This is one of those times when I hope the saying, “Not a jury in the world would convict her” holds true.
She needs to be arrested, prosecuted and acquitted.
How is intentionally burning someone alive a proportionate response to anything?
If someone harmed my daughter I would find it very hard not to get medieval on them. But if I did so I would be in the wrong. Flawed as it is that’s the only way a civilised society can function.
If it had led him to no longer taunt the mother, then yes, it “woulda learned him”.
If she had just seen the guy walking along the street and set fire to him I’d say lock her up now. It didn’t happen that way, though- he provoked her. The guy’s a fucking idiot and clearly didn’t derive any benefit from his time in the Spanish penal system. He had it coming.
According to the story, she’s also suffered some kind of mental illness since the rape, so it’s quite possible that she can’t be held accountable for her actions.
Are we sure that this all actually happened? I mean, it is the Daily Telegraph. It’s like News of the World only less trustworthy.
Considering the crime, I hope they go over easy on her.
Assuming it happened as described, since the mother’s lawyer said she is mentally ill and setting a guy on fire is perhaps not the sanest thing to do.
Well, my point was that he was already *in *jail (out on a pass) when it happened.
And by the way, what kind of lax probationary/parole laws do they have in Spain anyway? A convicted rapist gets a three day pass so he go to a bar?
If my inner psychopath ever develops, I’m moving to Spain.
He was seven years into a nine year sentence. I’m pretty sure they do the same stuff here. See Willie Horton’s weekend furlough, etc.
Quick, everyone stop paying attention! It’s eeeevil!
And he clearly shouldn’t have been out on a pass. But the response to his (despicable) taunt is to take away such privileges and put him under a restraining order when he is freed. Not to torch him.
And now I’m worried about the “evil of vigilance”.
I hope she gets off by pleading temporary incinerator.
A nine-year sentence for raping a 13-year-old? That’s bad enough in itself without the absurdity of letting him out for the weekend.
Clearly, we’re talking about someone who needs to be permanently removed from society by either life imprisonment or execution (I don’t much care which).
For her crime, she should be incarcerated with the likes of that rapist, and be given strict rations of three meals, two matches, and one can of gas per day. Might as well make use of her skill while she is locked up.
The penalty for a person taking another person by force and raping that person should be death or at least life in prison with no parole.
This piece of trash ALMOST got what he deserved. He should have suffered more.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST…he will never hurt a little girl (or her family and friends or society in general) again, will he, you ignorant asshole?
…and his final words, as he screamed in agony, were “…but I really wanted to know how her daughter was!”
You know, if she’s willing to go to prison for what she did, and she probably is, it’s a win-win. If you *have *got the time, then you *can *do the crime.
The guy was 69 and was sentenced to 9 years. 69 years of freedom and 9 years of punishment.
The girl was 13. 13 good years and then some jerk-off ruins the rest of your life.
Not to mention the ruined life of her mother.
Doesn’t seem like a fair trade.
If this brings some justice to the mother and daughter good for them.
You break the rules society has made and harm someone don’t be suprised when they break them to harm you back.
Now that I can agree with. If I were picked to be on a jury for a case like this, I’d be hard put to vote for conviction.
Interesting thread. We’ll see how the new rules fit in with it.