The most vile trash on earth

My dad, cousin, and brother in law all work in a prison. All three said that the guys that kill or rape kids are not well thought of by the other prisoners. More than a few times they will put a guy in a cell and happen to say out loud what they are in for while other prisoners are around.When these two people are in prison they are going to wish they were dead.I say throw the mother in men's general population for a year.

Houston resident wrote:

No reason for them to live.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21977817

realistic wrote:

There's nothing sick and twisted to wanting the person or people responsible for doing that to an innocent child to have to pay the ultimate price. The death penalty is a great deterrent -- it deters those who commit such heinous crimes from ever doing so again. If other states/countries don't believe in it, that's not my problem. I don't live my life trying to please the misguided whims of those people. I'm far beyond giving a damn about what you or they think.

I agree with this guy. I wish I lived one of those free, democratic countries that still performs the death penalty. You know, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and the USA.

Britain abolished the death penalty in 64.

Since then the rise in murders has increased about tenfold.

As a ’life’ sentence in Britain is about 11 years, it’s rather obvious that many who commit premeditated murder take that into account when considering the odds on being caught and successfully prosecuted.

I’m sure it would deter their enthusiasm, the knowledge that they might swing on the end of a gibbet, rather than spend a comfortable few years in clink if they got caught.

Actually, the US is hardly a fervent devotee of the capital punishment route as only what? - 52 were executed last year?

Out of how many murders?

Usually when a state governer needs a boost in popularity.

If the government feels that killing someone is a reasonable way to solve a problem, why expect a couple of meth-fueled rednecks to think any differently?

No to 2012 wrote:

Britain abolished the death penalty in 64.

Since then the rise in murders has increased about tenfold.

Actually, it is more like a twofold increase in the homicide rate.

The number of homicides per million people in England and Wales reached a 20th-century low in 1960 (6.2)--down from 9.6 in 1900--and then peaked at 14.5 in 1995. By 2005-06, this number had declined slightly to 13.6.

In the United States, the numbers were:

1960: 51

1995: 82

2004: 55

Both countries had a dramatic increase in homicide rates starting in the 1960s (in the U.S. it got as high as 102 in 1980), followed by a decline.

Really?

I did use a bit of poetic licence - with kids running around stabbing everybody and guns now in general use - it seems like tenfold.

However, there were 296 homicides in Britain in 1964.

Doesn’t seem that many to me.

We’re obviously not sure what the 2007 figure will be, but I rather think it’ll be more than double that.

Incidentally - there are about 16,000 homicides each year in the US and as I pointed out - only 52 executions.

I imagine potential murderers in the US are very much aware of those odds.

Even though it's Texas, my bet is that only the guy gets the death penalty. It sounds like the mom "cooperated" with authorities, probably to spare her life, wrteched though it may be.

You have to remember that the absolute numbers are really not a meaningful comparison--you have to look at the rate with respect to the overall population.

realistic wrote:

Being killed by lethal injection or even the electric chair hardly qualifies as "medieval." Being beaten so badly that you suffer three skull fractures and you die, then are thrown into a storage bin and dumped into the ocean comes much closer to being that.

There's nothing sick and twisted to wanting the person or people responsible for doing that to an innocent child to have to pay the ultimate price. The death penalty is a great deterrent -- it deters those who commit such heinous crimes from ever doing so again. If other states/countries don't believe in it, that's not my problem. I don't live my life trying to please the misguided whims of those people. I'm far beyond giving a damn about what you or they think.

The ultimate price? How do you know what the ultimate price is? Are you arrogant enough to claim to know everything about life and the universe?

And yes, it is medieval. In fact, it's much worse than that. It's retributive justice as was originally formed in Hammurabi's Code thousands of years ago. Eye for an eye. Don't most religions and morally correct people agree that eye for an eye is not a moral practice?

No human is wise enough to know the correct move to make. There is no way these people should be allowed around others that they could harm--that is a given. As for killing them? That power belongs to no one, and it never should. Once you understand death, the world, life and everything else you can rule on whether you or anyone else has the authority to take away death.

You are forgetting about the restricting motivation to an "eye for an eye". An eye for an eye was established as a restriction to the human impulse toward retributive overkill. It was meant to ensure that someone who had their eye taken from them wouldn't respond by taking a head in payback.By the way, even in Texas they fall way short of an eye for an eye: A man who rapes 3 kids and then sets them ablaze isn't killed in the same manner...he is painlessly put to sleep with an injection.

If we say that "no human is wise enough to make the correct move", how can we in the same breath make absolute pronouncements about "most morally correct people?"If all truth is relative, subjective and not absolute...why are subjective relativists always the most fired up people making objective statements of truth on these boards?Someone enlighten me...on second thought, don't.

Yeah wrote:

"Don't most religions and morally correct people agree that eye for an eye is not a moral practice?"

"No human is wise enough to know the correct move to make."

"grif" has it right. This is about upholding a civil society. We cannot allow anyone to think for a minute they can do this and keep their life.

That will not deter this type of crime. You can't expect crazy people to think rationally.

opposite of satori wrote:

If we say that

"no human is wise enough to make the correct move",

how can we in the same breath make absolute pronouncements about

"most morally correct people?"

If all truth is relative, subjective and not absolute...why are subjective relativists always the most fired up people making objective statements of truth on these boards?

Someone enlighten me...on second thought, don't.

I will enlighten you, since you criticize people who are outright with their opinions, priding yourself for "keeping your distance" from such arguments--with the clause, of course, that you can't resist the urge to come in and knock people if you see any hint of opportunity.

I will start with: when did I ever say that truth is relative?

There is a theory that morals are objective. Therefore, cultural differences that make it fine for people to be raped in some countries doesn't make that "correct." They simply don't know the objective morally right thing to do. Just because we accepted slavery in the 18th century doesn't mean that it is morally "correct" it just means that we weren't smart enough to know the morally correct route yet. Once a majority of us did, slavery was abolished. Following? Therefore, morals are indeed objective under this theory (which is what I follow). However, I DISAGREE that we have the knowledge of something that no one on earth has experience in (death) to the extent that we should be making judgements on what is moral in the case of killing a man or woman.

Now go back and play the uppity, neutral observer some more.

C'mon, already. Torturing and killing little kids is no big deal. I bet we've all done it at some point.

Yeah wrote:

The ultimate price? How do you know what the ultimate price is? Are you arrogant enough to claim to know everything about life and the universe?

And yes, it is medieval. In fact, it's much worse than that. It's retributive justice as was originally formed in Hammurabi's Code thousands of years ago. Eye for an eye. Don't most religions and morally correct people agree that eye for an eye is not a moral practice?

No human is wise enough to know the correct move to make. There is no way these people should be allowed around others that they could harm--that is a given. As for killing them? That power belongs to no one, and it never should. Once you understand death, the world, life and everything else you can rule on whether you or anyone else has the authority to take away death.

Yes, I'm pretty damn arrogant, and I know everything about life and the universe. I also know the definition of medieval, especially with the way you used it originally. You should look it up.

I am wise enough to know the correct move to make. In fact, I do know the correct move to make: If these people are found guilty of torturing and then killing this child, THIS 2-YEAR-OLD CHILD, then yes, damn right, they should pay the ultimate price -- they should be executed. That power doesn't "belong to no one," as you stated, it belongs to the state. And I'm glad Texas is a state that isn't afraid to use it.

So electrocuting a man in his head isn't medieval? I guess that's a matter of opinion, but I think you actually saw it happen, you might change your mind. I never misused the word.

You have no idea what the correct move is to make, your arrogance is idiotic (and not funny, and not attractive, and not intriguing as you seem to think it is) and with the obvious trend over the last thousand or so years, it is clear that someday there will be no death penalty--a good move to make, considering all we have yet to figure out about our lives. You have absolutely no clue if spending 50 years in prison or dying a quick death is the "ultimate" price to these people.

You, sir, are a moron, in the clearest sense of the word.

Good point. I would rather see more of my taxes go towards putting these cowards to death. At least I would feel my money is going towards a good cause...

V6ipam wrote:

So electrocuting a man in his head isn't medieval? I guess that's a matter of opinion

No, it's not medieval. Wanna know why? They didn't have electricity then, silly.