There’s a difference between what I’d have the BALLS to do and what I think I SHOULD do.
Although my life history seems to indicate I’d pick the stupid option and do it purely out of rage.
Anyway–I think that I, Skald, should, in that case, say “bring on the napalm, asshole.” Only if faced with the choice would I be able to know for certain what my decision would be.
I can go with this; perhaps best of all, convicted with a slap on the wrist. 30 days in jail and a couple 2 years of probation seems fine. Christ knows I’d happily take that trade were it my kid.
Problem is: if I’m a juror, do I trust the system to administer what I think is justice?
In my mind, this is no different than Bush’s argument for torture. “They did something to us, so we need to torture them re-assert control.” Unfortunately, doing this means that you no longer have any moral high ground to talk about right and wrong because you just engaged in a mindless, instinctual tit-for-tat.
Exactly. There’s a price for murdering somebody. And sometimes, the price is worth it.
I’ll be right over with an unwilling volunteer.
This is a joke, I am not in any way suggesting or threatening that I will set Skald on fire, I like kittens.
evil laugh
Soon you’ll be Skalded the Rhymer!
Just because I’m not plotting to conquer the world any more doesn’t mean I didn’t keep a couple of the velociraptors around just in case of such an occurence.
I grew up near Sonora and remember this case. From what I recall she had a lot of community support. I knew she went back to prison for dealing meth but had not heard about her son. What a fucked up story all around.
ETA: WTF? He has a MySpace Page. With friends!:eek:
When did this attack happen? The article says his sentence was for nine years, imposed in 1998. He should have been two years out of jail, not out on a pass.
Well, I have a feeling we aren’t going to agree here, but out of curiosity, do you believe all people who commit assault should die? Or only the ones that include rape? Is rape the factor that makes it a capital case for you?
I’m reminded of Samuel Jackson’s outburst in “A Time To Kill”: YES HE DESERVED TO DIE, AND I HOPE HE BURNS IN HELL!
Part of me agrees with the sentiment, but the responsible side of me says no decent society can allow vigilante justice to rule the day. We have due process of law for a reason, folks.
<nitpick> “Yes, they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in hell!” </nitpick>
The system didn’t “fail,” the man was convicted and sentenced to prison. I guess I would have to agree with those who think, regretfully, the mother should be punished in some way. But note to self: Never piss off a Spanish mother.
I believe those who see the rapist’s being out on a weekend furlough regard the system’s response as a failure. That is, they see the response as entirely inadequate: not as big a failure as it would have been if he had never been incarcereated, but still a failure.
I think that the mother should not have taken the law into her own hands. And she should be tried, and probably convicted (just judging superficially) and if so, she should accept her punishment.
On the other hand, I don’t give two shits about the crispy rapist.
I specified violent rape, don’t forget that. I’d say that adding rape to the mix of a violent assault makes the assailant guilty of death, in theory.
But only in theory. I have practical objections that outweigh my kneejerk bloodthirsty response. Executing violent rapists would not be a deterrent to rape, but rather an incitement to adding murder to the mix. Moreover, there’s always the issue of erroneous convictions and the inability to offer any sort of reparations after an execution that should not have happened.
How do you figure?
I mean that some assaults, even if they do not end the death of the victim, are so vile that the perpetrator needs to be removed from the population.
I used to date a woman whose granddaughter, at the age of 2, was savaged by her mother’s worthless boyfriend. She survived, but only barely, and still has developmental issues.
My best friend from high school was, a few years back, the victim of a home invasion that included multiple rapes, a kidnapping, robbery, and more.
My gut feeling is, in both cases, the criminals involved deserve execution.
If the facts of the case are as stated, and if Spanish law defines that as murder, then it is your duty to vote for a murder conviction. It is then up to the judge to decide on the sentence, and if there are any mitigating circumstances. Your personal opinion on the rights and wrongs of the situation shouldn’t affect your decision on whether or not a crime has been committed.
Bullshit. My duty is to what is right, not to what the law says, as sometimes the law is an ass.
A juror is not the same as a judge, and the law cannot be right in every circumstance. If I were, say, on an American jury in the 1800s, faced with deciding the guilt of a person charged with theft of property for helping an fugitive slave, my ethical and moral duty is to vote for acquittal and to campaign for it in the jury room, because the law itself is unjust and must be opposed.
And yes, I am quite aware that this argument can be used to justify letting persons like Byron De La Beckwith off the hook. But that doesn’t change my position. My obligation to do what is right is absolute.