September 28th, 2005, 09:13 PM
i guess if youre going out you might as well do it right
just crazy man, this was over a period of like 4 days its not like the guy just suddenly snapped for a minute he was totally insane, or just didnt care anymore obviously
September 29th, 2005, 06:53 PM
A four-day long fit of temporary insanity? That's not style... that's just being a serial killer. Too bad he didn't do the world a favor and take HIMSELF out in style. Now we'll be paying taxes to keep this psycho alive and in prison for the next 50 years.
We all Think Different too.
September 29th, 2005, 07:25 PM
Psychotic or a psychopath. The first is temporary, but usually recurs. Either, combined with his actions, is enough to lock him up permanently.
September 29th, 2005, 07:30 PM
I'm not sure what he is. But I'm not convinced that anyone who behaves in this way deserves the opportunity to do it again. As far as being locked up permanently, I'd say that when you kill your second person in cold blood, and no one even has a shadow of a doubt that you did it, the only reason you should be kept alive at all is if you were going to be forced to work for your room and board.
We all Think Different too.
September 29th, 2005, 08:23 PM
im eye for an eye. i think we should mow him over with a car. on live national broadcast tv. get a closeup on the guts blasting out his mouth and other holes.
problem is that we cant always prove guilt, and we still have people on death row who are innocent. its all screwed up, theres always going to be innocent people prosecuted though so might as well have COPS LIVE : CARRYING OUT THE SENTENCE
October 1st, 2005, 07:40 AM
Well, Hoyle, the only problem is that you're almost never really rid of that last shadow of a doubt. Maybe not in this case, but there have been cases before where someone's spent 20 years in prison and then it turned out that someone else did it.
So when do you have no shadow of a doubt? When you have eye witnesses?Well, we already have a whole bunch of cases where someone was convicted with witnesses and all, and then it turned out they were innocent.
E.g., if I'm allowed to use another example than murder, there is one crime where the assailant leaves a ton of genetic material at the scene: rape. And here's the fun part. Ever since genetic testing started being used, we now have a mile long list of people who've been convicted before that (with witnesses and all), yet genetic testing later showed that the biologic material (sperm, hair, etc) found at the crime scene just wasn't theirs.
So at least for one kind of crime we already know we have a bunch of innocent people who've spent some decades in jail. And AFAIK some are _still_ in jail.
Justice is imperfect like that.
That's in a nutshell why some of us are opposed to the death penalty. It's not about being kind to a criminal, it's really about the "what if you kill an innocent?" It's one thing to spend 20 years in jail and then maybe be found innocent, it's another thing to be dead for 20 years and then maybe be found innocent. You can release someone from jail in such a case, but you just can't reanimate someone you've executed.
October 1st, 2005, 11:28 AM
'the guilty who roam free must be offset by the free who are caged and have no guilt'
-Murphy's Law man, murphys law... created during the time he was dating ms. karma
October 1st, 2005, 02:43 PM
We've had quite a few men here in Canada found innocent of murder after 15 or 20 years in jail.
My favourite case is from the US. Two Hispanic ne'er do wells were convicted of murdering a young girl and given the death penalty. The actual killer was apprehended later in another state for another crime and confessed to this murder, on condition of a deal to avoid the death penalty. The state with the wrongful conviction would not accept it, nor would they release the innocent pair. They'd got the big prize, the death penalty, and they weren't gonna give it up!
The US is in very small, and very unsavoury company in the world with its death penalty -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and a handful of others.
October 2nd, 2005, 06:59 AM
No man has the right to put another man to death, from the serial killer to the judge, still murder. My opinion.
R.I.P Rangeral, To one of HWC's best moderators and a great guy
By the way, what does BTW stand for?
It is better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.
October 2nd, 2005, 05:09 PM
i dont know justin, if i saw a man brutally rape and kill a teenage girl, or guy i guess for that matter, i would feel completely justified to rip off each of his finger and toes and choke him to death with them. or another body part that gets too gruesome to mention here
October 2nd, 2005, 10:32 PM
he really deserved to be jailed!! What he did was inexcusable...
October 3rd, 2005, 12:15 PM
Krupted, the problem is, how do you really know you saw him?
I was recently playing Indigo Prophecy (Fahrenheit in Europe) and let me tell you I got a clean 0% likeliness on the police ID portrait of my _main_ character. I mean, Christ, I've been staring at that character for some 2 hours or so, and in some scenes it was a closeup on the face. That's a lot more than you get if you're accidentally a witness to a crime. Then they give me an identikit and I'm like "uh, wth _does_ that guy look like?"
It was a bit of an eye opener.
October 3rd, 2005, 01:29 PM
Your eyes see what your mind tells them to see not vice versa.
October 3rd, 2005, 02:40 PM
I can give you another story of the reliability of eyewittnesses.
I was working at night in an office above a theatre, and there was someone in the hallway. I confronted the guy, even had my hand on the guy's vest. Police were called, and apprehended someone a half hour later.
Before they showed me the suspect, they asked me if I was sure of my description. I had described a man with a green vest and a checked shirt. The man they showed me, unquestionably the same man, was wearing a checked vest. So I had confused what he was wearing within 15 minutes, someone I had been nose to nose with, in good lighting.
It's given me a better understanding of the tests psychologists have done to prove the unreliability of eyewitnesses.
October 3rd, 2005, 05:01 PM
you rememberd his eyes thats why you were off on his clothes. and you still remember something checkerd so thats just a plus really. you mention how it was 'unquestionably' anyways, what difference does the shirt make?
if im walking out of a bar piss drunk i would still be able to tell if a woman is getting beat up, its not that hard to figure out. i know there is always mistakes but i still cant stand for pedophile raping killers to be alive, i dont care if they dont suffer or do or whatever, just get them out of this world.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)