TheDarkDemon

I was reading a pretty horrible article this morning, I kind of had to double take reading the whole thing; it's about a woman who burned her 3 children alive to prevent her divorced husband from having custody of the kids. You can read the article here, it's pretty fucked up.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/listen-screams-mothers-chilling-phone-5151121

After learning about the atrocities she committed, I think she falls in line with being psychotic, but how would she be properly punished in a first-world nation? This happened in Belgium, so as far as Capital punishment goes, the death penalty is not possible. But can she be cured of her obvious mental-health ills through a sentence in prison or institutionalization, and most importantly, would that be a good use of our resources?

This in turn begs the question, would you consider the death penalty ethical in situations like these? If not, do you believe that the criminal justice system would be ideal for someone of this caliber? Ultimately I just wanted to start a discussion on Capital Punishment.

That's just wrong what she did to her kids, I think the natural response would be for her to have the death sentence, that's what I would think anyway. Or if the death penalty is too much, then a life imprisonment should be given to her. It's only fair, isn't it? She took 3 lives, she really shouldn't deserve her own.

Of course, being only 14, I'm probably misunderstanding things that some of you older lads might understand.

It's a question of whether proportion comes into play or not, if you think about it with pure logic than her punishment should be proportionate to her crime, so she should in turn be killed. However first world ethics obviously come into play to prevent it being that simple. I mean in this situation I know 100 percent where I stand, what she did was the opposite of fucking ethical so I think she should be burned herself. That said it's too hard for me to really make a blanket statement capital punishment.

On top of that you can't really claim to be a civilized modern society with capital punishment integrated into it, I mean no matter the context it defeats the purpose of being "civilized." Like I just said, yeah it wasn't very civilized of her to burn her fucking kids either and i'm not gonna undermine the impact of that, but the concept of the criminal justice system executing people as a means of punishment can be brought into question no matter what the circumstance or justification is. It is innately a very debatable thing by sheer cause of concept (which of course is why you're here).

However when you talk about capital punishment, of course there is shit like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schapelle_Corby. Keeping in mind that's just to be used as an example of potential innocence. Like can you imagine if they had just fucking executed Rubin Carter, found out 20 years later that he was innocent and then just said "oops." Things would have been A LOT more severe than if they had just released him, and Rubin being released was already a HUGE deal in it's own right. So the potential ripple effect that capital punishment can have when not conducted with the utmost care could be devastating on a societal level.

There are a lot of sub-contexts to consider when you talk about something like capital punishment which is why I reallllly don't have a concrete stance on it.

I agree with Mitch, burn her like a witch.
Throw her in a ditch and the worms make her skin itch.
She's obviously a bitch, snap her neck and watch her twitch
Burn her with pitch, that's the end of my sales pitch.

Word.


But yeah, I think heinous crimes and the criminal who commit them need to be dealt with in a harsh manner.
For a pedophile, chop off each finger that fondled a kid.

Ending someone else's life isn't "ethical" (at least in my opinion) within any scenario. I suppose ethics are relative, so we will abide by most 1st World countries' ethical standards.

With that said, I believe in this particular situation, she should be executed by whatever means for her transgressions. Regarding her possibility of mental illness, I don't know. I can't say whether or not she was cognizant of her actions. She could be completely sane, in which case she does not deserve the slightest pity. If she was not, it's hard to say with the potential for numerous variables that may play in.

Like Mitch, I don't have a concrete stance on capital punishment, so I can't advise it as a general rule of thumb on either extreme. However, I believe intentions matter a great deal; more so than they seem to factor within a court. e.g. this woman burned her kids alive because jelly of husband's custody rights, as opposed to a situation where an individual kills the man that molested his daughter. Same charge, different punishments. Although, these are essentially on opposite ends of the spectrum, so I figure a court would decree a lesser sentence for the latter anyway.

Those are my thoughts for now.

Think about this before you advocate capital punishment: the big bang happened. This caused, in a very complicated and specific series of events, life to be formed on earth. Soon, life evolved, and specific DNA was passed on to the successor to lines of organisms. Genes. These genes would influence the way the next organism behaved to a very large extent. Eventually these organisms evolved into humans. Now, we pass our genes on. Our environment also influences us. People who grow up in the bad parts of Detroit -- they're likely to make friends who influence them negatively.

One man is born from a family of men with psychotic tendencies, and he's also born in an environment where his psychotic tendencies are not obstructed. It is not this man's fault he becomes a killer. It is not anyone's fault anyone becomes anything. This same logic can be applied to a rich man, or a president... Anyone. In the end, no one is deserving of anything. Oh, also, with this philosophy, free will is out of the picture.

It's called Determinism. Search it up if you want to see some more about it. But basically, I don't think someone should be killed for a crime (no matter how great) when they were literally destined from the time of the big bang to commit them.

Demise wrote:Think about this before you advocate capital punishment: the big bang happened. This caused, in a very complicated and specific series of events, life to be formed on earth. Soon, life evolved, and specific DNA was passed on to the successor to lines of organisms. Genes. These genes would influence the way the next organism behaved to a very large extent. Eventually these organisms evolved into humans. Now, we pass our genes on. Our environment also influences us. People who grow up in the bad parts of Detroit -- they're likely to make friends who influence them negatively.

One man is born from a family of men with psychotic tendencies, and he's also born in an environment where his psychotic tendencies are not obstructed. It is not this man's fault he becomes a killer. It is not anyone's fault anyone becomes anything. This same logic can be applied to a rich man, or a president... Anyone. In the end, no one is deserving of anything. Oh, also, with this philosophy, free will is out of the picture.

It's called Determinism. Search it up if you want to see some more about it. But basically, I don't think someone should be killed for a crime (no matter how great) when they were literally destined from the time of the big bang to commit them.

Determinism is a philosophy, not factual substance. Behavioral tendencies resulting from our genetic make-up and environmental factors are fact. Determinism contains aspects of science, but, in and of itself, is not. I don't know if you believe it as fact, but you presented as such. So, in my opinion:

they were literally destined from the time of the big bang to commit them.

This is bullshit. We make our own decisions. As stated before, obviously mental disorders exist, so these individuals that suffer may be more susceptible to violent behavior. But being "destined" to be a killer is ludicrous.

There's always a chance of sending someone innocent to death with capital punishment, that's why I will never be able to support it. You can't be 100% certain. It's pretty ineffective as a deterrent, and it has no purpose other than giving the victim's family retribution. I'm sorry but capital punishment has no place in civilized society.

Plus I'm pretty sure the criminals are going to suffer more by rotting in prison for the rest of their life, rather than having a quick and painless death.

Alca wrote:There's always a chance of sending someone innocent to death with capital punishment, that's why I will never be able to support it. You can't be 100% certain. It's pretty ineffective as a deterrent, and it has no purpose other than giving the victim's family retribution. I'm sorry but capital punishment has no place in civilized society.

Plus I'm pretty sure the criminals are going to suffer more by rotting in prison for the rest of their life, rather than having a quick and painless death.

Yeah, I suppose that's right. What I posted 3 months ago I think I take back. Funny how 3 months can change people. :)

Of course if you look at it from someone a lot more personal to the situation I'm sure you'd be a lot more agreeable to a death penalty.

I would approve the Death Penalty, but, it costs a LOT of money. An average of $1.26 million compared to the $700K a case of a person without a death penalty costs. Society needs that money to fix the many problems we have instead of spitting hate on criminals that already have their life ruined.

In my opinion, I'd love to go back to the ancient/medieval times, someone steals something? chop his hand off, someone rapes? chop his sexual organ off or maul it to pieces (depending on the gender). And only use death penatly for murderers or really fucked up cases like this one. For the money aspect... just chop their heads off with a blade, doesn't matter if its rusty, then burn the corpse or feed it to the lions in the zoo. We don't need more criminals people in jails creating more costs. But all this is my view if it were the case of Mexico, I really can't say anything about USA since I don't live there.

Of course... this would only work if the murder or crime/whatever could be solved 100% without getting someone innocent involved in the matter. Or same as mitch... the punishment should be proportionate to the crime commited.

Omega wrote:In my opinion, I'd love to go back to the ancient/medieval times, someone steals something? chop his hand off, someone rapes? chop his sexual organ off or maul it to pieces (depending on the gender). And only use death penatly for murderers or really fucked up cases like this one. For the money aspect... just chop their heads off with a blade, doesn't matter if its rusty, then burn the corpse or feed it to the lions in the zoo. We don't need more criminals people in jails creating more costs. But all this is my view if it were the case of Mexico, I really can't say anything about USA since I don't live there.

Of course... this would only work if the murder or crime/whatever could be solved 100% without getting someone innocent involved in the matter. Or same as mitch... the punishment should be proportionate to the crime commited.

That doesn't solve the money problem... The methods used barely makes any difference to the cost. The real cost comes from the legal fees. It costs an astronomical amount to sentence someone to death. It doesn't matter if you execute someone with a wooden spoon for what it's worth, it wouldn't solve the money problem at all. It costs a lot more to sentence someone to death than it does to keep them in jail.