Death Sentence.

DeletedUser

There are serial killers that have been tried, convicted, done their time and released back into society.
I'd like to know which serial killers those are. I have studied all types of criminology, and serial rapists have rarely gotten out, never heard of a serial killer being paroled or released.



Obviously the post was over your head.
I do believe the claim of posts being over someones head is aimed at the wrong poster. Try to follow along with a conversation before you aim at insulting someone-you have started a comment about 1 thing, changed it mid conversation, and then proceed to try and tell me how Capital Punishment works.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I'd like to know which serial killers those are. I have studied all types of criminology, and serial rapists have rarely gotten out, never heard of a serial killer being paroled or released.

Apparently you need to study more. You also got the definition of a serial killer wrong as I edited in my previous post. So don't try to act like some sort of expert on the subject when you don't even know the definition of a serial killer.

I believe the one person on the list that wasn't a serial kiler I pointed out as such. And as I just went back and edited, another wasn't a serial killer but was a spree killer. Is the topic not the death sentence? Would those cases most likely have been tried as death penalty cases here?
 

DeletedUser

1-have you read anything on Karla Homolka? There is debate whether she was as much a victim as a culprit. Another is that the murders are nearly attributed all to her husband. The only murder they have attributed to Karla directly in anyway was Kristen French. Cool down periods are also significant-yet another reason why Karla is not a serial killer. Terrible criminal, but not in the likes of serial killers.

2-The definition of a serial killer goes beyond simple math. Factors that would make Juha not a serial killer is a primary factor of having circumstances that relate to his killing-i.e. avoiding a punishment for another crime. Some sources say 3 or more, others say more than 3.

Its the same reason "enforcers" of the mafia are not classified as "serial" killers. Or fathers that come home, murder their wife, 2 kids, and commit suicide. They are not classified as serial killers.

The debate as the death penalty goes is because some offenders do require such punishment as I stated. Your reply that there are some serial killers that get released back into society was a statement I enquired about.

Of the 5 you listed, only 2 are clear serial killers. Pedro and Nikolai, and I didn't dismiss that fact-rather just think its a screwed up revelation about some societies.

Frankly-for a moderator, I would expect better decorum not slinging so many insults.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I never slung an insult at you and I'm just a forum member in this particular part of the forum. Just because I'm a mod doesn't mean you get to call into question my modship. As a matter of fact, being a mod makes me hold back on things I'd really like to say. You may also want to stop exaggerating with the 'so many insults' when I haven't insulted you once.

Karla Homolka was convicted of manslaughter in the the rape and deaths of 3 women. I believe 3 qualifies her for serial killer status as the definition is 3 or more. Would she have done those things without her husband? Probably not. But she did, was convicted of them and was released.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Stating something is over someones head, or that they need to study more, in most cultures is regarded as insulting and condescending. Maybe its a language barrier as I don't know if you speak English as a first language (that not meant as an insult-just that this is a multi-lingual community). In other words, its to say you obviously don't agree with me, so I am smarter then you.

You made a comment, I asked a question, you answered, I commented. Thats where the conversation goes south-beginning with your comments of the topic being over my head. Insults continuing with needing to study more, and .. don't try to act like some sort of expert on the subject when you don't even know the definition of a serial killer...

As for Serial Killers and the definitions-its not as clearly defined as you aim to put it.

Definitions of serial killer on the Web:

  • someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • A serial killer is a person who murders usually three or more people over a period of more than 30 days with a "cooling off" period between each killing
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer
  • A person who commits multiple (more than two) murders, especially similar ones with no obvious motive
    en.wiktionary.org/wiki/serial_killer
  • an individual (or conspiracy), operating with or without governmental authority, who directly, or by directive, is responsible for the deaths of 3 or more persons in separate incidents for unjust reasons.
    www.freedom-and-law.org/s_v.html
But-in truthfulness, its why some criminologists will classify someone as a serial killer and another will not. Its not just a math problem, it involves the full scope of the crime, the number of victims, the absence of a clear motive, and the time involved. There isn't just 1 standard to weigh to decide whether someone is or isn't a serial killer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

We are both wrong. This is the criteria for the FBI to become involved with serial killings.

The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:
• one or more offenders
• two or more murdered victims
• incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
• the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder
In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:
Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.


http://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm#two
 

DeletedUser

Here is the thing with Capital Punishment:

1. It is applied excessively in order to be a deterrent rather than a necessity.
2. It is used as leverage in seeking guilty pleas by overzealous prosecutors.
3. The large rate of capital punishments that are applied means we do it to innocent people.

Those 3 factors are the problems with Capital Punishment. I am actually for Capital Punishment, but I am against the application of the punishment.

The choice of the matter should never be leverage and at the tools of the prosecutor. The decision should be applied independently, determined after the case, based on the merits of the evidence and the nature of the crime.

The trouble with most people are they are well insulated to people who truly qualify for such a punishment. The details of such people are left out of the newspaper to shield the victim's families, but also numb the public as to why such a punishment needs to exist.

People like Albert Fish, David Berkowitz or Jerry Brudos.

There is no rehabilitation for people like this. And there's plenty around in all countries that kill for a passion-take pleasure in torturing people and other such unspeakable acts.

This is what the death penalty is for. Their guilt is never in question, and their acts are things which they sought after rather than being a crime of circumstance.

If it's applied too often, I wonder how many people have been executed in the US, in say, the last 30 years?
 
Top