

I actually agree with You Spot, but its a very hard subject to get your point across without looking like you are dismissing how serious a taboo it actually is.

I think with the death penalty, what i find scary is that so many people seem to just call for it for anything that seems a bit (or a lot in this case) twisted.

grh · Post by **grh** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:45 am

suzycreamcheese;753674 wrote: .....

I think with the death penalty, what i find scary is that so many people seem to just call for it for anything that seems a bit (or a lot in this case) twisted.

Just so there is no confusion here... I'm NOT calling for the state imposed death penalty here. Hell, if the guy had gotten that, he would most likely outlive all of us that are arguing this today. In the process I would be supplying his medical, housing and legal needs while some other kid starves around the world!

All I'm calling for is a jury of my peers if this ever happened to someone I love.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:55 am

suzycreamcheese;753674 wrote: I actually agree with You Spot, but its a very hard subject to get your point across without looking like you are dismissing how serious a taboo it actually is.Harming people and attacking cultural norms are on two completely different scales. Harming people is infinitely more serious regardless of the degree of harm. Outraging public decency may well be criminal and carry a legal penalty but there's no equivalence with harming a person. In the case being discussed it may well be that there was indeed consequent harm from the necrophilia besides the shock and outrage - as rj said, "the still living family member are victims as well" - but it wasn't harm to the assaulted body.

We're still left with those housing conditions, and I'm still 'by no means convinced that those conditions described were endangering either the children or the pets at all.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:55 am

grh;753687 wrote: Just so there is no confusion here... I'm NOT calling for the state imposed death penalty here. Hell, if the guy had gotten that, he would most likely outlive all of us that are arguing this today. In the process I would be supplying his medical, housing and legal needs while some other kid starves around the world!

Aint that the truth :-5

All

I'm calling for is a jury of my peers if this ever happened to someone I love.

Here here :yh_clap:yh_clap

grh · Post by **grh** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:58 am

jimbo;753683 wrote: these people are mentally ill ,what they need is treatment they do not have reason like you or i to understand why what they are doing is so wrong

yes i feel like they should spend the rest of their lives locked away so as they are not a danger to any one else but they should not be murdered by the state

are we really so barbaric that we would send mentally ill people to be beaten and tortured at the hands of a mob ,i dont think so really ,if so we would be worse than the original sicko that sickens us all

i mean when would you stop evil people forming their own lynch parties to exact their own form of justice , drink drivers ,speeding motorist or how about the mccann's who neglected their poor daughter ,after all they knew exactly what they were doing

police informers they get beaten and have a terrible time in prison is that ok or are we selective as to what crimes are ok to be dealt with by a mob in prison

Here's where ya lose me JIMBO ... 'mentally ill' is biggest load of crap ever dumped onto society. The expression 'He is one sick F**k' has become an out for all kinds of crap that we really should NOT have to tolerate as a society.

There are all sorts of mental illness in this world. Hell, everyone has SOMETHING wrong with them, just ask any shrink! But the majority of us manage to stay within a reasonable limit of what the rest of the world 'as a society' says is acceptable behavior.

Folks that may be suffering from mental illness and fighting the good fight to stay out of trouble, can't get help for free today and yet if they would be willing to do just one thing 'off the wall' they are set up for life. We taxpayers are then willing to foot the bill. I say bullsht!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:20 am

GRH, I agree. Anyway I don't think this guy is sick, I think he's a bad, bad creep. Those types do exist.

Spot....I'll take your word on the UK prison system but you'll have to take mine on the American prison system. Sure there exist codes and regulations and yada, but they are not necessarily adhered to. Some would call it corruption when guards look the other way. I call it "coming full circle."

Like I said, the (American) prison system has its own code.

Also, you say again he has harmed no one. What about the victim's family? Those who loved her. Do you think causing them, grief is not doing harm to anyone?

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:29 am

lets try to clarify a thing or two.to put this man to death for me is not just vengence(ide be lying if i said it was no way vengence)but also preventive,i say again,,thiws man wanted sex with a child be it alive or dead,and i believe its only a matter of time before he snatches a live child .so top him or bang him up its all the same to me.on a selfish note re the death penalty for rape,as a red blooded male it has always been a dread of mine to be accused of rape if i was unfortunate enough to meet and lay a bunny boiler.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:49 am

RedGlitter;753707 wrote: Also, you say again he has harmed no one. What about the victim's family? Those who loved her. Do you think causing them, grief is not doing harm to anyone?

To copy my comment you're referring to,spot wrote: In the case being discussed it may well be that there was indeed consequent harm from the necrophilia besides the shock and outrage - as rj said, "the still living family member are victims as well" - but it wasn't harm to the assaulted body.The society you live in is created collectively. If you live on a basis of vengeful eye-for-an-eye pre-emptive overkill war to the death against all perps you get entirely what you build. Just look around you.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:19 pm

If it works, fine. I didn't think it worked yet. So long as you end up with an individual at least as socially useful as the one you destroy I don't mind it at all.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:12 pm

Either you're prepared to allow the state to harm people or you're not. I'm not. I'm prepared to allow it to use the minimum force necessary in specified situations and if that results in death I want extensive exhaustive independent investigation and adjudication into the reasons and actions.

I'm prepared to allow the state to apply legal sanctions so long as the entire population is subject to them and so long as investigation and enforcement aren't discretionary.

I'm prepared to release offenders under a rehabilitation bond from the prison itself and for no other reason. The prison's paid solely on releases, not on holding people, and it pays the bond if the prisoner re-offends. Can you think of a better way of researching effective rehabilitation training? Prisons good at rehabilitation will prosper, bad ones will effectively fine their shareholders. I'd not allow a prison shareholder any limited liability either.

If the guy's not useful in the opinion of the state, and the state can objectively improve him, then let it improve him. All the state needs do is to make being useful a legal obligation.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:12 pm

good post. I agree with that.