and you think your father was crap!

how could the mother not know what was going on in her basement?

finally some proof that romance isn't dead.

a bit "people under the stairs."

And to thimk not only had she suffered years of degradation,but her children/sisters had never seen daylight.

Austria again .

Bere wrote: Austria again .

As I said give them Bavaria. It's a perfect fit.

.... and I'm not going to tell you why my dad is crap.

my father is in a lot of ways crap. mostly for me having to pay for his past with my emotional and mental well being. i.e.- kids he claims he doesn't have taking things out on me. obviously i pointed a shotgun at his head from the ether and told him to screw a few birds.

as for the story above. i would have murdered my father before he could impregnate me. and in a clever way too.

Well that story takes the cake doesn't it? Sounds like more of a bad movie plot than real life. How does the wife never go downstairs for 20 years? Plus I bet she was 'unknowingly' cooking the meals.

...and to think people want to recant the death penalty. This is the perfect example of why we need it, to fry f***ers like this.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Well that story takes the cake doesn't it? Sounds like more of a bad movie plot than real life. How does the wife never go downstairs for 20 years? Plus I bet she was 'unknowingly' cooking the meals.

...and to think people want to recant the death penalty. This is the perfect example of why we need it, to fry f***ers like this.

The death penalty would be great, if it actually deterred crime...

Don't care if it deters crime... care that bastards like the one in the article aren't breathing anymore. No reason for the taxpayers to pay for his roof and food.

Kind of a big difference between a molestor who caged his daughter/children for 20 years in his basement and the poor/needy.

Give me one good reason this guy should be kept alive? How will he benefit society?

EdelBrock wrote: Kind of a big difference between a molestor who caged his daughter/children for 20 years in his basement and the poor/needy.

Give me one good reason this guy should be kept alive? How will he benefit society?

i believe that a society should be judged by how it treats its lowest citizens.

Well I'm not into death penalty (we don't have it over here), but sometimes...

Bere wrote: Well I'm not into death penalty (we don't have it over here), but sometimes...

i agree. i'm not exactly crying into my corn flakes that ted bundy was put to death. but morally i am opposed to it.

AgentWood wrote:

Bere wrote: Well I'm not into death penalty (we don't have it over here), but sometimes...

i agree. i'm not exactly crying into my corn flakes that ted bundy was put to death. but morally i am opposed to it.

While I completely understand the moral stance on the issue, I think there is a huge trade off we are doing. It has been estimated that inmates cost around $69,000 a year each (not including major medical treatment).

Getting rid of some of the major life sentences (ones that have no rehabilitation and are without a doubt guilty), there would be a major savings of millions per year, that would be exponential if you think about it.

That could be money better spent on Health care, better operation abilities for those on medicare/aid...

So by having a moral stance to not kill known criminals, we are indirectly killing innocent people by not allowing them better health care treatment -or- not paying into the largest taxpayer moneypit - education.

Some people say that the costs associated with the death penalty (courts/lawyers/endless appeals/whatever) actually make it much more expensive to kill them.

Not sure why somebody would WANT to live out their life in prison anyway. Maybe there could be a voluntary "escape route"...

But it is pretty much impossible to impliment the death penalty fairly and objectively. There will always be emotion, politics, and lawyers involved.
Most extreme cases of "anti-social behavior" that crosses way over the line is really mental illness by most definitions. Not saying that makes their behavior okay, society should be protected from them forever, but a government should not be killing the mentally ill... where do you draw the line? Just avoid the death penalty altogether.

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

Bere wrote: Well I'm not into death penalty (we don't have it over here), but sometimes...

i agree. i'm not exactly crying into my corn flakes that ted bundy was put to death. but morally i am opposed to it.

While I completely understand the moral stance on the issue, I think there is a huge trade off we are doing. It has been estimated that inmates cost around $69,000 a year each (not including major medical treatment).

Getting rid of some of the major life sentences (ones that have no rehabilitation and are without a doubt guilty), there would be a major savings of millions per year, that would be exponential if you think about it.

That could be money better spent on Health care, better operation abilities for those on medicare/aid...

So by having a moral stance to not kill known criminals, we are indirectly killing innocent people by not allowing them better health care treatment -or- not paying into the largest taxpayer moneypit - education.

the biggest problem i have with the death penalty is the dozens of people sentenced to death and later found not guilty through DNA evidence. as far as i'm concerned, if one innocent person is executed based on faulty evidence, we should have NO death penalty.

part of the reason britain has no death penalty is because of a case that took place in the middle of the last century. a man was hanged for the murder of his wife; after the execution it was discovered that the real perpetrator was a serial killer living in their building. so many in britain were horrified at the outcome of the case that the death penalty was abolished.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: How will he benefit society? Most retarded people won't really provide a great benefit to society. Should we put them to death?

I think yer using some really poor examples. Why do you think most mentally retarded people aren't beneficial to society? I completely disagree. They do work, and happily I might add, that many other people wouldn't do. Also they have a touch of innocence that regular adults tend to completely lose to cynicism. They benefit society.

Not only that, it was not a choice they made. They were born that way.

Locking people in a basement requires a decision. Mentally inflicted or not, what good will he bring to society? The 'mentally ill' defense is overused in today's court cases. I have no doubt the guy is mentally off, (what person in their right mind would do such a thing?) but that is no excuse for his actions. Get rid of him and let it be finished.

We haven't even talked about victims ability to move on from these events. Having the people deceased only helps them move with their lives.

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

Bere wrote: Well I'm not into death penalty (we don't have it over here), but sometimes...

i agree. i'm not exactly crying into my corn flakes that ted bundy was put to death. but morally i am opposed to it.

While I completely understand the moral stance on the issue, I think there is a huge trade off we are doing. It has been estimated that inmates cost around $69,000 a year each (not including major medical treatment).

Getting rid of some of the major life sentences (ones that have no rehabilitation and are without a doubt guilty), there would be a major savings of millions per year, that would be exponential if you think about it.

That could be money better spent on Health care, better operation abilities for those on medicare/aid...

So by having a moral stance to not kill known criminals, we are indirectly killing innocent people by not allowing them better health care treatment -or- not paying into the largest taxpayer moneypit - education.

the biggest problem i have with the death penalty is the dozens of people sentenced to death and later found not guilty through DNA evidence. as far as i'm concerned, if one innocent person is executed based on faulty evidence, we should have NO death penalty.

part of the reason britain has no death penalty is because of a case that took place in the middle of the last century. a man was hanged for the murder of his wife; after the execution it was discovered that the real perpetrator was a serial killer living in their building. so many in britain were horrified at the outcome of the case that the death penalty was abolished.

But you are basing yer thought on old convictions. We now have DNA testing in court cases, which lessens the chance, if any at all, that we have the wrong person. DNA testing should be a critical part of the death penalty. I sure don't want innocent people killed off either.

I don't think the death penalty should be for every crime, only the most obcene that have no ability to rehabilitate (child molestors, pedophiles, mass murderers, etc). DNA evidence is critical in these cases now-a-days.. I very much doubt we would have the issues of the past.

it isn't just DNA. i read a book by the former coroner for the state of new york. he gave several examples of coroners losing their jobs and even being imprisoned for misconduct. one case, in texas, involved a man sentenced to death based on the reuslts of an autopsy. the DA discovered that the coroner had never even performed an autopsy at all.

in other words, unless the justice system is perfect, which it isn't, there shouldn't be a death penalty option.

Possibly the death penalty is too broad, encompassing too many possible crimes to go in that direction.

There should be a specific list of crimes that are eligible. Pediphiles, mass murderers and the such are cases that require DNA testing in the normal judicial process now. There is no backing out of this. If DNA testing can't be done, then no death penalty.

Maybe the system can never be perfect, but that does not mean we should not police our streets properly. Make laws that make the most logical sense... disbanding the death penalty completely does not make any logical sense at all. Limiting wrongful sentences does. DNA testing is pretty spot on, that wrongful sentences will be kept to an absolute minimum (if any at all).

...oh, and don't wait 50 years to excute someone.

So what's the minimum number of innocent people who should be executed?

read the post above your question Comrade, and you might get an idea

there have been times when convicted murderers have topped them selves in prisons in the UK, and many families of the victims have not felt a feeling of peace or of justice; because they have wanted the person to suffer for what they have done, and more importantly belive that there may have been a chance of learning why someone has done what they have done, obviously the reasons given by such people are not to be taken at face value but experts evaluations on them and the increasing advances in brain scanning technology etc could help with future investigations, profiling and such like.

Short Update...

Looks like the guy will go to jail for the rest of his life. He, of course, didn't have a trial yet, but they expect him to get up to 30 years. He's 73 now so that's definitive the end.

The kids will get a new identity to keep the press away from them.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: DNA testing is not as spot on as most of us believe it is...there have been numerous instances where the procedure was flawed, and incorrect testimony has been given...Houston had a problem with their procedures, and it has been discovered that more than 500 cases could be affected...now what if 10 of those 500 had been summarily executed (as you propose)...it would be a little late to go back and say, "Oops, we made a mistake...sorry you're dead"...

The problems aren't with DNA testing in those instances though. Its with sloppy or biased labs. That is correctable; the science of DNA testing is pretty spot on.

I'm not saying we should wipe out the entire prison population with the death penalty. We should reserve it for those that commit heinous crimes that are without any doubt guilty. Dahmer, Gacy, that Virginia sniper, guys who house daughters for 20 years in their basement, etc.; these criminals have been found, without any doubt, guilty. The evidence is overwhelming in these cases, not just based on one witness' ID and a DNA test.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: So what's the minimum number of innocent people who should be executed?

just the one in your 'sky news flash.'

I'm against the death penalty mostly because the state gets it wrong far too often.

I don't want an innocent life on my hands.

I know there's the counter-argument that not having the death-penalty means someone might commit a murder they otherwise wouldn't and so opposing the death penalty means you have innocent life on your hands also, but I don't think the evidence for the death penalty being a deterrent is at all strong. For one thing killers are very unlikely to get it, unless you make it so common you are executing innocent people all the time.

I'm not religious so I don't oppose it on the grounds that life is sacred. In fact whenever I read a case like the one in the news in the UK now about the yobs who beat a Goth girl to death for looking different, I find myself thinking it would be no great loss if such people were executed. I do think there are people who are embarrassments to the human race and there is something to be said for doing away with them. Not least because if they ever did 'reform' they'd then be unable to live with the guilt of what they'd done and would have to top themselves anyway.

But I don't think its worth sacrificing a principle, or risking executing any innocents, for a small number of worthless people, that's the way I see it. Better to try and stop producing such people in the first place, rather than to just resort to culling them.

Plus there's the horribly uneven way the death penalty gets applied in practice. Judging from the US, society is quite irrational in how it applies it. You are more likely to get it for killing a stranger than a member of your family, more likely if you are male rather than female and more likely if you are black rather than white.

And have I got this right, the pro-death penalty US poster is in California, and the anti-death penalty one is in Texas? Shouldn't you swap states?

EdelBrock wrote: read the post above your question Comrade, and you might get an idea

well, that's the reason I asked-- because I did read your post, including, specifically, this bit:

EdelBrock wrote: wrongful sentences will be kept to an absolute minimum

which implies that there is some minimum number of "wrongful" capital sentences (i.e., executions of the innocent) that is acceptable.