http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237558,00.html

Since we are on a legal kick as of late.

How about a Mom, who held her 9 year old daughter down, and took 20 bucks a pop, for a pedophile to molest her?

200 times.

For 2 years.

No, I think the Oakland man who tortured and killed his 3-year-old for screwing up on flash cards (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/19/BAG8JN209G1.DTL) has that woman beat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237558,00.html

Since we are on a legal kick as of late.

How about a Mom, who held her 9 year old daughter down, and took 20 bucks a pop, for a pedophile to molest her?

200 times.

For 2 years.

Only 10 years for that ?

:bs: :bs: :bs:

Hmm. If I was making the laws, I assure you, it would not cost 250 million to put these people down, nor would they get 10 years.

.22 LR Hollowpoint, inserted at 750fps at base of the skull and C1 vertebrae: $.05
Ruger Mark 2 target pistol, reusable many, many times: $300.00
Cremating the remains and throwing the ashes into a landfill: $1,000.00

The only 100%, foolproof way of permanently, now and forever, removing people that can not be rehabilitated from society : Priceless.

Of course, they'd get their day in court, 3 appeals, and last meal. But no more 15 years of bullsh!t. 3 appeals, lasting no more than 2 years total, and you're out!

And, btw, brain stem total destruction = instant unconsciousness and death.
Decapitation doesn't slice through brain stem area.
Lethal injection might have some problems.
Electric chair obviously has some lingering problems.

If it's the most humane way for us to put down cows, we should totally try it on humans that to me, due to their horrific acts, are worth less consideration.

These stories remind me of the woman that had a male "friend" babysit her 3 year old daughter, and when she came back, the male "babysitter" was drunk, passed out and naked next to the body of her precious 3 year old, whom had been violated, which action directly caused her death.

A textbook "open and shut" case if there is ever such a thing. There should have been a 30 minute trial, and execution on the courthouse lawn. If people are queasy, there would be slews of volunteers to perform the "distasteful" duty of taking these people out of the gene pool, society, and all of our lives.

I don't want to understand them, I don't hate them, I don't want revenge on them, I just want them out of the physical realm.

Hmm. If I was making the laws,It's fortunate you're not.

You would like to set our society back centuries, so you can fulfill your bloodlust. Ironically, you say that while under the protection of a society that forbids such bloodlust (well, to a degree).

Courthouse lawn executions based on evidence from one witness are fine for the one in power, ordering them. Everyone else is screwed. Yes, including you, even though you think you're in the majority and immune.I don't want to understand them, I don't hate them, I don't want revenge on them, I just want them out of the physical realm.I'll ask you the same question I asked Fyyr: if it's not revenge, then why? Assume they go to a place where they can never affect anyone in society again. Given that assumption, why do you insist on killing them?

It's fortunate you're not.
Or, unfortunate.

You would like to set our society back centuries,
Or forward.

so you can fulfill your bloodlust.
Death is inevitable, we all die. How it happens does make a difference.

Ironically, you say that while under the protection of a society that forbids such bloodlust (well, to a degree).
No irony.

Courthouse lawn executions based on evidence from one witness are fine for the one in power, ordering them. Everyone else is screwed. Yes, including you, even though you think you're in the majority and immune.
That is only based on the idea that everyone found guilty is innocent. How can they all be innocent?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Fyyr: if it's not revenge, then why?
And I gave you MY reason, because I will it, because I want to. No lust. Why do you want to floss your teeth in the morning, or take a sh!t, perhaps? Because you want to, because you will it, because it is a good idea, perhaps?

You feel something when a murderer is executed, Pain perhaps? Remorse? Guilt, perhaps? Tuda, do you feel pain, some inner pain, some inner conflict of psyche when the government, on your behalf kills another person? Is that what this is all about?

I am just the opposite end of that pole of you, that is all. Maybe Gunny is too, I can't speak for him.

What emotion, or empathy is it that YOU feel, that you must require these people, these murderers, these rapists to live?

It is based on some ancient holy book, some religion perhaps, some morality that reveres the sanctity, the holiness of life above all else?

Assume they go to a place where they can never affect anyone in society again.
That is actually a very Libertarian notion. Right out of the textbook, really. But na, that would be no fun.

Given that assumption, why do you insist on killing them?
Given all the facts, why do you still think these people should live when others die?

Why do YOU feel that these people should live? People die every day. Why are these people special to you?

No, I think the Oakland man who tortured and killed his 3-year-old for screwing up on flash cards (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/19/BAG8JN209G1.DTL) has that woman beat.

If I recall you were for having any kid that reached puberty be fair game sexually, so its not surprising you dont consider the OPs topic that bad.

I find it increasingly ironic that people who wouldn't trust their own government with even a couple of dollars would blindly trust them not to kill them after a swift 30minute trial.

That is only based on the idea that everyone found guilty is innocent. How can they all be innocent?No, it isn't, not even remotely.Why do you want to floss your teeth in the morning, or take a sh!t, perhaps? Because you want to, because you will it, because it is a good idea, perhaps?You floss your teeth to prevent them from falling out. You take a sh*t to prevent your bowels from exploding.

Now, you play the game.

You kill Michael Morales because ___________________.What emotion, or empathy is it that YOU feel, that you must require these people, these murderers, these rapists to live?

It is based on some ancient holy book, some religion perhaps, some morality that reveres the sanctity, the holiness of life above all else?Morality is a big part of it. No doubt, that would be very difficult to understand for someone who has no moral compass, so I don't blame you.

Another part is our mini social contract, which we call the Constitution, that guarantees the right to life. What is the point of having a right to life, when it can be taken away for no articulable reason?

A third part is fear of abuse and anarchy, in Gunny Burlfoot's version of America.

A fourth part is the utilitarian sense of waste in the whole process; to do it as fairly as possible, we have to expend a ton of resources and gain no benefit at all.

I could probably think of one or two more reasons, if these aren't satisfying enough.

By the way, I think Michael Morales is scum, just as you do; I don't empathize with him one bit.Given all the facts, why do you still think these people should live when others die?Those people don't die against their will, at the hands of, and with the approval of, the state. Huge difference.

Another part is our mini social contract, which we call the Constitution, that guarantees the right to life. What is the point of having a right to life, when it can be taken away for no articulable reason?

Show me where in the Constitution of the United States of America that there is a Right to Life.

Show me.

Quote it.

Those people don't die against their will, at the hands of, and with the approval of, the state.

We just killed a whole bunch of Iraqis, at the hands of our state. Regardless of how, people do die all the time, every day, even at the hands of our state.

Which is what is leading me to this may all be stemming from your inner guilt, in the matter.

If you, as a member of the state, allows the state to kill, then it really is you is killing. And perhaps you, personally, feel guilty about killing, or death in general.

Is that your motivation,,,,guilt?

We just killed a whole bunch of Iraqis, at the hands of our state.Are we at war with the people on death row? Do they pose a continuing threat to us?

Come on, you can do better than that.Is that your motivation,,,,guilt?Not at all. If the state did ultimately execute Michael Morales, I wouldn't feel guilty at all. His death doesn't concern me, the system which caused his death does.

I find it increasingly ironic that people who wouldn't trust their own government with even a couple of dollars would blindly trust them not to kill them after a swift 30minute trial.

That particular case I mentioned, with the evidence presented as it is, has no room for any doubt, much less reasonable doubt. Not every case would be 30 minutes long. If you had read my entire post, you notice that I say it should take about 2 years on average for a normal murder case to progress from conviction to death.

Normal meaning, the guy is saying he didn't do it, and he was smart enough to hide the body, destroy the weapon, burn the car, and/or burn the clothes used in the act. Thus, the intelligent murdering psychopaths would always have to be convicted by circumstantial evidence.

In the "babysitter" rape and murder above, there is no doubt. The parents found him at the scene of the crime, drunk and passed out, their precious little daughter stripped of her clothing and violated enough for her to be killed by the act itself. When there is absolutely no doubt as in that case, the trial is merely a formality.
I know he is guilty, you know he is guilty, and there should be no appeals when the evidence is direct, as in that case. Unless you hold some irrational belief that there should never be a death penalty, and then you will blindly rattle off pithy catch phrases with no real thought as to whether society as a whole would benefit from the non-existence of such a person that would do such a crime. I'm more than willing to look at each case and if the evidence is flimsy, have 99 year sentences, no parole, for those cases.

However, if the evidence is strong and they are convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, there really shouldn't be any appeal. The appeals process is to make damn sure we have the right guy (or girl). It is not a way out for murderers to continue to draw breath on the same planet at our expense, or give them some sort of false hope, which I think could be more cruel than they at least knowing with certainty that they will die for their crime.

Circumstantial evidence requires much greater poring over and attention to detail, and thus would require many more days than a brief 30 minute trial. If the evidence is as damning as the case I listed above, rational people should dispel uncertainty for the murderer's disposal, give closure for the parents/friends/family, lessen monetary expediture for the state, and lessen overcrowding of our prisons.

The current system as it is today, harms everyone, and benefits no one, except perhaps the lawyers, who get paid everything the murderer and his/her family owns and can beg, borrow or steal in a vain attempt to prevent the removal of an uncontrollable element of society, from society via the only foolproof means available.

Are we at war with the people on death row? Do they pose a continuing threat to us?

Come on, you can do better than that.
I was just saying.

Not at all. If the state did ultimately execute Michael Morales, I wouldn't feel guilty at all.

Good, we are getting somewhere now.

His death doesn't concern me, the system which caused his death does.
Fair enough. I am satisfied that 'the system' proved that a guilty man was found guilty, in this case.

Ultimately, it was Mike's actions 25 years ago in a deserted vineyard which are going to cause his death. He broke the contract, the system did its best to show that he did not, now his right to life is revoked.

We only have a right to life, because we say we have a right to life. It is not codified, or written in alabaster, or on some broken tablets in a gold box somewhere.

You asked WHO, the answer is we. When we say then that a right to life can be revoked from an individual who reneged and welched on the deal, then we get to say that.

if it's not revenge, then why? Assume they go to a place where they can never affect anyone in society again. Given that assumption, why do you insist on killing them?

That assumption although hard, can be made. However, you'd have to be willing to treat these people in a way that I know, from knowing your mentality, you would not agree to.

It would be possible to remove them entirely from society, never able to interact with any member of it again, without killing them. There are two ways.

1)Medically induced coma.

2)Seal them in a cell forever, like Fortunato, except with air holes, and a hole for food and waste bucket. When they die of natural or self inflicted causes, seal the air holes and food/waste hole, put a tombstone up.
The cell blocks would be soundproof, and the food delivery/waste removal would be handled by robots, so no other human ever could hear, see, or in any way, ever interact with them again.

That's pretty much the only two ways you could avoid killing them directly, and have them not interact with any member of society. Prison guards are people too.

Any other way gives them an outlet to interact with other members of society. We want total removal from society, so there's your two non-lethal options.

That particular case I mentioned, with the evidence presented as it is, has no room for any doubt, much less reasonable doubt.Really?

Your only evidence is a dead body with signs of rape, and a witness who will say she came home and found the accused passed out naked beside her.

And you think that the only possible explanation is that the guy raped and killed the victim, such that the trial is just a "formality"? You have got to be kidding me.

The witness didn't even see it happening. What if the accused invited a friend of his over, they both got drunk, and with the accused passed out, the friend raped and killed the child? Do you still think the accused should be shot on the courthouse lawn?

What if the mother is mentally unstable and killed the child, such as the cases we hear in the news from time to time, and is now lying. Courthouse lawn for the guy, again?

There are many possible explanations for what happened. The accused may be guilty of nothing, of child endangerment, of rape, of manslaughter, of murder, or of some combination of these crimes. The trial is not a "formality". It is an important fact finding process to determine who is guilty of what.

The appeals aren't a formality. They are there to ensure that the trial is fair and that nothing has been overlooked. They are also there to remind the police, the trial judges, and the jury that they have accountability.

If you take all accountability away from the police, and the trial judges, you might as well abolish the entire justice system right here and now, and let the population just duke it out. It would be just as fair.

Show me where in the Constitution of the United States of America that there is a Right to Life.It is so basic, it does not have to be said expressly.

Why would the Constitution require due process prior to deprivation of life, if there were no right to life to begin with? For that matter, why bother with a fair trial, prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, and so on, when the government has the right to kill anyone it wants?

By the way, the California Constitution, which applies to us and Michael Morales, does expressly grant a right to life. Article I, section 1.You asked WHO, the answer is we. When we say then that a right to life can be revoked from an individual who reneged and welched on the deal, then we get to say that.Who is "we"? Is "we" me, or you? America is divided on the issue. A number of states have abolished the death penalty, by law or in practice. There is not only a big controversy as to whether the punishment should be applied, but also to when and how it should be applied.

Not to mention, it's pure circular reasoning, saying Michael Morales must die, because, well, we've decided we should kill him.

We want total removal from societyNo, you just want total removal from your society. How does it harm you if there are segments of society who will agree to interact with condemned criminals, so long as the criminal never interacts with you?

Not every case would be 30 minutes long.

Oh (she said, her voice dripping with sarcasm), let me rephrase then:

I find it increasingly ironic that people who would not even trust their government with a couple of dollars would blindly trust them not to decide that THEIR trial would be one of the ones that WOULD be 30 minutes long, and consequently kill them.

Or, unfortunate.

Or forward.


Death is inevitable, we all die. How it happens does make a difference.


No irony.


That is only based on the idea that everyone found guilty is innocent. How can they all be innocent?

And I gave you MY reason, because I will it, because I want to. No lust. Why do you want to floss your teeth in the morning, or take a sh!t, perhaps? Because you want to, because you will it, because it is a good idea, perhaps?

You feel something when a murderer is executed, Pain perhaps? Remorse? Guilt, perhaps? Tuda, do you feel pain, some inner pain, some inner conflict of psyche when the government, on your behalf kills another person? Is that what this is all about?

I am just the opposite end of that pole of you, that is all. Maybe Gunny is too, I can't speak for him.

What emotion, or empathy is it that YOU feel, that you must require these people, these murderers, these rapists to live?

It is based on some ancient holy book, some religion perhaps, some morality that reveres the sanctity, the holiness of life above all else?


That is actually a very Libertarian notion. Right out of the textbook, really. But na, that would be no fun.


Given all the facts, why do you still think these people should live when others die?

Why do YOU feel that these people should live? People die every day. Why are these people special to you?


Why the hell do you idiots insist that rape is a capital offense?

urder, in the first degree, meaning pre-meditated, in cold blood, can arguably be a capital offense, in my opinion. But you ****wads seem to think any action you personally feel is a heinous crime is worthy of death...

You and Gunny are scarey people, living in your dream world where only bad people get arrested and convicted of crimes...

You make the laws to protect the righteous few...and if it means being lax on a few of those who are wicked and wrong...then so be it.

I don't know if 10 years for that mother is enough or not...it depends on what the ususual sentance is for child abuse for that duration and as many times, etc. etc. but it should be the same, not more just because it was sexual in nature.

Show me where in the Constitution of the United States of America that there is a Right to Life.

Show me.

Quote it.

The Constitution is not, and was not, intended to specify and itemize our rights...in fact, it specifically says just that.

I don't need to show you where the Constitution says there is a Right to anything, you need to prove to me why it is not a natural right, along with liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

Oh (she said, her voice dripping with sarcasm), let me rephrase then:

I find it increasingly ironic that people who would not even trust their government with a couple of dollars would blindly trust them not to decide that THEIR trial would be one of the ones that WOULD be 30 minutes long, and consequently kill them.

Oh? Allow me to retort: Since you are putting it in a hypothetical sense, Hypothetically, if I woke up drunk and naked next the hypothetical body of an also naked and defiled hypothetical 3 year old, I sure wouldn't have any problem with the state running through me through a trial, and killing me 30 minutes later.

How can you argue with putting to death someone that has directly, and inconvertibly shown a predilection for preying on the most defenseless and innocent amongst us?

I didn't mention this because I can't be absolute this was in the story or not, I'll need to find that case again, but I'm pretty sure his . . emissions. . were also found in her body. If that bit of damning evidence was there, there is no doubt. Not reasonable doubt, NONE.

I don't know if 10 years for that mother is enough or not...it depends on what the ususual sentance is for child abuse for that duration and as many times, etc. etc. but it should be the same, not more just because it was sexual in nature.You forget you're in America, where sex is a worse crime than killing.

Hypothetically, if I woke up drunk and naked next the hypothetical body of an also naked and defiled hypothetical 3 year old, I sure wouldn't have any problem with the state running through me through a trial, and killing me 30 minutes later.Because you know you wouldn't find yourself in such a situation.

But what if, say, they found you with a loaded gun in your house, and a dead man on the street with a bullet wound, and the government decided it was good enough for a courthouse lawn execution for you (even though you didn't do it).

What would you do then?

I did not say that rape was a capital offense.

y opinion is that just that she and the fvcker should get a separate and individual punishment/sentence for each occurance, that's all.

And the judge should be thrown in jail, of course.

The way that this has all played out, if she has a good lawyer, he can probably get the whole thing thrown out under Double Jeopardy.

The state going back and upping a punishment or sentence, AFTER one has been ruled, is exactly what that clause in the Fifth Amendment was designed for, and to prevent.

Because you know you wouldn't find yourself in such a situation.

But what if, say, they found you with a loaded gun in your house, and a dead man on the street with a bullet wound, and the government decided it was good enough for a courthouse lawn execution for you (even though you didn't do it).

What would you do then?

They wouldn't decide that because:

Killing someone depending on the circumstances, can be completely legal and just. They have to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death to see if it was an illegal killing, or a legal one.

Sticking your **** in a 3 year old, killing her in the process, is illegal no matter what circumstances may or may not have occurred. It doesn't matter if you were drunk, high and on medication for every mental disorder in the book.

Two entirely different cases.

They wouldn't decide that because:How do you know that?

You're not the one in power. You're not ordering the executions.

If you allow the government to conduct drumhead trials and courthouse lawn executions, the government is going to decide when it applies and when it doesn't. Not you. So, while you think that baby rapists should get them, the government might decide that libertarians and gun owners should be first to the chopping block.

You are willing to put your life in the government's hands, just to satisfy your bloodlust and execute some random criminal who will not, in any event, affect your life in any way. That sounds pretty stupid to me.

That's when Libertarians fly their true colors and start acting like the Anarchists they truly are.

And then the fun really begins.

You really think that all you soft squishy, can't hit the side of the barn, Liberal Fascists will stand a chance?

Our country was founded by Libertarians, and they were traitors, patriots, insurrectionists, revolutionaries, anarchists, and terrorists. All of them.

I don't care if your Fascist regime takes the form of some Conservo-Religio Handmaid's Tale Dictatorship, or some Neo Fascist-Socialist Commie Committee, I will kill you both with glee if and when the time comes. Don't threaten me with your authoritarian utopia, we have survived your oppression in the past, we will in the future as well.

All they needed back in the 18th century was just a little pushing. And then a little more.

Push me.

Oh yes, the 200K libertarians with their pistols and shotguns will overwhelm 300 million people, who control the most powerful army in the history of humanity. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Ironically, though, by agreeing with Gunny Burlfoot, you're creating the conflict in the first place. I don't understand how a libertarian can justify agreeing with him. I'd think that giving government unbridled discretion over life and death would be the last thing any libertarian would want.

You really think that us Libertarians are NOT part of the military? You don't think we are IN the army now?

Foolish man.

It is you soft white blue bellies, anti military types, who will have to worry.
You liberals, with NO guns? And no ammunition. And no plan.

HEHEHEHhheheh.
Foolish.

You think they are on YOUR side.
hehe.

You think the military and the army is going to come and save you from us Libertarians? You must think we are really stupid. hahahhaa.

And that is a good thing, ol' King George III thought his 18th Century Libertarians were stupid too.

That's when Libertarians fly their true colors and start acting like the Anarchists they truly are.

And then the fun really begins.

You really think that all you soft squishy, can't hit the side of the barn, Liberal Fascists will stand a chance?

Our country was founded by Libertarians, and they were traitors, patriots, insurrectionists, revolutionaries, anarchists, and terrorists. All of them.

I don't care if your Fascist regime takes the form of some Conservo-Religio Handmaid's Tale Dictatorship, or some Neo Fascist-Socialist Commie Committee, I will kill you both with glee if and when the time comes. Don't threaten me with your authoritarian utopia, we have survived your oppression in the past, we will in the future as well.

All they needed back in the 18th century was just a little pushing. And then a little more.

Push me.

No, the founders were Liberals...in the traditional sense.

Do not forget, Fy'yr, that they were the ones who put in place our system of justice, based on centuries of common law, which provides for the notions of due process, innocence until proven guilty, a trial by jury, illegal searches. Jefferson and Madison fully realized that the principles were every bit as, if not more, important than the particulars.

They would have quailed at the notion of ignoring technicalities...or 30 minute trials because you "know" the man is guilty.

You know nothing. You think the man is guilty. It required investigation before anyone believes a man is guilty before a reasonable doubt.

True libertarian ideals do not espouse vigilante justice...for that infringes upon our rights.

No, the founders were Liberals...in the traditional sense.

Exactly, true classic Liberals were Libertarians.

That is why they were called Liberals. It is where the word comes from...Liberty. Freedom. Libertas.

We had to invent a new word and term to describe them(classic liberals) when the bulk of Liberals moved toward authoritarianism.

I have NO problem saying that I am a Classic Liberal. I am a Classic Liberal, for the most part. That is how I became a Libertarian, when I found out that today's Liberals no longer proscribe or hold onto freedom as a main tenet.

But if I say now, today, "So and so is a Classic Liberal", they are not going to think of who I mean, they are going to think of some rebel from the 1960's. Not the 1760's.

They would have quailed at the notion of ignoring technicalities...or 30 minute trials because you "know" the man is guilty.


Unless I misread the article.

The 30 minute trial, was the with the judge who moved the rapist pandering mom's sentence from 17 years to 10 years.

That judge should be hung. After a 29 minute trial.

No, I was referring to Gunny's comment.

And again, before rendering judgement on the judge...more information is needed. What is the community standard for like crimes? If a woman was found abusing her daughter regularly over the course of two years...how long would be sent to jail for? I suspect somewhere around 10 years, since that is what the judge sentenced her to. Just because the abuse was sexual in nature doesn't justify an abnormally high sentence.

If I torture you for 2 years, continually, and keep you alive...

The punishment should be the same if I torture you for 2 hours?

If I torture you for 2 years, continually, and keep you alive...

The punishment should be the same if I torture you for 2 hours?

No...but if you "torture" me for 2 years...the punishment shouldn't be any greater just because that torture was sexual, rather than merely physical.

How much more clearly do I need to say it?

Information we don't have...but would need before passing judgement one way or another:

1) How violent and physically traumatizing were the sexual encounters

2) How many times this happened (though the article may have mentioned it and I've forgotten).

3) Which sentence would have been the norm, had the woman simply been found to have been committing non-sexual child abuse that many times over that period of time.

No...but if you "torture" me for 2 years...the punishment shouldn't be any greater just because that torture was sexual, rather than merely physical.


That is not my point.

y point is that each time it occurred should be a separate offense, with a separate consecutive punishment.

If I torture you for an hour each day, for two years, the punishment should be for each daily occurance. It is asinine to think that the punishment should be the same for some 700 hours of torture as it is for 1 hour of torture.

2) How many times this happened (though the article may have mentioned it and I've forgotten).
200 times over 2 years.

I'm confused...

You agree, that 2 hours isnt the same as 2 years...which makes sense.

I would suggest that 10 years for one incident of child abuse is absurd, especially given the broad and different opinions on what constitutes abuse...and the severity thereof.