I can only relay what I was told and tha I feel it to be believable and the anecdotal evidence is from a reputable source. That source being someone who has put many people in jail and been told thank you for it.

Of this we have plenty of evidence. Many, many things go through the mind of a killer. Some are remorseful for having acted on impulse. Some are indifferent, having acted on impulse. Some are blissful reliving their experience as they describe it to you.

While I don't agree that a woman who does this should walk away without punishment, I don't believe it to be quite so psychopathic. I've seen psycho, that's not psycho.

There are no absolutes.

That we know of to date.

Wouldn't that be excessive humanity?

There are no absolutes.

That is a paradox and ineffable.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Catwoman

No surprise then that many of us escape to insanity. If one can reject immediate emotional gratification in favour of rational, objective, effective action, then maybe we can begin to evolve from our inhumanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wouldn't that be excessive humanity?


Would that be a bad thing?

About that crack ho ...

Please remember that what was heard in the jail cell were the words of a woman working on her story ... that story alone will neither convict nor exonerate her. That's what the evidence is for.

She could have been entirely truthful. She could have been totally full of shit. She could have killed someone who was or was not a relative, who did or did not refuse to pay for services rendered, who did or did not use up all the rock (or that she THOUGHT used up all the rock), or she could have been acting irrational as a consequence of her extreme crack use.

Don't feel sorry for someone just because they claim they have been abused.

The governor of Massachusetts is trying to reinstate the death penalty in his state. He thinks he can make it fair and accurate.

It's a good thing for these guys he hasn't succeeded yet.

OK, more accurately, it's a good thing for future people in the same position as those guys.

Perhaps conditions are more humane in jails in your state. Also, while your source may be reliable, his informants may not:

Suspect (being handicuffed, desperately trying to think of a way out, tries the 'Please don't throw me in that briar patch ploy'):
"Officer, I want to thank you for arresting me. You are doing just what I hoped for. Thank you ever so much! (meanwhile wishing officer in hell).

When I was in jail, the person in charge of the county jail system was interviewed by one of the local TV stations. The wardens had switched the TV to that channel because they wanted to see their boss in the news. The man claimed that poor people went out and deliberately committed crimes so that they could get medical treatment thru the jail. Even the wardens sniggered at this one, and we women prisoners went into such a fury of cat calls and shouted comments and obscenities at the broadcast of this fairy tale that we were placed on lock down for the rest of the night.

Death IS available in La. Because she killed in self-defense, I believe she may have gotten voluntary manslaughter.

Oh, there are thousands of people in prison because they killed abusers. They're in prison because they weren't being attacked when they did it. What most people don't understand is this: when you're being attacked by someone bigger and stronger than you are, you're not going to risk getting a weapon that could be taken away from you and used against you. (Been there, done that) So you wait till they're vulnerable. It's the only chance you've got. I don't think they should be in prison. I think they should get medals...domestic abuse isn't taken seriously, and so these abusers are let loose to kill their accusers and/or go on to abuse more people and continue to get away with it.

The last stats I found on domestic violence leading to murder was that 80% of the women who are killed by abusers are killed AFTER THEY LEAVE. Not to mention the so-called "restraining orders" --cops can't do anything until the abuser actually violates the order--by which time the abusee is usually dead.

I don't have any sympathy for abusers. I've been there. I found out after I got away that he'd tried to stomp his ex to death and tried to kill his five-year-old daughter. These men are cunning and the process is so gradual that you don't realize what's going on until it's too late... let me tell you one thing--if I saw him on the side of the road bleeding to death, I'd grab a chair and some popcorn and WATCH.

Sidhe

Oh no. The crack ho and the murderer were two different people. The crack ho was completely unremorseful. All she could talk about was how she couldn't wait to get out and "get some dick so I can buy some crack." :haha:


Sidhe

The more you write, the less sense you are making.

Should we put murderers to death, or give them medals?

If you look into the history of most people in prison for murder, you will see that mostly they come from horrible backgrounds filled with abuse and neglect. You don't seem to care about any of that, and think they should be fried, but then you turn around and say other victims of abuse who commit murder deserve medals? So some victims of abuse can get away with murder, and some others can't? HUH?!

This is a prime example of why you should avoid basing opinions on emotion only. It just doesn't make sense.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying you have no right to your emotions.

Nope, it was a joke.

It is when taken in the context of the range of behaviors that humans are capable of. When we stay near the middle of the behavior spectrum we're good, but when we start reaching into the far ends of the curve you get blind rage and blind adoration and so on.

Animals don't have that problem, and it's a problem we need to get a handle on.

Here is the difference....(IMO)

People who murder people for no reason (Travis killing Steven for no damn reason.)

vs

People who kill other people in self defense. (If I were to kill Travis as he slept, or had Steven killed Travis.)

Those are two different things. Two different scenarios. Two different punishments.

I agree completely. Rationality is the antidote to irrationality - therefore punishment should be dictated thus and not by emotion. The dp only makes sense in its emotional context. There is no rational argument for it other than nil recidivism - and this can be achieved through a 'life means life' sentencing policy.

This is a prime example of why you should avoid basing opinions on emotion only. It just doesn't make sense.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying you have no right to your emotions.

Hear hear.:beer:

I don't think that people who kill in self-defense should go to prison. People who kill serial abusers should get medals.

There's a difference between protecting yourself and/or your children, and stalking someone to kill, killing randomly, or killing for profit of some sort.

You're right. I don't care if Ted Bundy or Charles Manson or any other serial killer had a bad background. I don't care if the guy who shot the convenience store clerk so as not to leave witnesses got his ass beat as a child. I don't care if the pedophile who raped and killed the five-year-old didn't get the bike he wanted when he was ten. No. I DON'T care.

They aren't defending their lives against anyone. Rather, they are exercising the ultimate control over the life of someone else, and they get off on it. There's a difference between someone who kills an abuser because they feel it's the only way to escape, and the punk who shoots you because he wants your shoes.


Sidhe

I believe the death penalty IS rational. By this, I mean that in order for society to not only survive, but flourish, we must rid it of the elements that would prey on society and thus lower the quality of life of citizens, as well as deplete funds that could be used to better that society.

We don't execute EVERYONE. Just those that our courts--which are here for just this purpose--decide are too much a risk to society.

Yes, the DP is an emotional subject for me. BUT, I didn't just wake up one day and say, "Hey! I think the DP is a great idea! Let's start killing everyone! Mwah hah HAAAAAA!" This is something I've thought about and read about a lot.

From a strictly logical point of view, I feel that if we are not allowed to make these people useful in some way, such as in a lab (life in prison is not being useful--all it does is take money I could be using to improve my life and giving it to the upkeep of someone who would think nothing of destroying that life for whatever reason), that if they're going to prey on society over and over until they're caught, spreading fear and misery, then they should be eliminated.

Read Robert Ressler. He's a serial killer profiler with the FBI.

http://www.robertkressler.com/

He was one of the first to develop profiling by going into prisons and talking with serial killers. He found that most of them tried to justify their actions in one way or another, tried to give excuses, outright lied, and talked to him mainly because it was a way to relive the crimes.

Some people just deserve to pay the ultimate price for what they've done. They serve absolutely no purpose except to drain society of resources.


Sidhe