Not too bad for me.
Fine, hold onto whatever belief you’d like, but some one who tortures someone else, is nothing but a torturer – circumstances be damned. If your fine with that, then here’s some bamboo and red hot poker … go to town.
I think he should get put to death for sure.
I wouldn’t enjoy torturing him, and I would think little of anyone who would.
But maybe a person like that needs to experience firsthand the pain and suffering and helplessness that he inflicted so casually for his own pleasure.
I don’t know whether I believe in a soul, God, or the possiblility of redemption.
If such a thing as redemption is possible he’d need to understand the absolute horror and suffering he committed, and, I don’t think it’s possible for him to understand unless he experiences it.
I guess, that maybe the most horrible thing to contemplate is that maybe he does understand it, maybe he did before he committed the acts.
It’s alien to me to consider how a person that did comprehend the suffering he was causing could still do it.
No matter how much we would like to mercilessly torture this guy, this is not the basis of our judicial system. As frustrating as this may be, this is also the reason that, gods forbid, of I were ever to be convicted of a serious crime, I would hope it would be in the U.S.
He will receive his punishment, if not from the courts then from the other convicts, who will trade him for cigarettes on a daily basis until the day he breathes his last breath.
:mad:
Honey
If only.
But, as far as a GD-type argument goes, how about this:
Resolved: A person’s basic human rights may be revoked as a result of being found guilty of specific particularly horrific acts such as those committed by Steven McBride. Such a person has, by his own actions, proven himself to be ‘other than human’. Any punishment ordered for this individual may, and should, be tailored to suit the crime since its been shown that societal norms and morals haven’t had any appreciable effect, and normal threats of punishment haven’t had the desired outcome. The punishment should be specifically designed to punish this individual in a way he’ll understand.
Look, I said in the OP that I wasn’t trying to debate this subject rationally. In all honesty, I wouldn’t want anyone else to suffer as a result of extracting a pound of flesh from that maggot, whether it be a torturer or another inmate.
Cool, thanks. In addition, we will also need a pair of pliars, a bottle of draino, a small mallet, a box of fire ants, and some metal snips. You don’t have to participate if you don’t want to but you can be the gogher since you volunteered.
For those of you that say harming someone like this brings you/us down to their level, I have to disagree. You see, what they did was harm an innocent for no reason. What I would feel guilt-free about is returning some harm to them as punishment for their actions. It is deserved and not visited on an innocent for no reason. Key difference, IMO.
Possibly. But that’s not what the law says. However satisfying it might be to ignore a little law in a case like this, it’s the absence of “when we feel like it” clauses that protect the freedoms of you and me and everyone else, and I really truly believe this. Kind of like what Larry Flynt said about when the rights of a sleazebag like him are defended, everyone is a little safer. No matter what this guy did, he’s entitled to the equal protection of the laws, a fair trial, and no cruel and unusual punishment. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t be for executing him (I’m not sure what purpose he serves alive), but torture just isn’t allowed. But that means it’s not allowed for you either. I always get a little disturbed when people call for hideous tortures to be performed on criminals that perform heinous acts – it’s not allowed for a reason, and it’s better that way. No matter what. Even if it would make many people feel better to see him suffer.
I supposed imprisoning a kidnapper also lowers us to his level? Or does this only apply to torture?
As LaurAnge mentioned, and until the link expires, here is a summary of the “cruel and unusual punishment” meted out to seven-year-old Randall Dooley.
Interesting. I would say that imprisonment is legal, and torture isn’t. If you wanted to try and get the Constitution amended so that cruel and unusual punishment was allowed for certain types of crimes, well, that’s your prerogative. But we shouldn’t just freelance torture people – it should be spelled out in the sentence just like anything else. I would oppose such a measure; at least it would be aboveboard. The real lowering is to violate the law just because of the depravity of a single individual. I’m not saying he’s not a terrible person, but we don’t torture anybody. If you want to be able to, do it through process, not through vigalantism.
Besides the noted legal objection to this, there’s an obvious difference. Imprisonment can be equated to self-defense – if someone has proven by their behavior that they are a danger, it is acceptable to restrain them from doing harm. Torturing the individual is the equivalent of beating your attacker after you knock him down just to cause pain. In my book, that’s not kosher.
The point is that if you enjoy inflicting torture on another human being (or the fantasy of it) that you are sinking to the same level of the crime committed. Looking at another human being and having absolutely no sense of sympathy or pity – instead, having seething hatred to the point that you are willing to inflict horrible bodily harm on that person even when they are helpless – is not a good thing and is the very crime for which the man is being punished.
Yes, there is a distinction in that he is guilty, and that the child was innocent. This difference does not necessarily merit the idea that one is ethical and the other is not. I argue that both are unethical – albeit one moreso than the other. We have a right to protect ourselves and protect society. We do not have a right – morally or legally – to torture just to make ourselves feel better.
So, I’ve thought about this all night, read the arguements posted, and I’ve changed my mind. I take it all back. Don’t torture him, send him to prison for life. But plaster his cell walls with pictures of that kid, as a constant reminder of why he’s being “passed around for cigarettes.” I think 30 or 40 years of mental anguish is much more torture than 30 or 40 minutes of physical pain, anyway. In the end, he’ll get his. And, for the record, I still wanna puke, I’m so disgusted by the whole thing.
http://canoe.ca/CNEWSLaw0204/18_dooley-cp.html
Perhaps Dillon’s dad and Randal’s dad should be locked up together, to rot. What a sick world these two children lived in.
Well as I see it, by beating and killing his stepson, McBride has violated the boy’s rights to life and freedom from abuse. At that point he placed himself out of that system of rights; because he did not respect them, they no longer apply to him. And because a nonexistent right cannot be violated, torturing him really isn’t an unethical action despite whatever pleasure we may get out of it.
Of course this isn’t true from a legal standpoint, but morally we are entitled to torture or kill him if we so choose.
Unless he is a bad motherfucker. Then he will doing just fine.
The sumbitch needs killing…
How on earth do you come up with a legal defense of this sort of thing, boggles my mind.
As a matter of fact, kelli. the defense for the Dooleys went somwhere along this line:
- He did it, not me
- She did it, not me
The lawyer:
- Yes, they are terrible horrible parents
- Yes, they abused him horribly
- Yes, they killed him
- But they didn’t mean to!
I realize that in threads like this one, posts are more to express outrage than anything else, but don’t the first sentence of this and everything else in it contradict each other? Don’t torture him, but do things so that he suffers.
Sort of like the two arguments against the death penalty that are often given together, and which contradict each other.
We must never execute people like the sick, sorry murderer in the OP, because that would lower us to his level. But we should put them away for life, because that is worse than death. A torture worse than a quick, painless death does not lower us, but a quick painless death for those who have amply demonstrated their complete unworthiness to consume precious oxygen does. Go figure.
OK, we will never resolve this here. So let’s not try.
Instead, go home, and do something kind for the nearest child. Hug them, spend an hour giving them your undivided attention, do something positive. And do it in the name of Randall Dooley, who died because his mother was a half-witted slut, his father abandoned him, and his mother’s boyfriend had a heart crawling with the purest evil.
Regards,
Shodan
Is it Ok for me to torture him, with the intent of deterring other assholes like him? How about if I don’t enjoy it?