PDA

View Full Version : Man kills 2-year-old boy for not eating


Death Mask
13-10-09, 01:18
"Monday, October 12, 2009

KISSIMMEE, Fla. -- A 19-year-old man was charged with first-degree murder after allegedly injuring his girlfriend's 2-year-old son and then pouring boiling water on the boy, who later died, Kissimmee police said."

Full story:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/21270828/detail.html



I say put this evil piece of useless garbage in the electric chair. :mad:

Nerd For Life
13-10-09, 01:23
Alicea told police he pushed the child's head, causing him to lose consciousness. He said he tried CPR, but when it didn't work, he poured boiling water on the child in an attempt to revive him.

What the HELL is wrong with him?

Zebra
13-10-09, 01:25
I say put this evil piece of useless garbage in the electric chair. :mad:

What the hell is it with you and death penalty over there :rolleyes:. Nobody should be sentenced to death (not even war criminals and the like).

Rai
13-10-09, 01:26
He's lying if he says the boiling water was to revive the boy. He shouldn't have knocked the poor lad unconscious in the first place - for not eating and soiling himself. He's two, what did he expect? And then another relative has the nerve to say the offender loved the child like his own. If you love a child you do not harm that child EVER! :mad:

That poor child, R.I.P. I feel for his mother. :(

Nerd For Life
13-10-09, 01:27
He's lying if he says the boiling water was to revive the boy. He shouldn't have knocked the poor lad unconscious in the first place - for not eating and soiling himself. He's two, what did he expect? And then another relative has the nerve to say the offender loved the child like his own. If you love a child you do not harm that child EVER! :mad:

That poor child, R.I.P. I feel for his mother. :(

Yeah, that's what I thought. Poor child...

maniakatosheto
13-10-09, 01:29
Poor Lil Kid :( R.I.P.

Zebra
13-10-09, 01:30
He's lying if he says the boiling water was to revive the boy. He shouldn't have knocked the poor lad unconscious in the first place - for not eating and soiling himself. He's two, what did he expect? And then another relative has the nerve to say the offender loved the child like his own. If you love a child you do not harm that child EVER! :mad:


Might be hard to understand for us. But there are a lot of people who think differently about that. Just go back a few centuries in time when it was common to hit one's children if they were not obeying. Some people still do that today (Eventhough it's criminal, of course. But to say that someone doesn't love his children just because he hits them is a bit far-fetched. I mean...I don't know if this guy really loved the boy. I'm just saying that you shouldn't steadfastly refuse to accept the possibility).

matrix54
13-10-09, 01:32
really, what ever happened to "if you don't eat, than you just go to bed hungry"

anywho: who does that? he should get the electric chair :mis:

Jo269976
13-10-09, 01:33
Alicea told police he pushed the child's head, causing him to lose consciousness. He said he tried CPR, but when it didn't work, he poured boiling water on the child in an attempt to revive him.

What the HELL is wrong with him?

Jesus Christ, WTF?! :yik:

Either extremely stupid, or extremely sadistic.

Nerd For Life
13-10-09, 01:35
Jesus Christ, WTF?! :yik:

Either extremely stupid, or extremely sadistic.

There's gotta be something wrong with his brain. You don't go around pouring boiling water and hitting people if you love them.

Zebra
13-10-09, 01:35
anywho: who does that? he should get the electric chair :mis:

Nobody deserves a death sentence. Nobody.

Jo269976
13-10-09, 01:36
Nobody deserves a death sentence. Nobody.

Would Hitler deserve one?

Zebra
13-10-09, 01:38
Would Hitler deserve one?

As I said: Nobody. That's my opinion. No one has the right to sentence someone to death (Hitler didn't have the right to sentence the thousands and thousands of people that were killed by the Nazi Regime to death, either, of course. But the law doesn't have to make the same mistake).

Rai
13-10-09, 01:38
I understand what you're saying, Zebra. But there is smacking a child for misbehaving for instance and then there is what this man did. What he did was well crossing any boundaries with regards to punishing a naughty child. A two year old can't necessarily help soiling themselves. Anyone with a bit of sense would not pour boiling water on a child (or anyone) to revive them. Lets imagine his first actions were 'accidental', then cold water would have been better.

My initial reaction was a knee jerk one, but I'm still appalled and angry that he did this.

Also, although I am against the death sentence, this man put that child to death by his actions as a punishment. He deserves no less than a life sentence,imo. By that I mean Life, not a half baked out-in-10-years sentence.

Zebra
13-10-09, 01:40
I understand what you're saying, Zebra. But there is smacking a child for misbehaving for instance and then there is what this man did. What he did was well crossing any boundaries with regards to punishing a naughty child. A two year old can't necessarily help soiling themselves. Anyone with a bit of sense would not pour boiling water on a child (or anyone) to revive them. Lets imagine his first actions were 'accidental', then cold water would have been better.

My initial reaction was a knee jerk one, but I'm still appalled and angry that he did this.

I've seen enough stupid people to be ready to believe that he simply didn't know it better. I don't say I think he did it accidentily. But I think there is the possibility.

Catracoth
13-10-09, 02:03
Oh my God.

Nerd For Life
13-10-09, 02:05
Oh my God.

That was my first reaction, too. :(

MilesPrower
13-10-09, 02:14
:eek: that's pure evilness! no one should do that to a child... poor thing.

anywho: who does that? he should get the electric chair :mis:
totally. :p

Ceamonks890
13-10-09, 04:06
:eek:OMG!! How awful!:( Why would he do that? I don't think using boiling water would help to revive anyone. It would just make it worse!! If the kid doesn't want to eat, you don't have to force him!! I hope that guy is in jail for a long time!! How heartless!! RIP little kid:(

Little-Lara
13-10-09, 04:08
OMgoodness, this happened to a little 2-year old?!!!!!!! :mad:

R.I.P. :(

violentblossom
13-10-09, 04:39
Are children so numerous now that they are becoming of less and less "value" to people so they must treat them like less than cattle? Honestly, how very ****ing disgusting. :mad:

"He loved the child like one of his own!" WOW. Let's just take a moment to be glad that he didn't have any of his own.. Christ.

There really, really should be some sort of law put in place that prevents just any irresponsible idiot from having kids. I mean, I guess they can't force every moron without a condom to keep it in his pants, but boy that'd be nice.

Tear
13-10-09, 04:45
For god's sake, that's terrible...
The poor mother and child.

This makes me want to cry...

Draco
13-10-09, 06:31
There really, really should be some sort of law put in place that prevents just any irresponsible idiot from having kids. I mean, I guess they can't force every moron without a condom to keep it in his pants, but boy that'd be nice.

I'm a proponent of Population Administration.

scoopy_loopy
13-10-09, 06:52
I confess my first thoughts were, :rolleyes: "Oh, another sicko killed some kid."

Something is wrong if we read about terrible things like going down so often its even possible to become jaded.

Nobody deserves a death sentence. Nobody.

I agree :tmb:

Peanut
13-10-09, 07:08
Oh no He did NOT! :ohn: That man should be sentenced to death, The poor kid was just 2, and you dont Hit children or pour boiling water on them! :mad:

Shark_Blade
13-10-09, 08:23
Years ago I read some idiot parent used hot iron to discipline their child. Complete sadistic dumbasses.

This is no different, murder even. Hope he gets hang and be rid off this world.

xXhayleyroxXx
13-10-09, 11:48
cant we get a vat of boiling hot water and place him in it? oh pleaseee?

no seriously i hope he dies in the most inhumane way

da tomb raider!
13-10-09, 12:22
That's a grim story. If you ask me, send this one to the chair. If he did it out of malice, then he deserves death for obvious reasons. It's only fair for somebody who's killed someone to be killed as well (under these circumstances, anyway), in my opinion. Their punishment should be equal to that of the victim. And if he did it out of stupidity, he still deserves death. I for one don't excuse people who don't use common sense in situations, especially when 2-year-olds are involved. There's no excuses for this guy. He should get what he's given.

LightningRider
13-10-09, 12:25
Nobody deserves a Death Sentence.

Even if the man killed the child (in the most idiotic way possible :rolleyes:), he should not get killed.

If the Child didn't want to eat, the don't force. They should just have this guy imprisoned and have him eat only one meal each two weeks. A taste of his own Medicine, nonetheless. ;)

Nannonxyay
13-10-09, 13:17
He should suffer by being locked up for life. If you killed him then he wouldn't learn anything. Leave him in a cell for the rest of his life to rot. :mad:

Why anyone would pour boiling water on somebody to revive them is completely ridiculous. What the hell is wrong with him?!

I feel so sorry for the mother and child. :( R.I.P.

Dennis's Mom
13-10-09, 13:17
When I read stories like this, I get on my knees and I thank God my marriage worked out, because dating with kids must be the most gut-wrenching experience ever. Sure, you might get a knight in shining armor, but you also might wind up with a piece of filth like this around your kid, and you might not know the difference until it's too late. :(

Poor little mite. I feel so bad for his mother.

As for punishment, child killers are not well treated in prison. The death penalty might be getting off easy.

michaeldt
13-10-09, 13:21
he should have just got Supernanny to put him on the Naughty spot for not eating, Seriously though, I feel sorry for the parents, I have a friend who got some severe burns as a baby...

I Need A Map
13-10-09, 13:51
There are some sick sick people in this world....:(

*laralover*
13-10-09, 14:19
Sick :cen: Poor kid....:(

Hairhelmet12
13-10-09, 14:43
>:O
My god! WTF!
That poor child :( R.I.P

tombofwinston
13-10-09, 14:45
NOBODY Deserves a death penalty, Criminals (No matter what they did) Still have a right to life and It is Imoral to take it away.
However that dosen't condone what he did, He should get knocked out and boiling water on his head then Jail for a long time .
Maybe he done It because he met the perfect girl, And she had an awful little brat, But that diddn't mean he hat to kill him, What is wrong with People :rolleyes: .

Phlip
13-10-09, 14:46
Anger management. o.0
btw, I do not approve of death penalties.

Hairhelmet12
13-10-09, 14:46
NOBODY Deserves a death penalty, Criminals (No matter what they did) Still have a right to life and It is Imoral to take it away.
However that dosen't condone what he did, He should get knocked out and boiling water on his head then Jail for a long time .

Forget the knocking out part, just pour boiling water on his head >:|

Mad Tony
13-10-09, 14:49
I find it funny how some people are condemning the death penalty but saying things like "we should pour boiling water over him". Torture is acceptable but the death penalty isn't?

I'm sorry, but if you're going to take the moral high ground and speak out against giving this man the death penalty at least have the consistency to not call for torture.

disneyprincess20
13-10-09, 14:55
As sad as ther death of this child is, there are people out there who are that stupid to think that boiling water would revive someone unconcsious. For instance, my ex-boyfriends aunt was deaf in one ear, because when she was a little girl she had an ear infection. In order to cure her of the infection, her mother poured boiling water into her daughters ear intentionally. Yes, it cured the infection, but it also cured her of her hearing.

I'm not excusing what this person has done, because he was effectively torturing the child to death. I am pointing out that there are people that stupid and whether he acted with honest intentions (as in he thought water would revive the boy) or malicious ones (the water might revive you, and the heat will hurt) is up to the courts. That would dedcide whether or not he needed the death sentence, in my opinion.

I'm a proponent of Population Administration.

That was one of the most interesting debates on here.

msalpha2omega
13-10-09, 14:57
OMG what a sick person and what a twisted way to "punish" the kid for not eating. And a kid that's not even his. Unforgiveable...:mad:

GenyaArikado
13-10-09, 15:00
I hope he gets raped in the prison everyday of his life, well not, but still, poor kid and even more poor mother


He's lying if he says the boiling water was to revive the boy. He shouldn't have knocked the poor lad unconscious in the first place - for not eating and soiling himself. He's two, what did he expect? And then another relative has the nerve to say the offender loved the child like his own. If you love a child you do not harm that child EVER! :mad:

That poor child, R.I.P. I feel for his mother. :(

Word

Hairhelmet12
13-10-09, 15:05
I find it funny how some people are condemning the death penalty but saying things like "we should pour boiling water over him". Torture is acceptable but the death penalty isn't?

I'm sorry, but if you're going to take the moral high ground and speak out against giving this man the death penalty at least have the consistency to not call for torture.

wow...obviously, where not going to run out and pour some boiling water on him.

And plus Torture is sooo in right now =D

Draco
13-10-09, 15:39
That was one of the most interesting debates on here.

Glad someone else thought so lol.

disneyprincess20
13-10-09, 15:46
Depressingly, as I've thought about it, it seems more and more logical, even necessary to our continued survival. See Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) for more information.

violentblossom
13-10-09, 15:50
Depressingly, as I've thought about it, it seems more and more logical, even necessary to our continued survival. See Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) for more information.

I've seen Idiocracy. The film may be satire, but the message is depressing and frightening just the same. :(

Between the trailer park yahoos and the goofy/horny teens alone, were doomed.

Zebra
13-10-09, 15:51
That's a grim story. If you ask me, send this one to the chair. If he did it out of malice, then he deserves death for obvious reasons. It's only fair for somebody who's killed someone to be killed as well (under these circumstances, anyway), in my opinion. Their punishment should be equal to that of the victim. And if he did it out of stupidity, he still deserves death. I for one don't excuse people who don't use common sense in situations, especially when 2-year-olds are involved. There's no excuses for this guy. He should get what he's given.

Talking about going back to the stone age, huh :rolleyes:? An eye for an eye?

da tomb raider!
13-10-09, 15:57
Talking about going back to the stone age, huh :rolleyes:? An eye for an eye?

Well, fair enough if you disagree, but as I said, isn't that the fairest thing to do? Why does somebody who destroyed life deserve life? "An eye for an eye" might be an old way of looking at things, but that doesn't make it a bad way of looking at things.

Zebra
13-10-09, 16:02
Well, fair enough if you disagree, but as I said, isn't that the fairest thing to do? Why does somebody who destroyed life deserve life? "An eye for an eye" might be an old way of looking at things, but that doesn't make it a bad way of looking at things.

Tell me: What gives ANYONE the right to decide that? He didn't have the right to do what he has done. Does that mean the law has to do the same mistake and make decisions it doesn't have the right to make? I think spending years in prison is bad enough. No need for "An eye for an eye".

da tomb raider!
13-10-09, 16:12
Tell me: What gives ANYONE the right to decide that? He didn't have the right to do what he has done. Does that mean the law has to do the same mistake and make decisions it doesn't have the right to make?

The law has the right to decide that, and I don't see why they shouldn't in this case. If one doesn't want to be in a situation where the law decides whether one lives or dies, then perhaps they should realise that hitting 2-year-olds and pouring boiling water on them might not be such a good idea. Again, whether the man killed the child out of malice or stupidity, he has no excuse whatsoever. I don't believe it would be a mistake or unrighteous to give this man the death penalty, which is why I'd be in favour of it.

If this was a more complex case, chances are I certainly wouldn't be in favour of the death penalty. However, it's all about the murder of a harmless child who didn't eat his food. No matter how I look at it, I for one just can't excuse the man for killing the child, nor can I justify his right to live. I don't see why the law wouldn't, either.

toxicraider
13-10-09, 16:17
What a terrible thing :(

Alicea told police he pushed the child's head, causing him to lose consciousness. He said he tried CPR, but when it didn't work, he poured boiling water on the child in an attempt to revive him.

The boy got knocked out, and he tried CPR!? That's idiotic in its own right, the boiling water is just incredible.

Zebra
13-10-09, 16:32
If this was a more complex case, chances are I certainly wouldn't be in favour of the death penalty. However, it's all about the murder of a harmless child who didn't eat his food. No matter how I look at it, I for one just can't excuse the man for killing the child, nor can I justify his right to live. I don't see why the law wouldn't, either.

Every creature has a right to live. No matter its actions, feelings, opinions, ethnic background, etc. Nobody has the right to say a living creature doesn't deserve life (May it be a fly or a human. It doesn't matter). A right to live isn't something that has to be justified (Or else the whole human species wouldn't deserve to live :rolleyes:). It's something that's there and it's something that can't be taken from anyone.

Death Mask
13-10-09, 16:39
The law has the right to decide that, and I don't see why they shouldn't in this case. If one doesn't want to be in a situation where the law decides whether one lives or dies, then perhaps they should realise that hitting 2-year-olds and pouring boiling water on them might not be such a good idea. Again, whether the man killed the child out of malice or stupidity, he has no excuse whatsoever. I don't believe it would be a mistake or unrighteous to give this man the death penalty, which is why I'd be in favour of it.

If this was a more complex case, chances are I certainly wouldn't be in favour of the death penalty. However, it's all about the murder of a harmless child who didn't eat his food. No matter how I look at it, I for one just can't excuse the man for killing the child, nor can I justify his right to live. I don't see why the law wouldn't, either.

Agreed, eye for an eye is the fairest way to make justice IMO, too bad this child murderer will most likely get off in 10 years, I hate the law, most of the time is too soft on criminals that deserve harsher punishments.

RAID
13-10-09, 16:44
I'm shocked :yik:

If I were the mother I would've shot the *******.

PS: I agree with the death penalty.

Dark Lugia 2
13-10-09, 16:49
What a terrible thing :(



The boy got knocked out, and he tried CPR!? That's idiotic in its own right, the boiling water is just incredible.

Of course its incredible, so what makes you think the man is normal? (directed at most people in this thread also) The man could have some sort of condition. Or something that causes a low IQ. The news hardly gives us the full story - with any story.
People here are so quick to judge those who they havent even met. Also, when the family members say the man loved the child, who are we to criticise that? The family knows more than us. Thats why they were asked to give a statement in the first place :rolleyes:

Thats directed at most of the depressing stories posted here btw, its usually the same trend.

The death is sad, however it happened though. A child was put through that :(

Minty Mouth
13-10-09, 16:57
I do not agree with the death penalty. To justify the death penalty you say that the perpetrator doesn't deserve to live, but who are you to decide that? Our rendition of a justice system dictates that killing is wrong and in America and other places that means you can be put to death. But as a criminal, If I killed someone and said that my actions were justified and "right" I would not be humored with a softer sentence, would I?

Justice is not right or wrong, its self imposed and varies on so many factors. No one has the right to take a life, and If you administer the death penalty, even if you or the law (which was just decided by a group of individuals, nothing more) think it is justified, it is still killing and just as wrong as killing in any other circumstance.

Death Mask
13-10-09, 17:52
I do not agree with the death penalty. To justify the death penalty you say that the perpetrator doesn't deserve to live, but who are you to decide that? Our rendition of a justice system dictates that killing is wrong and in America and other places that means you can be put to death. But as a criminal, If I killed someone and said that my actions were justified and "right" I would not be humored with a softer sentence, would I?

Justice is not right or wrong, its self imposed and varies on so many factors. No one has the right to take a life, and If you administer the death penalty, even if you or the law (which was just decided by a group of individuals, nothing more) think it is justified, it is still killing and just as wrong as killing in any other circumstance.
Who cares who is who to decide who deserves to live or die, I'm sick of the argument of "no one has the right to take anyone's life no matter what", the "law" and the "justice system" was created by a bunch of old people with power who got together and decided on their own how the system would operate, which is why I never give a crap about the law, I only believe is what is right and what is wrong from my own point of view, and I believe sometimes that depending on the circumstances the right thing to do is take someone's life, and I don't agree that everyone who kills is bad, it's not the same to kill a filthy child rapist, or a mass murderer as killing my neighbor for throwing his garbage on my lawn every week, some people just deserve or even need to die, think how many lives you could probably save if you took the law into your own hands and killed a terrorist that you knew for sure was about to blow up a school, killing for the right cause is never wrong.

Zebra
13-10-09, 17:58
Who cares who is who to decide who deserves to live or die, I'm sick of the argument of "no one has the right to take anyone's life no matter what", the "law" and the "justice system" was created by a bunch of old people with power who got together and decided on their own how the system would operate, which is why I never give a crap about the law, I only believe is what is right and what is wrong from my own point of view, and I believe sometimes that depending on the circumstances the right thing to do is take someone's life, and I don't agree that everyone who kills is bad, it's not the same to kill a filthy child rapist, or a mass murderer as killing my neighbor for throwing his garbage on my lawn every week, some people just deserve or even need to die, think how many lives you could probably save if you took the law into your own hands and killed a terrorist that you knew for sure was about to blow up a school, killing for the right cause is never wrong.

And there we go. What IS the right cause? Everyone has a different interpretation of rightness. Just because the majority of people think that something is right does that really make it right? Just because someone with power and wisdom thinks that something is right does that make it right? It's not easy to say what is right and what isn't. And there is always the chance of someone innocent being found guilty and being sentenced to death (if you have death penalty in your country). What if you were that innocent someone?

interstellardave
13-10-09, 18:03
@ Death Mask:

The world is full of people who think just like you... but they may not see things the same way as you. When it's fine and dandy for you to choose whom to kill and whom not to kill--and everyone else can do the same--then you have anarchy. Chaos. There HAS to be an external judgement made. Some kind of unilateral guideline.

tomblover
13-10-09, 18:07
He said he tried CPR, but when it didn't work, he poured boiling water on the child in an attempt to revive him.

Can someone give this ****head a ****ing brain?

pneboy
13-10-09, 18:12
"Monday, October 12, 2009

KISSIMMEE, Fla. -- A 19-year-old man was charged with first-degree murder after allegedly injuring his girlfriend's 2-year-old son and then pouring boiling water on the boy, who later died, Kissimmee police said."

Full story:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/21270828/detail.html



I say put this evil piece of useless garbage in the electric chair. :mad:

and make sure he goes to your location

Cloe Christina
13-10-09, 18:23
i hate what this world is... people make me sick to death, i just want to enjoy life withought monsters like him in the world .....

Lost_Soul
13-10-09, 18:46
Tell me: What gives ANYONE the right to decide that? He didn't have the right to do what he has done. Does that mean the law has to do the same mistake and make decisions it doesn't have the right to make? I think spending years in prison is bad enough. No need for "An eye for an eye".

And what gave HIM the right to kill an innocent little child? What he did is NOT a mistake, the man is ****ed in the head. Killing him would be fine but life in prison sounds better, actually. He'll suffer more that way and that worthless piece of **** deserves every horrible thing coming to him.

No need for "an eye for a eye" you say? Wait til you have children. Maybe you'll know what the childs mother feels.

Romantics Inc.
13-10-09, 18:48
It's trash like this that ruin the world, I say he belongs in the electric chair...

Minty Mouth
13-10-09, 18:49
Who cares who is who to decide who deserves to live or die, I'm sick of the argument of "no one has the right to take anyone's life no matter what", the "law" and the "justice system" was created by a bunch of old people with power who got together and decided on their own how the system would operate, which is why I never give a crap about the law, I only believe is what is right and what is wrong from my own point of view, and I believe sometimes that depending on the circumstances the right thing to do is take someone's life, and I don't agree that everyone who kills is bad, it's not the same to kill a filthy child rapist, or a mass murderer as killing my neighbor for throwing his garbage on my lawn every week, some people just deserve or even need to die, think how many lives you could probably save if you took the law into your own hands and killed a terrorist that you knew for sure was about to blow up a school, killing for the right cause is never wrong.

You're sick to death of arguments that make sense?

Well then, that explains why yours doesn't.

Evan C.
13-10-09, 19:48
:(

da tomb raider!
13-10-09, 20:07
Every creature has a right to live. No matter its actions, feelings, opinions, ethnic background, etc. Nobody has the right to say a living creature doesn't deserve life (May it be a fly or a human. It doesn't matter). A right to live isn't something that has to be justified (Or else the whole human species wouldn't deserve to live :rolleyes:). It's something that's there and it's something that can't be taken from anyone.

Life isn't something that has to be justified in itself, sure. But when that life has actually taken life, and in one of the worst ways possible, just why shouldn't it be taken itself? The law has to draw the line somewhere. With all due respect, then unless I'm missing something, you haven't really given a reason as to why everything and everyone deserves life no matter what, other than simply "because". That isn't really good enough to excuse the actions of a child murderer in my opinion. "An eye for an eye", as it were, seems to make far more sense to me.

And besides, if the law doesn't kill those who have killed, then that's not going to discourage other potential murderers much, either, which is yet more trouble all round. Moving on, the law consists of a large number of people, who look at analyzed evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion. You and Minty Mouth may disagree with me, and I can understand that, but personally, I trust the law with the life of those who commit crimes. I'm sure I'm sounding naive here, but again, there's a whole bunch of people involved with the law. I doubt they're all incapable of making a fair decision, and I think it's safe to say they apply logic to each case to come up with their conclusion. Especially when it comes to deciding the sentence of someone such as a child murderer, I just wouldn't see fit to doubt the righteousness of the law.

And as for convicting innocent people, that's a good point, but I imagine in this day and age, such cases are incredible rare. Even if one is unlucky enough to be found guilty of something that they didn't do, hopefully the evidence against them would be sketchy, resulting in a reduced sentence from the law.

Tommy123
13-10-09, 20:14
wow.... society is turning into complete trash. Theres a special place in hell for him

TRhalloween
13-10-09, 20:16
wow.... society is turning into complete trash. Theres a special place in hell for him

Believe me, it's always been like this.

Mad Tony
13-10-09, 20:17
wow.... society is turning into complete trash. Theres a special place in hell for himI knew something like this would pop up eventually.

While sad, this kind of thing is nothing new therefore society is hardly "turning" into trash. Personally I don't agree that society is trash at all but if you do think it is, it's been that way for thousands of years.

EDIT: Got beaten to it lol.

Nerd For Life
13-10-09, 20:17
Believe me, it's always been like this.

Sadly yes.

TRhalloween
13-10-09, 20:17
^ @Tony :p

Minty Mouth
13-10-09, 20:21
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, has no one heard this saying?

da tomb raider!
13-10-09, 20:28
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, has no one heard this saying?

Not me. Whilst I can probably imagine what it means, could you explain it so I don't misinterpret it?

Encore
13-10-09, 20:33
Gandhi said it I think. And I think it means that revenge does nothing but perpetuate a cycle of violence.

Tommy123
13-10-09, 20:36
I knew something like this would pop up eventually.

While sad, this kind of thing is nothing new therefore society is hardly "turning" into trash. Personally I don't agree that society is trash at all but if you do think it is, it's been that way for thousands of years.

EDIT: Got beaten to it lol.

Your right, i just cant believe that monsters like these are walking around.

da tomb raider!
13-10-09, 20:48
Gandhi said it I think. And I think it means that revenge does nothing but perpetuate a cycle of violence.

I see. Well, I don't think of it as revenge in this case, I think of it as punishment. There's a difference between the two, I reckon. More importantly, not everyone is a murderer, so not everyone's going to be affected by this revenge/punishment (hence, in this particular scenario, not everyone's going to "go blind", as it were), and also, as I said in a previous post of mine, if the right punishment isn't carried out, then chances are the violence will carry on anyway.

iamlaracroft
13-10-09, 20:52
I see nothing wrong with putting to death those who have willingly committed murders and/or violent crimes and rapes because they chose their actions knowing full well the possible consequences. Accidental and self-defense deaths are of course negligible, but IMO serial rapists, child molesters and murders cannot be rehabilitated or 'cured' and therefore should be put to death as they are wastes of human beings. There can be no redeeming qualities of a person who rapes or kills. Wasting taxpayer's money by living out 50 years in prison with three square meals a day, free education and room and board is ridiculous.
You choose the actions, you choose the consequences.

Zebra
13-10-09, 23:34
And what gave HIM the right to kill an innocent little child? What he did is NOT a mistake, the man is ****ed in the head. Killing him would be fine but life in prison sounds better, actually. He'll suffer more that way and that worthless piece of **** deserves every horrible thing coming to him.

There's probably something wrong with him, yes. But we don't know what it is. And as we don't know it we don't have the right to judge him. We only know what's written in one news report. That means we hardly know anything ;).

No need for "an eye for a eye" you say? Wait til you have children. Maybe you'll know what the childs mother feels.

I know that there are enough mothers who don't give a **** about their offspring (Talking about putting new-borns in freezers and the like...). Not every mother loves her children (And as men can't have children with men I doubt I'll ever have any. But who knows...if I wanted I could always adopt some).

Life isn't something that has to be justified in itself, sure. But when that life has actually taken life, and in one of the worst ways possible, just why shouldn't it be taken itself? The law has to draw the line somewhere. With all due respect, then unless I'm missing something, you haven't really given a reason as to why everything and everyone deserves life no matter what, other than simply "because". That isn't really good enough to excuse the actions of a child murderer in my opinion. "An eye for an eye", as it were, seems to make far more sense to me.

Everyone deserves life because he lives. Would a creature not deserve to live it wouldn't have been born. That's the law of nature. If something is not meant to exist it wouldn't have been created in the first place. And if our ****ed up community brings some people up as murderers or as stupid enough to think boiling water would help an unconcious child, it's a shame. But we have to see the bigger picture.

And besides, if the law doesn't kill those who have killed, then that's not going to discourage other potential murderers much, either, which is yet more trouble all round. Moving on, the law consists of a large number of people, who look at analyzed evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion. You and Minty Mouth may disagree with me, and I can understand that, but personally, I trust the law with the life of those who commit crimes. I'm sure I'm sounding naive here, but again, there's a whole bunch of people involved with the law. I doubt they're all incapable of making a fair decision, and I think it's safe to say they apply logic to each case to come up with their conclusion. Especially when it comes to deciding the sentence of someone such as a child murderer, I just wouldn't see fit to doubt the righteousness of the law.

There are enough legal systems that can live without death penalty (my country is one of those). And guess what: Not every 2nd German is a mass murderer just because we don't have death penalty. 20 years in prison are discouraging enough.

And as for convicting innocent people, that's a good point, but I imagine in this day and age, such cases are incredible rare. Even if one is unlucky enough to be found guilty of something that they didn't do, hopefully the evidence against them would be sketchy, resulting in a reduced sentence from the law.

I don't think they're really that rare. Cases where an innocent person really ends up being sentenced to death might be. I'd have to research that to say for sure.

Zebra
13-10-09, 23:42
Edit

knightgames
13-10-09, 23:59
Every creature has a right to live. No matter its actions, feelings, opinions, ethnic background, etc. Nobody has the right to say a living creature doesn't deserve life (May it be a fly or a human. It doesn't matter). A right to live isn't something that has to be justified (Or else the whole human species wouldn't deserve to live :rolleyes:). It's something that's there and it's something that can't be taken from anyone.


I'd say the killer's right to life has been revoked. :ton:

I personally don't understand why some don't realise that it's the killer's actions that cause his own death. He made a choice to take a life.... to stop a heart.... to in effect say in this particular case: " This child does not have the right to life." Why should he have the continued right to life?

I understand what you mean when you say that everything has a right to life, but why should that right continue for a killer when he so blatantly disregarded the victim's life?

With his right (in my mind) revoked then why do we have to continue support for a miscreant? At @ $45,000 annual expenses why should we continue to support a rightsless person?

There's no revenge passion in my arguement. I'm emotionless about it. Logically he made his choice. It's time to go. Sorry. You have renegged your OWN rights by revoking anothers.

NOW THAT BEING SAID: I am a proponant in THEORY of the Death Penalty. I'm AGAINST it in practice because we are human and still capable of convicting the wrong man.

da tomb raider!
14-10-09, 00:06
Everyone deserves life because he lives. Would a creature not deserve to live it wouldn't have been born. That's the law of nature. If something is not meant to exist it wouldn't have been created in the first place.

If that's the case, then nothing should ever die of natural causes, right? They do, so I see no reason why a murderer shouldn't be killed either.

There are enough legal systems that can live without death penalty (my country is one of those). And guess what: Not every 2nd German is a mass murder just because we don't have death penalty. 20 years in prison are discouraging enough.

Of course countries can live without the death penalty. But as far as I know, there are plenty of countries with lower crime rates than those who don't (I'll name some if you like, as soon as I look into it). That's the difference. Why have a 2-year-old child dead when you could have no 2-year-old children dead?

I don't think they're really that rare. Cases where an innocent person really ends up being sentenced to death might be. I'd have to research that to say for sure.

I'm not so sure. Forensics and the like seem to be pretty darn advanced these days. Again, I really don't think they're going to make any mistakes, and even if they do, chances are the evidence won't be enough for a death penalty.

Zebra
14-10-09, 00:40
If that's the case, then nothing should ever die of natural causes, right? They do, so I see no reason why a murderer shouldn't be killed either.

That's nature killing. That's the cycle of life. Here we come back to the question who has the right to decide who should die and who shouldn't.

Of course countries can live without the death penalty. But as far as I know, there are plenty of countries with lower crime rates than those who don't (I'll name some if you like, as soon as I look into it). That's the difference. Why have a 2-year-old child dead when you could have no 2-year-old children dead?

Not to sure about that. I'm really not that familiar with all this stuff :p. I'd have to look it up.

I'm not so sure. Forensics and the like seem to be pretty darn advanced these days. Again, I really don't think they're going to make any mistakes, and even if they do, chances are the evidence won't be enough for a death penalty.

They're really advanced. But also really expensive. I seriously doubt that they're used in every single case.

thecentaur
14-10-09, 00:59
Eh I'll just give my two cents to anyone that's willing to hear it:

All I have to say is that we definitely need more cheerier news going on. Not to say there isn't, but having this kind of stuff posted in General Chat is kind of depressing. Yes, it does educate us, but it also exposes us to the kinds of nutcases there are out there. Sad, really. I mean all this is doing is just riling us up for no reason because it's not like we can go to the government and say "hey, have this guy killed." There'll just be some sort of consensus about this but is that going to do anything about this man, right now? Highly unlikely. :(

patriots88888
14-10-09, 04:35
Eh I'll just give my two cents to anyone that's willing to hear it:

All I have to say is that we definitely need more cheerier news going on. Not to say there isn't, but having this kind of stuff posted in General Chat is kind of depressing. :(

I agree and you could have stopped right there. Seems like the doom and gloom always wins out because I assume most find it more interesting and more conversation provoking. At least I hope that's the reason for it. I'd hate to think that the majority of members here are just plain sadistic.

Zebra
14-10-09, 06:35
I agree and you could have stopped right there. Seems like the doom and gloom always wins out because I assume most find it more interesting and more conversation provoking. At least I hope that's the reason for it. I'd hate to think that the majority of members here are just plain sadistic.

I guess if that was the case the comments in here would be a lot different.

demonslayer
14-10-09, 08:08
OMG poor child :( R.I.P. little man

I belive in an eye for an eye. So yeah I think this cruel ******* does deserve to be killed !

Zebra
14-10-09, 08:14
Wow...looking at all these shocked comments now I'm kinda surprised none of you has died of shock or a heart attack yet. Considering the thousands of people that are killed everyday or that starve to death. But then one child dies of boiling water in the US and everyone is screaming. It's sad, sure. But if you think about all the cruelty around the world it's SADLY (!!!) nothing special, anymore (Not that there'd ever been a time without cruelty. Oh right...back when humans didn't exist. The good old times, I guess).

Dennis's Mom
14-10-09, 12:38
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, has no one heard this saying?

It's not a "saying." It's from the Bible. It's one of the 613 commandments from the Old Testament. The intent was to stop the "you steal one of my sheep, I'm going to go kill all of yours" type revenge nonsense. It established a sense of "punishment should equal the crime".

Paddy
14-10-09, 12:44
When you take someones life off them, youve lost the right to life yourself.
Simple. Thats my opinion anyway.
But then on the flipside I can also see, the person who kills should suffer in jail, depending on the cases.

Ikas90
14-10-09, 12:44
Alright, is he evil, or just incredibly stupid?

disneyprincess20
14-10-09, 12:45
Alright, is he evil, or just incredibly stupid?

A little of both, I imagine.

da tomb raider!
14-10-09, 13:08
That's nature killing. That's the cycle of life. Here we come back to the question who has the right to decide who should die and who shouldn't.

I'm not so sure. You say that everything that's given life deserves that life, and that when something dies of natural causes, that's just the cycle of life. That's fair enough, but what about those that die outside natural causes? There are some people, such as the child murderer in question, who kill others purely out of malice or stupidity. Since they're killing something prematurely and not letting it die from natural causes, they're disrupt the cycle of life, and for no good reason, either. What gives them the right to live? Personally I simply can't see how someone who could kill someone else, and under these circumstances no less, deserves life. You said yourself that everything alive deserves life, and perhaps that's fair enough, but I feel that it's necessary to treat some people (like some murderers, naturally) differently under the circumstances, and this is one such circumstance. Again, I think those should get what they give. If one never takes life, then I for one would never question their right to live (of course, I'd expect them to be punished if they commited another crime, but certainly not the death penalty). And if one does take life, then they should have the same done to them. It's their choice, really, and it's that simple. I've already given my thoughts on who has the right to decide the life or death of murderers. In the case of a child murderer such as this one, I personally believe the law has every right to decide.

They're really advanced. But also really expensive. I seriously doubt that they're used in every single case.

Sure, some forensic techniques are probably rather expensive. But on the other hand, I think it's safe to say that there are plenty of other techniques that are both effective and cheap. Furthermore, even if forensics do use cheap techniques on their cases, they probably won't gather enough evidence to be able to convict the wrong person, and would probably have to increase their budget in order to gather more, and hopefully find the right person in the process. Either way, I can't see any innocents suffering from the dealth penalty, not in this day and age.

Rai
14-10-09, 13:13
Wow...looking at all these shocked comments now I'm kinda surprised none of you has died of shock or a heart attack yet. Considering the thousands of people that are killed everyday or that starve to death. But then one child dies of boiling water in the US and everyone is screaming. It's sad, sure. But if you think about all the cruelty around the world it's SADLY (!!!) nothing special, anymore (Not that there'd ever been a time without cruelty. Oh right...back when humans didn't exist. The good old times, I guess).

Well, point taken. Of course, exclaiming about one manslaughter does not distract from how people feel about other deaths in the world. Manslaughter, murder, tragic accidents, wars, natural disasters. It all happens and is extremely shocking. Most of the time we hear or read about all of this in the news and we can feel saddened or angered by it, and may even say to someone we know 'did you see that in the news?'or whatever. It may even have the effect of taking stock to our own lives and feel more grateful.

Whenever there is a thread that highlights anything like that then people will react to it. People will only ever react to the topic in hand. This particular case was brought to our attention and so we will openly react to it. We may not have heard about it otherwise. We couldn't possibly exclaim over every singular death, we'd be emotionally exhausted. We do hear or read about many sad things that go on in the world, but we're more likely to react with any passion to something brought to us in a discussion.

Zebra
14-10-09, 13:16
I'm not so sure. You say that everything that's given life deserves that life, and that when something dies of natural causes, that's just the cycle of life. That's fair enough, but what about those that die outside natural causes? There are some people, such as the child murderer in question, who kill others purely out of malice or stupidity. Since they're killing something prematurely and not letting it die from natural causes, they're disrupt the cycle of life, and for no good reason, either. What gives them the right to live? Personally I simply can't see how someone who could kill someone else, and under these circumstances no less, deserves life. You said yourself that everything alive deserves life, and perhaps that's fair enough, but I feel that it's necessary to treat some people (like some murderers, naturally) differently under the circumstances, and this is one such circumstance. Again, I think those should get what they give. If one never takes life, then I for one would never question their right to live (of course, I'd expect them to be punished if they commited another crime, but certainly not the death penalty). And if one does take life, then they should have the same done to them. It's their choice, really, and it's that simple. I've already given my thoughts on who has the right to decide the life or death of murderers. In the case of a child murderer such as this one, I personally believe the law has every right to decide.

I see it out of a different perspective. The "cycle of life" has been disrupted, true. But the "cycle of life" doesn't know such a thing as revenge :p. It's just a process, you know. It doesn't have feelings. (And even if it had: It would be pretty stupid to kill the murderer as well. One life is already lost. Why take another one (in the case of a serial killer that would be something different of course). I'm not serious about that. Just trying to get into the whole "cycle of life"-thing :p).

Well, point taken. Of course, exclaiming about one manslaughter does not distract from how people feel about other deaths in the world. Manslaughter, murder, tragic accidents, wars, natural disasters. It all happens and is extremely shocking. Most of the time we hear or read about all of this in the news and we can feel saddened or angered by it, and may even say to someone we know 'did you see that in the news?'or whatever. It may even have the effect of taking stock to our own lives and feel more grateful.

Whenever there is a thread that highlights anything like that then people will react to it. People will only ever react to the topic in hand. This particular case was brought to our attention and so we will openly react to it. We may not have heard about it otherwise. We couldn't possibly exclaim over every singular death, we'd be emotionally exhausted. We do hear or read about many sad things that go on in the world, but we're more likely to react with any passion to something brought to us in a discussion.

Of course. What I mean is that - after hearing about so many deaths and tragedies - one would assume most people to have become used to those news. I mean...I'm not shocked just because I read such things in the newspaper. Sure. I sometimes think 'That could've been me or someone I love.'. But what does that really change? It only worries me.

tombofwinston
14-10-09, 14:47
I find it funny how some people are condemning the death penalty but saying things like "we should pour boiling water over him". Torture is acceptable but the death penalty isn't?

I'm sorry, but if you're going to take the moral high ground and speak out against giving this man the death penalty at least have the consistency to not call for torture.

Torture ?
I'm talking about giving this man what he gave to that little kid, not to die, or torture but to feel what it would be like to be in the kids position (Pouring Boiling water over his Head Under Controled conditions) While Knocked out to give him somthing to look back at through his life, And jail.
This is the highest thing you can do to this man without taking away his right to live.

If i'm honest America's death penalty is discusting, Leathal Injection is probbably the worst.

Mad Tony
14-10-09, 15:02
Torture ?
I'm talking about giving this man what he gave to that little kid, not to die, or torture but to feel what it would be like to be in the kids position (Pouring Boiling water over his Head Under Controled conditions) While Knocked out to give him somthing to look back at through his life, And jail.
This is the highest thing you can do to this man without taking away his right to live.

If i'm honest America's death penalty is discusting, Leathal Injection is probbably the worst.I find your comment rather hypocritical. You're saying you think this man should be subjected to torture (yes, pouring boiling water over someone is torture) yet you find the death penalty disgusting.

Oh, and what do you mean by "America's death penalty"? America isn't the only country with the death penalty.

tombofwinston
14-10-09, 15:11
I find your comment rather hypocritical. You're saying you think this man should be subjected to torture (yes, pouring boiling water over someone is torture) yet you find the death penalty disgusting.

Oh, and what do you mean by "America's death penalty"? America isn't the only country with the death penalty.

I think he should be subjected to a punishment more than jail but not death as I find it Wrong to take away their life, if you have any suggestions I'm open.

America is the only country I know has a death penalty so I'm not trying to pinpoint it just overall any country with such a punishment.

Also, Wouldn't Torture bring alot more justice than Death without taking his life ?
Because I do. If he is Dead he can't learn that killing is Bad.

Not saying torture is right but, If He dosen't do any criminal acts for the rest of his life then I think it would be Better to change him, Instead of killing him.

Also how is that statement Hypocritical.

Mad Tony
14-10-09, 15:23
I think he should be subjected to a punishment more than jail but not death as I find it Wrong to take away their life, if you have any suggestions I'm open.

America is the only country I know has a death penalty so I'm not trying to pinpoint it just overall any country with such a punishment.

Also, Wouldn't Torture bring alot more justice than Death without taking his life ?
Because I do. If he is Dead he can't learn that killing is Bad.

Not saying torture is right but, If He dosen't do any criminal acts for the rest of his life then I think it would be Better to change him, Instead of killing him.

Also how is that statement Hypocritical.Your statement is hypocritical because you think torture is ok but execution is not.

There are loads of countries other than the US with the death penalty.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

See the "death penalty permitted" section.

tombofwinston
14-10-09, 15:28
Your statement is hypocritical because you think torture is ok but execution is not.

There are loads of countries other than the US with the death penalty.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

See the "death penalty permitted" section.

Yes, But isn't Execution worse than Torture ?

Wow quite a lot of countries, Didden't realise there was so many.

Also, What view do you share ?

Mad Tony
14-10-09, 15:35
Yes, But isn't Execution worse than Torture ?

Wow quite a lot of countries, Didden't realise there was so many.

Also, What view do you share ?Depends how you look at it. Would you rather be executed or spend the rest of your life being tortured?

I'll probably get flamed for this (not necessarily by you) but I'm in favor of the capital punishment as long as the crime justifies it and the person is 100% guilty without a doubt.

tombofwinston
14-10-09, 15:38
Depends how you look at it. Would you rather be executed or spend the rest of your life being tortured?

I'll probably get flamed for this (not necessarily by you) but I'm in favor of the capital punishment as long as the crime justifies it and the person is 100% guilty without a doubt.

I wont Flame you :), As I see your point.

I would rather die than spend the reast of my life being tourured, but I'm saying That it is just a one off thing this man would get.

Draco
14-10-09, 15:42
The only thing wrong with the death penalty is it is optional.

Big Matt
14-10-09, 15:50
The vengeful part of me says to torture and brutalize him in the same way he did that precious baby. The generous merciful part of me says to put him in front of a firing squad (the most humane way to execute someone, in my opinion) and kill him. That would end his misery and prevent him from causing anyone else the same in the future.

If he is Dead he can't learn that killing is Bad.

He's an adult. If he hasn't already learned it by now then he never will. Although, I believe that argument is unnecessary because I simply cannot believe that he doesn't already know that what he did was wrong, even as he committed the act.

tombofwinston
14-10-09, 16:33
The vengeful part of me says to torture and brutalize him in the same way he did that precious baby. The generous merciful part of me says to put him in front of a firing squad (the most humane way to execute someone, in my opinion) and kill him. That would end his misery and prevent him from causing anyone else the same in the future.



He's an adult. If he hasn't already learned it by now then he never will. Although, I believe that argument is unnecessary because I simply cannot believe that he doesn't already know that what he did was wrong, even as he committed the act.

Wow, Thats your genorous side.
What I mean is killing him would be a waste, If he goes to jail for his actions when he comes out, He (Likely) Could actually benefit society, Which is the point of jail Really.

Lost_Soul
14-10-09, 16:55
There's probably something wrong with him, yes. But we don't know what it is. And as we don't know it we don't have the right to judge him. We only know what's written in one news report. That means we hardly know anything ;).
Well the news do tend to blow things out of proportion. But it wasn't made up. And to me someone who would kill a 2 year old (or anybody for that matter) deserves life in prison at least. And in some circumstances death. It wasn't an accident...he poured hot water on the kid...what kind of sadist does that. =/


I know that there are enough mothers who don't give a **** about their offspring (Talking about putting new-borns in freezers and the like...). Not every mother loves her children

And yes, sadly, there are parents like that but most care about their kids so much they would die for them. I know many parents who would do anything to protect their children...even killing the person trying to harm them.

(And as men can't have children with men I doubt I'll ever have any. But who knows...if I wanted I could always adopt some).

Well in that case I guess you can't have children yourself but I'm sure if you adopted you would care about the child a lot. I even feel as strongly about my cousins little boy.

Dark Lugia 2
14-10-09, 17:11
Well the news do tend to blow things out of proportion. But it wasn't made up. And to me someone who would kill a 2 year old (or anybody for that matter) deserves life in prison at least. And in some circumstances death. It wasn't an accident...he poured hot water on the kid...what kind of sadist does that. =/


What would you say if that man was born with severe autism, grew up with it, and tried to stop the boy in the news story crying by hitting him, then giving him CPR and finally pouring boiling water over him? His intentions are good, but he doesnt realise what hes doing can harm the boy.

I agree fully with what Zebra said (that you quoted), as I've already said in this thread. You're very good at getting your point accross btw, Zebra. (tmb)

Lost_Soul
14-10-09, 18:28
What would you say if that man was born with severe autism, grew up with it, and tried to stop the boy in the news story crying by hitting him, then giving him CPR and finally pouring boiling water over him? His intentions are good, but he doesnt realise what hes doing can harm the boy.

Well that's different....first of all a person with severe autism shouldn't be left alone to take care of a 2 year old. Not sure if a person with autism can even try to perform, or knows cpr either...him saying he poured boiling water on the boy to revive him is a ****ty and cowardly excuse, probably because he doesn't want to admit the truth...that he's messed up.

tombofwinston
14-10-09, 18:47
Don't shout at me :p, But maybe it was an accident, He could have wanted cold water and reached for the kettle which In most houses is nearly always filled, And he cold have forgot that it had been boiled.

Lost_Soul
14-10-09, 19:41
Don't shout at me :p, But maybe it was an accident, He could have wanted cold water and reached for the kettle which In most houses is nearly always filled, And he cold have forgot that it had been boiled.

Yeah true, it might have been. He could have panicked...
Though my first reaction is to call 911, not throw water. But, then again, I don't hit kids either...

just croft
14-10-09, 19:54
I say put this evil piece of useless garbage in the electric chair. :mad:

See this is why I feel people who support the death penatly are stupid.

He would suffer much more if he spent the rest of life in a 3 by 2 cell alone, without walks or visits... ;)

Hermina94
14-10-09, 21:11
Jesus Christ, WTF?! :yik:

Either extremely stupid, or extremely sadistic.

I had the same reaction when I read that ^^ :yik:

tombofwinston
14-10-09, 21:46
See this is why I feel people who support the death penatly are stupid.

He would suffer much more if he spent the rest of life in a 3 by 2 cell alone, without walks or visits... ;)

Quite True ;) .

Dennis's Mom
14-10-09, 22:22
But he won't be in a 2x3 cell without walks or vists. He'll be in a much larger room with a roomate who shares his interests, recess every day, free education, cable TV and food.

Really . . . it's prison in the US. Not North Korea.

JRod2208
15-10-09, 01:19
Which is why I don't like our present prison system (US). I don't think it should be sadistic or anything, but our prisoners get too good of a treatment, if you ask me. I don't like parole and I don't like that a life sentence is, in most cases, 25 years. If you did the crime, you gotta do the time IMO. Not get out for "good behavior." To me, a life lasts about 80 years if you're healthy. Or we could just put them there until they die of old age. If the person was so good in the first place, then they shouldn't even be in prison. It all goes back to the government not caring about our prison system so we have overcrowded prisons and seemingly everyday a rapist is let out on parole. It sickening. I don't want those people in society. Rapists and murderers deserve to rot in their cells.

Haaaydeen
15-10-09, 01:25
What a heartless man :(

RIP Jariel