The sniper's been caught. Now what?

Remove all ads!

It disturbs me to see practically everyone here to be basically calling for the sniper (and his stepson) to be hanged, castrated, tortured, what have you. Come on, everyone deserves a second chance, even if they've killed 10 and injured (obvious wanting to kill) 3 others in cold blood. I'd prefer that the sniper get life sentence with no parole, of course. But then again, I wouldn't shed a tear if Mr. Mohammed was given the chair. It just shocks me to hear people saying that the killer should die a horrible, gruesome death after so much despair has already been inflicted. Would a slower death alleviate the pain of the family and friends of the victims?

And by the way, I live about 20 or so miles from the places of the shootings. I walked home from school several times (took 1 hour each, by the way) worrying that I'd be caught in the crosshairs. So I'm certainly not distanced from the anger directed at Mr. Mohammed.

 

what makes you think everyone deserves a second chance? I'd say they blew their only chance when the trigger was pulled the first day. They have no one to blame but themselves. They made their bed, now let them lie in it.

 

But, the law tries to promote what they think as "goodness". The law as it is, cannot turn its back to the poor (welfare), it does not turn its back to the helpless (counseling), it does not turn its back to so many other things. And yet, a mob out there thinks that because 10 deaths have incured, and 3 critical injuries, that they'll go about and kill 2 more people. Only the mad want death as justice. The people who want death deserve no more, we're not any better than those people who just killed 10 people if we want to kill them as well. We're not rising above their level, we're sinking to their level and below. That's not what we're trying to promote here. We want to show others that we can forgive, if not forget their incidents, and let them serve us in a way that will promote us to being better people. What satisfaction is made out of death anyways?

 

Kill him. I don't care if he has mental problems, you just don't go around killing random people, shooting kids, and try to get away with it! Who cares if he has a disease, or mental issues, what he did is just plain wrong. He deserves to rot in hell!

 

Let's suppose this:

-You're a really horrible person.

-You kill dozens of people for the fun of it.

-You get caught.

-You are sentenced to a horrible, painful death, which will come in, say 20 years.

-Then you start thinking about what you did, and decide that your actions were horribly wrong. You ask for forgiveness from families, try to be a better person, and sincerely regret your decisions. You would take them back in a heartbeat if you could, even if it meant you'd stay in prison.

-Some years later, you are slowly tortured to death, while people applaud and eat cake. No one on earth mourns your loss; they believe you are scum who deserves to die a most painful death, even though you have apologized several times to the public for your deeds.

I'm certain that situations like these have happened plenty of times (except maybe for the killing dozens of people and the really painful death part).

Would you be laughing and pointing fingers while someone, even a killer, died?

 

He is probably not the one.
Edit: Kill him?!!! What! Thats horrible! What an primitive idea, iam even against prisons.

[ October 27, 2002, 23:57: Message edited by: Turandil ]

 

Technically, yes, although they may still publish the pictures and such as in murder cases, thirteen year olds are oftentimes tried as adults for murder (actually, one is right now a few blocks from me). He's 17, which basically makes him an adult for murder cases.

As was stated, he is an illegal immigrant. Also, we have an extradition treaty with Jaimaica, so they would just give the accused back to us anyway.

Yes. He did the crime in the US, and he does not have diplomatic immunity.

Nothing will allevate the pain of the family and friends. Although, with the life sentence, we (the law-abiding citizens) end up paying thousands per year to keep him alive. I'd rather just go off of the eye-for-an-eye concept and kill him.

A finality, a deterrent. If we do inflict the death penalty, not only will it bring a greater sense of justice to the familes of the victims, but it will serve to show others that may be contemplating this sort of extremist action that we are not tolerant. Perhaps that will discourage them from continuing the spree.

 

I'll try to remember to look a link up to back this up, but it actually costs more money to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life. A lot of extra legal ramifications with the death penalty = mo' money.

EDIT -- forgot to say don't have the time to search for a link now, but I'm certain this was true a couple of years ago, quite a bit more expensive actually.

[ October 28, 2002, 02:58: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

An apology does not erase a deed. What so many people seem not to understand is that their actions have consequences. The consequence for murder is either imprisonment or execution. If you don't want to be imprisoned or executed, don't commit murder. It's that simple. Whether or not you feel bad about killing someone does not alter the fact that you HAVE killed a person. Killed. A. Human. Killing is irreversable: therefore, the punishment should be as well.

 

Finality - yes, deterrent - no, justice - no.

Finality, yes I'm sure some of them will feel better. That does not make it justice. An Eye for an Eye may appear just to some victims, but it is not justice.

Deterrent, no.

Firstly, no evidence has been found that the death penalty is any sort of effective deterrent to murder in general.

Secondly, anyone who considers such action as we've seen here are not concerned about their personal consequences. They generally believe they are just in what they do "in the eyes of God" (whichever god that might be) thus the consequences are not a relevant consideration.

[ October 28, 2002, 11:28: Message edited by: Viking ]

 

If only he could, say, be exiled somewhere where he can't escape and has rescourses to look after himself without anyone having to worry about him. But that will not happen so maybe just straigth out getting rid of trash like that would be better.

 

Ok these may be the two stupidest comments I've ever read:

So prison is out then? What should be done with convicted killers? Send them to your house?

Um... he just aided in the deaths of 10 people, and you're concerned that he now won't be able to get a job or go to college, in a country that he is not a citizen in and that he has randomly murdered people in...

 

I think on the latter point Art, the point had nothing to do with a scumbag who should be in prison would find it hard to apply for a job, uni etc.

The point was that the picture should not be published until the guy has been found guilty, since if he was found innocent it would still probably ruin his life.

In the UK publishing the name and picture of the 17 year old would have brought a hefty fine and possibly editors on contempt charges, unless a judge specifically opens for reporting of those details in the public interest. In this case, I rather think they would have, but still.

 

Viking, yes I agree with you on that point, however I apologize, I quoted the wrong part of the original post:

Huh? Is that suggesting that if he is guilty, he should not be put in prison, or executed, and it should not be publicly known that he's guilty... or... what?

I guess what's getting my goat is simply that, as soon as someone gets caught, and it does look like they caught the right guys, people forget all the pain and suffering that has been caused and brainlessly jump to the defense of these guys.

I do, however, find it disturbing that they're already pointing out on the news the possible places that these guys can be executed before the trial has even gotten underway.

 

Life in prison, no parole, no entertainment. Pipe in taped comments from the victims families 24 hours a day.

 

There really is no satisfactory treatment of criminals, everything that can be hoped for is to catch them and then try to make sure that they dont do anything again. It is a thing with no solution.

 

Wrong. These men are 'suspected' of KILLING CHILDREN.

 

Primitive and old isn't always wrong. I support deathsentence, a harsh decision, though, and judges should be very sure (o/c). "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise can not see all ends".
I think someone who shot 15 innocent people, for no good reason, deserves death.

An other thing, and maybe I might upset some of you:
Is killing children different? I wonder why... Because they are helpless? So was the dear policeman with the tarrotcard. Maybe these childs didn't do anything wrong in there young innocent lives, but who can say the others did?

[ October 29, 2002, 10:20: Message edited by: Master of Nuhn ]

 

Well, a lot of people say that children are our future (adults that is, I doubt us children have a generation below us). And, so to say, killing children is like killing the future, which isn't a very good thing.

 

There still is the human right component in death penalty.

The most fundamental human right is the right to live. But when in jail the human rights of the individual are in the hands of the country: So it's up to the country to enforce this rights for him in the meanwhile. One could say that with killing other people this right is forfeit. I actually have seen it like that for a while too - but the problems of a fair trial (just have a look at the "rational" decisions of juries), investigation and eventually finding sound evidence have led to tragical "mishaps". On the other hand I clearly recognize that there are criminals who maybe deserve death and who are too dangerous to be allowed to be free ever again.

Statistics iirc have showed that death penalty barely had an effect on the rates of violent crime - only natural since every criminal does his deed convinced not to be caught - more, there even was a contrary tendency: Violent crime rates increased after re-introduction of the death penalty ...

I have heared the cost-argument several times here: Criminals and antisocials in jail cost the tax payer money - for heating, food, clothing and health care. That is correct. However, this kind of calculation reminds me on Nazi math tasks like: "A criminal/ jew/ nigger eats 1kg potatoes a day - how much food do 20 of them waste over a year?" And besides, the exponents of that position use this argument inconsequently - since the same could be said about insitutionalized lunatics and old people in public senior residences ... they sit around all day, do nothing and society pays for them. Till now only the nazis have been that "consequent" - and fortunately their killing of handicapped and lunatics ended becaue of massive protest of the public and the catholic church in germany - on of our brighter days in WW-II (and the reason for the Nazis to be more secretive about their later murders).

Others wanted to punish the criminals for their deed. The thought of revenge is understandable, yet emotional. Eye for an eye is not an option for a country. If you're out for punishment - why not allow slave work for criminals? Or torture? Maybe some other inhuman treatment? That could easily be accomplished by employing some crack iraqi specialists. The way death penalty is executed additionally seems clearly to underline the element of revenge: Why all these efforts to kill a single individual (not to mention the re-attempts when they failed on first try)? Gas chamber, electric chair, poison and whatever ... if you're just out to kill someone you only need a wall and a few men with rifles. And probably there would never be a lack of volunteers in the US ... I feel tempted to say that death penalty is more a large circus and entertainment than really a solution for criminality.
As for criminals like Stalin, Hitler, Saddam and such - that's a different story ...

The deaths of hundrets of innocent in death row and in recent and less recent dictatorships (as well "legal killings" - according to local law) should have teached that restriction makes sense here: It is hard to assume a right of the country to deny people their ultimate and most fundamental human right - the right to live. You can take away personal freedom, property, equality - but once you lost your life the game is over - death penalty is irreversible. The right to live is the only right that only the individual himself can give up. It is not up to the country to do that.

That shall signify that death penalty has a totally different "quality" of rights restriction compared to jail. Too many innocent died on that basis to still see death penalty as a legitime punishment - and therefor: Never relesase them again. Fortunately most european countries share this point of view.

[ October 31, 2002, 10:17: Message edited by: Ragusa ]