DeletedUser
I think he means the life sentence is only 25 years. You can prolong that, if you want. It's still better than the death sentence.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DeletedUser
I say if you killed someone you deserve to die. I don't care if it is morally wrong. Killing some one is morally wrong. You'll do your time in hell.
DeletedUser
So, if you kill someone your destined for hell.
But you want to kill someone, because they killed someone, So doesn't that send you to hell too?
And what about the guy who kills you for killing the guy who killed the guy
But you want to kill someone, because they killed someone, So doesn't that send you to hell too?
And what about the guy who kills you for killing the guy who killed the guy
DeletedUser
So, if you kill someone your destined for hell.
But you want to kill someone, because they killed someone, So doesn't that send you to hell too?
And what about the guy who kills you for killing the guy who killed the guy
Hmmm, guess we're all destined for hell....
DeletedUser
I say if you killed someone you deserve to die. I don't care if it is morally wrong. Killing some one is morally wrong. You'll do your time in hell.
Great failure at logic there chummy.
DeletedUser
Indeed. usaywhat, how about first taking your medicine before reentering this discussion. *rolls eyes*
Hehe, yes I know what he meant, I was being facetious.
Regardless, he's wrong. In England there is whole life and life sentences. Whole life is life without the possibility of parole. Life sentences provide the opportunity for "lifetime parole," in which someone can be released on parole (after some time served, and assuming the parole board authorizes such), but will remain on parole for the rest of their life.
I think he means the life sentence is only 25 years. You can prolong that, if you want. It's still better than the death sentence.
Hehe, yes I know what he meant, I was being facetious.
Regardless, he's wrong. In England there is whole life and life sentences. Whole life is life without the possibility of parole. Life sentences provide the opportunity for "lifetime parole," in which someone can be released on parole (after some time served, and assuming the parole board authorizes such), but will remain on parole for the rest of their life.
DeletedUser
an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth all you end up with is a bunch of toothless lind people
but we should have a rath of God penalty
everythime there is lightning the convicted murder should have to stand on a roof tied to a lightning rod and if God thinks they should live then they won't die
but we should have a rath of God penalty
everythime there is lightning the convicted murder should have to stand on a roof tied to a lightning rod and if God thinks they should live then they won't die
DeletedUser
Wake up from dreamland and Face the real world.
Rape and Attempted murder should = 25 years in jail
Murder of 1 person should= Exucution by Electric chair
Murder of More than 1 and Treason= slow Torture to death
You take someone elses life away your life should taken
You kill many people they should hurt you so much you beg for death then they hurt you more then eventually kill you
Rape and Attempted murder should = 25 years in jail
Murder of 1 person should= Exucution by Electric chair
Murder of More than 1 and Treason= slow Torture to death
You take someone elses life away your life should taken
You kill many people they should hurt you so much you beg for death then they hurt you more then eventually kill you
DeletedUser
Wake up from dreamland and Face the real world.
Rape and Attempted murder should = 25 years in jail
Murder of 1 person should= Exucution by Electric chair
Murder of More than 1 and Treason= slow Torture to death
You take someone elses life away your life should taken
You kill many people they should hurt you so much you beg for death then they hurt you more then eventually kill you
Time to wake up from dreamland and Face the real world.
What makes you even remotely qualified to demand such forms of punishment?
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.
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.
DeletedUser
I strongly believe that serial killers and mass murderers should be given death sentence. These people can not be rehabilitated and are a threat to society and simply take up taxpayers money rotting in prison, that said it should be used in very select cases where the person cannot be deemed safe to ever reenter the public without taking another life. These people should be put down.
DeletedUser
And when it is determined you killed / tortured an innocent person, how do you handle that? Denial?Wake up from dreamland and Face the real world.
Rape and Attempted murder should = 25 years in jail
Murder of 1 person should= Exucution by Electric chair
Murder of More than 1 and Treason= slow Torture to death
You take someone elses life away your life should taken
You kill many people they should hurt you so much you beg for death then they hurt you more then eventually kill you
You can strongly believe it all you want, but you're wrong. It costs far more to execute than it does to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives. And, if they're imprisoned for the rest of their life, they won't be reentering the public, now will they?I strongly believe that serial killers and mass murderers should be given death sentence. These people can not be rehabilitated and are a threat to society and simply take up taxpayers money rotting in prison, that said it should be used in very select cases where the person cannot be deemed safe to ever reenter the public without taking another life. These people should be put down.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Hellstromm-Mark Twain wrote there are 3 types of lies in this world, lies-damned lies, and statistics.
The costs of a capital punishment case incur way more upfront due to the 2 trial process and limited time on appeals. However, many criminals exercise most of their Habeas Corpus appeals no differently than if they had a capital punishment. Especially those who face Life Without Parole.
Also-to summarily dismiss his view as wrong, without offering any substance as to why is a bit arrogant and condescending. Whether his facts on cost, or yours for that matter are accurate is still widely debated amongst those who study it. And even if it does cost more, its not a good reason to be for or against it.
The trials, given there is 2, is the greatest difference. The appeals process is an incurred cost regardless if its a death sentence or Life Without Parole case.
The difference in appeals with LWOP vs Death is death is actually limited-assuming your sentence is carried through. LWOP is not-and appeals are done many times ad nauseam to try and score a field trip to court.
What is your view on how people like Ralph Nader, Albert Fish, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez or Jerry Brudos should receive in prison? A death sentence to those people is not murder, it's justice. Now-you want to argue how they are wrongfully accused, deserved better or what?
The costs of a capital punishment case incur way more upfront due to the 2 trial process and limited time on appeals. However, many criminals exercise most of their Habeas Corpus appeals no differently than if they had a capital punishment. Especially those who face Life Without Parole.
Also-to summarily dismiss his view as wrong, without offering any substance as to why is a bit arrogant and condescending. Whether his facts on cost, or yours for that matter are accurate is still widely debated amongst those who study it. And even if it does cost more, its not a good reason to be for or against it.
The trials, given there is 2, is the greatest difference. The appeals process is an incurred cost regardless if its a death sentence or Life Without Parole case.
The difference in appeals with LWOP vs Death is death is actually limited-assuming your sentence is carried through. LWOP is not-and appeals are done many times ad nauseam to try and score a field trip to court.
What is your view on how people like Ralph Nader, Albert Fish, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez or Jerry Brudos should receive in prison? A death sentence to those people is not murder, it's justice. Now-you want to argue how they are wrongfully accused, deserved better or what?
DeletedUser
There are serial killers that have been tried, convicted, done their time and released back into society. I'm not advocating that, I am just saying it has been done in other countries. I wouldn't want to see convicted serial killer released from custody ever.
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.
DeletedUser
Nikolai Dzhumagaliev, Kazakhstan
Operating in 1980 in the former Soviet Union, Dzhumagaliev is one of the most prolific serial killer cannibals the country has ever seen. Affectionately called "Metal Fang" for the set of white, metal teeth which had replaced his own chompers (making himself a sort of hybrid between Lecter and Jaws from James Bond), Dzhumagaliev is said to have killed and eaten somewhere between 50 to 100 women... and even served a few portions to his unknowing friends.
After being sentenced to a mental institution in Uzbekistan and escaping once, the government decided that less than 10 years of rehabilitation was enough for this serial killer and simply let him go.
Karla Homolka, Canada
Multiple counts of rape and murder with her husband. To include the rape and death of her own sister.
She served 12 years in prison and was released in 2005.
Juha Valjakkala, Sweden
On July 3, 1988, he stole a bike. He was spotted and chased by the owners of the bike, Sten Nilsson and his 15-year-old son Fredrik. The chase ended at a nearby cemetery where, cornered and facing a bike theft charge, Juha used the Grand Theft Auto method of avoiding misdemeanors: He shot the father and son to death.
Suddenly realizing he had just made his situation quite a bit worse, he thought one way to redeem himself would be by killing Sten's wife, too.
After an evaluation labeled him a psychopath Juha escaped from prison four times (most recently in 2006). The legal system over there decided this was a pretty good indication that he was both reformed and cured of his psychopathy, and after serving 19 years of his life sentence the Finnish courts paroled him.
Pedro Lopez, Ecuador
Lopez had killed over 300 girls in Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. Authorities put him in prison in Ecuador and then explored ways to attach the entire prison to a rocket and fire it into the sun. He even confessed to the crimes but was not believed until a flood uncovered the mass grave where his victims were.
Ecuador has no death penalty, so Pedro, who has served the maximum sentence of 20 years, was secretly released in Colombia in 1999. So he served about three weeks for each person he killed.
Issei Sagawa, Japan
This isn't a serial killer but still the case is shocking.
Sagawa served time in a French jail for the murder of the Dutch student Renée Hartevelt, a classmate at the Sorbonne Academy in Paris, France. On 11 June 1981, Sagawa, a student of avant garde literature, invited Hartevelt to dinner under the pretense of literary conversation. Upon her arrival, he shot her in the neck with a rifle while she sat with her back to him at a desk, then began to carry out his plan of eating her. He also had sex with her corpse.
French psychologists found him legally insane and unfit to stand trial. He was deported back to Japan, where he was put in a mental institution. The deportation order did not specify how long Sagawa must remain in the institution, and Japanese authorities were refused the necessary paperwork from French justice officials.[2] As a result, fifteen months later, Sagawa checked himself out, and he has been a free man ever since.
He now makes his living as a restaurant reviewer.
Operating in 1980 in the former Soviet Union, Dzhumagaliev is one of the most prolific serial killer cannibals the country has ever seen. Affectionately called "Metal Fang" for the set of white, metal teeth which had replaced his own chompers (making himself a sort of hybrid between Lecter and Jaws from James Bond), Dzhumagaliev is said to have killed and eaten somewhere between 50 to 100 women... and even served a few portions to his unknowing friends.
After being sentenced to a mental institution in Uzbekistan and escaping once, the government decided that less than 10 years of rehabilitation was enough for this serial killer and simply let him go.
Karla Homolka, Canada
Multiple counts of rape and murder with her husband. To include the rape and death of her own sister.
She served 12 years in prison and was released in 2005.
Juha Valjakkala, Sweden
On July 3, 1988, he stole a bike. He was spotted and chased by the owners of the bike, Sten Nilsson and his 15-year-old son Fredrik. The chase ended at a nearby cemetery where, cornered and facing a bike theft charge, Juha used the Grand Theft Auto method of avoiding misdemeanors: He shot the father and son to death.
Suddenly realizing he had just made his situation quite a bit worse, he thought one way to redeem himself would be by killing Sten's wife, too.
After an evaluation labeled him a psychopath Juha escaped from prison four times (most recently in 2006). The legal system over there decided this was a pretty good indication that he was both reformed and cured of his psychopathy, and after serving 19 years of his life sentence the Finnish courts paroled him.
Pedro Lopez, Ecuador
Lopez had killed over 300 girls in Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. Authorities put him in prison in Ecuador and then explored ways to attach the entire prison to a rocket and fire it into the sun. He even confessed to the crimes but was not believed until a flood uncovered the mass grave where his victims were.
Ecuador has no death penalty, so Pedro, who has served the maximum sentence of 20 years, was secretly released in Colombia in 1999. So he served about three weeks for each person he killed.
Issei Sagawa, Japan
This isn't a serial killer but still the case is shocking.
Sagawa served time in a French jail for the murder of the Dutch student Renée Hartevelt, a classmate at the Sorbonne Academy in Paris, France. On 11 June 1981, Sagawa, a student of avant garde literature, invited Hartevelt to dinner under the pretense of literary conversation. Upon her arrival, he shot her in the neck with a rifle while she sat with her back to him at a desk, then began to carry out his plan of eating her. He also had sex with her corpse.
French psychologists found him legally insane and unfit to stand trial. He was deported back to Japan, where he was put in a mental institution. The deportation order did not specify how long Sagawa must remain in the institution, and Japanese authorities were refused the necessary paperwork from French justice officials.[2] As a result, fifteen months later, Sagawa checked himself out, and he has been a free man ever since.
He now makes his living as a restaurant reviewer.
DeletedUser
There are serial killers that have been tried, convicted, done their time and released back into society. I'm not advocating that, I am just saying it has been done in other countries. I wouldn't want to see convicted serial killer released from custody ever.
I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I definitely have never heard of it and I don't agree with it at all. The key word is serial here, which usually means that they are beyond saving, or just generally not worth saving. I think serial killers who are tried with absolute proof of their crimes should be put to death and should receive a trip down the express lane of the justice system to get there.
DeletedUser
Nikolai Dzhumagaliev, Kazakhstan
Not all that surprised with the Soviet Union to be quite honest. They will shoot you for words-but killing someone is more likely to get you a medal-even if it is murder.
Karla Homolka, Canada
Not a serial killer. She is actually an accomplice in the acts, but was questionable whether she was a victim herself to her husband, or an actual participant. Only 1 murder was she actually connected to physically as a contributor-and it wasn't absolute.
Juha Valjakkala, Sweden
Not a serial killer, but close. To be classified as a serial killer, you need to kill more than 3 people. And Juha is actually a criminal by circumstance. There was a relation to him and his victims-albeit trivial. Much differently than a killer that stalks and targets random people. Or one that brutalizes and tortures before killing.
Pedro Lopez, Ecuador
No answer for this one, and I have never actually heard or read about him. Very interesting-and sad statistic on the length of his sentence. Seems like they have an admirable justice system.:unsure:
Issei Sagawa, Japan
Definitely shocking, but the legal insane and transporting across borders of countries doesn't surprise me with the outcome. Other governments rarely hold their own accountable for crimes agaisnt someone foreign and outside of their country.
Not all that surprised with the Soviet Union to be quite honest. They will shoot you for words-but killing someone is more likely to get you a medal-even if it is murder.
Karla Homolka, Canada
Not a serial killer. She is actually an accomplice in the acts, but was questionable whether she was a victim herself to her husband, or an actual participant. Only 1 murder was she actually connected to physically as a contributor-and it wasn't absolute.
Juha Valjakkala, Sweden
Not a serial killer, but close. To be classified as a serial killer, you need to kill more than 3 people. And Juha is actually a criminal by circumstance. There was a relation to him and his victims-albeit trivial. Much differently than a killer that stalks and targets random people. Or one that brutalizes and tortures before killing.
Pedro Lopez, Ecuador
No answer for this one, and I have never actually heard or read about him. Very interesting-and sad statistic on the length of his sentence. Seems like they have an admirable justice system.:unsure:
Issei Sagawa, Japan
Definitely shocking, but the legal insane and transporting across borders of countries doesn't surprise me with the outcome. Other governments rarely hold their own accountable for crimes agaisnt someone foreign and outside of their country.
DeletedUser
Obviously the post was over your head. The point is that these people most likely would have been prosecuted with the death penalty in mind if it were in the United States. They are all free now. The death penalty doesn't apply to just serial killers. You can also be sentenced to death for kidnapping, treason, and aggravated rape. There are also several cases where murder was committed with accomplices where the actual killer received a life sentence or less and was set free while the accomplices, such as the getaway driver has been executed.
Do you realize in the US an attorney has to have a special certification to handle tax cases but any attorney can represent a client in a death row case.
Edit: Also, a serial killer is defined by killing 3 or more people over a period of more than 30 days. So while Juha may not qualify as a serial killer since his murders were done in one day, he would be considered a spree murderer or rampage killer. Homolka is a serial killer by every definition of the word. You can't just dismiss Dzhumagaliev because it is in the Soviet Union. His crimes were still committed and he is still free. I don't know what is wrong with Japan and that Sagawa. He is quite the celebrity there. I mean come on, he is a restaurant critic. How completely insensitive and disgusting is that.
Do you realize in the US an attorney has to have a special certification to handle tax cases but any attorney can represent a client in a death row case.
Edit: Also, a serial killer is defined by killing 3 or more people over a period of more than 30 days. So while Juha may not qualify as a serial killer since his murders were done in one day, he would be considered a spree murderer or rampage killer. Homolka is a serial killer by every definition of the word. You can't just dismiss Dzhumagaliev because it is in the Soviet Union. His crimes were still committed and he is still free. I don't know what is wrong with Japan and that Sagawa. He is quite the celebrity there. I mean come on, he is a restaurant critic. How completely insensitive and disgusting is that.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Reading all that crap did nothing but infuriate me.
15 months for killing and eating someone's child? Really? No wonder we dropped two nukes on those disgusting freaks.
15 months for killing and eating someone's child? Really? No wonder we dropped two nukes on those disgusting freaks.
Share: