Boy, 16, executes father's killer

[Xanikk999]

While I am amused of the prospect of enduring psychological damage,locking people up just drains the economy.

As about letting them go off lightly,we have nerve gas you know.Suffice to say its not the most fun way to go.

You would make a good torturer/executioner.

 

[Kozmos]

You would make a good torturer/executioner.

So I said on Career day,but they said there is no such job right now.Unless CIA prints up an ad looking for a psychotic Slavic torturer,I will stick to being an robotic informatics/electrotehnician.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

"murdered in revenge" ... don't you mean executed?

One person's execution is another person's murder.

BTW, your question could apply to any punishment a family member of the convicted felt was unfair.

You are right, which is why we don't have vigilante justice.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Sorry, but all I can think of when I read this is this:

A dog walks into a bar and says, "I'm looking for the man who shot my paw."

 

[Neomega]

My point was they're part of the same mindset and that advocating such an archaic practice would be a massive step backward.

That's a logical fallacy. If one supports isolationism, that does not mean they support segregation as well, even though both are from the same time period.

It's not a mindset. You are insinuating, because I am in favor of a loved one of the victim being allowed to determine the fate of the perpetrator of the crime, that I also think women should keep their faces and ankles covered in public, when clearly I have stated around these forums I enjoy pornography. You are insinuating I am of the mindset that western music is evil, and that there is one God, and his prophet is Mohammed. Yet I like dark electronic music and am for most practical purposes an Atheist.

That's ridiculous. I think it would be aleap forward, and a victory for victims if they were allowed to decide the fate of the perpetrators. Right now, some men who have kileed and raped children are walkign free 10-15 years later. Some men, like the guy who killed the Greoing family in Idaho, like prison, and likes to tells stories and has pictures of himself in pink panties showing off his pink *, and accompanies it with lurid stories of how he likes ass-rape.

Boy, we sure are showing him by sending him to prison, feeding him, and making him the little ***** he wants to be.

 

[colontos]

Did some more research into this case, apparently the kid's name was Inigo Montoya.

 

[Yom]

I'll repeat what I said at another forum:

I would have done the same thing with pleasure if I were in the boy's situation. In fact, if anyone ever killed my father (or mother or brother or any other family member I hold dear), I would personally find who and kill him/her (if feasible, obviously).

 

[Dann]

Actually i think its sick and sadistic. If my parents were murdered i would be to shocked and in tears to put someone to death.

If my parents were murdered I will be so angry and vindictive that I'd do anything to get to them before the police do, so that I can kill them myself. (Only 50% conviction if left to the courts. They might just walk.) Then I'd go turn myself in. Execute me if the state wants to. Justice has already been served.

 

[Narz]

So does Omar's son get to stab lil' Mo to death now? It's only fair.

Sounds good, the cycle will go round and round until the only one left is the youngest son.

 

[Dann]

No, because:
1) Mo did it under the auspices of their state's laws.
2) Omar committed murder first.
Omar's children will be too ashamed to even face Mo.

Now in my example I performed a vigilante action. I killed outside the law's framework. That is why I will turn myself in.

My parent's murderer's children could go after me sure. But they have only 50% justification for doing so, because their parent started it first by committing unprovoked murder.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4967108.stm
that's what I call pure justice. I totally think family members should be allowed state sanctioned justices, and I think they should be aloowed to dowse the killer of their children in acid first too, if they desire.

I agree, I would want a similar punishment if anyone hurt my child, but that is why I don't get to choose.

I think, the punishment of murderers and rapists should be left to the victims and the victim's families. If they want to let them live, I think the family is more entitled to making that decision than a court of law.

Sorry but I disagree entirely. The reason for putting the power of punishment in the hands of the State is not only to protect the criminal's rights, but also to protect the victim.

If the victim has power of deciding what punishment a criminal gets, you are making them vulnerable to many forms of coercion. Including threats of further violence if a lenient punishment isn't imposed.

 

[Dreadnought]

Sorry but I disagree entirely. The reason for putting the power of punishment in the hands of the State is not only to protect the criminal's rights, but also to protect the victim.

If the victim has power of deciding what punishment a criminal gets, you are making them vulnerable to many forms of coercion. Including threats of further violence if a lenient punishment isn't imposed.

Totally agree.

 

[Neomega]

Sorry but I disagree entirely. The reason for putting the power of punishment in the hands of the State is not only to protect the criminal's rights, but also to protect the victim.

If the victim has power of deciding what punishment a criminal gets, you are making them vulnerable to many forms of coercion. Including threats of further violence if a lenient punishment isn't imposed.

interesting. The same could be said about testifying against someone though.

 

[Shaihulud]

Families of victims or victims definitely should get the dibs on executing or punishing their tormentors, after due trial of course. If a family forfeit the honour of executing the criminal, perhaps we can commute it to life sentence... I wonder will it reduce the number of execution? Or vice versa.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

interesting. The same could be said about testifying against someone though.

Very true, which is why testimony is sometimes given annoynmously.

Besides, testimony from the family is not always necessary to convict.

 

[Corlindale]

I disagree completely. You cannot base a justice system on emotion, it is unfair to the victims(because the state sanctions that they can become murderers while they're in an emotionally unstable situation, which they might come to regret later), and it is unfair to the culprit(because different families might choose different punishment, which could result in a great variety of punishments for the same crime).
Besides, punishment and revenge mentality really doesn't have any place in modern society. There are, IMO, 2 main purposes of "punishment" by state:
1. Keep society secure(ie: Lock 'em up)
2. Try to make the culprit fit to return to society(psychological treatment, etc...)
Torture and death achieves none of this, and should never be sanctioned by the state. It should never be an independent goal to punish people, even if the people violated might feel that way.

 

[MamboJoel]

How about reintroducing the duels ? They were cool.

 

[.Shane.]

That's a logical fallacy. If one supports isolationism, that does not mean they support segregation as well, even though both are from the same time period.

No, its not a "logic fallacy", its an opinion.

That's ridiculous. I think it would be aleap forward, and a victory for victims if they were allowed to decide the fate of the perpetrators. Right now, some men who have kileed and raped children are walkign free 10-15 years later.

Here's the true logic gap. In that the alternative to the death penalty somehow means that horrible criminals must be let go after X amount of years.

You can get rid of the death penalty and still have a system that protects society and does so more effeciently.

@Corlindale, well said.

 

[Leonel]

Lock up murderers so they have to live with it, dont end them and let them off lightly.

That is assuming the murderers actually feel any guilt for what they've done. Marilyn Manson still isn't remorseful and even says that his only regret is that he hasn't killed enough.

 

[.Shane.]

Marilyn Manson still isn't remorseful and even says that his only regret is that he hasn't killed enough.

ROFL, you mean Charles.

Seriously though, who cares how he feels? He's removed from society and he's never getting out. That's what matters.