Freed Serial Killer

[JinnTolser]

Wow. Those two should definitely never have seen the light of day again.

[AdamGarou]

*after reading the story on Venables and Thompson from Drinnik's link*

Well... I did ask.

...

...

...

...

Now I'm going to be sick.

If someone does find them, like the article stated, I don't think there'd be a lot of crying for them.

[Joël of the FoS]

What was amazing in this case is the age of the killers. What were they reallt thinking? Was it a dare?

Personally, since these were young and misguided kids, I hope they will grow up and forget this horror and lead a normal, peaceful life.

If they were adults, it would be something else, of course.

Joël

[AdamGarou]

If you kill someone, and the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it, then you die.

Thats where it's tricky though. Beyond reasonable doubt for one person may be different than to another person. Even the techniques (such as DNA testing) that we rely much on are falliable as nothing is perfect.

Which, I think, is one reason why American juries have twelve people on them. I'm no lawyer, but it's my understanding that for most cases there has to be a stated majority who agree on a verdict before it can be rendered (I think it's 9 of the 12). If that majority doesn't agree, then the case goes back for more deliberation; if they simply can't agree, there's a hung jury and a re-trial.

I'm not saying it's a perfect system, by any means. But it was instituted--among other reasons--because it would be more difficult to influence multiple people with different backgrounds and psychological make-ups than it would be to influence a single person (like a judge, for example).

And in regards to DNA testing, it's my understanding that such tests are performed multiple times and reviewed by independent experts regardless of whether they point to a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict, so I don't think there's as much fallibility there as one might be tempted to believe. If anyone works in that area or knows someone who does, feel free to correct me.

I don't think the modern death sentence has much bearing at all on crime rates. Canada has much lower crime rates than the States, even factoring in the lower population the %'s are lower.

I think this may ignore some other contributing factors, but I'd be interested in seeing the numbers. Do you have a source you can cite for this?

Now if you want to go in the past to civilizations that used death and immediate punishments with no form of jail time as their legal systems, I can guarantee that would lower the crime rate but I don't see anyone reverting back to that anytime soon.

All this may seem a bit weird for me to state after my previous comment, but that was in reference to what I would want if I was found guilty, not how I feel other people should be forced into.

What sets one human above the other to where they can judge innocence, and decide if another lives or dies? I don't see much difference between that and a truly guilty murderer.

Well, my thought is that a truly guilty murderer causes the death of another in order to satisfy some selfish desire or impulse. The jury that orders a death penalty may have some elements of that--the psychological need to "punish" someone for a ghastly crime--but on the whole their motivation is the protection of the rest of society. That is, those who DO obey the law and are thus entitled to the protections it is intended to afford.

In my mind, simply sending a murderer to prison is punishing those law-abiding citizens twice--once by the murderer having committed his crime, and again by the fact that money taken from our paychecks is used to pay his room and board, teach him skills, educate him, and remove his need to show up at a job each day like the rest of us do. One could even argue that there's a third punishment involved for the law-abiding citizen--that of knowing that the murderer can one day get out and commit the same crime again (regardless of supposed "life without parole" sentences, which have a strange way of being commuted).

The death penalty, on the other hand, is pretty final. Once again, no one who's executed ever murders anyone else again. Ever. Period.

I doubt I'll change anyone's opinion here who is against the death penalty... and I know this isn't the appropriate place to try. I can see valid points being made and still disagree with them, as anyone reading this is free to do with my opinions.

That said, I still think I'm right.

[Charney]

On my part, I'm against the death penalty in theory. If it was one of my kids who had been the victm, I might be wanting to pass the criminal through a guillotine. Still, I stick to the addage it's better to release a guilty than to condemn an innocent. That's the main reason I'm against the death penalty.

As for Homolka, her recently appearance in front of a judge were actually quite near where I grew up (Joliette) and a friend of my mom actually saw her going to the court.

I say yes to her surveillance. She's lucky to be out so she'd better not ask for too much freedom.

[Joël of the FoS]

I think this may ignore some other contributing factors, but I'd be interested in seeing the numbers. Do you have a source you can cite for this?

It's well known fact for canadians

You win all the way for murders and prisonner count...

From: http://www.nationmaster.com:

note: Canada is ± 10% of the US pop.

Definition: Total recorded intentional homicides, completed.
1. United States 12,658 (1999)
2. Canada 489 (2000)
(3 times higher with same pop)

Definition: Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm.
1. United States 8,259 (1999)
2. Canada 165 (1999)
(5 times higher with same pop. We sigh here when we hear Charlton Heston of the NRA saying "guns do not kill, it's bad people who do" ...)

Definition: Number of prisoners held.
1. United States 2,078,570 prisoners
2. Canada 36,024 prisoners
(6 times higher - in fact, a funny joke here is that if trends are to be continued, in 2025, half of the US population will be in jail, the other half will be Elvis impersonator )

We have a similar rape (a little higher here) and car theft rate.

Joël

[Jester of the FoS]

What was amazing in this case is the age of the killers. What were they reallt thinking? Was it a dare?

Personally, since these were young and misguided kids, I hope they will grow up and forget this horror and lead a normal, peaceful life.

If they were adults, it would be something else, of course.

Joël

That's the thing right, the age. Heck, if they did it in Canada we wouldn't have been able to even charge them. We don't legally find people responsible for their actions until they are 12.
A few weeks back we had a discussion on the youngest age you could have a player character and of course it was decided that 9-10 was too young, the mind isn't developed enough. The same should apply here.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

Neither of the boys showed remorse, and it wasn't until recently (some time in the past 3 years) that one of them even admitted to doing it.

I know that shopping centre, I used to go there with my parents when I was little. My Grandma still shops there occasionally. It was surreal. I was the same age as those boys.

[Joël of the FoS]

Neither of the boys showed remorse, and it wasn't until recently (some time in the past 3 years) that one of them even admitted to doing it.

To complete what I said earlier: of course it is so weird that they should be on watch and at the first sign of rabid behavior, you act.

Joël

[alhoon]

I am against Death Penalty as a legal punishment. While sometimes it can be useful, I have certain points against it:
- Mistakes cannot be corrected, and a legal system should be aware of that.
- Death penalty leaves no chance for redemption and a legal system should first and foremost attempt instruct the criminal, not just dissuade others from similar crimes.
- Killing isn't legal, so death penalty shouldn't be legal.

On the other hand: I said I'm against Death Penalty as a legal punishment because I believe that a legal system shouldn't contain it. But I believe it is fair for a brother or father to illegaly kill the murderer/rapist of their children/siblings. Said father should still go to prison for 10 - 15 years IMO but if somebody did that to my sister, I would do the act and pay the penalty.

So in short: I'm against Death Penalty as a legal punishment but I'm not against killing the man/woman that did such things with your own hands.
Yes, I know it seems strange; I know that most of you disagree. But this is my opinion never the less!

[Sir T]

Interestingly, one of the reasons they scrapped the death enalty in Britian was it was found to be a deterent to people reporting crime.

Concider the case of theft. Certain types of theft were concidered so serious that the death penalty was called for "as a deterent". However they found that as a result people generally did not report these crimes to the law, as they knew that someone would die if they did, so they let it go. And it had 0% deterance, as people still did it.

I have 0 sympathy with those who scream that the death penalty is a deterant, and then wave the worst asshole they can dig up in your face as a reason. Guess what, most people who commit even murder are not monsters. They are depressingly ordinary people who made a bad, bad BAD decision. The vast majority of murderers are not serial killers either. The reason we don't kill them is not to protect them. Its to protect ourselves from becoming them.

And since we are on the subject of deterance, the Irish police force has had to deal with both crime and a homegrown terroroist orginisation (The IRA) despite bieng UNARMED. And to say that they are well respected and succesful is an understatement. Wish I had joined up when I was younger, to be honest.

[Blackpaws]

Thanks for digging up that info so I didn't have to Joel.

Sitting here reading that article Drinnik linked has left me in a downcast mood. I think I'll go sit outside in the sun and read a bit. Having horror/fantasy fiction as a big part of your life can sometimes leave you desensitized to death and horror, until you see or read something that reminds you that those ingredients are a large part of the real world we live in.

[alhoon]

And since we are on the subject of deterance, the Irish police force has had to deal with both crime and a homegrown terroroist orginisation (The IRA) despite bieng UNARMED.

You can't be serious. . . How do they defend themselves? If a couple of policemen encounter 3 large drunk guys that are breaking down a shop with crowbars what do they do to stop them? Call reinforcements?
Guns are not the only means to stop someone, they could use these electro-sticks that stun, chemical spreys etc.

[Sir T]

And since we are on the subject of deterance, the Irish police force has had to deal with both crime and a homegrown terroroist orginisation (The IRA) despite bieng UNARMED.

You can't be serious. . . How do they defend themselves? If a couple of policemen encounter 3 large drunk guys that are breaking down a shop with crowbars what do they do to stop them? Call reinforcements?
Guns are not the only means to stop someone, they could use these electro-sticks that stun, chemical spreys etc.

Or a healthy dose of unarmed combat training, them bieng drunk, and therefore with the reflexes of a wet sponge. It the tyoe of thing that generally leaves a guy with a few bruises and sleeping it off in the cells, rather than a bullet in the spine

Generally they talk them down, call reinforcements to deal with something they can't handle by themsellves. The Police work by maintaining a really close relationshp with the comunity, which generally gives them the respect to talk down a dangerous situation.

That said, one special unit in the Irish police is armed. They are not idiots.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

British and Irish police also have collapsable batons that have a ball baring inside. One hit from one can break an arm if used with enough force. Personally, I think giving the police guns encourages more accidents.