What should happen to her?

Post #29,814 by screamer 2/26/02 1:52:24 PM Reply	What should happen to her? There's a huge difference between people being "fried" who have a "glimmer of wrongdoing in their minds" and a women that KILLS FIVE OF HER OWN FUCKING CHILDREN. I assume that maybe you may have missed that slight discrepancy? And I'm not trying to be a smartass here. I mean, whenever anyone kills someone else (except perhaps in self-defense/war), aren't they just a tad INSANE? What difference does it make whether or not she knew right from wrong. Murder cases are not about punishment (unless you believe in the deterent theory), but about removing these "folks" from society. So what if we "get her help". What will her "helped" self do serving life in prison? Or, do you want her to move into your neighborhood? I suspect if it were the case, then we'd all be hearing a great big "NOT IN MY BACKYARD, BUCKO!" coming from your bleeding heart lips? Explain to me again why I should care if this women fries? I'm open. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,821 by wharris2 2/26/02 2:14:58 PM Reply	Lock her up and throw away the key I think there is a difference between premeditated murder, as in the Smith case where she murdered her kids in the car, and in this case. Whether that's enough of a difference will be up to the jury and whatever pychiatrists testify to. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #29,892 by screamer 2/26/02 5:21:43 PM Reply	I'm affraid I don't necessarily follow this logic... The Texas women killed her kids one by one by drowning them in the bathtub. This took some time I would think. From a news story, I also understand that her oldest son, the last to die, put up a struggle. Maybe the first one was kind of "spontaneous" but the next four would certainly seem to be friggin premeditated to me... Could be wrong... I don't know if the Smith women set off on her drive to do her deed or if she sort of had a "gestalt" while she was at the lake and improvised... The antics she pulled after she killed her kids with the media would imply to me that she may have been even more insane than the Texas women. I may have forgotten some of the facts though. Your contention that a psychiatrist in court is going to shed some kind of new light on this women is also a bit laughable to me. She "suffered" from post partum depression, she had no choice but to kill her kids... FWIW, I never bought into that "don't rush to judgement" bullshit either. I give the presumption of innocence to those who haven't confessed, but I still think that from a strictly rational point of view, anyone who kills is at least temporalily insane (again barring self defense, protection of family and war). For clarification, I would like to state that I believe that laws exist to keep us from doing what we otherwise would do naturally. "I like your shirt, I'm gonna take it", "I like your wife, etc...", "I don't like you, life would be easier for me if I made you cease to exist"... This is about the rights of the children that she deprived. She served as a selfish judge, jury and executioner in her own world - whether sane or not. Killing her will not do anything to right her wrong. The kids will still be dead and deprived of all of their most basic rights. It is my contention that the State should act in their behalf and in some way even it up for them... Texas should drown her in a bathtub on prime time. At least then, she may know how they felt. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,824 by Ashton 2/26/02 2:19:46 PM Reply	Life without parole works in civilized countries. You know: the ones which acknowledge that the death 'penalty' is no deterrent to a certain predictable % of even-more fucked-up homo-saps than.. the norm? So the civilized countries note the inconsistency of 'frying someone' - for er 'frying someone first'. These countries appear to consider bloodlust to be a bad thing to evoke and especially, to satisfy in fellow citizens.. given how stupidly every mob always behaves (anywhere). We OTOH do not care that - the penalty has near-0 effect upon the year's harvest of atrocities - We Want Our Death Spectacle; apparently - we really get off on that. (Oh.. it's cheaper to off them?? That matters, perhaps?) However you slice or dice it - it's pretty hard to inculcate into little cheeldrun a certain er reverence for life, while The State\ufffd is busy on Tee Vee a showin the punk (or punkess) strapped to a board and about to be Offed; with minute-by-minute readouts of the vital signs, and various solicited reviews from the Interested parties attending and watching the spectacle Up Close. Not everyone who kills is nutzo, we are generally agreed: but killing one's kids has gotta be almost prima facie evidence (except, as Box pointed out above - for the troglodyte who traded her kids for.. getting laid next). Still, and for either case: Killing Them is NOT about teaching sanity. It's about wallowing in our own defects - and promoting more wallowing. Vicious circle, that. WTF - we could try.. to grow up, as a species. Just for the hell of it. A novelty, say? Ashton
Post #29,841 by wharris2 2/26/02 2:52:31 PM Reply	Unfortunately, until recently that wasn't an option I remember the "life in prison" sentences which weren't. Life without parole is a good option to have. Shoot, I remember discretionary sentencing where people would commit serious crimes and get off with a slap on the wrist - thus the introduction of mandatory sentencing laws (taken far beyond the "good idea for some crimes" phase to being a Gawd-awful mess nowdays.) Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #29,878 by screamer 2/26/02 4:28:29 PM Reply	Okay, I'm enlightening myself a little... and no, I'm not smoking anything... I guess most folks may agree that this particular human being probably doesn't belong with the rest of the herd. The separation apparatus is the bone of contention. I have never suffered from the "sanctity of life" dilemna either in the womb or any point before the tomb. I see that the State sends its "children" to places like Vietnam, Korea, etc... so I don't feel that it's so inconsistent for me to not even want to pay her medical bills or for her "lifetime housing" with my tax dollars (from a purely pragmatic standpoint). I would much rather spend my tax money on reforming people that have a chance to "get out of prison", such as druggies, rapists and all. I think that we could probably pay for college educations for about 10 current inmates that will be getting out for the price of one "lifer" with no chance of parole. I can't help but think this scenario would be of the greater good for society... Now, for some real consistency, I also believe that it is better to let ten guilty people walk than for one innocent one to serve life or die for a crime they didn't commit. Because of this, I don't think the death penalty should be willy nilly applied. In a clear cut case like this... Who says that it is uncivilized to thin the herd every once in a while? (Other than you and few million other oddballs?) :-) Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I think we out to bring back crucifixion. Upside down crucifixion" G. Carlin "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,886 by wharris2 2/26/02 4:41:57 PM Reply	As currently practised, the figures don't hold up Here in Ohio, they recently put to death a person who had killed a convenience store clerk and had knocked over a couple other stores that night. In 1983. This guy was on Death Row for almost twenty years, with appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. And after seventeen years of that, the defense "discovered" new evidence and they went through a couple more rounds of appeals, with various stays and rulings by judges. That's not cost-effective at all. You'd spend far less to lock him up for the rest of his life than to keep going through this sort of appeals process. Certainly you don't go through anything like this for life sentences.. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
Post #29,903 by Ashton 2/26/02 6:19:47 PM 2/26/02 6:23:00 PM Reply	So.. the system (any system created by homo-sap) is guaranteed imperfect: at every stage of the process from arrest to final disposition. That's another dozen threads. But another argument for Not offing anyone - especially since we discovered DNA and.. lots of prisoners haven't (yet) gotten to have that litmus test du jour. At present rate - expect many of those to die without it. [edit] - prolly more a reply to Dan But never mind the imperfection of the 'guilt finding' process. Assume guilt's a fact in some case. As Mike Huber observed somewhere around here, the decision Not to Kill is NOT about the perp! It's about 'us'; what we imagine we stand-for (as they say) or wish - we might next stand a bit higher-for (?). And the lowest motivation for assigning punishment: must be, to assuage bloodlust. If we ever want to try for growing out of adolescence, that is - as a culture, as a species. Maybe 'we' don't (want to try). But I'd like to see us try. Other countries have decided to try. Are we lesser? Or just more Righteous.. and they're a bunch of wimps? Edited by Missing User 70 Feb. 26, 2002, 06:23:00 PM EST Expand All History
Post #29,826 by boxley 2/26/02 2:22:11 PM Reply	if she fries she shouldnt fry alone we put down rabid dogs dont we? The Doc, the nurses the pharmacist(maybe) definately her husband knew she shouldnt be left alone with a hamster much less her own kids that she wanted to kill for some time? Least they could do is give her enough dope to be straight and then fry her, its the humane way to do things. thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,880 by screamer 2/26/02 4:32:22 PM Reply	Very good points... And I understand that the husband is standing by her... It makes me wonder what I would do if my wife killed my kids... Nah, I don't understand that guy at all UNLESS he feels so much guilt that... Yes, Bill, very good point. These people are definately guilty of gross negligence. I don't know if we could open a Pandora's box like that though. I mean, Charlie Manson had a Momma. Should she be locked up too? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,875 by mhuber 2/26/02 4:14:30 PM Reply	It isn't about her. Bloodlust is not a good thing. Not even if you call it "closure". I don't much care about her fate. A state that caters to bloodlust, on the other hand, is cause for concern. Killing prisoners does not improve safety, or reduce costs, or do anything except partly satisfy one particular sense of justice. Even there, it fails: can you honestly say that Little Timmy came anywhere near paying for his crime? If she is executed, there will be a crowd outside celebrating. There probably won't be anybody in the crowd who has more ties to the case than, perhaps, living in the same town. Most of them won't know the names of the children who died. None of them knew the names while they were alive. They will be there just to celebrate the death of a sick and tortured woman. That leaders of a great nation would play to that crowd and court their votes, rather than tell them to go home and hug their children or pray or just plain get a life, that bothers me far more than the question of whether this particular woman dies or is locked up. From the bits and pieces of the case I've heard, either way she is better off than she was before. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #29,887 by screamer 2/26/02 4:42:24 PM Reply	Okay, I'm following a little more now... I was not going from the presumption that the "death penalty" was in question. (really). I was operating under the assumption that the death penalty is there, and if she is a prime example of when to apply it, then who is (other than little Timmy)... As I said in a previous post, I suffer from no delusion that the State (ours or any other that I know of) won't sacrifice individuals for the good of the state. It can be in the name of war, etc... The public executions used to be a picnic affair in most of the world and not that long ago in a historical context. Of course, they also used to burn folks that were heretics, lunatics, non-Chrisitian, non-Muslim, etc... and the feeling was, that it would deter the rest of society from feeling so free to publicly espouse their views. I can't help but think that there needs to be something "worse" than life in prison as an option for our legal system, it's just hard... Given a choice right now, I would prefer to die than to be locked up for life, so perhaps the life sentence is the worst...But that kind of flies in the face of being kinder or more humane, no? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #29,895 by mhuber 2/26/02 5:29:23 PM Reply	Close, but... It isn't about being nice to convicts. And there are situations where the death penalty makes sense. High-ranking gangsters in Columbia, for example, tend to find escape rather easy. Executing them serves a real purpose. Had the Ceaucescus been imprisoned rather than brutaly murdered, many would have been killed by those attempting to reinstate them. Ugly as it was, their execution served a real purpose. If we find ourselves in a situation where terrorists regularly hijack planes to demand the release of their conviced brethren, executions would serve a real purpose. But in those cases, the executions - even though they might be attended by bloodlust - would not be simply because killing people who piss you off in a big way feels good. What bothers me far more than the death of people who certainly deserve it (and I don't have enough of the facts to decide whether this woman is such) is the pleasure it gives others. That is a far more dangerous and moraly illicit pleasure than any drug. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #29,907 by Ashton 2/26/02 6:28:10 PM Reply	Yes, the fact there are snuff films - shows where the species is stuck - currently. We don't do well with power either. A.
Post #29,928 by Another Scott 2/26/02 10:31:38 PM Reply	Cecil says "snuff films" are an urban legend. [link\|http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_258.html\|Here]. From 1993: This is the weirdest urban legend of all: that there are underground movies in which people are literally murdered on camera for purposes of entertainment. The question is not whether there are people sick enough to traffic in such things (in a world containing Jeffrey Dahmer and Geraldo Rivera, there probably are), but whether they actually do. All we can say is that in the nearly 30 years stories of snuff movies have been circulating, no genuine example has ever come to light. "The [snuff movie] rumor evidently originated in publicity circulated in 1970 by Alan Shakleton of Monarch Pictures, a low budget sado-porn movie distributor," Penn State folklorist Bill Ellis tells me. Shakleton "bought up a Latin-American Manson family ripoff titled Slaughter, had it subtitled, added a scene in which a woman was murdered (cut out of another film), then marketed the film under the title Snuff in New York City. Rumor has it that that he then incited women's groups to picket the film under the [erroneous] impression that the murder scene was an actual killing. Certainly the publicity Shakleton used implied that it was: `Made in South America Where Life Is Cheap.'" Every few years since then snuff movies have been back in the news, either because some nut is accused of trying to make one (never successfully) or the tabloids report some sensational claim, e.g., that the main centers for the snuff movie industry are London, Amsterdam, and Bangkok. But pornography experts for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies say they have never seen a genuine snuff film. [...] Cheers, Scott.
Post #30,109 by Ashton 2/28/02 12:33:08 AM Reply	'Simulated' will do: not much Isn't 'simulated' elsewhere..
Post #30,172 by boxley 2/28/02 1:01:40 PM Reply	snuff films are real if defined by movies depicting real life death, there is a whole series of them available in some video stores. Spliced footage of car wrecks, crime scenes and wars. thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #30,185 by inthane-chan 2/28/02 2:51:31 PM Reply	Definintion of "snuff" AFAIK... ...is that the person was killed specifically for the purpose of making the film. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Welcome to IWETHEY!