34 year old gets 20 years for Raping 79 year old woman....

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm just saying if it were utilized more often and we stopped letting scum back out on the streets after ####### like this, we'd be better off.

So, it has nothing to do with 'thinning the herd' and everything to do with your personal opinion that the only way to keep 'scum off the streets' is to kill them? Great, glad we've got that all cleared up then.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

So, it has nothing to do with 'thinning the herd' and everything to do with your personal opinion that the only way to keep 'scum off the streets' is to kill them? Great, glad we've got that all cleared up then.

Well... how else do you keep the filth off the street in a cost effective manner?

In a way that does not tie up rescources we don't have, with man hours we can't afford??

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So, it has nothing to do with 'thinning the herd' and everything to do with your personal opinion that the only way to keep 'scum off the streets' is to kill them? Great, glad we've got that all cleared up then.

There are other ways to keep them off the streets that doesn't cost the taxpayers more money (yes eliminate the abundant appeals process in cases like this).?

Please enlighten me. I'd be glad to hear it.

I don't agree with China on a lot of things, but I love the idea of a single bullet and then charge the family for it.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't know... he might have a pretty thick skull... maybe a 45 would be required...

Also, to address a post above about blood lust. You miss understand this has nothing to do with blood lust or even 'thinning the herd'

The major issue here is: can this person be repaired? I, and others it seems, do not believe that this person can be fixed, so that this kind of infraction is not repeated.

If an animal goes mad you shoot it. You do not lock it up. When a person breaks and is not repairable, its mercy to both them and society, to end the matter.

-P

We euthanize animals when they get 'too old' or 'too sick'. Shall we implement that as well?

It does have something to do with 'blood lust' when the only way to express a suitable level of disgust is to participate in this 'harmless banter' on the best way to kill someone you have never met and know nothing about based on reading an article posted on a message board about a crime.

I have no need to participate in it to realize that when horrible and heinous crimes are committed, the perpetrators should be 1) Prevented from committing any further horrible and heinous crimes. 2) Punished for perpetrating such crimes and 3) all reasonable attempts made to make perpetrators of such crimes understand the nature and consequences of their crimes.

[The_Dude 1,142]

There are other ways to keep them off the streets that doesn't cost the taxpayers more money (yes eliminate the abundant appeals process in cases like this).?

Please enlighten me. I'd be glad to hear it.

I don't agree with China on a lot of things, but I love the idea of a single bullet and then charge the family for it.

You heard it folks, Paul agrees with china, he's a communist. Are you now going to go out and help campaign for Nancy Pelosi?

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Yes, please do enlighten me. I would love to hear all about them.

The most expensive way is to lock them up. It costs massive amounts of money and resources to build, staff and maintain a prison system.

The time and cost in appeals, is not even close to the cost of locking them up.

There are other ways to keep them off the streets that doesn't cost the taxpayers more money (yes eliminate the abundant appeals process in cases like this).?

Please enlighten me. I'd be glad to hear it.

I don't agree with China on a lot of things, but I love the idea of a single bullet and then charge the family for it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, cost effective is the key eh? Well, I think you are on your own with that one. No one in authority is going to advocate that the key to dealing with criminals is providing only cost effective solutions. Criminals are expensive, dealing with them is expensive and there is no way around that. You could dispense with the death penalty and save quite a bit of money that way - but no one is going to start executing rapists.

[Ali G. 37]

Criminals are expensive, dealing with them is expensive and there is no way around that. You could dispense with the death penalty and save quite a bit of money that way - but no one is going to start executing rapists.

Hence prevention is better than cure. Evidently most other industrialized countries have caught onto this and do what they can to proactively mitigate crime. Whereas, such actions would be considered against the constitution, against freedom, socialist or some other idiocy here.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

there's some prevention, booyah. zero recidivism!

Edited April 15, 2010 by charles!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wanting to murder someone you've never met based on an article you wouldn't have read if it hadn't been posted on this board is not only juvenile but completely irrational. People seem to like allowing their base emotions to rule their brains. It's very strange.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

We euthanize animals when they get 'too old' or 'too sick' if someone does not want to care for them. I had a pet kitty that was almost 18 years old. He was too old and too sick to be of any use to anyone. However; I, was willing to accept the cost for his health and well being. If there are people willing to accept the cost for criminals, I have no problem with it. You paint the issue with much too broad a brush...

also, please explain your point #3.... Why should we do that? After the crime is committed, its too late for that...

We euthanize animals when they get 'too old' or 'too sick'. Shall we implement that as well?

It does have something to do with 'blood lust' when the only way to express a suitable level of disgust is to participate in this 'harmless banter' on the best way to kill someone you have never met and know nothing about based on reading an article posted on a message board about a crime.

I have no need to participate in it to realize that when horrible and heinous crimes are committed, the perpetrators should be 1) Prevented from committing any further horrible and heinous crimes. 2) Punished for perpetrating such crimes and 3) all reasonable attempts made to make perpetrators of such crimes understand the nature and consequences of their crimes.

[Peikko 1,575]

Hence prevention is better than cure. Evidently most other industrialized countries have caught onto this and do what they can to proactively mitigate crime. Whereas, such actions would be considered against the constitution, against freedom, socialist or some other idiocy here.

Yes, prevention as far as is possible is better than cure. If there were proper health care provision for the mentally ill, an awful lot of crime would simply never happen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, prevention as far as is possible is better than cure. If there were proper health care provision for the mentally ill, an awful lot of crime would simply never happen.

That is true. Quite shameful how little infrastructure there is for treating chronic mental illnesses. Quite a few countries are guilty of that.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yes, prevention as far as is possible is better than cure. If there were proper health care provision for the mentally ill, an awful lot of crime would simply never happen.

See, there's where you just went completely wrong.

The assumption is these people are 'mentally ill.'

No. They don't meet societies standards on what they believe/have feelings towards. That doesn't make them 'mentally ill,' it just makes them different.

It's a simple matter of people 'acting' on their feelings versus being more scared of societies reactions.

Do you really think the amount of homosexuals out there is larger than it was 50 years ago? Do you honestly believe that every person that's attracted to small children actually acts on it? Do you believe everyone who could snap the neck of another person and not think twice about it, actually acts on it?

If you think any of those things, you're dead wrong.

Mental illness is not what it is, it's a different way of thinking.

We define that of which we don't understand in society as an 'illness' though to make us feel better about what just happened that we can't grasp.

[Peikko 1,575]

We euthanize animals when they get 'too old' or 'too sick' if someone does not want to care for them. I had a pet kitty that was almost 18 years old. He was too old and too sick to be of any use to anyone. However; I, was willing to accept the cost for his health and well being. If there are people willing to accept the cost for criminals, I have no problem with it. You paint the issue with much too broad a brush...

also, please explain your point #3.... Why should we do that? After the crime is committed, its too late for that...

You do not see any requirement to face a criminal with the reality of what they have done? I do, I think that is one of the most responsible things we can do. Of course, many criminals are mentally ill and while there is no 'fixing' some mental illnesses, there is a lot more 'management' of them that could and should be done but is not because of this 'personal responsibility for health care' #######.

Most people do accept the cost that goes with having to deal with criminals. I do not think I have ever seen someone complain that their tax dollars go toward the upkeep of penal institutions and that is where a lot of tax dollars go. Of course, the US has too many people in jail that should never end up there.